ALL INDIA BANK OF BARODA OFFICERS' UNION vs UNION OF INDIA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
th
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 11356 OF 2026 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
1.
ALL INDIA BANK OF BARODA OFFICERS' UNION
(AFFILIATED TO AIBOA)
A TRADE UNION REGISTERED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926,
REGISTRATION NO. RTU/15/1998,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 110,
BHARTENDU NAGAR, KHATIPURA,
JAIPUR - 302012, RAJASTHAN.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
BY RESOLUTION OF MR. K. SRINIVASARAO
S/O SHRI SATYA NARAYAN,
AGED 65 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by PRAKASH N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
2. SHRI BHUSHAN ARORA
S/O NARENDRA KUMAR ARORA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
SENIOR MANAGER
(E.C.NO. 167459)
R/O NO. F-117, BLOCK B-14 BDA FLATS,
NEAR RAGHAVENRA SAI TEMPLE,
DOMLUR, BANGALORE NORTH,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 071
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LOKESH MISHRA, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,
JEEVAN DEEP, PARLIAMENT STREET,
NEW DELHI - 110 001
2.
BANK OF BARODA
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE,
C-26, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 051
3. BANK OF BARODA
REP. BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HR),
BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE,
C-26, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 051
4. BANK OF BARODA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,
BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE,
C-26, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 051
5. BANK OF BARODA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER AND
ZONAL HEAD, ZONAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU ZONE, SECOND FLOOR,
"VIJAYA TOWERS",

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
NO.41/2, TRINITY CIRCLE, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
6. THE CHIEF MANAGER & ZONAL HR
BANK OF BARODA, ZONAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU ZONE, SECOND FLOOR,
"VIJAYA TOWERS",
NO.41/2, TRINITY CIRCLE, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
7. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
BANK OF BARODA, ZOSARB,
BENGALURU ZONE, "VIJAYA TOWERS",
NO.41/2, TRINITY CIRCLE, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
8.
MS. K. BHAVANI
HRM DEPARTMENT
BANK OF BARODA, ZONAL OFFICE,
SECOND FLOOR, "VIJAYA TOWERS",
NO.41/2, TRINITY CIRCLE, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH MURTHY S. G., CGSC FOR R1;
SRI PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI,
QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED RELIEVING
ORDER DATED 17.03.2026 (ANNEXURE-E) ISSUED BY THE
BANK OF BARODA, ZONAL OFFICE BENGALURU ZONE I.E.
RESPONDENT NO.5, AS BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION,
UNSUPPORTED BY ANY VALID TRANSFER ORDER, VIOLATIVE
OF BINDING POLICIES AND THEREFORE VOID AB INITIO AND
ETC.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
09.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CAV ORDER
The present petition is filed by the All India Bank of
Baroda Officers Union (hereinafter referred to as "Officers
Union"), the first petitioner, as well as the employee the
second petitioner herein, challenging the order at
Annexure-E dated 17.03.2026 by virtue of which second
petitioner was transferred and relieved from his present
assignment with instructions to report to the Zonal Head,
Mangaluru Zone, for further placement in Zone-I. Certain
consequential relief was also sought for restoration of
petitioner no.2 at his original place of posting at
Bengaluru. Though other reliefs are also sought, in
essence the primary relief relates to validity of the order of
transfer at Annexure-E.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner no.2 is
the Joint Secretary of the petitioner Union and asserts that

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
he has been targeted in a malafide manner and the
impugned order of transfer is passed. It is submitted that
the petitioner while working at Zonal Stressed Assets
Recovery Branch (for short "ZOSARB"), Bengaluru, is
stated to have detected irregularities and reported the
same to the Higher Authorities and which issue was also
taken up by the petitioner Union.
3. The petitioner contends that the Government of
India issued guidelines dated 26.11.2024 which provides
for the transfer exercise to be conducted on objective
criteria such as tenure and seniority while avoiding mid-
year transfers.
4. It is further submitted that the respondent-Bank
had framed transfer policy dated 24.04.2025 and in terms
of Clause 7.1 (a) the "officer for Inter Zonal Transfer are
to be identified on the basis of 'longest stay' and objective
parameters". It is submitted that in the present case, no
such parameter has been followed.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
5. It is also contended that the impugned order at
Annexure-E was in effect a relieving order without any
separate order of transfer. It is further contended that the
transfer made is outside the regular transfer cycle and has
been effected without prior approval of the Chief General
Manager.
6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he
having come across grave and systemic irregularities
brought such irregularities to the notice of the Assistant
General Manager and instead of addressing such concerns
the employer has harassed the petitioner no.2 and in
order to victimise him for exposing irregularities,
allegations of "Leakage of Bank Information/Data" were
maliciously attributed to him and the arbitrary,
unreasonable action was taken against him with malafide
intent and have victimised him.
7. The respondent-Bank has contended that transfer
was effected due to administrative exigencies, which order

