- (1.) This petition is in second round of litigation, seeking to assail the transfer of the petitioner, from Udaipur to Baran.
(2.) The petitioner, who is a Dy. Manager in the respondent Bank, was transferred from branch Sector No. 11, Hiran Magri, Udaipur to Baran vide order dt. 12.1.2005. That order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court vide S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 670 of 2005, which was decided by this Court vide order dt. 28.4.2005. The directions issued therein were as under (being quoted from the representation being Annexure-11):- "Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in the manner that the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation regarding transfer within a period of 30 days from today and the respondents shall consider and decide the same either way in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of representation. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any relief in accordance with law, then the same may be given to the petitioner and if the petitioner is not found entitled to the relief sought for, then a reasoned and speaking order may be passed strictly in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."
(3.) Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the representation on 18.5.2005, being Annexure-11. Thereupon, as directed by this Court, personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the committee on 9.6.2005, and vide Annexure-12, bearing compassion for the physical handicap of the petitioner, benevolence was shown, and he was offered to choose any of the branches in the districts Bhilwara and Kota. That proposal was turned down by the petitioner vide Annexure-13 dt. 22.6.2005, contending inter alia, that he cannot live away from the family, and his family circumstances require that his family cannot be taken out of Udaipur, because he has social and family obligation to be fulfilled, and thereafter vide detailed speaking order, Annexure-14, the representation has been rejected, and he was ordered to stand relieved, as per order dt. 12.1.2005. The petitioner claims to be physically handicapped, and has produced certificate in this regard, being Annexure-1. According to the averments of the writ petition, he was appointed in the Bank in the year 1971, and remained posted at various places in various positions, and in that process, vide order dt. 10.7.2002, he was transferred to branch Salumber, till passing of the order Annexure-3 dt. 26.5.2004, whereby he was transferred to the branch, Sector No. 11, Hiran Magri, Udaipur. The case of the petitioner is, that while so working, vide letter dt. 22.9.2004, reply/ explanation was sought from the petitioner, for partially disobeying the office order, which was replied vide Annexure-5 dt. 1.10.2004. Then, the petitioner has pleaded illegalities in the assignment of responsibilities to him, probably meaning to contend, that he was justified in disobeying the order, and on that ground has pleaded in para-9, that this event is viewed seriously by the respondent, and as it now transpires, that institutional bias has been developed, and the petitioner is sought to be transferred. Then reference to Regulation 42 of the SBBJ Officers Service Regulations 1979, hereinafter to be referred as the Regulation of 1979, has been made, wherein an officer is liable to transfer to any office or branch of the Bank, or at any place in India, and contends, that this regulation does not supersede the existing placement/transfer policy, and since the transfer of the petitioner is not in accordance with the policy, that is sought to be justiciable. Then, it is alleged, that according to the policy, the incumbent is required to remain at least for a period of three years at the transferred place. Then, the circulars of the respondent Bank, regarding relaxation to the physically handicapped employees have been referred, and it is contended, that on account of malafides, having been developed by Mr. H.S. Verma, the petitioner has been transferred from Udaipur to Baran. Then, in para-15 it is referred that while initiating the departmental enquiry, the petitioner's representation, submitted pursuant to this Court's order, has been decided, and it is contended to be in violation of circulars and policy, and that without realising the difficulties of the petitioner the representation has been rejected.;