Kerala High Court
Bubu K.V vs Indian Overseas Bank on 22 October, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 30TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 33124 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BUBU K.V, AGED 36 YEARS
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK KOZHIKODE MAIN
BRANCH, EMSONS ARCADE,
CHERUTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673032
BY ADVS.
B.RAGHUNATHAN
M.SALIM
R.SRINATH
K.JALADHARAN
V.M.JACOB
P.KARTHIKEYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO,
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CENTRAL OFFICE,
763 ANNASALAI, CHENNAI., PIN - 600002
2 GENERAL MANAGER,
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUPERVISORY, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CENTRAL
OFFICE, 763 ANNASALAI,
CHENNAI., PIN - 600002
3 CHIEF MANAGER,
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SUPERVISORY,
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CENTRAL OFFICE,
763 ANNASALAI, CHENNAI., PIN - 600002
4 CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER,
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK REGIONAL OFFICE,
VETTUKATTIL BUILDING, JOS JUNCTION,
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
: 2 :
2024:KER:78326
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682016
BY ADVS.
Sunil Shankar A
VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020)
DEVAYANI NAIR T.H.(K/1531/2019)
ELVIN PETER P.J. (SR.)(K/000445/1990)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 22.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).33114/2024,
33133/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
: 3 :
2024:KER:78326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 30TH ASWINA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 33114 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
VINEETH CHELEKKAT, AGED 35 YEARS
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK KARUVANNUR BRANCH,
THRISSUR., PIN - 680711
BY ADVS.
B.RAGHUNATHAN
M.SALIM
R.SRINATH
K.JALADHARAN
V.M.JACOB
P.KARTHIKEYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO,
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CENTRAL OFFICE,
763 ANNASALAI, CHENNAI., PIN - 600002
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
: 4 :
2024:KER:78326
2 GENERAL MANAGER,
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUPERVISORY, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CENTRAL
OFFICE, 763 ANNASALAI,
CHENNAI., PIN - 600002
3 CHIEF MANAGER,
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
SUPERVISORY, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CENTRAL
OFFICE, 763 ANNASALAI,
CHENNAI., PIN - 600002
4 CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER,
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK REGIONAL OFFICE,
VETTUKATTIL BUILDING, JOS JUNCTION,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682016
BY ADVS.
Sunil Shankar A
VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020)
SANDHRA.S(K/001610/2021)
ELVIN PETER P.J. (SR.)(K/000445/1990)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLLY
HEARD ON 22.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).33124/2024 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
: 5 :
2024:KER:78326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 30TH ASWINA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 33133 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PRABIN.N, AGED 37 YEARS
MANAGER I-LINE,
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK KOLLENGODE BRANCH,
HIZA TOWER, POLLACHI ROAD, PALAKKAD., PIN -
678506
BY ADVS.
B.RAGHUNATHAN
M.SALIM
R.SRINATH
K.JALADHARAN
V.M.JACOB
P.KARTHIKEYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO,
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CENTRAL OFFICE,
763 ANNASALAI, CHENNAI., PIN - 600002
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
: 6 :
2024:KER:78326
2 GENERAL MANAGER,
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUPERVISORY, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CENTRAL
OFFICE, 763 ANNASALAI,
CHENNAI., PIN - 600002
3 CHIEF MANAGER,
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
SUPERVISORY, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CENTRAL
OFFICE, 763 ANNASALAI,
CHENNAI., PIN - 600002
4 CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER,
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK REGIONAL OFFICE,
VETTUKATTIL BUILDING, JOS JUNCTION,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682016
BY ADVS.
Sunil Shankar A
VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020)
DEVAYANI NAIR T.H.(K/1531/2019)
ELVIN PETER P.J. (SR.)(K/000445/1990)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 22.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).33124/2024 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
: 7 :
2024:KER:78326
JUDGMENT
Since common questions arise for
consideration in these writ petitions, they were
heard together and are disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. The petitioner was appointed as
Probationary Officer in the 1st respondent, a
public sector Bank, on 15.07.2013. Upon
confirmation, he was appointed as an Assistant
Manager on 14.07.2014. After working in
various branches, he was posted as Assistant
Manager at the Kozhikode Main Branch on
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
04.05.2024.
3. Review meetings are conducted by the
Regional Managers of the Regional Offices to
assess the performance of branches under their
supervision. A Review meeting was called for
by the 4th respondent, the Chief Regional
Manager on 07.09.2024 (Saturday) of the
Second Line Managers (Assistant Managers) of
the Ernakulam Region to discuss the progress
of account opening and the action plan of the
Branch for compensating the gap of SB/DC
accounts opened till date. The petitioner states
that, in the said meeting, based on recent
customers' feed back, the petitioner pointed out
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
issues with Unified Payments Interface (UPI)
transactions and digital transactions, which
have impacted the Branch's efforts in client
acquisition and retention. He states that the
said suggestion was made with the intention of
improving Branch Performance and service
quality.
4. After the review meeting was over, on
the same day, the Assistant General Manager,
Human Resources Management Department
issued Ext.P3 letter alleging that the petitioner
did not come prepared for the review and that
he started arguing with the Chief Regional
Manager and thereby committed act of
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
insubordination, and directing him to submit an
explanation within seven days as to why
disciplinary action should not be initiated
against him. The relevant portion of Ext.P3
letter is extracted hereunder:
"Sub: Act of Insubordination
We refer to the captioned and advise that
as per the instructions of the Corporate Office. Every
Branch to open minimum 5 SB account per day and 10
CD accounts per month. As per the records of your
branch performance of your branch is as under...
Month No.of SB CD
worki
ng
days
ACS Zer ACS Ne ACS Zer ACS Net
Open o Close t Opene o Closed
ed Bal d d Bal.
.
July 25 65 13 9 4 4 1 0 3
August 25 60 11 8 4 7 0 0 7
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
Sep 5 12 2 2 8 2 0 0 2
Total 137 26 19 9 13 1 0 12
As per the corporate expectations you were supposed
to open 275 SB accounts and 24 CD accounts for the
month of July, August, and September (06.09.2024)
but your branch has opened only 92 SB and 12 CD
accounts which is quite unsatisfactory.
Regional Office has called for a review of Manager 2 nd
line on 07.09.2024 at 5.00 pm to discuss the progress
of account opening and the action plan of the branch
for compensating the gap of SB/DC Accounts opened
till date. It is reported that you did not come prepared
for the review and could not submitted any action
plan for the same, rather you started arguing with
The Chief Regional Manager and has committed the
act of insubordination.
You are advised to submit your explanation within 07
days from the date of receipt of this letter that why
disciplinary action should not be initiated against you.
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
Please note that in case we do not receive your reply
we shall be compelled to take
administrative/disciplinary actions against you as
deemed fit."
5. In response to Ext.P3, the petitioner
submitted Ext.P4 explanation dated 13.09.2024,
stating that he had only made suggestions for
improving Branch performance and highlighted
the challenges faced by ground level managers
who deal with the public. It is stated therein
that the essence of his address during the
meeting was to request additional support and
to discuss strategic adjustments that might
better align with the ground realities faced by
the Branch and it was in no way meant to
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
challenge or undermine the authority of the 4 th
respondent or the policies of the organisation.
It is also stated that he had never engaged in
arguing with the 4th respondent and only tried
to convince him about the difficulties faced by
the functionaries at the Branch.
6. On 07.09.2024 itself, Ext.P5
communication from the Assistant Manager of
the Regional Office was received by the Branch
Manager of Kozhikode Main Branch by e-mail at
6.50 p.m., directing to depute the petitioner to
the Regional Office, Ernakulam from
09.09.2024, the next working day, until further
instruction. Ext.P5 reads as under:
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
"Kindly depute Mr. Bubu. K.V. (Roll
No.57007) to Regional Office-
Ernakulam from Monday
(09.09.2024) until further
instruction.
This has the concurrence of our
CRM Sir."
7. On 09.09.2024, the petitioner was
issued with Ext.P6 order transferring him to
Regional Office, Guwahati. Ext.P6 order reads
as follows:
"Transfer
We advise having transferred you
to REGIONAL OFFICE-GUWAHATI
where you should report
immediately on relief for further
posting."
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
The petitioner states that the order
transferring him to Guwahati, one of the
farthest stations, is a punitive and mala fide
action, vitiated by malice in law.
8. On 12.09.2024, the petitioner submitted
Ext.P9 request before the 2nd respondent, the
General Manager, Human Resources
Development Department through the 4th
respondent for reconsideration of his transfer.
9. It is contended that as per Ext.P7
transfer policy of the Bank, the petitioner has
to be retained in the same Branch for a
minimum period of three years and reasons for
transfer must be stated in the transfer order. It
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
is further contended that as per Ext.P7, no staff
shall be transferred for non performance
except after giving an opportunity to improve
his work performance and non performance
should be justified and recorded before
effecting the transfer. The petitioner states that
the action alleged against him in Ext.P3 show
cause notice will not amount to any act of
insubordination as per Indian Overseas Bank
Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations,
1976. It is contended that, expression of
opinion or suggestions to improve the over all
performance of the Branch in a review meeting
cannot be construed as an act of
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
insubordination and the same is part of his
fundamental right of freedom and expression.
