Specialization Cannot Be Used as a Tool for Harassment: Allahabad High Court Quashes Mid-Term Transfer of Law Officer for Violating Bank's Transfer Policy

“Specialization of an employee should not be used as a tool against him... if employees are given a conducive atmosphere, it may enhance the productivity of the institution” – Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed a mid-term transfer of a Senior Manager (Law), Scale-III Officer of Indian Bank, terming the repeated and unjustified transfer as arbitrary and violative of the Bank's own transfer policy.

The Court emphasized that administrative convenience cannot override policy compliance and humane considerations, especially when it results in frequent dislocations without demonstrated necessity.

Frequent Transfers Without Exigency Defeat the Purpose of a Transfer Policy

The Court began its judgment by scrutinizing the frequency and timing of the transfer orders. Petitioner Shubham Bhargava, a specialized legal officer, had been transferred thrice within a short span, including the latest one from Bahraich (U.P.) to Salem (Tamil Nadu) — a relocation of over 2,000 kilometers — within just two months of his previous posting.

The Bench held:

“Frequent mid-term transfers without justifiable exigency violate the Bank’s own transfer policy and warrant interference.”

Referring to Clause 1.3 of the Transfer Policy, which prescribes a normal tenure of three years at one place, and Clause 1.6, which states that all transfers should ideally be concluded by June 30 each year, the Court found the impugned July 2025 transfer order violative of these provisions.

Court Condemns Mechanical Rejection of Grievances by Bank

Interestingly, the petitioner had moved multiple writ petitions earlier, all of which were disposed with directions to the bank to reconsider the grievances as per Clause 26 of the policy. Despite this, the Bank merely reiterated earlier grounds in rejecting the petitioner’s appeals.

Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed:

“Reiterating the same ground, the decision has been taken by the Bank while rejecting the request of the petitioner... the Bank authorities have failed to consider the request... in terms and conditions as provided in the transfer policy.”

The Court held such non-application of mind to be a serious lapse, particularly in light of two prior High Court orders requiring fresh consideration.

Specialization Must Not Become a Liability

In a powerful observation, the Court condemned the misuse of the petitioner’s legal expertise as a pretext for arbitrary relocation:

“Specialization of an employee should not be used as a tool against him... if he is being transferred from one place to another, in an unpleasant situation, perhaps his skill being specialist would have no avail.”

The judgment stresses the importance of balancing institutional interests with the well-being of employees, and that specialized professionals should not be punished for their skills through unfair transfers.

The Court noted that Clause 5.5 of the transfer policy also requires linguistic compatibility in postings — a condition blatantly ignored in posting the officer to Tamil Nadu, where communication with customers would be hindered due to language barriers.

Transfer Is an Incident of Service — But Not Beyond Policy and Fairness

While Regulation 47 of the Indian Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, 1979 empowers the bank to transfer officers anywhere in India, the Court clarified that such discretion is not unguided. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated:

“Transfer can only be interfered with if the same is hit with malice, is frequent, arbitrary or contrary to the applicable policy.”

In this case, each of those grounds were satisfied — frequent relocation, mid-term transfer, non-consideration of hardship, and complete disregard of policy clauses.

In view of the clear policy violation and hardship, the Court passed the following operative directions:

• Quashed the transfer order dated 18.07.2025, the relieving order dated 05.08.2025, and the appellate rejection order dated 10.11.2025.

• Directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within 15 days.

• Ordered the competent authority to decide the representation within six weeks strictly as per law and the Bank’s policy.

• Stayed the operation of the transfer order until such decision is taken.

Importantly, the Court noted the personal hardship faced by the petitioner, whose wife is also a bank officer posted in Kanpur, and found that the family dislocation aspect had been entirely overlooked.

This judgment reinforces a crucial principle in service jurisprudence — that transfer powers must not be exercised in a mechanical or oppressive manner, especially in specialized cadres like law officers.

The Court has sent a strong message to public institutions, particularly nationalized banks, that internal policies are not mere guidelines but binding commitments, and deviation without cogent reason will invite judicial correction.

Date of Decision: December 19, 2025