Bombay High Court
State Bank Of India Thr.Its Deputy ... vs Commissioner Of Persons With ... on 25 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
2508WP3005.05-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3005 OF 2005
PETITIONERS :- 1. State Bank of India, Through its Deputy
General Manager, Zonal Office, Sardar Patel
Marg, Nagpur-440 001.
2. State Bank of India, Through its Chief
Manager, General Section, Zonal Office,
Sardar Patel Marg, Nagpur-440 001.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :-
ig 1. Commissioner of persons with Disabilities,
Govt. of Maharashtra, 3, Church Road,
Pune-411001.
2. Shri Virendra Ghanekar, Plot No.6,
SouthEastern Railway Colony, Pratapnagar,
Nagpur-440 022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S. N. Kumar, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. I.J. Damle, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.1.
None for the respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 25.08.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of
the Commissioner for Disabled, State of Maharashtra, Pune, dated
03.06.2005 directing the petitioner-Bank to cancel the transfer of the
2508WP3005.05-Judgment 2/6
respondent No.2 from Nagpur to Washim and fix the responsibility of
the transfer on the concerned officers and initiate the disciplinary action
against them within two months as per Rules.
2. The respondent No.2 was working as a Bank Officer with
the petitioner-Bank at Nagpur when he was transferred to Washim by
the order, dated 10.09.2004. The said order was challenged by the
respondent No.2 before the Commissioner for Disabled, Pune. By the
impugned order, dated 03.06.2005, the order of transfer of the
respondent No.2, dated 10.09.2004 was cancelled and the
Commissioner directed the petitioners to fix the responsibility on the
concerned employees that had been instrumental in transferring the
respondent No.2 from Nagpur to Washim and initiate departmental
proceedings against them within two months.
3. Shri S.N.Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
fairly states that during the pendency of the writ petition, the
respondent No.2 sought voluntary retirement from service and stood
retired on 31.10.2006. It is stated that in pursuance of the order of the
Commissioner, dated 03.06.2005, the transfer of the respondent No.2
was cancelled and he was brought back to Nagpur. It is stated that in
pursuance of the stay granted by this Court in this writ petition to the
part of the order of the Commissioner directing a departmental enquiry
2508WP3005.05-Judgment 3/6
against the concerned officers that were instrumental in transferring the
respondent No.2, no steps are taken by the petitioners in respect of
fixing of responsibility and initiation of the departmental enquiry. It is
stated that the order of the Commissioner to the aforesaid effect is bad-
in-law, as the Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to direct that an
enquiry be conducted against the bank officials that are responsible in
effecting the transfer of the respondent No.2 from Nagpur to Washim.
It is stated that at the most the Commissioner could have considered
whether the transfer was just or not and/or whether it was made in
violation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995,
but the Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to direct the
initiation of a departmental enquiry against the officers of the bank that
had transferred the respondent No.2.
4. Shri I. J. Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the Commissioner for Disabled, Pune, has
supported the order of the Commissioner. It is stated that though this
Court had directed the Bank to consider the request of the respondent
No.2 and not transfer him out of Nagpur, the order of this Court was
not followed. It is stated that since the respondent No.2 could not have
been transferred by the concerned officials of the Bank, the
2508WP3005.05-Judgment 4/6
Commissioner rightly directed a departmental enquiry against the
concerned officers. The learned Assistant Government Pleader sought
for the dismissal of the writ petition.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is no jurisdiction in
the Commissioner to direct the petitioners to hold a departmental
enquiry against the officers that were responsible in transferring the
respondent No.2 from Nagpur to Washim. At the most, if the order of
the petitioners was bad-in-law, the respondent-Commissioner could
have quashed and set aside the said order. However, we are not
deciding the question whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to
decide the correctness or otherwise of the order of transfer of the
respondent No.2, as the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly
stated that in view of the subsequent development, that part of the
challenge has become infructuous. However, it would be necessary to
quash and set aside the order, so far as it directs the petitioners to fix
the responsibility on the officers that were responsible in transferring
the respondent No.2 from Nagpur to Washim and conduct a
departmental enquiry against them within two months. Nothing has
been pointed out on behalf of the respondent-Commissioner to show
that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue such directions.
2508WP3005.05-Judgment 5/6
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order, so far as it directs the petitioners to fix
the responsibility on the employees/officers that were instrumental in
transferring the respondent No.2 from Nagpur to Washim and conduct
a departmental enquiry against them within two months is quashed and
set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
2508WP3005.05-Judgment 6/6
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : G.S.Khunte, Uploaded on :26/08/2016
P.A.to Hon'ble Judge
