# Mrs. Meghna Sanjeev Kumar v. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 917
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-14
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4063 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mrs-meghna-sanjeev-kumar-v-punjab-sind-bank-anr-53829
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Sundeep Agarwal

Issue for consideration
 Whether petitioner's transfer can be held valid
in view of the pending complaints against the
petitioner?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - A Government Servant
has no vested right to remain posted at a
place of his choice nor can he insist that
he be posted at one place or the other. If
there is a complaint against the employee,
the plea that the employee cannot be
transferred on such complaint deserves to
be rejected outrightly inasmuch as on
initiation
of
disciplinary
proceedings
against the employee he can always be
transferred. (Para 20)

Admittedly the functioning of the bank
started getting adversely affected on account
of the petitioner's conduct, frayed relations
with officials and other negative reports of
her performance. The Court is not examining
the merits or correctness of the complaints
or adverse material against the petitioner.
Suffice to say that the discretion to take
disciplinary
action
for
acts
of
misconduct against an employee or to
transfer such employee on complaints
lies with the employer. The employer
may also adopt both the said options
simultaneously in the facts of a case.
No hard and fast rule can be laid down
which will fetter discretion of the
employer. Each case will have to be judged
on its peculiar facts and circumstances and it
is for the employer to take a decision after
considering all relevant factors. In the facts
of this case it was open to the respondent
bank to transfer the petitioner to another
branch and provide her an opportunity to
perform better in a new environment. The
impugned order of transfer cannot be faulted
with. The transfer order does not preclude
the bank to examine the veracity of the
complaints against petitioner in an enquiry,
or to take departmental action as per law.
(Para 22, 24)
This judgment is without prejudice to the rights
of the petitioner to defend herself against the
complaints, and in the same breath the order
does not fetter the right of the employer to take
out
appropriate
proceedings
against
the
petitioner as per law. (Para 23)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:

## Text

8 All. Mrs. Meghna Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
917
other case can also go on but clash of dates
should be avoided and for this purpose,
'kept in abeyance' would mean, if dates in
both the cases are common, then the case
under
the
Gangsters
Act
will
get
precedence."

15. Hence, it is now explicitly clear
that the intention of the legislature is to
provide precedence to the cases under the
Gangsters Act in comparison to any other
case pending against the same accused in
any other Court. It never means that the
legislature intended to stop the proceedings
of the said other case completely but the
legislature intended that in case of two
legal proceedings pending in respect of the
same accused, it shall not clash with each
other. Since the case under the Gangsters
Act is a special trial for the specially
legislated Act to deal with the matters of
Gangsters, it is to be given priority in
comparison to other cases. The use of word
'Shall' in Section 12 of the Gangsters Act
casts a duty upon the trial court itself to
always pay attention to the situation that
being a special enactment the conclusive
end of the said Act be always preferable
against the trial of other cases related to the
same accused in any other Court. It is
significant to note here that the legislature
intended to certify the category of the
Gangsters Act as a Special Act and due to
this reason the Gangsters Act itself clarifies
that the cases to which the Gangsters Act
shall be given preference are required to be
normal trial and it should not be pending
before any Special Court, as reveals by
sifting the provisions of Section 12 of the
Act meaning thereby that the legislature
recognized the special category of cases
pending in a Special Court by using the
words 'not being a Special Court'. Hence,
the preferential part of Section 12 of the
Act takes care of all the Special Courts as
well as the Gangsters Act.

16. Having considered the rival
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and taking into consideration the
provisions of Section 12 of the Gangsters
Act and the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court as well as by this Court, the Court is
of the view that the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eye of law and the same
is liable to be set-aside.

17. Accordingly the impugned order
dated 03.03.2025 is set-aside. The Sessions
Trial No.0934 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs.
Pancham Singh and others) which is
running concurrently before the Court of
Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, shall be kept in
abeyance and the learned Special Judge is
directed to expedite the proceedings of
Gangster Sessions Trial No.01 of 2024 to
satisfy the intent of mandatory provisions
contained in Section 12 of the Gangsters
Act.

