Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vandana Kasrekar, J., addressed an issue where petitioner was transferred and aggrieved by the same filed this writ petition.
Facts of the case are that petitioner at the time of filing this writ petition was a Dy. Manager in the respondent Bank and was transferred to Katni from Jabalpur. Petitioner aggrieved by the transfer order filed representation on the ground that he was about to get retired in few months. Petitioner contended that he had been getting frequently transferred which is against transfer policy. Respondents did not consider his representation and a notice was issued to petitioner under Rule 40(3) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 giving him 3 days to report on duty at Katni. Petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court wherein he was ordered to file a representation on the above notice and an application for stay on the orders of respondents. The representation was rejected by the impugned order after which petitioner filed this instant writ petition.
It was contended by the petitioner that respondents did not consider the transfer policy in full and the fact that petitioner is the Vice President of SBI SC/ST Employees Welfare Association thus exempted from transfer. Petitioner contended that impugned order did not contain the grounds mentioned by the petitioner in representation. After perusing the matter High Court was of the view that the respondents have not considered the grounds stated by the petitioner and thus impugned order was a non-speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside. [Chetram Choudhary v. State Bank of India,2018 SCC OnLine MP 508, dated 31-08-2018]
