Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an Assistant Manager in the Reserve Bank of India, challenged her transfer order dated 01.12.2017 from Bengaluru to Jammu. At the time, she was 59 years old and due to retire on 31.10.2019. She was posted in the CCTV Console Room during the demonetization period in November 2016. Following allegations that HRM Department officers operated handicap/senior citizen counters on 12.11.2016 for exchange of banned notes beyond the prescribed limit, a show cause notice was issued to her on 01.02.2017 for failing to alert superiors about suspicious transactions. This led to a charge sheet on 17.02.2017. Meanwhile, the CBI initiated an investigation into malpractices related to banned note exchange and summoned the petitioner on 23.10.2017 and again on 01.12.2017 for assistance. On the same day, after her CBI visit, she was handed the transfer order. She immediately represented for cancellation on 08.12.2017 citing medical conditions (post-menopausal bleeding and diabetes) and her involvement in CBI investigation, but the Bank did not respond. Consequently, she filed a writ petition under Article 226 on 22.12.2017 seeking to quash the transfer. The petitioner argued that the transfer was not routine but mala fide, lacked mention of public interest or administrative exigency, and contravened the master circular on transfers. The respondent Bank contended that the transfer was routine, no malafides existed, the CBI investigation had concluded, and transfer is an incidence of service. The Court, after hearing both sides, examined the scope of judicial review in transfer matters. Referring to B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, it emphasized that transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere unless the order violates a mandatory statutory rule or is tainted by mala fides. The judgment highlighted that an employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to a particular station. The text of the judgment does not include the final operative order, but the reasoning indicates a dismissal of the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Judicial Review - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The Court reiterated that transfer is an incidence of service and courts should not interfere with transfer orders unless they are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. The order under challenge was examined on these parameters. Held, that judicial review in transfer matters is extremely limited and an employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain at a particular station (Paras 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order dated 01.12.2017 passed by the Reserve Bank of India is vitiated by mala fides, colourable exercise of power, or violation of statutory rules or master circular, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Law Points
- Transfer is an incident of service
- judicial review limited
- mala fide vitiates transfer
- transfer order must be in public interest
- violation of statutory rule required
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (02) 14
Writ Petition No.58446/2017 (S-RES)
Sri Vikram Phadke for petitioner; Senior Counsel Sri R.V.S. Naik for respondents 1-3; Sri P. Prasanna Kumar for respondent 4
The Reserve Bank of India, The Assistant General Manager (Administration), Reserve Bank of India, Sri A.K. Pathak, The Investigation Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a transfer order from Bengaluru to Jammu.
Remedy Sought
Quash the transfer order dated 01.12.2017 (Office Order No.123) issued by the Reserve Bank of India.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the transfer was not in public interest, was made with mala fide intention due to her assistance in the CBI investigation into demonetised note exchange malpractices, and was contrary to the master circular on transfers.
Issues
Whether the transfer order dated 01.12.2017 is vitiated by mala fides or colourable exercise of power?
Whether the transfer violates any mandatory statutory rule or is contrary to the master circular on transfers?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the transfer was not a routine transfer or part of general transfer but made with mala fide intention; the order does not mention public interest or administrative exigency; and it was contrary to the master circular regulating transfers.
Petitioner also submitted that she was suffering from post-menopausal bleeding and diabetes, and was assisting CBI investigation, thus transfer was vindictive.
Respondent argued that the transfer was routine, no malafides, the CBI investigation was over, and transfer is an incidence of service over which courts should not interfere.
Ratio Decidendi
Transfer is an incidence of service; judicial interference is warranted only if the transfer order is vitiated by mala fides or violates a statutory rule.
Judgment Excerpts
ORDER The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question the order dated 1-12-2017 passed by the 1st respondent/Reserve Bank of India transferring the petitioner from Bangalore to Jammu.
It is not a routine transfer or a part of the general transfer; the transfer is made with mala fide intention; the order of transfer does not even mention that it is in public interest or in the wake of administrative exigency; the transfer is made completely contrary to the master circular regulating transfers.
In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide.
Procedural History
Show cause notice issued to petitioner on 01.02.2017; charge sheet issued on 17.02.2017. CBI investigation into malpractices concerning demonetized notes exchange; petitioner summoned on 23.10.2017 and again on 01.12.2017. On 01.12.2017, after CBI visit, transfer order issued transferring her from Bengaluru to Jammu. Petitioner made representation on 08.12.2017 seeking cancellation, which was not acted upon. Petitioner filed writ petition on 22.12.2017 under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the transfer order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
