Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010026692025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/45/2025 SHRI HAGE APPA MANAGER CREDIT, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, RURAL BANK, HEAD OFFICE NAHARLAGUN, RESIDENT OF C SECTOR, NAHARLAGUN, PO NAHARLAGUN, DIST PAPUMPARE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, 791110 VERSUS THE ARUNACHAL PRADESH RURAL BANK REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, ARUNACHAL PRADESH RURAL BANK, HEAD OFFICE, E - SECTOR, SHIV MANDIR ROAD, NAHARLAGUN, ARUNACHAL PRADESH 2:THE GENERAL MANAGER (OPS AND ADMIN) ARUNACHAL PRADESH RURAL BANK HEAD OFFICE E-SECTOR SHIV MANDIR ROAD NAHARLAGUN ARUNACHAL PRADESH 791110 3:SHRI MUKUN JAISI BRANCH MANAGER ARUNACHAL PRADESH RURAL BANK BASAR BRANCH P.O. and P.S. BASAR DISTRICT LEPARADA ARUNACHAL PRADESH 79111 For the appellant : Mr. P.D. Nair, Mr. H. Rohman, Advocates Page No.# 2/6 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 12-02-2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.) This writ appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 05.02.2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, being, WP(C) 225/2024, which was filed by the appellant herein. 2. The appellant was working as Manager (Credit), Headquarter Office of Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank (hereinafter to be referred as ‘bank’) at Naharlagun. However, by order dated 31.05.2024, the appellant along with 34 other officers and officials of the bank was transferred whereby the appellant was posted to the Basar Branch of the bank as Branch Manager. The appellant approached the Writ Court challenging the said transfer order on the ground that the same is violative of the concerned transfer policy and also on the ground that the impugned transfer order was issued by an incompetent authority. It is contended that the transfer order was issued by the General Manager (Ops and Admin) of the bank whereas the competent authority for transferring the officers belonging to the category of Scale-II and above is the Chairman of the Bank. 3. The respondent bank contested the writ petition stating that there was no violation of the transfer policy in respect of transfer of the appellant. At the same time, it was also contended that the transfer policy had no statutory force Page No.# 3/6 and, therefore, violation of the same would not result into quashing or setting aside of the impugned transfer order. It was also contended that the transfer of the appellant was in administrative exigencies and he along with 34 other officials of the bank had been transferred by the impugned transfer order. In respect of the argument advanced by the appellant regarding the transfer by an incompetent authority, it is stated by the respondent bank that since the transfer was approved by the Chairman of the bank, who is the competent authority, it cannot be said that the transfer order was illegal. 4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, has dismissed the writ petition while observing that the tenure of the appellant at Itanagar and Naharlagun has been around six years and as per the transfer policy, the minimum period for an employee to be retained at a place is three years and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the transfer policy. The learned Single Judge has also concluded that even if there is any violation of the transfer policy, it would not give any indefeasible right to the appellant, as the transfer policy does not have statutory force and is not enforceable under the law. While rejecting the contention of the appellant regarding the transfer by an incompetent authority, the learned Single Judge has held that since it is approved by the Chairman of the bank, the said submission of the appellant falls flat. The relevant finding of the learned Single Judge on this aspect is reproduced hereunder: “19. Regard being had to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the transfer has been effected by an authority not competent to transfer the petitioner, as the recommendation for transfer and posting is approved by the Chairman, who is the competent authority, therefore, such submission of the petitioner falls flat as it clearly reveals from the record Page No.# 4/6 that the same has been approved by the Chairman i.e. the competent authority.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as per the transfer policy, the Chairman is the competent authority for effecting the transfer of officials belonging to the category of Scale-II and above, the category to which the appellant belongs, the impugned transfer order passed by the General Manager (Ops and Admin) of the bank is certainly issued by an incompetent authority. Referring to the transfer policy of the respondent bank, learned counsel has submitted that it is the Board of the bank which is competent authority to delegate the authority of the Chairman to any other official but since there is no resolution of the Board delegating the authority of the Chairman to the General Manager (Ops and Admin), it is clear that the impugned transfer order was passed by an incompetent authority. Learned counsel has submitted that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter and, therefore, the impugned judgment is not liable to be sustained. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. The appellant has taken the ground of transfer by an incompetent authority in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, which is reproduced hereunder: “9. That, further above impugned transfer order was issued by respondent No.2 (General Manager) who is not a competent authority to issue a transfer order in respect of Officers of Scale-II as per Norms for transfer of Officers of Scale-II, the Chairman is the competent authority to effecting the transfer as prescribed under Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank Transfer Policy, 2019. The petitioner belongs to Group-A Officer of Scale-II. Hence, the impugned transfer order and consequential release order by the respondent authority is not as per their policy for transfer and amount to a colorable exercise of power to accommodate the private respondent No.3.” 7. An affidavit-in-opposition is filed by the Chairman of the bank and, in Page No.# 5/6 paragraph 10 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, reply to paragraph 9 of the writ petition is given. Paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition is reproduced hereunder: “10. That statements made in paragraphs 9 of the writ petition that the transfer order dated 31.05.2024 has not been issued by the competent authority, i.e. the Chairman of the bank is incorrect and hence denied. The answering respondent begs to state that a committee comprising of the General Manager (Ops & Admin), General Manager (Vigilance) and Chief Manager (Human Resources) was constituted for recommending transfer of officers and other employees of the bank keeping in view the recent promotions, branch category, incumbency and other HR related issues and the aforementioned committee had on 31.05.2024 had recommended for approval of transfer of 31 officers and 4 clerical staffs and placed the same before the answering respondent and the answering respondent in his capacity as the Chairman of the bank being the competent authority had approved the same on 31.05.2024 itself as per HR Policy of the bank and administrative requirements…………………..” 8. In the rejoinder, the appellant has claimed that the approval of the Chairman to the recommendation of the Committee is mere approval and cannot be termed as a delegation of the powers of the Chairman to the General Manager (Ops and Admin) and, therefore, it is clear that the transfer order was issued by an incompetent authority. Paragraph 6 of the rejoinder filed to this effect is reproduced hereunder: “6. That with regards to the statement made in paragraph 10 of the affidavit in opposition, the answering deponent begs to state that the transfer order dated 31.05.2024 is issued by respondent no.2 General Manager (Ops & Admin), not by respondent no.1 the Chairman. The approval by the Chairman to the recommendation of the Committee is mere approval it does not confer the power to the General Manager (Ops & Admin) unless the power to transfer is specifically in written delegated or authorized by the Chairman Respondent No.1 to General Manager (Ops & Admin) respondent No.2 herein case there is no clear delegation or authorization of power to issue a transfer order by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. Therefore, the officer not competent to issue a transfer order issuing a transfer order without authorization or delegation of power from competent authority is illegal, colorable exercise of Page No.# 6/6 power and not sustainable in the eye of law.” 9. We have taken into consideration the above pleadings and are of the opinion that since the recommendation of transfer of the employees of the bank was made by the Committee consisting of the General Manager (Ops and Admin), General Manager (Vigilance) and Chief Manager (Human Resource) and the same was approved by the Chairman, it can be deemed that the transfer of the employees belonging to Scale-II and above of the bank was made by the Chairman himself. It is not a case where only the General Manager (Ops and Admin) has recommended or issued the transfer order but it is a case where the Committee had recommended the transfer of the officials of the bank and the same has been approved by the Chairman of the Bank and, in such circumstances, the approval given by the Chairman himself would mean that the transfer orders are issued by the Chairman, who is the competent authority. 10. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant