A transfer outside the prescribed period without compelling justification is liable to be set aside.

The petitioner, a Senior Branch Manager of the Tehri Garhwal District Co-operative Bank, was transferred from the Gaza Branch to the Lambgaon Branch on 23 July 2026.

That order was set aside in an earlier writ petition, with liberty reserved to the competent authority to decide whether he should continue on attachment at Gaza Branch.

On 7 August 2026, his attachment was cancelled and he was brought back to the Bank’s Head Office.

On 25 September 2026, he was transferred from the Head Office to Lambgaon Branch.

He challenged that order, contending that the Bank’s Transfer Policy permitted transfers of Branch Managers/Senior Branch Managers only up to 31 May and that he had been singled out.

The Bank relied on complaints, including one concerning the non-availability of a computer at a co-operative society’s office.

The Court found that complaint contained no allegation about the petitioner’s work, conduct or performance as Senior Branch Manager

1. Whether the petitioner’s transfer to Lambgaon Branch on 25 September 2026 was contrary to the Bank’s Transfer Policy, which limited transfers of Branch Managers/Senior Branch Managers to the period ending 31 May

2. Whether the transfer was justified by the complaints relied on by the Bank, or was otherwise unsupported and liable to be set aside

The Court applied the Bank’s applicable Transfer Policy, as described in the judgment, under which Branch Managers and Senior Branch Managers could be transferred only up to 31 May of a given year.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent. It proceeded on the basis that a transfer must be supported by a proper reason and comply with the applicable policy; the Court assessed the Bank’s stated justification against the contents of the complaint before it

The petitioner was transferred in late September, after the stated transfer period, and less than two months after being returned to the Head Office.

The complaint produced by the Bank concerned the absence of a computer at a society’s office and made no allegation against the petitioner’s work, conduct or performance.

The Court concluded that the complaint disclosed no compelling reason for transferring him again to Lambgaon and that the timing and circumstances indicated that the transfer required intervention

It left the competent authority at liberty to transfer the petitioner in the next transfer year in accordance with the applicable Policy.

The writ petition was disposed of on those terms