1. This petition has been filed challenging the transfer order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the respondent no.5 transferring the petitioner from Ghurpur Branch to Regional Office, Prayagraj and also challenging the order dated 27.06.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 from Field Office, Varanasi transferring the petitioner from Regional Office, Prayagraj to Regional Office, Gorakhpur and praying for a mandamus to set up a time bound inquiry by an officer not below the rank of Chief General Manager/General Manager into the malefic manner in which the transfer orders have been passed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Manager (Marketing) on 18.12.2008 with the respondent- bank i.e. Union of India and has been promoted to the post of Manager in the year 2016 and thereafter promoted to the post of Senior Manager in 2019 and posted at Baroda. On 06.07.2021, petitioner was transferred from Baroda, Gujrat to Ghurpur Branch at Prayagraj on the post of Branch Manager.

3. Upon taking over charge at Ghurpur Branch, he observed several serious financial irregularities in the loan books of the respondent- Bank. Loans were being granted to entities who were apparently not carry out business as claimed by them which had turned into Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). The policy under Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme (PMGEP) was being misused to sanction loan over and above the permissible limits. The petitioner sent an intimation to the Head Office at Mumbai on 30.12.2021 alongwith relevant data and a special audit was carried for the period between 08.03.2019 to 11.07.2021 by an audit team on 21.04.2022. The audit team discovered several irregularities and a report was submitted on the same day. The petitioner was approached by several officials in this regard seeking petitioner's assistance in monitoring the bank data and to provide a shield to the previous Branch Manager, Mrs. Renu Srivastava. The petitioner was not only lured by bribery but also threatened with dire consequences which the petitioner did not succumb and, therefore, the petitioner was transferred from Ghurpur Branch to Regional Office, Prayagraj on 26.05.2022. Certain unauthorised bank officials approached the petitioner on 26.05.2022 in the bank branch asking him to hand over the CCTV footage of the Branch. The petitioner refused to give such CCTV footage for security reasons and this irked the officials. The petitioner having been transferred within ten months of his joining at Ghurpur Branch to the Regional Office, Prayagraj, only for extraneous considerations, was immediately relieved from Ghurpur Branch but before he could even join at Regional Office, Prayagraj, he was transferred to Regional Office, Gorakhpur by order of transfer dated 27.06.2022 issued by the respondent No.3, the Assistant General Manager (Human Resources), Field Office, Varanasi.

4. The petitioner made a representation on 27.06.2022 before the respondent regarding his grievance of frequent transfers and thereafter approached this Court in this writ petition when the matter was taken up on the first day, it was pointed out by Sri Vivek Ratan Agarwal, learned Advocate that the petitioner has not challenged the order of transfer passed by the competent authority. He has also only challenged the communications made to him by the Field Office at Varanasi.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it has come out that despite there being no interim order in his writ petition, the petitioner has not joined at his transferred place of posting at Regional Office, Gorakhpur.

6. As per the Regulations 47 and 48 of the Union of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, every Officer is liable for transfer to any Office or Branch of the bank or any place in India. The respondent-Bank has formulated the transfer policy for Officers circulated on 31.03.2022 in consultation with the representatives of recognised majority Union of Officers operating in the bank. The guidelines so framed for transfer of Officers upto MMGS-III level provide that every Officer is liable for transfer to any of the Office or Branch of the Bank or any place in India but the transfer policy shall not restrict the provisions of Regulations of 1979 or any other Regulations framed as statutory measures to control the terms and conditions of service of the bank employees.

7. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the transfer order of the petitioner from Regional Office, Prayagraj to Regional Office, Gorakhpur was made by the competent authority on 22.06.2022 and was communicated to him on 27.06.2022. Similarly, the transfer of the petitioner earlier on 26.05.2022 from Ghurpur to Regional Office, Prayagraj i.e. within the region, was also made by the competent authority and communicated to the petitioner on 26.05.2022. Petitioner has challenged the communications not the original orders of transfer.

8. It has also been stated that at Vadodara also the petitioner was misbehaving and because of his unruly and offensive behaviour with a lady officer, an Assistant Manager at Vadodara, he was issued a show cause notice on 23.09.2020 and eventually charge-sheeted. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to a different Region altogether i.e. from Vadodara to Prayagraj. On his posting at Ghurpur in Prayagraj Region again, his disorderly behaviour and insubordination compelled the respondents to communicate the same through their letter dated 22.06.2022 from the Office of the Human Resources Management Department at Regional Office, Prayagraj to Human Resources Management Department at Field General Office, Varanasi. Details of various incidents that had taken place right from 12.05.2022, were enumerated in such letter requesting the competent authority to transfer the petitioner out of the Region.

9. A copy of the letter dated 22.06.2022 has been filed at page nos.45 to 47 of the counter affidavit.

10. The request made by the Deputy Regional Head at Prayagraj has been accepted by the Field General Manager after a committee authorised to look into the case as also proposed transfer of the petitioner outside Prayagraj Region to Gorakhpur Region. The proposal dated 22.06.2022, also approved on the same day by the Field General Manager, has been filed at page no.44 of the counter affidavit.

11. The petitioner has challenged the transfer orders on the ground of violation of transfer policy. The transfer policy is subject to statutory regulations framed in Regulations, 1979 by the bank. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shipli Bose vs. State of Bihar (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 that transfer policy/executive instructions are not binding on the the Authorities and an employee is not entitled to claim relief only on the basis thereof. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere.

12. Despite objection being raised in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has only challenged the communications made to him by the Assistant Regional Manager (Human Resources) and in the original order of transfer, has not been challenged by petitioner. The original transfer orders have been placed on record by means of counter affidavit to which the petitioner has filed his rejoinder.

13. A writ petition, challenging only consequential orders and not the original orders, is not maintainable as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Deokar's Distillery, (2003) 5 SCC 669 [LQ/SC/2003/348] .

14. Even at the time of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner has raised certain arguments relating to malice in fact of his Superior Officers but such allegations have not been substantiated either by specific pleadings in the writ petition or by impleading of such Officers by impleading as respondents in the writ petition. No such allegations, which are vague in nature and cannot be substantiated without impleading the officers concerned regarding malice in fact can be looked into by this Court.

15. The counsel for the respondent-Bank has informed that after the writ petition was filed, petitioner has been suspended for insubordination in contemplation of inquiry with immediate effect by order dated 07.11.2022, passed by the competent authority, the Chief General Manager (Human Resources), Central Office, Mumbai. The petitioner has communicated his intention to resign from the Bank by his e-mail, addressed to the Chief General Manager (Human Resources), Central Office, Mumbai dated 11.11.2022.

16. This Court finds that since the Bank has proceeded against the petitioner in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, it would be appropriate that no order be passed on the merits of the case. A transfer order even othewise cannot be interfered with unless it is made in violation of mandatory/statutory rule or it is malafide.

17. The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the competent forum against any other subsequent orders issued against him by the respondent-Bank.