G.Chennakesavulu, v. State Bank Of India,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28403 OF 2017 ORDER:

It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working in respondent Bank, he was transferred from Markapur branch to Peddaraveedu Branch in the year 2012 and again after some time, he was transferred from Peddaraveedu branch to Markapur branch by letter dated 07.03.2013. Thereafter, by letter dated 17.04.2015, the respondent bank transferred the petitioner from Markapur main branch to Pamur branch and again by letter dated 20.05.2015 transferred the petitioner to Cumbum branch. Questioning the action of the respondent bank, in transferring him from Markapur Branch to Cumbum branch, petitioner filed WP.No.17120 of 2015 and this Court granted interim suspension in WP.MP.No.22205/2015, dated 16.06.2015. Against the order dated 16.06.2015, the respondent bank filed WA.No.

768/2015 and the Division Bench of this Court disposed the said writ appeal on 18.08.2015 by setting aside the order passed on 13.08.2015 extending the earlier interim order by further period of four weeks. However, granted liberty to the petitioner herein to approach the competent superior authority and submit representation.

Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are ended by imposing punishment of 'Be Warned' vide proceedings dated 07.06.2016. After completion of disciplinary proceedings the petitioner submitted several representations requesting to transfer him to his native place, but the respondents did not consider the same. The petitioner again on 15.09.2016, made representation to

the 3rd respondent to consider his claim for transfer from Cumbum branch to Markapur as per the Chapter-16 of Transfer Police and Redeployment of Staff. But, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement and is entitled for relief in terms of circulars issued by the respondent bank. Heard Sri BS.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the grievance of the petitioner is already been pending before the respondent bank, without expressing any opinion on merits, the respondents are directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.09.2016, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J 24.08.2017 tk