Patna High Court
Vikash KumarversusInstitute of Banking Personnel Selection
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The suspension order is appealable under Regulation 17, and the petitioner must avail the appellate remedy; consequently, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Summary
Vikash Kumar, selected by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) for a Probation Officer post, joined UCO Bank but was later suspended following an IBPS inquiry. He filed a writ petition under Articles 32/226 challenging both the suspension and IBPS's actions, claiming IBPS was functus officio after selection. The bank argued that the suspension is an appealable order under its Regulation 17 and that the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority. IBPS relied on a Supreme Court decision (Rajbir Surajbhan Singh v. Chairman IBPS) that writs against it are not maintainable. The Patna High Court held that the suspension is indeed appealable, directed the petitioner to file an appeal within 45 days, and dismissed the writ petition, while leaving open the possibility of challenging IBPS actions before the appropriate authority.
Issues considered
- The writ petition challenging the suspension is maintainable when the suspension is an appealable order under bank service regulations.
- Whether a writ can be filed against IBPS under Articles 32/226 in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajbir Surajbhan Singh v. Chairman IBPS.
- The appropriate remedy for the petitioner – filing an appeal before the designated appellate authority.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 32
Subjects
- writ petition
- suspension
- appeal
- service regulations
- IBPS
- UCO Bank
- Article 226
- functus officio
- appellate remedy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1694 of 2026
======================================================
Vikash Kumar Son of Deepak Kumar, C/o Ram Jivan Prasad, R/O Village-
Ratanpura Baradari, Near Bhar ki Masjid, P.S.-Bhagwan Bazar, District-
chhapra (Bihar) presently residing at C/O -Sachin Ghosh, Purani Thakurbari
Road, Behind Mandal Kara Banka, P.S. and District -Banka (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection Through its Director, IBPS House,
90 Feet Road, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400101.
2. The Director, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, IBPS House, 90 Feet
Road, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400101.
3. The Division Head (Administration), Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection, IBPS House, 90 Feet Road, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai-400101.
4. UCO Bank through its Managing Director and Chief Executive officer, Head
Office 10 BTM Sarani, Kolkata-700001.
5. The Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, UCO Bank, Head
Office 10 BTM Sarani, Kolkata- 700001.
6. The General Manager, HRM, PSD, OL and Training, UCO Bank, Head
Offfice 10 BTM Sarani, Kolkata- 700001.
7. The Assistant General Manager and Zonal Head, Zonal Office, UCO Bank,
SK Tarafdar Road, Adampur, Bhagalpur-812001.
8. The Manager, UCO Bank Subhanpur Branch (2477), P.S.-Amarpur, District-
Banka (Bihar).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, Advocate
For UCO Bank : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Roy, Advocate
For IBPS : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-05-2026
Heard learned Counsel for petitioner, learned
Counsel for UCO Bank and learned Counsel for Institute of
Banking Personnel Selection are present.
2. The present I.A No. 1 of 2026 has been filed for
Patna High Court CWJC No.1694 of 2026 dt.11-05-2026
2/8
vacating the interim order dated 05.02.2026 passed in the
present writ petition by which the suspension order dated
10.11.2025, which was triggered consequent to the inquiry made
by respondent Institute of Banking Personnel Selection was
stayed.
3. Upon the specific inquires from the parties, it
transpires to this Court that counter-affidavit has been filed by
all concerned in the present writ petition. Therefore, this Court
deem it appropriate not to pass any order on I.A. instead thereof,
this Court prefers to pass order on merit itself due to the reason
that the pleading has already been completed.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has appeared in the examination of the Probation
Officer conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection (hereinafter referred to as the I.B.P.S.) and after his
successful selection, he has joined U.C.O Bank. Counsel
submits that once selection process has been completed and his
name was recommended for selection then the I.B.P.S. become
the functus officio. He submits that the said respondent has no
right to scrutinize or review its own decision particularly when
result was published and petitioner’s joining has been accepted
by the concerned Bank, who is contesting respondent in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1694 of 2026 dt.11-05-2026
3/8
present writ petition. Learned Counsel further submits that since
the action of I.B.P.S. is functus officio, then any action on the
request of I.B.P.S. by the bank is also absolutely illegal and not
be permissible in the eye of law and it is due to this reason the
petitioner has challenged both the action of I.B.P.S. as well as
the suspension order issued by respondent Bank. The Counsel
for the Bank and I.B.P.S. submit that this Hon’ble Court vide
order dated 05.02.2026 has granted interim protection staying
the order of suspension of the petitioner.