18. With the above observations, the
revision stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 917
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 4063 of 2025

Mrs. Meghna Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ravindra Narayan Singh, Vishal Kashyap
918 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sundeep Agarwal

Issue for consideration
 Whether petitioner's transfer can be held valid
in view of the pending complaints against the
petitioner?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - A Government Servant
has no vested right to remain posted at a
place of his choice nor can he insist that
he be posted at one place or the other. If
there is a complaint against the employee,
the plea that the employee cannot be
transferred on such complaint deserves to
be rejected outrightly inasmuch as on
initiation
of
disciplinary
proceedings
against the employee he can always be
transferred. (Para 20)

Admittedly the functioning of the bank
started getting adversely affected on account
of the petitioner's conduct, frayed relations
with officials and other negative reports of
her performance. The Court is not examining
the merits or correctness of the complaints
or adverse material against the petitioner.
Suffice to say that the discretion to take
disciplinary
action
for
acts
of
misconduct against an employee or to
transfer such employee on complaints
lies with the employer. The employer
may also adopt both the said options
simultaneously in the facts of a case.
No hard and fast rule can be laid down
which will fetter discretion of the
employer. Each case will have to be judged
on its peculiar facts and circumstances and it
is for the employer to take a decision after
considering all relevant factors. In the facts
of this case it was open to the respondent
bank to transfer the petitioner to another
branch and provide her an opportunity to
perform better in a new environment. The
impugned order of transfer cannot be faulted
with. The transfer order does not preclude
the bank to examine the veracity of the
complaints against petitioner in an enquiry,
or to take departmental action as per law.
(Para 22, 24)
This judgment is without prejudice to the rights
of the petitioner to defend herself against the
complaints, and in the same breath the order
does not fetter the right of the employer to take
out
appropriate
proceedings
against
the
petitioner as per law. (Para 23)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:
1. Union of India Vs. Janardhan Debnath and
Anr., 2004 (4) SCC 245 (Para 16)
2. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (15)
SCC 178 (Para 17)
3. Registrar General High Court Vs. R. Perachi,
2011 (12) SCC 137 (Para 18)
4. Dr. Anil Kumar Pradhan Vs. State of U.P., 2010
SCC Online ALL 1152 (Para 19)
5. Shiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P., and 3 others,
Writ-A No. 13262 of 2023 (Para 20)
6. N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC
423 (Para 21)

List of Keywords
Service Law, Transfer, seniority, salary.

Appearances for Parties:
For Appellant: Ravindra Narayan Singh, Vishal
Kashyap
For Respondent: Sundeep Agarwal

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravindra Narayan
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Sundeep Agarwal, learned counsel
for the respondents.

2. By the impugned order dated
10.01.2025
the
petitioner
has
been
transferred from Prayagraj branch to Bisani
Pratapgarh.

3. The petitioner has assailed the
impugned transfer order on the footing that
it is actuated by mala fide and is penal in
nature. Further as per the petitioner the
transfer has been made on the basis of
8 All. Mrs. Meghna Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
919
complaints which in itself is contrary to
law.

4. The grounds on which the
transfer order has been assailed shall be
examined in the succeeding paragraphs.

5. A bare perusal of the transfer
order and the attending circumstances
discloses that a transfer order is not
punitive in any manner. The petitioner has
not been demoted to a lower post nor her
salary has been lowered. The seniority of
the petitioner does not get affected in any
adverse manner.

6. The petitioner was posted at
Prayagraj for a very long period of time
between 2007-2025, except for a brief
interlude from 19.11.2022 to 10.06.2024
when she was posted at Raipur. It is
noteworthy that the husband of the
petitioner is in the Railways and was posted
at Raipur. Moreover district Pratapgarh is a
neighbouring city of Prayagraj and the two
cities are well connected.

7. Transfers can be challenged only
on limited grounds namely, infraction of
statutory provision or mala fides. No
violation of statutory provision has been
pleaded or established before this Court.

8. Allegations of mala fides can be
enquired into only if they are specifically
pleaded
with
material
particulars.
Moreover, the individual against whom
such allegations are made has to be arrayed
as co-respondent. In the instant case both
the essential ingredients to prove mala fides
are absent in the writ petition.

9. In fact the pleadings related to
mala fides are bald, vague and self serving.
Mere
differences
of
opinion
or
compatibility issues may not be sufficient
to attribute mala fides to the action of the
superior
authority
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of a case. Mala fides are not
established from the pleadings. The official
against whom mala fides are alleged is
arrayed as a party. The ground that the
transfer order is vitiated by mala fides is
accordingly rejected.

10. The petitioner also claims
reliance on certain provisions of the
transfer policy. The transfer policy does not
confer any enforceable rights upon the
petitioner. Further the power of an
employer to transfer an employee is not
derived from the transfer policy. Absence
of provisions to transfer on administrative
grounds in the transfer policy does not
denude the authority of the employer to
make transfers on said grounds.

11. Transfer is an incident of
service. No employee has a vested right to
be transferred to any place of their choice.
Transfer policy has to subserve the larger
interests of the institution.

12. The question of the validity of
the transfer in view of the the pending
complaints against the petitioner will now
be examined.

13. The petitioner has stated in her
writ petition that she was transferred on
complaints. A fact finding enquiry was
made in regard to the said complaints. The
transfer order could not have been made
without affording an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner.

14. The counter affidavit clearly
establishes the nexus between the aforesaid
complaints against the petitioner and the
transfer order. The counter affidavit records
920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
frequent and unauthorised absence of the
petitioner from duty. The petitioner also
took leave without prior sanction and was
in the habit of taking frequent leaves before
and after weekend holidays. According to
the respondents the petitioner indulged in
acts of insubordination against superior
officers. The conduct of the petitioner
hampered the business of the bank. An
enquiry was got conducted into complaints
against the petitioner. One of the superior
officers of the petitioner also filed an
application
before
the
competent
authorities that he apprehended a false
complaint of sexual harassment by the
petitioner since he had taken to her task for
her deficient performance. The fact finding
inquiry returned adverse findings against
the petitioner.

15. The complaints in the record
disclose that the petitioner had some
compatibility issues with other officials of
the bank and her performance was
deficient. These started impacting the
functioning of the branch.

16. The issue of transfers based on
complaints arose for consideration before
the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs
Janardhan Debnath and Anr1. The
Supreme Court in Janardhan Debnath
(supra) while examining the scope of
challenge to transfer order and the
permissibility of transferring an employee
on footing of complaints held as under:-

"4. The Union of India took the
stand that the transfer was done in public
interest and on account of exigencies of
administration. It was pointed out that the
respondents not only misbehaved with the
Director (Postal Services), a senior lady
officer, she was confined and dragged from
one room to another and this was done
with a view to force her to withdraw the
charge sheet against the Deputy Post
Master. She was abused in filthy language
and was physically manhandled. This
conduct was certainly unbecoming of an
employee and with a view to enforce
discipline and to avoid recurrence of such
unfortunate incident, they were transferred.
There was no violation of either Rule 37 of
the Manual or FR 15. The High Court
accepted the prayers made in the writ
petitions and held that transfer was
impermissible in terms of Rule 37 and was
in violation of FR 15. It was as a measure
of penalty and the seniority and the
promotional prospects were likely to be
affected.