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
had the approval of the Chief General Manager. It is
specifically asserted that he was relieved by way of a
communication through Email dated 17.03.2026. It is
contended that the Bank of Baroda (Officers Service)
Regulations 1979, make provision for transfer of
employees and Regulation 47 provides for transfer of
every officer to any Branch of the Bank at any place in
India. It is further submitted that the policy of the Bank
is merely for guidance while Regulation 47 would have the
overriding effect.
8. It is also contended that the petitioner no.2 had
stayed away from work by seeking leave on health
grounds, the bank had advised him to be examined by the
Bank's Medical Practitioner at Bengaluru or at Mangaluru.
It is contended that the DFS Guidelines are in the nature
of Advisory Guidelines.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
9. Heard Sri.Lokesh Mishra appearing on behalf of
the petitioners and Sri.Pradeep Sawakar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
10. At the outset, it must be noticed that Regulation
47 provides for transfer of every officer to any office or
branch of the Bank to any place. Though learned counsel
for the petitioners has contended that the directions of the
Government as well as the Policies of the Bank provide for
certain additional safeguards, nevertheless the regulations
framed would have precedence over other policies.
11. If that were to be so, there has to be full effect
given to Regulation 47 which would supersede anything to
the contrary on more beneficial to the employee under the
Policy or Government directions.
12. It is also a settled position of law that transfer is
an incident of service and even if there are deviations from
guidelines or policies, the courts do not readily interfere

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
with exercise of power of transfer unless there is violation
of any statutory right or where malafides is made out.
13. Insofar as power conferred under Regulation 47,
the power to transfer is vested with the employer.
However, the counsel for the petitioner has made out a
case of malafides by contending that the order of transfer
at Annexure-E was passed on 17.03.2026 apparently
citing requirement of utilising services in Mangalore Zone,
which however was passed with oblique motive. It is
submitted that communication dated 16.03.2026 has been
addressed to the petitioner regarding “misuse of official
Email and unauthorised disclosure of confidential
information in violation of the extant policy of the Bank”.
The said communication details an allegation made
regarding the petitioner no.2 and a response to the show-
cause notice is sought. The said communication refers to
the following:
“ It has been observed that you have used
your Official Email ID to transmit bank’s

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
confidential and sensitive information to
external recipient(s) without any authority in
blatant violation of the extant guidelines and
policies of the Bank.
Your unwarranted action mentioned
hereinabove and transmission of the internal
sensitive information have exposed the bank to
reputational, regulatory and operational risk
and reflect grave disregard to the standard
parameter of conduct to be maintained by an
Officer, who has to adhere integrity, probity
and confidentiality being one of the paramount
yardsticks, while working in the bank”.
14. The petitioner was called upon to make out
his reply.
15. In the context of such show-cause notice the
power of transfer has been exercised.
16. The petitioner has specifically in his writ petition
has contended at Para 44 that the power of transfer was
exercised with a predetermined mindset to victimise the

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
petitioner for having exposed irregularities. Such assertion
of malafides is also found in the pleading at para 47
and 48.
17. The second petitioner has been sending
communications to the bank regarding non-adjustment of
NPA recoveries, variation in value, dates of auction
proceeds etc. All such communications are found at
Annexure-K series.
18. It is the contention of the petitioner no.2 that it
is in the context of such repeated communications of the
petitioner no.2 that the show-cause notice dated
16.03.2026 appears to have been given. The
contemporaneous issue of transfer order on 17.03.2026 in
the light of show-cause notice dated 16.03.2026 cannot be
treated to be without any nexus.
19. The action complained of is sought to be assailed
on the ground of malafides where order is passed with an
oblique intent.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
20. In the case of Ms. X v. Registrar General,
1
High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another , it is held
as under:
"64. This Court has held that normally an
order of transfer, which is an incident of
service should not be interfered with, unless it
is found that the same is malafide. It has
been held that malafide is of two kinds - one
"malice in fact" and the second "malice in law".
When an order is not based on any factor
germane for passing an order of transfer and
based on an irrelevant ground, such an order
would not be sustainable in law."
In light of the same, it could be stated that the order
of transfer is vitiated by malice in law.
21. The respondent-Bank has not been able to
substantiate that the transfer has no nexus with the show-
cause notice dated 16.03.2026. Once an allegation is
made supported by the Email of 16.03.2026 which is
1
(2022) 14 SCC 187

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59122
WP No. 11356 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010244842026
contemporaneous to the order of transfer, it is the duty of
the Bank to have dispelled the allegation of oblique
motive.
22. Though an order of transfer may be apparently
premised on administrative exigency where there is an
element of malice, the power though appears to be a
legitimate exercise of power could still be interfered with
when there is malice and malafides.
23. Accordingly, the court finds that the order of
transfer passed on 17.03.2026 i.e., one day after the
show-cause notice dated 16.03.2026 is vitiated by
malafides and liable to be set aside.
24. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-'E' is set
aside and the petition is allowed in part.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
NP