Jaipal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 November, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                                   C.W.P. No. 17528 of 2009
                                            DATE OF DECISION : 16.11.2009

Jaipal Singh

                                                           ... PETITIONER
                                    Versus
State of Haryana and others

                                                       ..... RESPONDENTS


CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL


Present:       Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate,
               for the petitioner.

                          ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.

The petitioner is working as Branch Manager in the

Mohindergarh Central Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as

`the respondent bank’). Vide order dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure P-1), he was

transferred from Branch Office Nangal Sirohi to Branch Office Satnali, by

the General Manager (respondent No.3 herein) of the respondent bank.

Immediately thereafter, on the next day, vide order dated 22.8.2009

(Annexure P-2), passed by the same officer, the said transfer order was

withdrawn with immediate effect, and it was ordered that the petitioner will

work as Branch Manager, Branch Office Nangal Sirohi as usual. The

petitioner challenged the order dated 22.8.2009 by filing a civil suit in the

court of Civil Judge, Mohindergarh, alleging that respondent No.3 was not
CWP No. 17528 of 2009 -2-

competent to withdraw the transfer order. In para 6 of the petition, it has

been stated that the said civil suit has been withdrawn, as the same was not

maintainable. However, neither the order of withdrawal of the suit has been

annexed nor it has been stated that the said suit was withdrawn with liberty

to file the instant petition. It appears that when the civil court did not grant

stay to the petitioner, he withdrew the said suit, without any liberty, because

the respondent bank has issued a show cause notice as to why the

departmental proceedings be not initiated against the petitioner, as he had

disobeyed the order of the bank and is not assuming the duty at branch

office Nangal Sarohi.

In the instant petition, it is alleged that respondent No.3 was

having no jurisdiction to withdraw the transfer order, which was made by

the Registrar, Co-operative Society. It has also been stated that the

petitioner is going to retire on 28.2.2011 and Branch Office, Satnali is

nearer to the place of residence of the petitioner, therefore, withdrawal of

the transfer order of the petitioner will cause hardship to him.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any

ground to interfere in the impugned order, in exercise on the writ

jurisdiction of this Court, as it is clear from the order dated 21.8.2009

(Annexure P-1) that the General Manager of the respondent bank had

passed the order of transfer, which was withdrawn by the same authority on

the next day, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.3 was not

competent to withdraw the transfer order, which was passed by him. Even
CWP No. 17528 of 2009 -3-

otherwise, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, is neither the

appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. The

General Manager-cum-Managing Director of the respondent bank is fully

competent to transfer an employee from one branch to another. Secondly, on

the basis of the alleged hardship, the impugned order cannot be set aside.

No merit.

Dismissed.

November 16, 2009                          ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ndj                                                 JUDGE