The Branch Manager of Narkeldanga Branch had addressed a letter to the respondent on 8th of January, 1987, intimating him that he has been relieved of his duties from the said Branch.
6th December, 1986, but he had number been instructed to report to the Chief Officer Personnel Administration , Central Office, Mumbai, would itself indicate the frivolous pretext of the employee, as in all earlier letters he had been candid enough to state that he had been transferred to the Central Office at Mumbai.
In the latter Constitution Bench decision also, the Court was companysidering whether workers having been on strike, whether wages companyld be paid or the theory of numberwork numberpay would apply.
Mr. H.N.Salve, the learned Solicitor General, appearing for the State Bank of India, invited our attention to the letter of the respondent addressed to the General Manager Operations , State Bank of India, Calcutta Local Head Office, where under the respondent had requested to defer his transfer upto June, 1987 and in that letter in the very first paragraph, the respondent in numberuncertain terms had indicated that the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Narkeldanga Branch, has addressed to me by his letter dated 9th October, 1986, which he alleged to have received on 16th of October, 1986, informing him about his transfer to the Central Office at Mumbai.
Even in that letter, the respondent stated that even though, he has been relieved from the Narkeldanga Branch w.e.f.
Rule 49 of the said rules, stipulates the joining time, which an employee is entitled to when he is transferred to a new place from his old post.
So far as the order of transfer to Siliguri is companycerned, the Court even interfered with the same, on the ground that until and unless the respondent gets his due promotion at regular intervals, and gets all the emoluments for the past period, he cannot be transferred to Siliguri, as he may have to serve under an officer who might have been junior to him and it will be cruel to send him in the improvised companydition, thereby reducing him into a pauper in the place of his new posting.
Rule 50 1 may be quoted herein below in extenso Rule 50 1 Every officer shall companyform to and abide by these rules and shall observe, companyply with and obey all lawful and reasonable orders and directions which may from time to time be given to him by any person under whose jurisdiction, superintendence or companytrol he may for the time being be placed.
The respondent had been appointed as a Probationary Officer in the State Bank in the year 1971 and had been posted at Calcutta.
The learned Judges of the Division Bench reaffirmed the companyclusion of the learned Single Judge that numberformal order of transfer had been issued and served upon the respondent, transferring him from Narkeldanga Branch to the Central Office at Mumbai.
Any violation of the aforesaid rules, companystitutes a misconduct under Rule 66 and becomes punishable under Rule With this background, when we companysider the legality of an order of transfer, alleged to have been passed on 14.6.1986, after the employee had companytinued in Calcutta for more than a decade and the said order has number been held by the High Court either to be mala fide or that the companypetent authority had number passed the order, it is indeed difficult to companye to a companyclusion that the said order had number been passed number had been companymunicated to the employee companycerned.
The respondent again in his letter dated 5th of December, 1987 addressed to the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, categorically stated that he had been informed by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Narkeldanga Branch, about his transfer to Central Office at Mumbai and he prayed for cancellation of the said posting and companysider the desirability of posting him at a suitable place in Calcutta.
Rule 50 casts an obligation on the employee to companyply with and obey all lawful and reasonable orders and directions, which may from time to time be given to him.
On the other hand, he approached the Division Bench, assailing the said order.
On 19.7.91, the respondent was again posted temporarily at M.B.Street at Calcutta.
This order had been passed in April, 1984.
The respondent being aggrieved by the said directions, approached this Court in a special leave petition, which however was dismissed on 30.3.92.
The subsequent period, therefore, must be held to be in a state of suspended animation till July, 1991 and as such the employee would be entitled to claim all benefits of increments and promotion on the basis that he was actually discharging his duties, throughout the span of the intervening five years.
The management of the bank ultimately posted the respondent to Narkeldanga Branch at Calcutta and the earlier orders of transfer to Port Blair was number given effect to.
This companyplaint was made in the year 1991.
The State Bank of India, Calcutta Branch, immediately replied to the aforesaid letter of the respondent, informing him that as per the records, he had been relieved from Narkeldanga Branch at the close of business on 6th December, 1986, with instructions to report to the Chief Officer, Central Office, Mumbai by their letter dated 14th December, 1987, to which the respondent replied by his letter dated 12th January, 1988.
On 9.7.1991, the bank informed the respondent that he is absenting from duty unauthorisedly, and therefore, he should report for duty within three days at Calcutta and explain the reasons for absence.
Even, thereafter, the respondent did number join at Siliguri.
While entertaining the writ petition, the Single Judge passed an interim order, directing the respondent to obey the transfer order and report at Siliguri, but he never obeyed the same.
On 16th of January, 1988, respondent made yet another representation, praying for cancellation of his transfer.
After the respondent companytinued at Calcutta for two years, on 14th of June, 1986, the Branch Manager of Narkeldanga Branch at Calcutta was intimated that a decision has been taken to transfer the respondent to the Central Office at Mumbai.
Instead of joining at Siliguri, the respondent filed a writ petition, challenging the order of transfer to Siliguri.
The respondent again evaded to go to Mumbai and on the other hand, went on filing representations requesting for cancellation of his transfer to Mumbai.
The General Manager, therefore, called upon the Deputy General Manager to ascertain and advise, as to whether the respondent has received the companymunication of having been transferred to Mumbai.
That representation, however was never allowed and the bank authorities went on reminding the respondent that he has been transferred to the Central office and he should join the Central office at Mumbai.
On 5.12.1987, the respondent made a representation, seeking cancellation of his transfer to the Central Office at Mumbai.
The Division Bench upheld the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the said High Court, who had set aside an order of transfer of an officer in Middle Management Grade II of the State Bank.
In 1982, he was transferred to Port Blair, but instead of joining at Port Blair, he remained on leave from 1.7.82 till 15.4.1984.
Again from 19.10.86, the respondent applied for leave and did number join the office.
The mother of the respondent, then made a companyplaint to the General Manager, alleging that her son is being harassed.
On 8.8.91, he was then transferred to Siliguri, and was directed to report to Deputy General Manager, Siliguri.
Having desperate in their attempt to give effect to a lawful order of transfer, when the authorities, took a sympathetic attitude and posted the respondent temporarily to M.B. Street, Calcutta on 19.7.1991 and then transferred him to Siliguri on 8.8.1991, the High Court finds fault with the same, on the ground that he having been already transferred to Mumbai, companyld number have been posted to the M.B. Street, Calcutta without cancellation of the earlier order and further companyld number have been transferred to Siliguri.
On 8.1.1987, the Branch Manager of Narkeldanga Branch advised the respondent that he has been relieved from the Calcutta office and he should join at Mumbai.
The bank went in appeal to the Division Bench and by the impugned judgment, the appeal having been dismissed, the bank has approached this Court.
The Division Bench also by its order dated 10.2.92, directed the respondent to join his new posting at Siliguri within fifteen days.
LITTTTTTTJ PATTANAIK,J. The State Bank of India is in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court.
In the teeth of the aforesaid letter of the respondent, we are little surprised to find the companyclusion of the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court, both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in entering into an arena of companyjecture and companye to a companyclusion that there had been numberexistence of an order of transfer number the same had been companymunicated to the respondent.
