Ankit Dixit (Employee ID-769636) vs Indian Bank Chennai Thru. Managing Director and 4 Others

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a physically challenged person, suffering from hearing impairment, since birth. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2014, in the respondent bank and has been working satisfactorily, since then, with no complaint regarding his work or conduct.

¶14

It is argued that the petitioner has been transferred from Lakhimpur Kheri to Chennai, which is approximately thousand kilometers away and such transfer would cause hardship to the petitioner, not only because of his disability but also due to language barriers.

¶15

Learned counsel further submits that the earlier transfer order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 11022 of 2025, which was finally decided by order dated 18.09.2025, wherein it was directed that till disposal of the representation of the petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken and pursuant thereto, the representation was decided by the respondent bank by order dated 10.10.2025, which was again challenged by the petitioner, by filing Writ-A No. 12769 of 2025 and the Court, while quashing the said order, granted liberty to the bank to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, after taking into account the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government of India regarding physically handicapped employees.

¶16

It is further submitted that in the said judgment, it was observed that in case

¶17

WRIA No. 1199 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

the petitioner submits a fresh representation mentioning the relevant guidelines and instructions issued by the Government of India, the same shall be duly considered and decided, and interim protection was also granted to the petitioner. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below:-

¶20

" It is provided that the protection which has already been granted in the Writ-A No.11022 of 2025, shall remain continue till the decision is taken by the bank authorities, on the fresh representation of the petitioner."

¶21

Referring to the aforesaid, learned counsel submits that from the very beginning, i.e., from the initial transfer order challenged in earlier writ petitions as well as in the present writ petition, protection has been granted by this Court, however, despite such directions, a charge-sheet dated 30.12.2025 has been issued to the petitioner and his salary for the last six months has also not been paid.

¶22

It is further argued that even after the judgment and order dated 12.11.2025, the impugned order has been passed without properly considering 'administrative constraints', and only vague and general remarks regarding deployment of specialist officers have been made.

¶23

Learned counsel submits that Clause 23.3 of the transfer policy, issued by the bank, provides that in the case of physically challenged employees, the guidelines issued by the Government of India shall be followed, particularly with respect to persons with benchmark disabilities. Further reliance has been placed upon Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2014, which provides preference in transfer and posting of physically challenged employees and requires that such transfers be considered within rotational transfers subject to 'administrative constraints', which according to the petitioner are absent in the present case.

¶24

It is also contended that in the impugned order, neither the guidelines issued by the Government of India have been considered nor any 'administrative constraints' have been specified, and issues such as language difficulties at the place of posting have also been ignored.

¶25

Reliance has further been placed upon the judgment in Netram Yadav and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others, Civil Appeal No. 5237 of 2022 , particularly paragraphs 31 and 32 thereof, wherein the difficulties faced by physically disabled persons in mobility and functioning, have been recognized, paragraph-31 and 32 are quoted hereinbelow:-

¶26

" 31. One of the hindrances/disadvantages faced by the physically disabled persons is the inability to move freely and easily. In consideration of the obstacles

¶27

WRIA No. 1199 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

encountered by persons with disabilities, the State has issued the said notification/circular dated 20th July 2000 for posting disabled persons to places of their choice, to the extent feasible. The object of this benefit to the physically disabled is to, inter alia, enable the physically disabled to be posted at a place where assistance may readily be available. The distance from the residence may be a relevant consideration to avoid commuting long distances. The benefit which has been given to the disabled through the Circular/Government Order cannot be taken away by subjecting the exercise of the right to avail of the benefit on such terms and conditions, as would render the benefit otiose.

¶30

32. Since there is no challenge in the Writ Petition to the vires of the Explanation, we do not deem it necessary to interfere with the same in this appeal. We hold that the said Explanation can have no manner of application to handicapped candidates who seek transfer to a place near their ordinary residence in terms of a beneficial Office Order/Circular issued for their benefit."

