Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sm. Debashmita Dutta vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 29 August, 2022
4 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
29.08.2022 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
sb
Ct 23 APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 7811 of 2022
Sm. Debashmita Dutta
Vs.
State Bank of India & Ors.
Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta,
Ms. Biswapriya Samanta
.... For the petitioner.
Mr. Subrata Kumar Sinha
...For the respondent nos. 1 to 5.
The petitioner is an employee of State Bank of India
(in short, SBI). The petitioner approached this Court by
filing a writ petition, being WPA 9916 of 2021, ventilating
her grievance against her transfer from Jagannath Chawk
Branch of SBI to Panchkhuri Branch. Both the Branches
i.e. Jagannath Chawk and Panchkhuri are in the district
of Paschim Medinipore. The petitioner made a
representation prior to filing of the said writ petition to
consider her case for being posted in a convenient Branch
in Medinipore town. The said writ petition was disposed of
by an order dated 8th November, 2021 by the following
direction:-
"In this facts and circumstances, I disposed of the
writ petition along with the connected application by
directing the respondent no.3 to consider and dispose of
the prayer for transfer made by the petitioner on 17th
February, 2021 (appearing at page 88 of the writ petition)
within a period of eight weeks from date by a reasoned
order by affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity
to represent her case following the prevalent COVID-19
protocol".
The Assistant General Manager (HR), SBI, has
disposed of the petitioner's representation by an order
dated 30th December, 2021, which was communicated to
the petitioner by a letter dated 1st January, 2022. The
petitioner has, inter alia, challenged the said order in this
writ petition and has also prayed for a mandatory order of
transfer to Medinipore Branch.
Admittedly, the petitioner's service is a transferable
one. The petitioner cannot complain of being transferred
from one Branch to other unless she is able to show that
by such transfer she has been victimized. The order of the
Assistant General Manager, (HR) dated 30th December,
2021 clearly states the factors taken into consideration for
which the petitioner was transferred from Jagannath
Chawk Branch to Panchkhuri Branch. The petitioner has
also been given a personal hearing on 27th December,
2021, after adjourning the initial date of hearing fixed on
15th December, 2021 at the request of the petitioner.
However, the more concerning part is the petitioner's
conduct. After being transferred from Jagannath Chawk
Branch on 16th November, 2018, the petitioner joined
Panchkhuri Branch on 3rd December, 2018. The petitioner
worked thereat till 16th January, 2019 and did not report
from 17th January, 2019. On the contrary the petitioner
gave a representation the sum and substance whereof is
that the petitioner will not join at Panchkhuri Branch till
she was not transferred therefrom. The said
representation is in SBI's report at page 11 thereof. The
petitioner ultimately went to join at Panchkhuri Branch
according her own version on 10th December, 2020 and
ultimately joined there after passing of the order dated
19th January, 2021 passed in WPA 11464 of 2020. The
petitioner, therefor, did not work between 17th January,
2019 and 10th December, 2020 which has been
suppressed in this writ petition. These facts have surfaced
from SBI's report.
After considering the averments in the writ petition,
the order dated 30th December, 2021, the report filed on
behalf of the SBI and the exception thereto taken by the
petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
order dated 30th December, 2021. The petitioner has not
been able to establish any ground of victimization.
Moreover, I also do not find any reason to direct SBI to
transfer the petitioner from Punchkhuri Branch to any
Branch in Medinipore town. That apart and in any event,
the Courts are loath to interfere with the transfer orders
unless it palpably demonstrates victimization of the
employee concerned as transfer order is in the
administrative domain for smooth administration of an
organization which cannot be monitored by Court.
Interference to transfer orders apart from the limited
scope amounts to transgression into the domain left to the
executive. I also do not find any violation of principle of
natural justice, in the instant case. The petitioner also
cannot for mere asking be posted at a Branch of her
choice and will not attend office unless the transfer is
made. The judgment reported in 2008 (10) SCC 115 [C
Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Another]
cited by the petitioner also has no manner of application
in this case. On the contrary filing of repeated writ petition
until the desired result is achieved is an abuse of process.
If these type of prayers are adhered to by the employer
then it will lead to an administrative doldrums when all
members and staff will seek transfer at their own
convenient place or places. It cannot also be the basis of
a transfer policy to be followed by an organization like SBI.
The petitioner can neither ask for a mandatory order of
transfer nor can say that she will be on leave till the
transfer to her choice place is not made.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to
be dismissed.
Taking into consideration the past conduct of the
petitioner in approaching this Court to prevent her
transfer or get a transfer of her choice on various pretext,
the writ petition is dismissed with costs awarded at
Rs.5000/- to be payable to the High Court Legal Services
Authority within 30th September, 2022. The payment of
costs will be a precondition for the petitioner from filing
any further writ petition before this Court.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)
