1
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 9318/09
Sunil Kumar Sharma
vs.
The S.B.B.J. & ors.
Date of Order: 6.11.2009
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J.
Mr. S.N. Trivedi for the petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Lohra for the respondents.
…
The petitioner, the officer of the State Bank of Bikaner
and Jaipur was posted to the Ladnu Branch of the Bank as
Branch Manager vide order dated 2.5.2009 from Bikaner
Branch. Now, the petitioner has been transferred to Jalore
Branch of the Bank as Manager of the Division and he has
been relieved vide communication dated 17.9.2009 by
which he has been intimated that it has been decided to
transfer the petitioner to Jalore Branch. The petitioner has
challenged this order of transfer dated 17.9.2009, copy of
which has been placed on record as Annex.2, on the ground
that the transfer order has been passed by the Assistant
General Manager of the Bank, who was not competent to
pass such order and the transfer order could have been
passed only by the General Manager(Operations).
The respondents submitted detail reply admitting that
competent authority to pass the order of transfer for
2
petitioner is the General Manager(Operations). However,
the respondents submitted that the Deputy General
Manager of the respondent-Bank, Jodhpur initiated the
proceeding for transfer of the petitioner by writing a letter
to the General Manager(Operations) concerned vide letter
dated 2.9.2009 and requested for transfer of the petitioner.
The matter was processed in the office of the General
Manager concerned by the Deputy General Manager(HR)
and, thereafter, report was submitted to the General
Manager(Operations) stating therein that the General
Manager is competent to transfer the petitioner as well as
can post Shri Y.K. Bhaskar as Manager. Said
recommendation was approved by the General Manager
himself and in consequence thereof only, the impugned
transfer order was passed which is clear from the
endorsement made by the General Manager on the office
report and that is clear from the endorsement which is on
Annex.R/1. The respondents gave detail reasons under what
circumstances the petitioner has been transferred. The
learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that
inspite of transfer order and relieving of the petitioner on
17.9.2009, the petitioner has not yet joined to his
transferred post.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
3
the endorsement made in the margin of Annex.R/1 bears no
seal of the General Manager (Operations) and this
endorsement only conveyed that the General Manager
sought the explanation from the petitioner employee and it
is not the approval of the transfer recommended by the
Deputy General Manager(HR).
I considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.
It cannot be disputed that the petitioner’s transfer was
sought by the Deputy General Manager of the respondent-
Bank at Jodhpur where the petitioner was working. He by
this letter dated 2.9.2009, informed about the conduct of
the petitioner and necessity for his transfer. The matter was
processed by the Deputy General Manager(HR), obviously,
it could have been done before placing the matter before
the General Manager(Operations) of the respondent-Bank.
The General Manager(Operations) of the respondent-Bank
wrote that the explanation be also sought from Shri Sharma
and same be placed before the competent authority for
consideration. This endorsement is being disputed by the
petitioner by saying that this is not approval of the
recommendation of the General Manager (Operations), but
it is only an endorsement of seeking explanation of the
4
petitioner for placing it before the competent authority. The
contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of
the fact that the recommendation of the Deputy General
Manager by communication dated 2.9.2009 was clear and
ambiguous seeking the transfer of the petitioner, which was
duly forwarded to the competent authority, General
Manager(Operations) and before it could be placed before
the General Manager(Operations), the matter was examined
by the Deputy General Manager(HR), who opined that the
transfer order of the petitioner can be passed by the
General Manager(Operations), then it was placed before the
General Manager(Operations), whose endorsement, though
was not very clear but clearly suggests that with the
approval for transfer, explanation was sought from the
petitioner for his conduct, as revealed by the Deputy
General Manager of the respondent-Bank. The respondent
also submitted in affidavit that the endorsement made
though bears no seal of the General Manager concerned but
it has been signed by the General Manager.
In view of the above fact position that the
recommendation of the transfer of the petitioner has been
duly approved by the General Manager(Operations) of the
respondent-Bank, therefore, the order of transfer of the
petitioner has been issued in pursuance of the decision
5
taken by the competent authority-General Manager
(Operations).
Hence there is no merit in this writ petition and the
same is hereby dismissed.
( PRAKASH TATIA),J.
mlt.