The Tripura High Court has quashed the transfer of Tripura Gramin Bank Chief Manager who was shifted to another branch after he refused to relax mandatory KYC requirements for a joint account held by the State Labour Secretary and his son, holding that the transfer was punitive and violated principles of natural justice.

Justice S. Datta Purkayastha held that the transfer order was punitive in nature as it contained adverse remarks about Chief Manager efficiency, behaviour and professional competence without issuing him a prior show cause notice or conducting an inquiry.

The High Court observed that the Bank own records established that the customer's demand for an immediate personalised cheque book and acceptance of KYC documents signed by his father on behalf of his major son were neither permissible nor feasible under the applicable banking requirements.

"It is fact that the contents of the said transfer order as indicated above itself indicates that said order was a punishment transfer with aspersion on the efficiency, behavior and skill of the petitioner in discharging his official duty noting that he failed to maintain standard of courtesy, promptness and professionalism; but before issuance of such transfer order neither any show cause notice was issued to him nor any enquiry was done by the Bank which is gross violation of principle of natural justice.

Even, said minutes in the form of confidential visit report prepared on 27.08.2026 itself shows that the Bank delegation clarified the stringent regulatory framework made by Reserve Bank of India that KYC documents are required to be signed by the customer concerned and they also explained...that regarding personalized cheque book, branch level printing was not available and all personalized requests are being processed through a centralized facility in Jalandhar, Punjab, requiring up to 7 working days for delivery of cheque book. Thus, it is evident from above said document that the request for instant personalized cheque book, signing of KYC documents by father on behalf major son were not permissible or feasible as per Bank norms and such regulation was indomitable and unrelaxable".

The petitioner was serving as Chief Manager (Scale IV) at Tripura Gramin Ban's Agartala Branch.

On August 26, 2026, Secretary to the Labour Department, Government of Tripura visited the branch seeking a personalised cheque book for a joint account held by him and his son.

Petitioner informed him that the cheque book would take time as personalised cheque books were processed through a centralised facility in Jalandhar, Punjab. He also insisted that the KYC documents of secretary's major son be signed by the son himself rather than his father.

According to Petitioner, he also offered to send bank staff to Secretary residence to obtain his son's signature. However, the Bank subsequently alleged that petitioner had displayed an indifferent attitude and provided poor customer service to the senior government official.

On September 9, 2026, Bank transferred Petitioner to its Poangbari Branch with immediate effect citing administrative exigencies and lapses in customer service. Petitioner challenged the order contending that he had merely insisted on compliance with banking requirements.

The Bank defended the transfer by alleging that his conduct had caused serious displeasure to the customer and affected its reputation. It also relied on its powers under Section 74(1) of the Tripura Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010.

Allowing the petition, the High Court noted that the Bank's own confidential visit report dated August 27, 2026 recorded that KYC documents had to be signed by the concerned account holder and that personalised cheque books required processing through a centralised facility which could take up to seven working days.

The Court observed that these banking requirements were mandatory and could not be relaxed merely at the customer request.

It further noted that neither the transfer order nor the subsequent show cause notice specified what particular misconduct or poor customer service had been committed by the petitioner.

The Court held that transferring the officer without prior notice or inquiry while making adverse observations about his professional conduct amounted to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Court reiterated that although transfer is ordinarily an incident of service, an order passed in lieu of punishment is liable to be set aside. It further observed that the transfer was arbitrary and punitive particularly when no fault or deficiency on the petitioner's part had been established.

Rejecting the Bank's objection that the petitioner should have first approached the departmental appellate authority, the High Court held that the availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the transfer order dated September 9, 2026 and directed the Bank to allow Petitioner to rejoin its Agartala Branch within seven days. It also directed the Bank to regularise his unauthorised absence and pay wages for the relevant period upon submission of his leave application.

Counsel for Petitioner: P. Roy Barman, Senior Advocate assisted by Kawsik Nath, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondents: Prabir Saha, Advocate.