- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13305 WP No. 7464 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7464 OF 2023 (S-TR) BETWEEN: YOGESH R. DHURANDHAR C/O R. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT:LIG HOUSE NO.309, 1ST FLOOR, CHANNAPATNA HOUSING BOARD, GNYANADHARE COLLEGE, HASSAN-573201. OFFICE AT: CANARA BANK REGIONAL OFFICE,, LEGAL DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, BEHIND SUVARNA RESORT, B.M. ROAD, HASSAN-573201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAGAR KOSAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CANARA BANK (A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) 112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560002. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CANARA BANK, 112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560002. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SECTION, PERSONNEL WING, HEAD OFFICE, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13305 WP No. 7464 of 2023 112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560002. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, MUMBAI CIRCLE OFFICE, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK CIRCLE OFFICE, BALMATTA ROAD, CANARA BANK BUILDING, MANGALORE-575001. 6. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER LEGAL DEPARTMENT, CANARA BANK, 112, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE, HEAD OFFICE KARNATAKA-560002. 7. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK GENERAL ADMINISTRATION SECTION, REGIONAL OFFICE, HASSAN, B.M. ROAD, BEHIND SUVARNA RESORT, HASSAN DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF PETITIONER FOR TRANSFER TO HIS HOME STATE I.E., MAHARASHTRA ON THE GROUNDS OF HIS MARRIAGE AND ILL-HEALTH AS STATED IN HIS ON LINE TRANSFER APPLICATION (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE H1) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13305 WP No. 7464 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his request for transfer to his home State, in view of his marriage and ill health. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider his request for transfer to the home State on medical grounds as stated in his online transfer application dated 01.04.2023 and to direct the respondents to implement their transfer policy dated 19.03.1988 in true letter and spirit. He also has sought for quashing the order of transfer dated 05.07.2021 as null and void and bad in the eye of law. 2. (i) The petitioner was selected as a "Specialist Officer" and appointed by Syndicate Bank on 01/04/2016 as a Manager (Law). His service was confirmed with effect from 01.04.2017. Later, Syndicate Bank was amalgamated with Canara Bank and the petitioner was transferred to Mumbai Regional Office-II on 08.09.2016. He claims that while he was working at the Regional Office, he was pressurized to clear a certain legal opinion of a property, though it was defective and could not be taken in mortgage. The petitioner claims that he - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13305 WP No. 7464 of 2023 was targeted for not giving a favorable opinion and the respondents issued a show-cause notice and initiated disciplinary action against him. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed an order allegedly without following the principles of natural justice. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order. He was again transferred to ARMB Branch Mumbai on 05.11.2018, even before he completed the minimum tenure. He thereafter received a letter dated 25.09.2019 directing him to be in concurrent charge of his earlier position at the Regional Office-II from where he was transferred. Thereafter, on 29.09.2019, he was advised to attend to legal matters pertaining to Zonal Office branches. This he contends, was only to harass him and overburden him with work. (ii) The petitioner contends that Syndicate Bank was amalgamated with Canara Bank on 01.04.2020 and he was posted at Asset Recovery Management of Canara Bank on 24.05.2021. While he was discharging his duties, a person named Smt.Malini P had instructed to provide the details of a case before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. As the said person was not known to the petitioner, he requested her to send an - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13305 WP No. 7464 of 2023 e-mail. The said lady being enraged, threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Thereafter, the petitioner purportedly received an email from the office of the respondent No.4 seeking status of the said case. The petitioner submits that he was abruptly transferred vide an order dated 05.07.2021 to Hassan District in Karnataka, when Covid-19 had gripped the country. He claimed that he requested the respondents for permission to travel by air or taxi in view of the covid-19 restrictions. The respondents did not consider the request of the petitioner. He claims that he is on prolonged treatment for bronchitis, vomiting and hardness in breathing and is on treatment for frozen shoulder and vertigo. The petitioner contends that in line with the transfer guidelines formulated by the respondent Bank, he filed an application online on 25.03.2022 for transfer to his home State on the ground that his mother's medical condition was precarious and also on the ground that his wife was employed in Maharashtra. The petitioner also requested the respondent No.7 to forward the online application to the concerned authority along with the medical documents. However, he contends that the said online application was not considered. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13305 WP No. 7464 of 2023 (iii) He contends that his mother underwent prolonged treatment for a lung condition and was hospitalized on 27.02.2023. He claims that due to his transfer to Hassan District in Karnataka, he was not in a position to take care of his mother. He has also claimed that his spouse was working as a Judicial Officer, in the Maharashtra Judiciary and was posted at Aurangabad as a Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Aurangabad. The petitioner requested the respondent No.5 for a service certificate, which was required for his spouse to file a AGT form and to mention therein to post her at a place nearest to the petitioners place of work. However, the respondent No.5 purposefully did not issue the service certificate sought by the petitioner. He contends that he and his wife were undergoing treatment for Infertility (IUI/IVF). The petitioner contends that he was not paid salary by the respondents and that he made continuous requests before the respondents for his transfer back to his home State and that the same did not bear fruit and therefore the petitioner is before this Court challenging his transfer dated 05.07.2021 and also sought for a direction to the respondents to consider his representations for transfer to his home State. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13305 WP No. 7464 of 2023 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been targeted for not heeding the unethical and unjustified demands made by certain officers at the bank and not falling in line with the directions made by them. He contends that the transfer of the petitioner from Maharashtra to Karnataka was not warranted, as the transfer guidelines itself provided that (i) if an officer belonging to scheduled caste makes a request of transfer, it should be considered sympathetically. (ii) That whenever a spouse of an employee is working in a different home sector, the bank should try to accommodate the employee as near as possible to the place of the working of his spouse. He therefore contends that the respondents without taking into consideration these circumstances, had mechanically and with an ill motive transferred the petitioner to Hassan in Karnataka, which is 1000 kilometers away from Mumbai. He therefore prays that the impugned order of transfer be set aside and the respondents be directed to consider the petitioner's case for transfer back to his home Sftate. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondents, who have filed an elaborate statement of objections, inter alia - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13305 WP No. 7464 of 2023 contending that the petitioner is a Specialist Officer whose presence in Karnataka is necessary and therefore, he was transferred to Karnataka. It is contended that the transfer policy of the bank is not applicable to Specialist Officers and the case of Specialist Officers would be considered only after they complete three years of active service in the transferred location. It is contended that after the petitioner was transferred to Hassan, he has availed enormous leave than what is available and accordingly it was treated as unauthorized leave by the respondents and hence, the pay of the petitioner was separately credited into his account and not through the regular salary credit system. It is also contended that the petitioner is entitled for transfer to his home state once he completes three years of active service. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to be retransferred to his home State on any other ground mentioned in the transfer guidelines. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13305 WP No. 7464 of 2023 6. The petitioner was transferred to Hassan in Karnataka on 05.07.2021. The petitioner was no doubt a Specialist Officer appointed as a Manager (Law). The petitioner has reported to duty and he has worked as a Manager (Law) at Hassan from the date of his transfer. Now at this point in time, the period spent by the petitioner in Hassan, cannot be wished away by overturning the transfer of the petitioner to Hassan. The transfer guidelines in so far as specialist officers are concerned, stipulate as follows; "The specialist Officers such as, Hindi Officers, Security Officers, Technical Field Officers, etc. and those recruited as Agricultural Extension Officers are also eligible for a transfer to Home State on completion of 3.years tenure in other circles. However, the transfer in their cases can be considered subject to providing substitutes by the transferee circles. Officers working in CPPD/EDP set up are also eligible for a transfer to Home State on completion of a normal term of 3 years in the concerned Circles. However, such officers shall be accommodated in Home State subject to availability of suitable vacancies in the Circle depending upon the area of specialization possessed by the officers." Therefore, instead of directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for retransfer to his home - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13305 WP No. 7464 of 2023 State on the ground that his spouse is working in the Maharashtra Judiciary and that he and his spouse are undergoing Infertility (IUI/IVF) treatment, it is appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer to the home State soon after the petitioner completes three years of active service. It is made clear that the respondents shall not under any circumstance keep the representation of the petitioner pending once he completes three years of active service. The writ petition stands disposed off on the above terms. 7. If any salary is not paid to the petitioner, the respondent shall take immediate steps to ensure that the salary payable to the petitioner is credited to his account. Any pay or allowances which is payable and not paid to the petitioner shall be credited to his account forthwith. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34