The petitioner further states that upon
receiving Ext. P5 order of deputation, Sri. Sam
Vincent, the Branch Manager of Kozhikode
Main Branch where the petitioner is working,
sought the intervention of the respondents, as
the deputation of the petitioner to the Regional
Office would affect the functioning of the
Branch. It is stated that on account of raising
this concern, Sri. Sam Vincent was transferred
to the Patna Regional Branch. The petitioner
states that Ext.P6 transfer order has
detrimentally affected his family life consisting
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
of his wife, aged parents and six year old son.
The petitioner impugns Exts.P3 and P6,
contending that they were issued as part of
harassment and victimization, and that the
transfer order amounts to an abuse of power,
issued in lieu of punishment, and is violative of
Articles 14, 16(1), and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India.
10. This Court, by order dated 13.09.2024,
stayed Ext.P6 order of transfer for a period of
one month.
11. A counter affidavit as well as an
application to vacate the stay has been filed by
the respondents. The affidavit is sworn in by
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
the 4th respondent, the Chief Regional Manager,
on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 as well. In the
counter affidavit, it is stated that as per
Regulation 47 of the Indian Overseas Bank
Officers' Service Regulations, 1979, every
officer is liable for transfer to any office or
branch of the Bank or to any place in India. It is
stated that an online review meeting was
convened on 07.09.2024 by the Regional
Manager of the Ernakulam Region of the Bank
with the Second Line functionaries of all the
branches in the Region and each officer was
asked about the present position of the account
opening in their respective branches and also
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
advised to submit ideas and strategies adopted
by them for opening more accounts and the
petitioner raised the issue of delay in UPI
transaction of the Bank and he was informed
that the matter has been taken up with the IT
Department of the Bank at its Central Office. It
is further stated that when the petitioner was
asked to submit the performance of his Branch
regarding account opening, he started arguing
with the Regional Manager (the deponent) and
retorted with the following words: "first you
address the issue of UPI and then ask for
targets or you can transfer me, surrender me
or suspend me. I appeal to all other officers
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
also to raise voice". It is stated that the
petitioner in online meeting, in front of all
other 88 participants, was pursuing an
obstructionist stance against the Management,
and was actively discouraging other officers
from fulfilling their works. Considering the
insubordination and open challenge to the
Regional Manager by the petitioner and also to
maintain discipline in the Region, Ext.P3 notice
was issued to the petitioner calling for an
explanation for his insubordination. The
petitioner was also advised to report to
Regional Office on 09.09.2024. The petitioner
was making all efforts to undermine the
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
Regional Management and also caused
insubordination amongst other staff members
of the Region. Hence, in order to maintain the
discipline amongst the officers in the Region, it
was decided to surrender him from the Region
to avoid further acts of indiscipline and the
Central Office of the Bank has, vide Ext.P6
order, transferred the petitioner to Regional
Office, Guwahati, on administrative grounds,
taking into account the requirement of officers
there. The petitioner was relieved on
10.09.2024, but he refused to accept the
relieving order and the same was
communicated to him in his official e-mail id
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
and WhatsApp number. The login credentials
of the petitioner was transferred to Guwahati
Regional Office consequent upon his transfer.
The contention of the petitioner that the order
of transfer was issued by way of punishment is
denied.
12. A reply affidavit has been filed by the
petitioner denying the averments in the
counter affidavit. The petitioner states that
though he has raised the issue with regard to
the delay in processing UPI transaction of the
Bank, he never argued with the 4 th respondent
and he never uttered the words as stated in
paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit. He has
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
also denied the allegation regarding
insubordination or any open challenge to the
Regional Manager. He further states that,
pursuant to his deputation as per Ext.P5, he
reached the Regional Office at Ernakulam on
09.09.2024 and he was made to sit on the
visitor's sofa for the entire day. He was also
given to understand that all other staff at the
office were instructed to keep away from him,
and he was restricted from speaking with any
of the staff at the Regional Office. He denies
the averment in the counter affidavit that the
transfer was due to administrative exigencies
and states that, had it been so, it would have
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
been mentioned in the transfer order. The
petitioner points out that, on one hand, the
respondents have stated that the transfer order
was issued to enforce discipline in the Region;
while on the other hand, they have stated that
the transfer was made to meet the requirement
of officers in the Guwahati Region. It is
contended that the respondents cannot
supplement reasons which are not there in the
transfer order. It is further stated that after this
Court stayed the order of transfer, he was
unable to sign his biometric attendance, lost
access to Finacle for a while, was not permitted
to attend subsequent review meetings, and his
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
salary was also delayed. It is reiterated that the
transfer order is vitiated by mala fides and is
the result of a vindictive action. It is also stated
that the transfer order must stand on its own
and cannot be supplemented by the reasons
given in the affidavit.
13. Heard Sri. B. Raghunathan, the
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Elvin
Peter P.J., the learned senior counsel for the
respondents.
