D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who was functioning as Branch Manager at Rattewal Branch of the Allahabad Bank, has impugned his order of transfer and posting dated 29th July, (Annexure P. 2) as being actually the order of demotion. It has been alleged that the said order had been passed for the mala fide reasons being the consequence of the ill-will of respondent No. 4 against the petitioner. The petitioner was said to have been insulted and humiliated by respondent No. 4 in a meeting of the Branch Managers held in Nov., 1985 in which he had participated as Officiating Manager of the Batala Branch of the Bank and further on his visit to Regional Office at Chandigarh, the petitioner was called by respondent No. 4 to his chamber and he was asked to pay his share of the bribe to respondent No. 4 which he must have taken from a loanee to whom a loan for the purchase of the tractor had been advanced by the petitioner and when the petitioner replied that he was not in the habit of taking bribe, he was allegedly told by respondent No. 4 that in that case he would have on that post someone would have no objection to such a demand.
(2.) The petitioner has further alleged that he was appointed as Manager of the Rattewal Branch of the Bank vide order dated 22nd May, 1986 (Annexure P. 1) and that from the said post he could be transferred to any other post of a Manager and not as an Officer as is being done by the order Annexure P. 2, as the said post is even junior to the one which he held before his promotion vide Annexure P. 1.
(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents it has been denied that the post to which the petitioner had been transferred, vide order Annexure P. 2 is not equivalent in grade and scale of pay to the one from which he had been transferred. It has also been denied that the Officer's post to which the petitioner has been posted vide order Annexure P. 2 is junior to even that of the Field Officer. The allegations of mala fide have been specifically denied. It has been mentioned that the petitioner never attended the Branch Managers' meeting in question. The question of respondent No. 4 ill treating him or humiliating him did not arise. Regarding the demand of bribery from the petitioner by respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 4 in his written statement has stated that the allegation was simply malicious. The Branch of which the petitioner was Manager it is asserted had not advanced any loan for a tractor till 15th July, 1986, the question of respondent No. 4 demanding his share of the bribery in respect of the tractor loan from the petitioner when he visited him on 10th July, 1986, did not arise.;