Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9395 of 2019 Petitioner :- Deepak Sadana Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner is a Branch Manager in IDBI Bank. He has approached this Court by challenging an order of transfer passed against him. A further prayer is made to direct the authorities to conduct a CBI enquiry or enquiry by an Enforcement Directorate so as to save the Bank from financial mismanagement and loss of public exchequer.
An objection is taken by Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, appearing for the respondents, to the maintainability of the writ petition.
So far as the grievance with regard to the order of transfer is concerned, this Court need not examine the issue inasmuch as learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that IDBI is an authority notified under Section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Petitioner, therefore, can raise his grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal. This petition against the order of transfer, therefore, would not be entertained keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and other, reported in AIR 197 SC 1125. The other relief appears to have been introduced in this petition with an object to have the writ petition itself entertained, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy before the Tribunal.
The clubbing of two reliefs in the manner as has been done in the present writ petition does not inspire confidence. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner has raised any grievance before any of the investigating agencies in respect of the cause for which he has directly approached this Court and has prayed for issuance of a direction to hold a CBI enquiry. It is always open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority in respect of such grievance and a writ petition directly for such relief is not liable to be entertained, particularly as the Court is of the opinion that such prayer has been added only with a specific intent to have the writ petition entertained. The fact that all the illegality in the Bank are being highlighted only when he has been transferred creates a serious doubt upon the intent of petitioner itself.
Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Anil