14. Sri. Raghunathan would submit that
Ext. P6 order transferring the petitioner to
Guwahati is punitive in nature and a mala fide
action, vitiated by malice in law. He submits
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
that the petitioner raised the issue regarding
the delay in processing UPI transactions at the
review meeting, a platform for Second Line
officers to submit ideas and strategies adopted
by them for opening more accounts. The Chief
Regional Manager did not appreciate this,
which led to the issuance of Ext.P3 show cause
notice alleging insubordination and Ext.P6
order of transfer. Sri. Raghunathan submits
that the petitioner has not raised any challenge
to the Regional Manager and he has filed reply
affidavit stating that he has not uttered the
words as stated in the counter affidavit. He
contends that Exts.P3 and P6 were issued to
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
satisfy the 4th respondent's sadistic pleasure
and ego and the chain of events after the
meeting itself would prove that the order of
transfer is punitive and passed in lieu of
punishment. Sri. Raghunathan would rely on
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others
[(2009) 2 SCC 592] and the decision of this
Court in Pushkaran v. Chairman, Coir Board
[1978 KLT 539] in support of his contention.
Sri. Raghunathan would also submit that there
are no administrative exigencies in transferring
the petitioner to Guwahati and if that were the
case, it would have been mentioned in the
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
transfer order. Referring to Ext.P6, he would
submit that, except for a single line that the
petitioner is transferred to Regional Office,
Guwahati, where the petitioner should report
immediately, nothing has been stated therein. It
is contended that the order impugned has to be
tested on the basis of the reasoning contained
therein and cannot be supplemented by
counter affidavit. He relies on the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder
Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
[(1978) 1 SCC 405], No.2809759H Ex-
Recruit Babanna Machched v. Union of
India and others [(2024) 5 SCC 306], and the
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
State of Kerala v. Balakrishnan [1992 (1)
KLT 420] in support of the said contention. Sri.
Raghunathan refers to Ext.P7 transfer policy of
the Bank and contends that as per the transfer
policy, no staff shall be transferred for non
performance except after giving an opportunity
to improve his work performance and non
performance should be justified and recorded
before effecting the transfer. He submits that
this condition in the transfer policy is not
followed in the case of the petitioner and he
has been transferred out of the Region. Finally,
he would argue that the act alleged against the
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
petitioner will not constitute misconduct under
Ext. P8 Regulations.
15. Sri. Elvin Peter, the learned senior
counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
would contend that, during the online meeting,
with all 88 other participants present, the
petitioner adopted an obstructionist stance
against the management and actively
discouraged other officers from fulfilling their
duties. Considering the insubordination and
open challenge to the Regional Manager by the
petitioner and also to maintain discipline in the
Region, Ext.P3 notice was issued to him calling
for an explanation for his insubordination. Sri.
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
Elvin contends that the petitioner was making
every effort to undermine the Regional
Management and incite insubordination among
other staff members in the Region. Hence, in
order to maintain the discipline amongst the
officers in the Region, it was decided to
surrender him from the Region and the Bank
has vide Ext.P6 order, transferred the
petitioner to Regional Office, Guwahati, where
there is requirement of officers. It is argued
that the transfer is on grounds of
administrative exigencies and not punitive. Sri.
Elvin relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India & others v.
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
Sri. Janardhan Debanath and another
[(2004) 4 SCC 245] to contend that, transfers,
unless they result in adverse impacts or penal
consequences for the individual, do not require
the same level of scrutiny as actions like
dismissal, discharge, reversion, or termination
and utmost latitude should be left with the
department concerned to enforce discipline,
decency and decorum in public service which
are indisputably essential to maintain quality of
public service and meet untoward
administrative exigencies to ensure smooth
functioning of the administration. Sri. Elvin
also relied on the decision in Ramachandran
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
Nair v. Director of Training and another
[ILR 1992 (3) Ker. 149] to contend that transfer
made to ensure efficiency in administration and
maintenance of discipline in the Institute
cannot be said to be punitive. The decision in
Dinamony v. Dt. Supdt. of Police, Kollam
[1994 (1) KLT 326] was relied on to contend
that, if an employee is transferred because his
presence disrupts the organization's
operations, it is not punitive, but rather a
measure to maintain smooth functioning.
Referring to paragraphs 15, 16 and 19 of the
decision of this Court in Divyamol R.S. v.
Director General, CISF and others [2022 (5)
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
KHC 732], Sri. Elvin submits that the Division
Bench has held that, in cases where the
continuance of the employee in a particular
station is detrimental to the maintenance of
discipline at that station, then it may be
prudent to the employer to transfer the
employee to a different station, so that the twin
objectives of maintaining discipline at one
station, whilst simultaneously availing the
service of the employee at another station, are
achieved without casting any aspersion on the
character or conduct of the employee. Finally,
Sri. Elvin refers to the decision in Nixy James
v. KSRTC [2023 (4) KHC 35], wherein this
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
Court observed that the Corporation cannot
function effectively when employees act
intolerably or engage in activities that harm its
interests and transfer can be effected on
administrative grounds as long as it is intended
to aid proper administration and to subserve
internal discipline. In the light of the above
decisions, Sri. Elvin would contend that in
order to maintain the discipline amongst the
officers in the Region and to ensure smooth
functioning, the petitioner has been transferred
and the transfer will not result in adverse
impacts or penal consequences for the
petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted that the
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
order of transfer is not liable to be interfered
with and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
16. Whether Ext.P6 order of transfer is
punitive or issued in order to maintain the
discipline in the Region or on grounds of
administrative exigencies is the question that
arises for consideration in this writ petition.
17. A review meeting of the Second Line
Managers of the Ernakulam Region was
convened by the 4th respondent on 07.09.2024
to discuss the progress of SB/DC account
opening and related matters. The petitioner
states that, in the said meeting, he pointed out
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
issues with UPI and digital transactions, which
have adversely affected the Branch's client
acquisition and retention efforts. However,
immediately after the review meeting, Ext.P3
letter was issued to the petitioner alleging that
he argued with the Chief Regional Manager
and thereby committed act of insubordination,
and directing him to submit an explanation
within seven days as to why disciplinary action
should not be initiated against him. Thus,
Ext.P3 notice was issued contemplating an
enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner that
he argued with the Chief Regional Manager
and thereby committed act of insubordination.
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
By Ext.P6 order, he was transferred to Regional
Office, Guwahati. Though no reason
whatsoever is stated in Ext.P6 for the transfer,
the counter affidavit filed by the respondents
states that the petitioner was making all efforts
to undermine the Regional Management and
also caused insubordination amongst other
staff members of the Region, and in order to
maintain the discipline amongst the officers in
the Region, he was transferred to Regional
Office, Guwahati. The counter affidavit also
states that the transfer is on administrative
grounds, taking into account the requirement
of officers at Guwahati Region.
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
18. As held by the Division Bench of this
Court in Divyamol (supra), for the purposes of
effecting a transfer, there need not be any
enquiry conducted to first ascertain whether
there was misbehaviour or conduct
unbecoming of an employee. However, here,
Ext.P3 notice contemplates disciplinary action
against the petitioner for insubordination. On
the next working day after the issuance of
Ext.P3, Ext.P6 order of transfer was issued to
the petitioner. The chain of events following the
review meeting, culminating in Ext.P6 transfer
order, can only be viewed as punitive in nature,
as it seeks to punish the petitioner for the
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
alleged act of insubordination by transferring
him to the farthest Region in the country, which
negatively impacts his family life as well.
19. In Pushkaran (supra), this Court held
as follows:
"24. The right to transfer an employee
is a powerful weapon in the hands of
the employer. Sometimes it is more
dangerous than other punishments.
Recent history bears testimony to this.
It may, at times, bear the mask of
innocuousness. What is ostensible in a
transfer order may not be the real
object. Behind the mask of innocence
may hide sweet revenge, a desire to
get rid of an inconvenient employee or
to keep at bay an activist or a stormy
petrel. When the Court is alerted, the
Court has necessarily to tear the veil of
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
deceptive innocuousness and see what
exactly motivated the transfer. This
Court can and should, in cases where it
is satisfied that the real object of
transfer is not what is apparent,
examine what exactly was behind the
transfer."
Having examined Ext.P6 order of transfer and
the reason for transfer supplemented by the
counter affidavit, I am of the considered view
that Ext.P6 can only be seen as punitive in
nature. If the transfer is intended or motivated
to operate as a punishment, the order cannot
be sustained.
20. In Janardhan Debanath (supra),
Dinamony (supra), Divyamol (supra) and
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
Nixy James (supra) relied on by Sri. Elvin, the
employers therein had not contemplated any
disciplinary proceedings against the employees
concerned and the Courts found that in cases
where the continuance of the employee in a
particular station is detrimental to the
maintenance of discipline at that station, then
to ensure smooth functioning of the
administration and maintenance of discipline,
the employee can be transferred to different
station and the intention for transferring the
employee cannot be said to be punitive. The
facts therein are distinguishable from those in
the present case as the employers therein had
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
not contemplated any disciplinary proceedings
against the employee concerned before
transfer. In Ramachandran Nair (supra), a
decision rendered on the facts and
circumstances of that case, the disciplinary
proceedings against the Instructor of an
educational institution for misbehaviour were
initiated, but not completed and in the
meantime, he was transferred. Rejecting the
challenge against the transfer order, the Court
held as follows:
"5. In the statement filed on behalf of
the first respondent, it is mentioned
that the petitioner misbehaved
towards the Project Coordinator by
uttering inappropriate sentences. In
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
Industrial Training Institutes,
coaching is being imparted to
trainees. Petitioner is one of the
persons entrusted with the duty of
coaching the students. If he has
misbehaved by uttering inappropriate
sentences, which fact is pending
enquiry, he is not a fit person to work
as an Instructor in the I.T.I. Such a
person, who is prima facie shown to
have misbehaved towards the Project
Coordinator in the Institute, where
students are undergoing the course of
study, is not a fit person to be retained
there. His transfer cannot be said to
have been effected with a dominant
motive to punish him. The transfer
was to ensure efficiency in
administration and maintenance of
discipline in the Institute. So, on the
facts and circumstances of this case, I
am convinced that the transfer of the
petitioner was in the best interest of
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
the Institute. It would have been
better on the part of the Government
to initiate proceedings under the
Kerala Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules
immediately on coming to know of the
misconduct committed by the
Petitioner. This having not been done,
his removal from the Institute has at
least gone to maintain discipline in
that Institute. On this ground, I do not
find any ground to interfere with the
transfer, impugned in this Original
Petition."
Thus, the decision in Ramachandran Nair
(supra) is also distinguishable on facts. Since
the petitioner has already been served with
Ext.P3 notice contemplating disciplinary
proceedings, the respondents should have
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
taken the same to a logical conclusion rather
than transferring him as a punitive action.
21. As already noted, Ext.P6 order does not
state any reason for transfer. There is a post
factum attempt in the counter affidavit filed by
the respondents that the petitioner has been
transferred to maintain discipline in the Region
and that the transfer is on administrative
grounds, to meet the requirement of officers in
the Guwahati Region. In Somesh Tiwari
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
as follows:
"16.Indisputably an order of transfer is
an administrative order. There cannot
be any doubt whatsoever that transfer,
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
which is ordinarily an incident of
service should not be interfered with,
save in cases where inter alia mala fide
on the part of the authority is proved.
Mala fide is of two kinds -- one malice
in fact and the second malice in law.
The order in question would attract the
principle of malice in law as it was not
based on any factor germane for
passing an order of transfer and based
on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the
allegations made against the appellant
in the anonymous complaint. It is one
thing to say that the employer is
entitled to pass an order of transfer in
administrative exigencies but it is
another thing to say that the order of
transfer is passed by way of or in lieu
of punishment. When an order of
transfer is passed in lieu of
punishment, the same is liable to be set
aside being wholly illegal."
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
Ext.P6 order of transfer is passed in lieu of
punishment. Instead of taking further steps
pursuant to Ext.P3 in accordance with law, the
respondents have issued Ext.P6 as a punitive
action. Accordingly, Ext.P6 order of transfer
cannot be sustained in law and the same is set
aside, without prejudice to the right of the
respondents to take further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P3.
W.P.(C) Nos.33114 and 33133 of 2024
22. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33114 of
2024 is working as Assistant Manager in
Karuvannur Branch in Thrissur and the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33133 of 2024 is
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
working as Manger I-Line in Kollengode
Branch in Palakkad, of the 1st respondent Bank.
23. On issuance of show cause notice to
Sri. K.V. Bubu, the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.33124 of 2024 regarding insubordination,
the petitioners state that they posted
WhatsApp message on 09.09.2024 regarding
the treatment meted out to Sri.Bubu by the
respondents for having expressed the genuine
concern of similar employees. The contents of
the WhatsApp message, produced as Ext. P5 in
both the writ petitions, are verbatim and read
as follows:
"Dear Sir's,
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
We are writing this to post
our utmost displeasure in the
follow up actions against our
colleague Mr. Bubu K V, Second
line Manager, Kozhikode Branch.
The issues which he raised in the
recent review meeting was the
real concerns and field level
problems which we are facing.
Yourselves may have a difference
of opinion about the platform in
which it was raised. But
unfortunately we are not having
any other mechanisms to address
and redress the concerns of
officer community who are the
field level implementors of banks
policies. We are not witnessing a
single act of motivation or
encouragement nowadays. The
issues which our colleague raised
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
are the real concerns each and
every officer of the region wants
to express. Inspite of addressing
the issues you have decided to
wreck vengeance against our
colleague which is really
unfortunate and is affecting the
morale of officer community.
Together we can do wonders and
bring back the past glory of our
region and we are committed for
that. We seek an early
intervention in this. Respectfully
All Officers of Ernakulam
Region...."