9. A bare reading of Rule 37
shows that officials of the Department are
liable to be transferred to any part of India
unless it is expressly ordered otherwise for
any particular class or classes of officials.
Transfers were not to be ordered except
when advisable in the interests of public
service. The transfers can be made subject
to conditions laid down in FR 15 and 22.
The appellant has indicated as to why and
under what circumstances the transfers
were thought proper in the interests of
public service. The High Court while
exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950
(in short the 'Constitution') had gone into
the question as to whether the transfer was
in the interest of public service. That would
essentially require factual adjudication and
invariably depend upon peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case concerned. No
government servant or employee of a
public undertaking has any legal right to be
posted forever at any one particular place
or place of his choice since transfer of a
particular employee appointed to the class
or category of transferable posts from one
place to other is not only an incident, but a
8 All. Mrs. Meghna Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
921
condition of service, necessary too in
public interest and efficiency in the public
administration. Unless an order of transfer
is shown to be an outcome of mala fide
exercise or stated to be in violation of
statutory provisions prohibiting any such
transfer, the courts or the tribunals
normally cannot interfere with such orders
as a matter of routine, as though they were
the appellate authorities substituting their
own
decision
for
that
of
the
employer/management, as against such
orders
passed
in
the
interest
of
administrative exigencies of the service
concerned. This position was highlighted
by this Court in National Hydroelectric
Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan
and Anr.,

12. That brings us to the other
question as to whether the use of the
expression 'undesirable' warranted an
enquiry before the transfer. Strong reliance
was placed by learned counsel for the
respondents on a decision of this Court in
Jagdish Mitter v. The Union of India
(1964)ILLJ418SC to contend that whenever
there is a use of the word 'undesirable' it
casts a stigma and it cannot be done
without holding a regular enquiry. The
submission is clearly without substance.
The said case relates to use of the
expression
'undesirable'
in
an order
affecting the continuance in service by way
of discharge. The decision has therefore no
application to the facts of the present case.
The manner, nature an extent of exercise to
be undertaken by Courts/Tribunals in a
case to adjudge whether it casts a stigma
or constitutes one by way of punishment
would also very much depend upon the
consequences flowing from the order and
as to whether it adversely affected any
service
conditions
-
status,
service
prospects financially and same yardstick,
norms or standards cannot be applied to all
category of cases. Transfers unless they
involve any such adverse impact or visits
the persons concerned with any penal
consequences, are not required to be
subjected to same type of scrutiny,
approach and assessment as in the case of
dismissal,
discharge,
reversion
or
termination and utmost latitude should be
left with the department concerned to
enforce discipline, decency and decorum in
public service which are indisputably
essential to maintain quality of public
service and meet untoward administrative
exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of
the administration.

13. Additionally, it was pointed
out by learned counsel for the Union of
India that as indicated in the special leave
petition itself there was no question of any
loss of seniority or promotional prospects.
These are the aspects which can be gone
into in an appropriate proceeding, if at all
there is any adverse order in the matter of
seniority or promotion. It was also
submitted that transfer was within the same
circle i.e. the North Eastern Circle and,
therefore, the question of any seniority
getting affected by the transfer prima facie
does not arise.

14. The allegations made against
the respondents are of serious nature, and
the
conduct
attributed
is
certainly
unbecoming. Whether there was any
misbehavior is a question which can be
gone into in a departmental proceeding.
For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the
question of holding an enquiry to find out
whether there was misbehavior or conduct
unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary
and what is needed is the prima facie
satisfaction of the authority concerned on
the
contemporary
reports
about
the
occurrence complained of and if the
requirements, as submitted by learned
counsel for the respondents, of holding an
922 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the
very purpose of transferring an employee
in
public
interest
or
exigencies
of
administration to enforce decorum and
ensure probity would get frustrated. The
question whether respondents could be
transferred to a different division is a
matter for the employer to consider
depending
upon
the
administrative
necessities and the extent of solution for the
problems faced by the administration. It is
not for this Court to direct one way or the
other. The judgment of the High Court is
clearly indefensible and is set aside. The
writ petitions filed before the High Court
deserve to be dismissed which we direct.
The appeals are allowed with no order as
costs."