¶31

Ultimately, he submits that the petitioner has been transferred to a place about 1,000 kilometers away, moreover, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, and salary for six months has been withheld, which is extremely harsh and arbitrary. It is therefore prayed that the transfer order as well the other adversarial order be quashed.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that neither the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 nor the guidelines framed by the bank, absolutely restrain the transfer of a physically challenged employee. It is argued that the petitioner has been transferred due to administrative exigencies and requirements of service, and accordingly, he has been transferred from Lakhimpur Kheri to the Corporate Office at Chennai because of his specialty in the arena of working.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent bank next submitted that the order passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was not operative at the time when the charge-sheet was issued. It is further submitted that since the petitioner did not join at the transferred place of posting, he was not paid salary in accordance with the applicable service rules.

¶34

Learned counsel for the bank has further placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Ashwani Kumar Srivastava vs. Central Bank of India through its Managing Director, Writ-A No. 52 of 2025 , and has referred to paragraphs 37, 38, 47 and 51 thereof, the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶35

" 37. The phrase "administrative constraints" is also employed in the said Bank

¶36

circular which regulates the transfers and exemptions for care givers.

¶37

WRIA No. 1199 of 2026

¶38

4

¶39

"Administrative constraints" qualifies the policy of exemptions for care givers, and states the restrictions in the exemptions from transfer granted to them. The said "administrative constraints" includes consideration of public purpose served by the establishment, institutional interests which are catered to by the policy of transfers, and also encompasses the rights of other employees.

¶40

38. The composite scheme of Disabilities Act, 2016, the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 and the bank circular dated 28.06.2022, does not place absolute restraints or perpetual exemptions from transfer for care givers.

¶41

47. Further the Bank has rightly examined the extent of the disability suffered by the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner's wife is an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School. Even though she suffers from disability has been Assistant Teacher discharging her functions independently and without blemish. Wife of the petitioner does her daily chores, lives with dignity, and has attained excellence in her chosen profession. The wife of the petitioner has an independent income. The lady is an inspiring example to the society at large.

¶42

51. Competing demands of institutional interests and individual rights have been neatly balanced with due application of mind by the Bank while passing the impugned order. The impugned transfer order has factored in all relevant criteria and is in consonance with the observations made in the judgement. The conduct of the employer/ respondent Bank satisfies the test of "reasonable accommodation" to protect the interests of the petitioner. Denial of the petitioner's claim for further continuance at a place of his choice is within the ambit of "administrative constraints" of the respondent Bank. The impugned order is consistent with the provisions of the Disabilities Act, 2016 Government of India Office Memorandum, Bank circular containing the transfer policy."

¶43

Referring to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the Coordinate Bench has held that the composite scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Government of India Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 and the bank circular dated 18.06.2023, does not place absolute restraints or perpetual exemptions from transfer for 'care givers'.

¶44

He also submitted that the salary of the petitioner has been stopped as the circular of the bank which provides the centralized pyroll processing/updation of attendance through HR module says that if the transferred employee does not join at the place of posting within fifteen days from the date of relieving, the salary will be automatically stopped from the next date, therefore, the salary of the petitioner has been stopped because of the aforesaid circular.

¶45

Further submission is that the balance of equity is not in favour of the

¶46

WRIA No. 1199 of 2026

¶47

5

¶48

petitioner as the petitioner has been allowed to work since last 11-13 years in the Lucknow Zone and therefore, looking into the administrative exigencies at the corporate office, he has been transferred and therefore, representation of the petitioner has rightly been decided by the bank authorities while rejecting his claim for cancellation of the order of his transfer from District Lakhimpur Kheri to Chennai, thus submission is that no interference is warranted.

¶49

Upon considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner is a differently-abled employee, which fact is undisputed between the parties. The petitioner has been working in the respondent bank since his initial appointment, in the year 2014, and it is also an admitted position that since the date of his appointment he has been serving within the Lucknow Zone.

¶50

The dispute arose when the petitioner was transferred from District Lakhimpur Kheri to Chennai by order dated 09.08.2025. The said transfer order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ-A No. 11022 of 2025, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the competent authority, seeking cancellation of the transfer order, directed the authority concerned to consider and decide the same, within the stipulated period of time. In the said order, interim protection was also granted to the petitioner to the effect that 'till disposal of the representation, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondents against the petitioner, in pursuance of the impugned transfer order'.

¶51

A bare reading of the order dated 18.09.2025 reveals that no plea was raised by learned counsel for the respondent bank that any coercive action had been taken against the petitioner, till that date, however, it appears that the salary of the petitioner had been stopped in terms of the relevant circular, upon expiry of the stipulated joining period.

¶52

After the aforesaid order, the representation of the petitioner was decided by order dated 10.10.2025, which was again challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ-A No. 12769 of 2025. The said writ petition was finally decided on 12.11.2025, whereby this Court quashed the order dated 10.10.2025 rejecting the petitioner's claim and granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation. The Court further directed that the interim protection granted in Writ-A No. 11022 of 2025 shall continue to remain in force till a fresh decision is taken by the bank authorities.

¶53

The protection granted by the Court is explicit as the interim protection earlier granted shall continue until the representation is decided by the

¶54

WRIA No. 1199 of 2026

¶55

6

¶56

competent authority. In compliance with the order dated 12.11.2025, the bank authorities passed the impugned order dated 06.12.2025. Thus, from the date of the transfer order until the decision dated 06.12.2025, the interim protection restraining the respondents from taking coercive action against the petitioner, remained in operation.

¶57

The questions which arise for consideration are:

¶58

(i) whether the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner is liable to be set aside;

¶59

(ii) whether withholding payment of salary for a period of six months amounts to coercive action; and

¶60

(iii) whether the order dated 06.12.2025 has been passed in compliance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as well as the guidelines issued by the bank from time to time.

¶61

A perusal of the earlier orders passed by this Court clearly indicates that interim protection had been granted to the petitioner with a specific direction that no coercive action shall be taken against him in pursuance of the impugned transfer order. The said protection restrained the respondent authorities from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner as withholding of salary of an employee not only adversely affects the employee but also has serious consequences upon his family, and therefore the same falls within the ambit of coercive action. Further, issuance of a charge-sheet during the period when the interim protection was continuing since November 2025, would also prima facie fall within the domain of coercive measures.

¶62

So far as the order dated 06.12.2025 is concerned, the same has been passed in compliance of the order dated 12.11.2025, whereby this Court, after considering the provisions of Clause H of the Memorandum dated 31.03.2024, as well as Clause 23.3, of the Transfer Policy of the Bank, had quashed the earlier order and directed the competent authority to reconsider the matter afresh. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the policy framed by the Bank in furtherance thereof for physically challenged employees provide that persons with benchmark disabilities may be exempted from rotational transfer policies, and that transfer in such cases is to be considered, keeping in view the administrative constraints.

¶63

From a perusal of the impugned order dated 06.12.2025, it appears that a general observation has been made by the Bank regarding the deployment of specialist officers because of their limited number. However, the order does not disclose or specify as to why the services of the petitioner, in particular

¶64

WRIA No. 1199 of 2026

¶65

7

¶66

circumstances, are required at the Corporate Head Office at Chennai, nor it indicates the specific administrative constraints that would arise if the petitioner is not transferred to the said place of posting. Thus, this Court finds that on this essential aspect, the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 remains silent.

¶67

So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent bank in Ashwani Kumar Srivastava (supra) is concerned, the same appears to have been rendered in different facts and circumstances, primarily dealing with issues relating to caregivers, and not specifically concerning physically challenged employees. Therefore, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It is well settled that salary payable to an employee cannot be withheld arbitrarily, thus the petitioner shall be paid the salary.

¶68

The matter requires consideration.

¶69

Accordingly, let a detailed counter affidavit be filed by the opposite party within a period of three weeks. One week thereafter is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶70

Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 06.12.2025 and 09.08.2025 shall remain stayed and no proceeding shall be undertaken in pursuant to the chargesheet.

¶71

February 13, 2026 DiVYa

¶72

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶73

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankit Dixit (Employee ID-769636) v. Indian Bank Chennai Thru. Managing Director and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Dixit (Employee ID-769636) v. Indian Bank Chennai Thru. Managing Director and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Riyajuddin Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ved Prakash Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Zilani @ Zilani and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neetu Pandey vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Govt. of India New Delhi and 4 Others

Sadik Ali and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another