24. The petitioners were served with show
cause notices (Ext.P2 in both writ petitions) on
the night of 09.09.2024, alleging that they
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
posted a message in the official WhatsApp
group of the Regional Office at 12:39 p.m. on
the same day. It is stated that the posting of the
message is in utter disregard to the purpose for
which the group was formed and the comments
they have made encouraged defiance to the
legitimate instructions of the Regional
Manager and created a negative impact on the
discipline amongst the other officials of the
Region. The petitioners were asked to submit
their explanations within seven days from the
date of receipt of the letter as to why
disciplinary action should not be initiated
against them. On the same day, the petitioner
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
in W.P. (C) No. 33133 of 2024 was transferred
to the Regional Office in Berhampur, Odisha
and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 33114 of 2024
was transferred to the Regional Office in
Lucknow, vide Ext.P3 order (in both writ
petitions).
25. The petitioners state that they posted
the WhatsApp message to highlight the
difficulties faced by Bank's customers due to
the frequent failure of UPI transactions, and
that the message was intended to prompt early
intervention in resolving the issue raised by
Sri. K.V Bubu, the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.33124 of 2024. The petitioners
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
submitted Ext.P4 explanation to Ext.P2. They
assert that Ext.P3 transfer order is punitive in
nature and has been issued in lieu of
punishment. No reasons are assigned in Ext.P3
for transferring the petitioners. The petitioners
contend that the transfer order is issued in
violation of Ext. P6 transfer policy of the Bank,
and that Ext.P2 notice alleging misconduct is
issued in violation of Ext.P7 regulations,
namely, the Indian Overseas Bank Employees
(Conduct) Regulations, 1976. It is contended
that none of the acts alleged against them
constitutes misconduct as defined in the
Regulations, and that Ext.P3 is tainted by an
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
abuse of power. Accordingly, the petitioners
pray that Exts.P2 and P3 be quashed. They
have also submitted representations (Ext. P8 in
both cases) requesting the cancellation of the
transfer orders.
26. This Court, by order dated 13.09.2024,
has stayed Ext.P3 order of transfer in both
cases.
27. A counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the respondents stating that the
online meeting convened on 07.09.2024 by the
Regional Manager of the Ernakulam Region, in
which 88 officers participated, included Sri K.V
Bubu., the Second Line Manager of the
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
Kozhikode Main Branch. It is stated that he
adopted an obstructionist stance against
Management, actively discouraging other
officers from performing their duties.
Considering this insubordination and open
challenge to the Regional Manager, he was
advised to report to the Regional Office on
09.09.2024. The petitioners posted Ext.P5
WhatsApp message purportedly issued on
behalf of all officers of the Ernakulam Region,
expressing their displeasure with the actions
taken against Sri. K.V Bubu. They accused the
Regional Management of seeking vengeance
against him. It is stated that the message was
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
posted with the intent to discourage and
demotivate other employees from achieving the
targets set by the Bank. Furthermore, the
WhatsApp group was created by the Regional
Management for coordination among the
Managers, and the intention behind posting the
message was to prejudice the interests of the
Bank by inciting insubordination. They have
denied the averments of the petitioners that
the message was issued on behalf of all officers
of the Ernakulam Region. It is further stated
that immediately after the message was posted,
around 80 officers who are members of the
WhatsApp group supported it by "liking" the
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
post. The respondents state that the
petitioners' motive was to create chaos and
disrupt the smooth administration of the Bank.
It is stated that allowing the petitioners to
remain in the Region would discourage other
officers from performing their duties and
contribute to indiscipline. It is further stated
that the transfer orders were issued based on
the requirements of the Bank and for
administrative exigencies and that the orders
were issued not as punishment; but to maintain
discipline and ensure the smooth
administration of the Bank.
28. The petitioners in both writ petitions
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
have filed separate reply affidavits rebutting
the averments in the counter affidavit. They
state that the WhatsApp message did not
mislead or demotivate other employees; rather,
it sought the intervention of the respondents
against the victimization of a colleague who
raised a genuine issue. Referring to the counter
affidavit, the petitioners contend that the
respondents themselves have admitted that 80
officers supported the message, which
indicates that the grievance was genuine. The
petitioners reiterate that the transfer order
was issued as a punishment and not based on
administrative exigencies.
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
29. Though common arguments were
addressed by both sides in all these cases, Sri.
Raghunathan referred to the decision in Anil
Kumar A.P. v. Mahatma Gandhi University
and others [2018 (5) KHC 119] to contend
that expression of opinion or suggestions in a
review meeting cannot be construed as an act
of insubordination. Paragraph 6 of the said
decision reads as follows:
"6. Servitude is an outlook of an
individual and not a governing
norm in a public Institution.
Discipline is a norm. Discipline and
servitude are to be distinguished. If
an employee speaks out in the
social media in a general
perspective which is not
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
inconsistent with the collective
interest of the Institution, that is
part of his right of free speech. No
authority should expect one to be
silent. Survival of public Institution
depends upon how it accounts for
democratic values. Free expression
is the corner stone of democratic
value. Every functionary of public
power therefore, must command
liberty to their constituents."
If I am to venture into the merits of said
contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, I am afraid, I will be venturing
into the merits of the allegation in Ext.P2
notice.
30. The proceedings impugned in these
writ petitions are offshoot and sequel to the
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
order passed against Sri. K.V. Bubu, the
petitioner in W.P (C) No. 33124 of 2024. Ext.P3
order of transfer of the petitioners herein, as in
the case of Sri. Bubu. K.V, is a one line order
without assigning any reasons for the transfer.
In the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents, it is stated that allowing the
petitioners to remain in the Region would
discourage other officers from performing their
duties and contribute to indiscipline. It is
further stated that the transfer orders were
issued based on the requirement of the Bank,
in administrative exigencies.
31. The allegation against the petitioners is
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
that when notice was issued to Sri. K.V. Bubu,
calling for explanation against his alleged act of
insubordination, the petitioners posted Ext.P5
message in utter disregard to the purpose for
which the WhatsApp group was formed and the
comments they have made encourages defiance
to the legitimate instructions of the Regional
Manager and created a negative impact on the
discipline amongst the other officials of the
Region. The petitioners were asked to submit
their explanations within seven days from the
date of receipt of the letter as to why
disciplinary action should not be initiated
against them. On the same day, the petitioners
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
were issued with Ext.P3 order transferring
them to far off Regions in the Country.
32. The petitioners were already issued
with Ext.P2 notice asking them to explain why
disciplinary action should not be initiated
against them. However, instead of taking
further steps pursuant to Ext.P2 in accordance
with law, the respondents have issued Ext.P3
order of transfer. From the facts and
circumstances leading to the transfer orders, I
find that the same were passed as punitive
action. An order of transfer passed in lieu of
punishment is illegal and cannot be sustained.
For the said reason and the reasons I have
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
already dealt with in the previous case, I hold
that Ext.P3 (in both writ petitions) cannot be
sustained in law and the same is set aside,
however, without prejudice to the right of the
respondents to take further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P2.
33. All the writ petitions are disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not
made any observation on the merits of the
allegations made against the petitioners in the
show cause notices.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SB
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33124/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.RO/HRMD/2021-22
OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.2021.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER
ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE BRANCH
MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,
MADAVOOR BRANCH DATED 2.5.2024.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER
NO.REF/RO/AGM/PLG/...../2024-25 ISSUED
BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.9.2024.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO ASSISTANT
GENERAL MANAGER DATED 13.9.2024.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL MESSAGE DATED
7.9.2024 SENT TO THE BRANCH MANAGER,
KOZHIKODE MAIN BRANCH.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.HRMD/SUP/MGMT-
TRF/1/2024-25 ISSUED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 9.9.2024.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER REF
NO.EST/13/2023-24 ISSUED BY HUMAN
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK DATED
15.11.2023.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
OFFICER EMPLOYEES' (CONDUCT)
REGULATIONS, 1976.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
12.9.2024.
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33114/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.RO/HRMD/2021-
22 OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
20.10.2021.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER
NO.REF/RO/AGM/PLG/....../2024-25 ISSUED
BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.9.2024.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.HRMD/SUP/MGMT-
TRF/3/2024-25 PASSED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 9.9.2024.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO ASSISTANT
GENERAL MANAGER DATED 12.9.2024.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP MESSAGE
POSTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE
OFFICIAL WHATSAPP GROUP OF THE BANK
ON 9.9.2024.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EST/13/2023-24
ISSUED BY HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
DATED 15.11.2023.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
OFFICER EMPLOYEES' (CONDUCT)
REGULATIONS, 1976.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED
BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 12.9.2024.
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33133/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.RO/HRMD/602/2023-
24 OF CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS
BANK DATED 11.1.2024.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.REF/RO/AGM/PLG/
....../2024-25 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 9.9.2024.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.HRMD/SUP/MGMT-
TRF/2/2024-25 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 9.9.2024.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED
BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
12.9.2024 (BY E-MAIL).
Exhibit P5 6. TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP MESSAGE
POSTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE OFFICIAL
WHATSAPP GROUP OF THE BANK ON 9.9.2024.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EST/13/2023-24
ISSUED BY HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK DATED
15.11.2023.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
OFFICER EMPLOYEES' (CONDUCT)
REGULATIONS, 1976.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
12.9.2024.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
WP(C) 33124, 33114 & 33133 of 2024
2024:KER:78326
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK TO PETITIONER DATED
25.10.2023.
Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE APPRECIATION ISSUED BY
P10 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHIEF REGIONAL
MANAGER FOR OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE IN
SB ACCOUNT OPENING.
