Dismissed

Aditya Shukla v. the State Bank of India and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC16 May 2018SPLA/442/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, a Bank employee transferred on administrative grounds due to alleged misbehavior, challenged the order via Special Appeal, claiming violation of guidelines for physically handicapped employees and alleging the order was stigmatic. The court found the circular allowed exceptions for disciplinary issues and the order complied with prior directions, thus dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned Judge was upheld.

Aditya Shukla Vs the State Bank of India and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 442 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Aditya Shukla Respondent :- The State Bank Of India And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Vineet Kumar Singh,H.N.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi

¶4

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

( Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari J.)

¶6

This Special Appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 4 May 2018 by which a learned Judge of this Court dismissed Writ-A No. 10531 of 2018 ( Aditya Shukla Vs. State Bank of India Through Its Chief General Manager and 3 others).

¶7

We have heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vineet Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sumit Kakkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was transferred from Anpara Bazar, Branch of State Bank of India to Babhni Branch of State Bank of India on administrative grounds. Prior to this transfer, on previous occasions too, petitioner was transferred to different Branches on the administrative grounds.

¶9

Feeling aggrieved by the transfer, the petitioner filed WritA No. 5646 of 2018. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Assistant General Manager to decide the representation of petitioner by a reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶10

The petitioner submitted an application which was rejected by the Competent Authority by a reasoned order on 19 March 2018. The petitioner then filed writ petition challenging both the orders dated 18 January 2018 and 19 March 2018. This petition was dismissed by learned Judge against which this Special Appeal has been filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant belongs to physically handicapped category and his transfer is in violation of guidelines/circular issued by

¶12

the State Bank of India relating to transfer of physically handicapped employees. He has further submitted that the order dated 29 March 2018 is stigmatic in nature and, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶13

Rebutting the argument of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has stated that there is no violation of the circular dated 21 October 2014 issued by State Bank of India dealing with the transfer of physically handicapped employees as it clearly provides that the same shall not be applicable to the physically handicapped employees if transferred on the ground of disciplinary action due to their involvement in fraudulent transactions etc. He has further argued that order dated 19 March 2018 is not stigmatic in nature but it has been passed in compliance of the order of this Court dated 13 February 2018 in Writ-A No. 5646 of 2018, in which there was clear direction to pass a reasoned order.

¶14

We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

¶15

A perusal of transfer order indicates that appellant misbehaved with fellow Branch Staff, Superior Bank Officers and even Bank customers and for this reason he has been transferred on so many occasions but there has been no change in his attitude. He has infact subsequently misbehaved with Higher Officer of the Bank during his visit at Anpara Bazar Branch with top Executives on 16 January 2018. A delegation of customers met the Officer in the presence of top Executive Officer and expressed views against the appellant about his behaviour towards customers and undue delay in providing banking facilities. Considering this fact, the Bank has transferred the petitioner from Anpara Bazar Branch to Babhni Branch on administrative grounds.

¶16

The first submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable as the circular dated 21 October 2014 itself provides for exception. The second submission of learned counsel for the appellant cannot also be accepted for the reason that earlier by order dated 18 January 2018, the appellant was transferred to Babhni Branch without mentioning any reason of transfer against which Writ-A No. 5646 of 2018 (Aditya Shukla Vs. State Bank of India Thru. Its Chief G.M. and 3 others) was filed. Now in compliance of the order of Court, Competent

¶17

Authority has passed a reasoned order giving the details of the reasons for which the petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds. The order cannnot be said to be stigmatic.

¶18

On a query made by the Court, learned counsel for the appellant has informed that the petitioner has been transferred within the same District.

¶19

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no good reason to interfere with the judgment and order of learned Judge.

¶20

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 16.5.2018 Sartaj

¶21

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶22

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

Aditya Shukla v. the State Bank of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Shukla v. the State Bank of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Sri Rahis Pal Rajkumar Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Amita Tripathi (Tiwari) Vs the Director of Education and 4 Others

naresh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Phool Badan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Neetu Rani Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ordnance Equipment Factory Prarambhik Sahkari Bank Limited and Another Vs Om Shanker Mishra and 2 Others