17. Similarly the Supreme Court in
Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.2 held as
under:-

"3. The transfer order dated July
31, 2007 came to be challenged by the Writ
Petitioner before the High Court of
Allahabad,
Bench
Lucknow.
While
challenging the legality of the transfer
order, Writ Petitioner set up the grounds
that
he
joined
as
Sub-Registrar,
Ghaziabad, Sadar-IV only a month back;
that the transfer order has been issued on
the complaint of one Radhey Lal, Sanyojak
Dalit Morcha Sangharsh Samiti, Lucknow
and that the order of transfer was
arbitrary, stigmatic and suffers from nonapplication of mind.

8. A Government Servant has no
vested right to remain posted at a place of
his choice nor can he insist that he must be
posted at one place or the other. He is
liable
to
be
transferred
in
the
administrative exigencies from one place to
the other. Transfer of an employee is not
only an incident inherent in the terms of
appointment but also implicit as an
essential condition of service in the
absence of any specific indication to the
contrary. No Government can function if
the Government Servant insists that once
appointed or posted in a particular place
or position, he should continue in such
place or position as long as he desires.

9.
The
courts
are
always
reluctant in interfering with the transfer of
an employee unless such transfer is vitiated
by violation of some statutory provisions or
suffers from mala fides. In the case of
Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. v. State of
Bihar and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 532, this
Court held:

4. In our opinion, the courts
should not interfere with a transfer order
which is made in public interest and for
administrative reasons unless the transfer
orders are made in violation of any
mandatory statutory rule or on the ground
of mala fide. A government servant holding
a transferable post has no vested right to
remain posted at one place or the other, he
is liable to be transferred from one place to
the other. Transfer orders issued by the
competent authority do not violate any of
his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is
passed in violation of executive instructions
or orders, the courts ordinarily should not
interfere with the order instead affected
party
should
approach
the
higher
authorities in the department. If the courts
continue to interfere with day-to- day
transfer orders issued by the government
and its subordinate authorities, there will
be complete chaos in the administration
which would not be conducive to public
interest. The High Court overlooked these
aspects in interfering with the transfer
orders.

10. In N.K. Singh v. Union of
India and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 1998, this
Court reiterated that the scope of judicial
8 All. Mrs. Meghna Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
923
review in matters of transfer of a
Government Servant to an equivalent post
without adverse consequence on the service
or career prospects is very limited being
confined only to the grounds of mala fides
or violation of any specific provision.

12. As regards Respondent No. 5,
the High Court considered the matter thus:

...in our view, it is evident that the
respondent No. 5 also can not be said to be
an Officer having a better conduct and
integrity in comparison to the petitioner
justifying his posting at Ghaziabad and in
this regard, it appears that I.G. (Stamps)
did not give correct information to the
Principal Secretary. However, it can not be
held that the respondent No. 1 in passing
order dated 31st July, 2007 has acted
maliciously or for extraneous reasons
amounting to malafide. Once the basic
ground of challenge to the impugned order
of transfer that the same is malicious in law
falls, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned order of transfer,
transferring the petitioner from Ghaziabad
to Hapur. It is not the case of petitioner
that his transfer is contrary to rules or has
been issued by an authority who is not
competent. It is well settled that an order of
transfer is amenable for judicial review on
limited grounds namely it is contrary to
rules or has been passed an incompetent
authority or is a result of malafide. In view
of admission on the part of the respondent
No. 1 in his Counter Affidavit that the
respondent No. 5 has been found guilty of
serious misconduct for causing loss to the
Government revenue by acting without
jurisdiction and colluding evasion of stamp
duty, in our view transfer of the respondent
No. 5 to Ghaziabad can not be sustained in
view of further admission on the part of the
respondent No. 1 that the interest of
department requires posting of an honest
and efficient person at Ghaziabad.

13. It is difficult to fathom why
the High Court went into the comparative
conduct and integrity of the petitioner and
Respondent No. 5 while dealing with a
transfer matter. The High Court should
have appreciated the true extent of scrutiny
into a matter of transfer and the limited
scope of judicial review. Respondent No. 5
being a Sub-Registrar, it is for the State
Government or for that matter Inspector
General of Registration to decide about his
place of posting. As to at what place
Respondent No. 5 should be posted is an
exclusive
prerogative
of
the
State
Government and in exercise of that
prerogative,
Respondent
No.
5
was
transferred from Hapur-II to Ghaziabad-
IV
keeping
in
view
administrative
exigencies.

