The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner’s transfer from Indore to the Satna Branch of Punjab & Sind Bank. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, referring to Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, held that although psychological stress is a sympathetic consideration, personal inconvenience or domestic difficulties cannot override administrative requirements.
The case stemmed from the petitioner’s claim that his transfer was retaliatory and issued after a workplace harassment complaint and caste-based insults by a senior officer. He further highlighted his wife’s high-risk pregnancy and his own psychological condition, claiming the transfer would cause undue hardship.
The Bank, on the other hand, countered that the transfer was a routine intra-zone posting under the 2025-26 Transfer Policy and the Officers’ Service Regulations, asserting that the petitioner had remained around Indore for six years and could not selectively object now. They contended that the allegations of mala fide were unsustainable since the petitioner did not implead the concerned officer in a personal capacity, which is mandatory in law for such claims.
The Court held that transfer is an inherent condition of service under the Punjab & Sind Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1982, which give the Bank absolute authority to transfer officers anywhere in India. The Court observed that the Transfer Policy guidelines are directory, not mandatory, especially in view of the non obstante clause allowing the Bank to transfer any officer at any time for administrative reasons.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (1994) 6 SCC 98, and State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402, the Court reiterated that judicial interference in transfer matters is extremely limited and permissible only upon proof of mala fide or violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner failed to produce substantive material proving malice, and his medical and personal difficulties, though sympathetic, could not override administrative requirements.
Finding no illegality or mala fide, and noting that several others had also been transferred on administrative grounds, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the transfer order dated 19 June 2025.
Appearance:
Shri Vishal Baheti, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Poorva Mahajan appeared for the petitioner.
Shri Devaasheesh Dubey appeared for Punjab & Sind Bank.
