Bank Of India Violated Its Own Transfer Policy: P&H High Court Slams Bank For Transferring Married Woman With Child Away From Husband
The Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized the Bank of India's actions, stating that the bank had violated its own policy by transferring the petitioner from Chandigarh to Rajkot, ignoring her family circumstances. The Court condemned the bank's harsh and mechanical approach, highlighting that the officials had acted in a ruthless manner towards a married woman with a young child. The petitioner, through a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, sought directions from the court to the respondents. The petitioner had submitted her resignation on December 13, 2018, which the respondents refused to accept. The refusal was based on a memorandum where the respondents initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner due to her absence from duty. The petitioner had been transferred from Chandigarh to Rajkot, despite the bank's policy specifying that married female employees should be placed where their husbands are stationed or nearby.
A Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal criticized bank’s behaviour and said, “The respondents firstly in violation of its Policy transferred the petitioner from Chandigarh to Rajkot and adding to the woes did not accept her resignation. The approach adopted by the bank seems to be harsh, pedantic and highly technical. It appears that the authorities have acted in a very mechanical and ruthless manner. The conduct of the officials dealing with this matter needs to be deprecated. The respondent-bank is not supposed to behave in the manner in which they have behaved with a married woman having child of few months.”
Advocate Ramesh Kumar (Legal Aid Counsel) appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate R.N. Lohan appeared for the Respondents.
The petitioner, a married woman with a child, was unable to join at Rajkot due to her family situation and had repeatedly requested the respondents to cancel the transfer order. When her requests were ignored, she submitted her resignation. The respondents argued that her resignation could not be accepted as she had not submitted the resignation letter at Rajkot and that the Head Office had already rejected her resignation.
The Court found that the bank had violated its own policy by transferring the petitioner from Chandigarh to Rajkot, disregarding her family circumstances. The Court said, “It is well known fact that in our country, it is very difficult to get Government job, thus, it cannot be accepted that anyone is going to resign at his/her own free will. The petitioner was transferred ignoring the fact that she is a married woman, her husband is working at Chandigarh and she had delivered a child few months back prior to the date of transfer. Paragraph 2.5 of the Policy specifically provides that a married woman shall be placed at the working place of the husband or nearby to that place.”
The Court added, “The petitioner offered resignation because it was impossible for her to join at Rajkot. The stand of the respondents is that petitioner was required to join at Rajkot prior to filing resignation is totally baseless when it could be accepted by Head Office. Merely joining at Rajkot had not changed the facts and figure. The petitioner is not entitled to pension so no prejudice is going to cause to the respondent if resignation is accepted without compelling petitioner to join at Rajkot. The impugned memorandum is outcome of baseless opinion of the respondents”
The Court thus allowed the petition and quashed the memorandum. The bank was given a deadline of two weeks to reconsider and pass a fresh order on the resignation.
Cause Title: Chandani v. Bank Of India & Ors., [2023:PHHC:129052]
Click here to read/download Order