14. We are pained to observe that
the High Court seriously erred in deciding
as to whether Respondent No. 5 was a
competent
person
to
be
posted
at
Ghaziabad-IV as Sub- Registrar. The
exercise undertaken by the High Court did
not fall within its domain and was rather
uncalled for. We are unable to approve the
direction issued to the State Government
and Inspector General of Registration to
transfer a competent officer at GhaziabadIV as Sub-Registrar after holding that
Respondent No. 5 cannot be said to be an
officer having a better conduct and
integrity in comparison to the petitioner
justifying his posting at Ghaziabad-IV. The
High Court entered into an arena which
did not belong to it and thereby committed
serious error of law."

18. While examining the validity of
the transfer of an employee on the basis of
an adverse report of the Supreme Court in
Registrar General High Court Vs R.
Perachi3 laid down the law as under:-
924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"21. We have considered the
submissions of both the counsel. As far as
the action of transfer against the first
Respondent was concerned, the same was
on the basis of the report of the Registrar
(Vigilance). Besides, the District Judge had
also opined that retention of the Appellant
in his district was undesirable from the
point of view of administration. Thus, it
involved
inter-district
transfer.
The
Respondent No. 1 had not disputed the
power of the High Court to transfer him
outside the district, nor did the division
bench interfere therein on that ground. This
is apart from the fact that transfer is an
incident of service, and one cannot make a
grievance if a transfer is made on the
administrative
grounds,
and
without
attaching any stigma which was so done in
the present case.

22. In the context of transfer of a
govt. servant we may refer to the dicta of
this Court in N.K. Singh v. Union of India
reported in AIR 1995 SC 423 where this
Court observed in para 22 as follows:

22... Transfer of a government
servant in a transferable service is a
necessary incident of the service career.
Assessment of the quality of men is to be
made by the superiors taking into account
several factors including suitability of the
person for a particular post and exigencies
of administration. Several imponderables
requiring formation of a subjective opinion
in that sphere may be involved, at times.
The only realistic approach is to leave it to
the wisdom of the hierarchical superiors to
make the decision. Unless the decision is
vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any
professed norm of principle governing the
transfer, which alone can be scrutinized
judicially,
there
are
no
judicially
manageable standards for scrutinizing all
transfers and the courts lack the necessary
expertise for personnel management of all
government departments. This must be left,
in public interest, to the departmental
heads subject to the limited judicial
scrutiny indicated.

23. In State of Madhya Pradesh v.
S.S. Kourav reported in AIR 1995 SC 1056,
the Administrative Tribunal had interfered
with the transfer order of the Respondent
and directed him to be posted at a
particular place. It is relevant to note that
while setting aside the order of the tribunal
this Court observed in para 4 of its
judgment as follows:

4....The Courts or Tribunals are
not appellate forums to decide on transfers
of officers on administrative grounds. The
wheels of administration should be allowed
to run smoothly and the Courts or
Tribunals are not expected to interdict the
working of the administrative system by
transferring the officers to proper places. It
is
for
the
administration
to
take
appropriate decision and such decisions
shall stand unless they are vitiated either
by
mala
fides
or
by
extraneous
consideration
without
any
factual
background foundation. In this case we
have seen that on the administrative
grounds the transfer orders came to be
issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the
expediency of posting an officer at a
particular place.

