Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010201762025 2025:GAU-AS:14735 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5383/2025 SWAPAN KUMAR DAS S/O LATE PABITRA CHANDRA DAS, R/O VILL- LABOCPAR PT-III, P.O.- PAILAPOOL, P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM-788098 VERSUS ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK, HEAD OFFICE- GUWAHATI, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, ADAMS PLAZA, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781005 2:THE REGIONAL MANAGER ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK DIPHU REGIONAL OFFICE DIPHU 3:HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT (PERSONNEL) AGVB HEAD OFFICE- GUWAHATI 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR ADAMS PLAZA CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI ASSAM-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H LASKAR, B K DAS,MR. S ROY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, A G V B, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 31.10.2025 Heard Mr. M. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the impugned transfer order dated 06.08.2025, issued by the respondent No. 1, whereby, the petitioner was transferred from Diphu to Kokrajhar as Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager (Scale-I) of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank on 12.07.2013. Thereafter, he was promoted as Manager (Scale-II) on 31.03.2022 and was posted at the Diyungmukh Branch of the bank, where after serving up to 26.12.2022, he was attached as Manager of the Diphu Regional Office on 27.12.2022, and subsequently, thereafter, he was placed under suspension on 29.12.2022 on the ground of certain acts of gross misconduct alleged to have been committed by him during his tenure at the Diyungmukh Branch. It is pertinent to mention that upon disciplinary proceedings having been held against the aforesaid allegation charged against the petitioner, the same was proved, and thereafter, the respondent authorities by order dated 25.04.2024 imposed a major penalty of reduction of basic pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 21.05.2024, and Page No.# 3/6 he accordingly joined as Manager of Diphu Regional Office, and accordingly, he has been discharging his duty in the said office. Thereafter, on 06.08.2025, the respondent No. 1 issued the impugned transfer order, whereby he was transferred from the post of Manager, Regional Office, Diphu, to the post of Officer at Serfanguri Branch under Kokrajhar Region. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order was issued in violation of the provision of the transfer policy of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, 2025. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. M. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the transfer policy provides for a transfer timeline, which provides that the transfer exercise may be completed within June every year based on the tenure completed by the officer/employees as of 31st March of the respective year, and only in exigencies like resignation, superannuation or demise, was an exception made whereunder the officer/employees may be transferred during the entire year. He further submits that the transfer exercise accordingly is required to be completed within the month of June, 2025, however, the impugned transfer order having been issued on 06.08.2025, the same is in contravention of the timeline prescribed for transfer. He further submits that though an appeal against the transfer order before the grievance redressal committee was filed on 11.08.2025, the same was dismissed by the respondent No. 3 on 26.08.2025 without considering the matter on merit. He further submits that respondent No. 3 is not the competent authority to issue the rejection order. He further submits that under the Page No.# 4/6 transfer order, it appears that the reason for the transfer is for operational efficiency of the Kokrajhar Region due to the large number of resignations in the region, and therefore, a decision was taken to transfer officers completing 3 years in other regions to the Kokrajhar region. However, the respondent ignored the fact that the petitioner has not completed 3 years in the Diphu region. Hence, the impugned transfer order is totally arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair. 6. Per contra, Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, submits that the transfer being an incident of service, the same having been done for operational efficiency of the Kokrajhar region due to the large number of resignations in the region, the impugned transfer order warrants no interference from this court. He further submits that the timeline prescribed in the transfer policy is not applicable to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as it is apparent that due to the existence of the exceptional circumstances under the subject transfer policy, i.e., the large number of resignations in the Kokrajhar region, the impugned transfer was done post 31st March of 2025. He further submits that the petitioner, having joined in the Diphu region on 23.05.2022, has completed more than 3 years in the Diphu region and hence the impugned order of transfer warrants no interference from this court. He further submits that there are no specific allegations of mala fide pleaded in the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the material on record, it appears that the petitioner was transferred from Diphu by order dated 06.08.2025 to the Serfanguri Branch of Kokrajhar District on account of the operational efficiency of Page No.# 5/6 the Kokrajhar region due to the large number of resignations in the region after the transfer timeline, i.e, 31st March of 2025. 8. The above ground appears to be in the larger interest of the public and is in conformity with the transfer timeline prescribed under the transfer policy of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, 2025 enclosed as Annexure-V to the writ petition. The said transfer timeline reads as under: “Transfer time line: Transfer exercise may be completed within June every year based on the tenure completed by Officers/Employees as on 31 March of respective year. However, on exigency like Resignation, Superannuation or demise, Officer/Employees may be transferred during the entire year.” 9. Reading the said transfer timeline, it is apparent that exigencies like resignation are contemplated under the said policy as an exceptional situation for transferring an incumbent post any time during the entire year, i.e., post June of the herein question, as the case may be. 10. That apart, transfer being an incident of exigencies of service, the petitioner cannot complain of being transferred out from Diphu, especially since he had completed more than 3 years in the Diphu region. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because after he joined the Diphu region, he was placed under suspension and he was not on duty for about 16 months, the same is of no consequence in relation to the impugned transfer order. 11. It is well-settled law that the transfer of an employee (especially a government employee in a transferable post) is an incident of service and ordinarily not subject to judicial interference, unless the transfer is Page No.# 6/6 shown to be clearly arbitrary, vitiated by mala fide, or in violation of a statutory rule. In the present case, no mala fide has been pleaded or shown. It is clearly established that the impugned transfer was necessitated by the post-transfer timeline prescribed under the subject transfer policy due to the large number of resignations in the Kokrajhar region. Hence, the same being in conformity with the transfer policy and in the larger interest of the public, and in the absence of any favoritism, arbitrariness, mala fide, and infraction of any statutory rule, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 13. Interim order dated 17.10.2025 passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant