Gauhati High Court
Shri Hage Appa vs The Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank on 12 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010026692025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/45/2025
SHRI HAGE APPA
MANAGER CREDIT, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, RURAL BANK, HEAD OFFICE
NAHARLAGUN, RESIDENT OF C SECTOR, NAHARLAGUN, PO
NAHARLAGUN, DIST PAPUMPARE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, 791110
VERSUS
THE ARUNACHAL PRADESH RURAL BANK
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, ARUNACHAL PRADESH RURAL
BANK, HEAD OFFICE, E - SECTOR, SHIV MANDIR ROAD, NAHARLAGUN,
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER (OPS AND ADMIN)
ARUNACHAL PRADESH RURAL BANK
HEAD OFFICE
E-SECTOR
SHIV MANDIR ROAD
NAHARLAGUN
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
791110
3:SHRI MUKUN JAISI
BRANCH MANAGER
ARUNACHAL PRADESH RURAL BANK
BASAR BRANCH
P.O. and P.S. BASAR
DISTRICT LEPARADA
ARUNACHAL PRADESH 79111
For the appellant : Mr. P.D. Nair,
Mr. H. Rohman, Advocates
Page No.# 2/6
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
12-02-2025
(Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.)
This writ appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the
judgment and order dated 05.02.2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition, being, WP(C) 225/2024, which was filed by the
appellant herein.
2. The appellant was working as Manager (Credit), Headquarter Office of
Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank (hereinafter to be referred as 'bank') at
Naharlagun. However, by order dated 31.05.2024, the appellant along with 34
other officers and officials of the bank was transferred whereby the appellant
was posted to the Basar Branch of the bank as Branch Manager. The appellant
approached the Writ Court challenging the said transfer order on the ground
that the same is violative of the concerned transfer policy and also on the
ground that the impugned transfer order was issued by an incompetent
authority.
It is contended that the transfer order was issued by the General Manager
(Ops and Admin) of the bank whereas the competent authority for transferring
the officers belonging to the category of Scale-II and above is the Chairman of
the Bank.
3. The respondent bank contested the writ petition stating that there was no
violation of the transfer policy in respect of transfer of the appellant. At the
same time, it was also contended that the transfer policy had no statutory force
Page No.# 3/6
and, therefore, violation of the same would not result into quashing or setting
aside of the impugned transfer order. It was also contended that the transfer of
the appellant was in administrative exigencies and he along with 34 other
officials of the bank had been transferred by the impugned transfer order.
In respect of the argument advanced by the appellant regarding the
transfer by an incompetent authority, it is stated by the respondent bank that
since the transfer was approved by the Chairman of the bank, who is the
competent authority, it cannot be said that the transfer order was illegal.
4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made on
behalf of the parties, has dismissed the writ petition while observing that the
tenure of the appellant at Itanagar and Naharlagun has been around six years
and as per the transfer policy, the minimum period for an employee to be
retained at a place is three years and therefore, it cannot be said that there is
any violation of the transfer policy. The learned Single Judge has also concluded
that even if there is any violation of the transfer policy, it would not give any
indefeasible right to the appellant, as the transfer policy does not have statutory
force and is not enforceable under the law. While rejecting the contention of the
appellant regarding the transfer by an incompetent authority, the learned Single
Judge has held that since it is approved by the Chairman of the bank, the said
submission of the appellant falls flat. The relevant finding of the learned Single
Judge on this aspect is reproduced hereunder:
"19. Regard being had to the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner to the effect that the transfer has been effected by an authority not
competent to transfer the petitioner, as the recommendation for transfer and
posting is approved by the Chairman, who is the competent authority, therefore,
such submission of the petitioner falls flat as it clearly reveals from the record
Page No.# 4/6
that the same has been approved by the Chairman i.e. the competent
authority."