24. We may mention that this
Court has reiterated the legal position
recently in Airports Authority of India v.
Rajeev Ratan Pandey reported in 2009 (8)
SCC 337 that:

"10...... In a matter of transfer of
a govt. employee, the scope of judicial
review is limited and the High Court would
not interfere with an order of transfer
lightly, be it at interim stage or final
hearing. This is so because the courts do
not substitute their own decision in the
matter of transfer."
8 All. Mrs. Meghna Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
925

31. As seen above, the transfer
was purely on the administrative ground in
view of the pending complaint and
departmental
enquiry
against
first
respondent. When a complaint against the
integrity
of
an
employee
is
being
investigated, very often he is transferred
outside the concerned unit. That is
desirable from the point of view of the
administration as well as that of the
employee. The complaint with respect to
the first respondent was that he was
dominating the administration of the
District Judiciary, and the District Judge
had reported that his retention in the
district was undesirable, and also that
departmental
enquiries
were
pending
against him and other employees, with
respect
to
their
integrity.
In
the
circumstances the decision of the then
Chief Justice to transfer him outside that
district could not be faulted."

19. A Division Bench of this Court in
Dr. Anil Kumar Pradhan Vs State of
U.P.4 also affirmed the order of transfer
which was made on the basis of a
complaint by holding:-

"3. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned
Counsel for the petitioner submits that after
being selected through U.P. Public Service
Commission, the petitioner was appointed
on the post of Medical Officer on 14.2.1988
and while working as such, he was
promoted on the post of Senior Consultant
at S.S.P.G. District Hospital, Varanasi in
the month of September, 2009. He submits
that pursuant to the oral complaint being
moved by unknown person, opposite party
No. 6-Hon'ble Minister, Medical and
Health, U.P. Civil Secretariate, Lucknow,
summoned the petitioner, to which the
petitioner
tendered
his
explanation,
wherein it has been stated that the patient
was not operated prior to one month as his
hemoglobin was below 5% and as soon as
his hemoglobin was above 10%, he had
operated the patient. He submits that there
is no complaint ever made against the
petitioner in his 22 years of service.
Further, the impugned transfer order has
not been passed either in public interest or
in administrative exigency and as such, the
petitioner has been transferred merely on
the dictate of the Hon'ble Minister. He also
submits that it is the policy decision of the
Government that no one will be transferred
during financial year 2010-11.

16. One more important aspect of
the matter is that the government servant
does not have right not to comply with the
transfer order without there being any
interference or otherwise protection given
by the Court or by the superior authority
and to keep on filing petition after petition
challenging the order in the High Court.
Government servant can not claim that he
should be posted at a particular place for a
particular period. The transfer is an
incidence of service. The posting of
government servant by issuing transfer
order is a natural requirement in service
law. The transfer is effected keeping in
mind the exigency of service, and in public
interest or for administrative reasons. It is
the sole discretion of the appointing
authority to post the government servant at
any place where he/she is more required.
Of course, if transfer order has been
passed in violation of any statutory
Provision or Rule or is a result of mala fide
or bias of the authorities, then that can be
subjected to scrutiny by the Court but
unless the order so suffers, the High Court
will, normally, not interfere in the transfer
order.

17. In the instant case, there is
admittedly
a
complaint
against
the
petitioner. The petitioner fully knows about
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that complaint as is evident from the stand
taken in the writ petition itself. The plea of
the petitioner that he cannot be transferred
on such a complaint deserves to be rejected
outright. It may be mentioned that instead
of
initiating
disciplinary
proceedings
against the petitioner on the ground of a
charge of negligence in performing his
duties, he has only been required to be
transferred."

20. A learned Single Judge of this
Court while examining the issue of transfer
made on a complaint in (Writ-A No. 13262
of 2023 Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and
3
others)
laid
down
the
following
proposition of law:-

"9. From perusal of the aforesaid
judgment in the case of Anil Kumar Mishra
(supra), it clearly emerges that this Court
after considering various judgments of
Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as the
Division Bench of this Court has held that
unless the transfer order is vitiated by mala
fides or infraction of any professed norm of
principles governing the transfer, which
alone can be scrutinized judicially, there
are no judicially manageable standards for
scrutinizing all transfers and the Courts
lack the necessary expertise for personnel
management
of
all
government
departments. When a complaint against the
integrity of an employee is investigated,
very often he is transferred outside the
concerned unit which would be desirable
from the point of view of the administration
as well as that of the employee. A
Government Servant has no vested right to
remain posted at a place of his choice nor
can he insist that he be posted at one place
or the other. If there is a complaint against
the employee, the plea that the employee
cannot be transferred on such complaint
deserves to be rejected outrightly inasmuch
as on initiation of disciplinary proceedings
against the employee he can always be
transferred."

