STATE BANK OF INDIA versus ANJAN SANYAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1165 · Decided: 12-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
STATE BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
ANJAN SANYAL AND ORS. 
APRIL 12, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
State of Bank of India Officers' Service Rules: Rules 47, 49 and 50( 1). 
Middle Management Grade II-Officers-Transfer of-Probationary Of-
ficer transferred to Bank's Central Office-But, instead of complying with the 
transfer order, officer filed representations seeking cancellation of trun.ifer 
order, which were refused-However, Single Judge quashed the transfer order 
on the ground that the tran~ferorderwas not serwd on the officer and directed 
payment of salary for the period officer remained absent in an unauthorised 
manner-Division Bench affirmed this decision-Correctness of-Held: Transfer 
of an employee is a part of the sen>ice conditions-Such transfer not to be 
lil{htly interfered with by a Courl of law in exercise o.f its discretionary ju1isdic-
tion unless the order is malafide or is pmlzibited by se1vice rules-It is clear, 
fmm the representations of the Officer, that he was aware of the transferorde1~ 
Hence, transfer order valid-High Court's order directing bank to pay salary 
and other benefits to the Officers for the period he was absent in an unauthor-
ised manner, set aside-State Bank of India of India Act, 1955-Hand Book of 
Staff Matters, Vol. I, para 8. 34( a), Ch. VJ!. 
The respondent, who was a probationary Officer in Middle manage-
ment Grade II in the appellant-Bank, was transferred to the appellant's 
Central Office. But, instead of complying with the transfer order, the 
respondent filed representations requesting for cancellation of his transfer 
order, which were refused. Being aggrieved, the respondent field a writ 
petition before the High Court challenging the aforesaid transfer order. A 
Single Judge of the High Court quashed the transfer order on the ground 
that the transfer order was not served on the respondent and directed the 
appellant to pay the salary and other benefits to the respondent for the 
period during which he was absent iu an unauthorised manner. The Divi-
sion Bench affirmed this decision. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the respondent was 
1165 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S .. C.R. 
A 
aware of the transfer order as was evident from the respondent's represen-
tations in which he had admitted having received a letter informing him 
'"' 
B 
c 
about his transfer to the Central Office of the appellant's Bank. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the respondent, 
being an officer of a Bank, could not be orally transferred and, therefore, 
the High Court rightly held the transfer order as illegal and invalid; that 
the appellant-Bank did not proceed against the respondent in accordance 
with the guidelines contained in the Hand Book of Staff Matters, Volume I, 
paragraph 8.34(a) of Chapter VII which showed that there was no valid 
transfer order; and that unless the Rules permitted, the respondent would 
be entitled to his salary during the period he was absent in an unauthor· 
ised manner. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. t. An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the 
D 
service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to he inter-
fered with lightly by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdic· 
tion unless the Court finds that either the order is ma/a fide or that the 
service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the 
order, had not the competence to pass the order. [1171-F] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1.2. The High Court has not held the transfer order to be malafide or 
that the competent authority had not passed the order and, therefore, it is 
not possible to bold that the said order had not been passed nor bad been 
communicated to the respondent. [1172-C-D] 
2.1. From the series of representations filed by the respondent, it is 
not possible to hold that there did not exist any order of transfr·r and that 
the respondent did not know of the same. On the other land, the respond-
ent was fully aware of the order of transfer and tried to evade the same by 
adopting all possible pretexts and continued to remain absent without 
discharging any duties. [1174-C] 
2.2. The High Court granted premium to an errant officer, who did 
not obey the orders of transfer and did not discharge any duty for which 
conduct of his, he could have been proceeded with, in a departmental 
proceeding on the charge o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.