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as per the transfer
policy, the Chairman is the competent authority for effecting the transfer of
officials belonging to the category of Scale-II and above, the category to which
the appellant belongs, the impugned transfer order passed by the General
Manager (Ops and Admin) of the bank is certainly issued by an incompetent
authority. Referring to the transfer policy of the respondent bank, learned
counsel has submitted that it is the Board of the bank which is competent
authority to delegate the authority of the Chairman to any other official but
since there is no resolution of the Board delegating the authority of the
Chairman to the General Manager (Ops and Admin), it is clear that the
impugned transfer order was passed by an incompetent authority. Learned
counsel has submitted that the learned Single Judge did not take into
consideration this aspect of the matter and, therefore, the impugned judgment
is not liable to be sustained.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available
on record. The appellant has taken the ground of transfer by an incompetent
authority in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, which is reproduced hereunder:
"9. That, further above impugned transfer order was issued by respondent
No.2 (General Manager) who is not a competent authority to issue a transfer
order in respect of Officers of Scale-II as per Norms for transfer of Officers of
Scale-II, the Chairman is the competent authority to effecting the transfer as
prescribed under Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank Transfer Policy, 2019. The
petitioner belongs to Group-A Officer of Scale-II. Hence, the impugned transfer
order and consequential release order by the respondent authority is not as per
their policy for transfer and amount to a colorable exercise of power to
accommodate the private respondent No.3."
7. An affidavit-in-opposition is filed by the Chairman of the bank and, in
Page No.# 5/6
paragraph 10 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, reply to paragraph 9 of the writ
petition is given. Paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition is reproduced
hereunder:
"10. That statements made in paragraphs 9 of the writ petition that the
transfer order dated 31.05.2024 has not been issued by the competent
authority, i.e. the Chairman of the bank is incorrect and hence denied. The
answering respondent begs to state that a committee comprising of the General
Manager (Ops & Admin), General Manager (Vigilance) and Chief Manager
(Human Resources) was constituted for recommending transfer of officers and
other employees of the bank keeping in view the recent promotions, branch
category, incumbency and other HR related issues and the aforementioned
committee had on 31.05.2024 had recommended for approval of transfer of 31
officers and 4 clerical staffs and placed the same before the answering
respondent and the answering respondent in his capacity as the Chairman of
the bank being the competent authority had approved the same on 31.05.2024
itself as per HR Policy of the bank and administrative
requirements......................."
8. In the rejoinder, the appellant has claimed that the approval of the
Chairman to the recommendation of the Committee is mere approval and
cannot be termed as a delegation of the powers of the Chairman to the General
Manager (Ops and Admin) and, therefore, it is clear that the transfer order was
issued by an incompetent authority. Paragraph 6 of the rejoinder filed to this
effect is reproduced hereunder:
"6. That with regards to the statement made in paragraph 10 of the affidavit
in opposition, the answering deponent begs to state that the transfer order
dated 31.05.2024 is issued by respondent no.2 General Manager (Ops &
Admin), not by respondent no.1 the Chairman. The approval by the Chairman to
the recommendation of the Committee is mere approval it does not confer the
power to the General Manager (Ops & Admin) unless the power to transfer is
specifically in written delegated or authorized by the Chairman Respondent
No.1 to General Manager (Ops & Admin) respondent No.2 herein case there is
no clear delegation or authorization of power to issue a transfer order by
respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. Therefore, the officer not competent to
issue a transfer order issuing a transfer order without authorization or
delegation of power from competent authority is illegal, colorable exercise of
Page No.# 6/6
power and not sustainable in the eye of law."
9. We have taken into consideration the above pleadings and are of the
opinion that since the recommendation of transfer of the employees of the bank
was made by the Committee consisting of the General Manager (Ops and
Admin), General Manager (Vigilance) and Chief Manager (Human Resource) and
the same was approved by the Chairman, it can be deemed that the transfer of
the employees belonging to Scale-II and above of the bank was made by the
Chairman himself. It is not a case where only the General Manager (Ops and
Admin) has recommended or issued the transfer order but it is a case where the
Committee had recommended the transfer of the officials of the bank and the
same has been approved by the Chairman of the Bank and, in such
circumstances, the approval given by the Chairman himself would mean that the
transfer orders are issued by the Chairman, who is the competent authority.
10. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in this writ
appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