21. In the context of transfer it will be
apposite to extract the holding of the
Supreme Court rendered in N.K. Singh Vs
Union of India5:-

"22..... Transfer of a government
servant in a transferable service is a
necessary incident of the service career.
Assessment of the quality of men is to be
made by the superiors taking into account
several factors including suitability of the
person for a particular post and exigencies
of administration. Several imponderables
requiring formation of a subjective opinion
in that sphere may be involved, at times.
The only realistic approach is to leave it to
the wisdom of the hierarchical superiors to
make the decision. Unless the decision is
vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any
professed norm of principle governing the
transfer, which alone can be scrutinized
judicially,
there
are
no
judicially
manageable standards for scrutinizing all
transfers and the courts lack the necessary
expertise for personnel management of all
government departments. This must be left,
in public interest, to the departmental
heads subject to the limited judicial
scrutiny indicated."

22. The judgments discussed in the
preceding paragraphs squarely apply to the
facts
of
the
case.
Admittedly
the
functioning of the bank started getting
adversely affected on account of the
petitioner's conduct, frayed relations with
officials and other negative reports of her
performance. The Court is not examining
the merits or correctness of the complaints
or adverse material against the petitioner.
Suffice to say that the discretion to take
8 All. Tarun Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
927
disciplinary action for acts of misconduct
against an employee or to transfer such
employee on complaints lies with the
employer. The employer may also adopt
both the said options simultaneously in the
facts of a case. No hard and fast rule can be
laid down which will fetter discretion of the
employer. Each case will have to be judged
on its peculiar facts and circumstances and
it is for the employer to take a decision
after considering all relevant factors. In the
facts of this case it was open to the
respondent bank to transfer the petitioner to
another branch and provide her an
opportunity to perform better in a new
environment. The impugned order of
transfer cannot be faulted with. The transfer
order does not preclude the bank to
examine the veracity of the complaints
against petitioner in an enquiry, or to take
departmental action as per law.

23. Needless to add this Court had not
gone into the veracity of the complaints
against the petitioner or the allegations
made
by
her
against
her
superior
authorities. The findings of this Court are
confined to the legality of the transfer
order. This judgment is without prejudice
to the rights of the petitioner to defend
herself against the complaints, and in the
same breath the order does not fetter the
right of the employer to take out
appropriate
proceedings
against
the
petitioner as per law.

24. Transfer order does not warrant
any interference.

25. In the wake of the preceding
narrative the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed and is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 927
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ A No. 11427 of 2022
Connected with Other Cases

Tarun Chaudhary & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Atipriya
Gautam,
Dharmendra
Shukla,
Kabeer Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, Vinod Kumar
Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Aishwarya Pratap Singh, C.S.C.

Issue for consideration:
Whether the candidates can be debarred only
on the allegation that they have solved the
question papers in a very short time, which is
humanly impossible and where the whole
exercise of debarment is based upon the CRL
(Candidate Response Log Report, which means
complete video recording of candidates during
the examination period)?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Once there is no
complaint and no information about the
use of unfair means and nothing has been
recovered from the possession of the
candidates, only suspicion cannot be a
ground to cancel the candidature ruining
their career. (Para 50)

In the present case, for use of unfair means, no
rules have ever been framed, no procedure
regarding cancellation of candidature has ever
been informed to candidates and further, they
have also not been informed that they have to
solve the question paper in a particular time
bound manner. In fact, no compliant or any
adverse information has been received against
any of the petitioners and nothing has been
recovered from their possession. Prior to