5. Learned Counsel for the Bank, on the other hand,
submits that petitioner is admittedly joined the service of the
Bank and service rule of the Bank is applicable on him. He
submits that Regulation 17 of the Bank talks about appeal.
Under regulation, the order of suspension is an appealable order
but the petitioner in spite of moving before the appellate forum
has moved before this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, this writ
petition is not maintainable.
6. Learned Counsel for I.B.P.S. submits that this
Hon’ble Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
categorically held in the various decisions including the decision
of Rajbir Surajbhan Singh Vs. The Chairman Institute of
Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai, in Civil Appeal No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1694 of 2026 dt.11-05-2026
4/8
4455/2019 (arising out of S.L.P © No. 18201/2015) decided by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 29th April, 2019 that the writ
petition under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India is
not maintainable against the Institute of Banking Personnel and
Selection. He submits that petitioner has challenged the
correspondence made by the I.B.P.S. with the UCO Bank which
may not be the subject to challenge in the writ petition.
7. This Court upon hearing the parties, finds that
admittedly petitioner is the employee of Bank and under the
service regulation, it is well within the employer to take action
against the employee, but completely according to the service
Rule. It is also admitted that both petitioner as well as the Bank
are guided by the established service rule and Regulation 17 of
the Uco Bank Officer Employes’ (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1976 states as follows:
“ 17. Appeals: (Circular No.-
CHO/POS/4/2005 dated : 25.01.2005)
(1) An officer employee may prefer
an appeal to the Appellate Authority within
forty five (45) days from the date of receipt
of the order imposing upon him any of the
penalties specified in regulation 4 or against
the order of suspension referred to in
regulation 12.
Provided that the Appellate
Patna High Court CWJC No.1694 of 2026 dt.11-05-2026
5/8
Authority may entertain the appeal after the
expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that
the appellant had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal in time.
(2) An appeal shall be preferred to
the Appellate Authority with a copy being
forwarded by the appellant to the Authority
which made the order appeal against. It
shall contain all material statements and
arguments on which the appellant relies but
shall not contain any disrespectful or
improper language, and shall be complete in
itself.
(3) The authority which made the
order appealed against shall, on receipt of a
copy of the appeal from the Appellant,
forward the same with its comments thereon
together with the relevant records to the
Appellate Authority within a period not
exceeding forty five (45) days from the date
of the receipt of the appeal.
(4) The Appellate Authority shall
on receipt of the comments and records of
the case from the authority whose order is
appealed against, consider whether the
order of suspension/findings are justified or
whether the penalty excessive or inadequate
and pass appropriate orders. The Appellate
Authority may pass an order confirming,
enhancing, reducing or setting aside the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1694 of 2026 dt.11-05-2026
6/8
penalty/suspension or remitting the case to
the authority which imposed the penalty or
to any other authority with such directions
as it may deem fit the circumstances of the
case:
Provided that-
(i) If the enhanced penalty which
the Appellate Authority proposed to impose
is a major penalty specified in clauses (f),
(g), (h), (i) and (j) of regulation 4 and an
inquiry as provided in regulation 6 has not
already been held in the case, the Appellate
Authority shall direct that such an enquiry
be held in accordance with the provisions of
regulation 6 and thereafter consider the
record of the inquiry and pass such orders as
it may deem proper;
(ii) If the Appellate Authority
decides to enhance the punishment but an
enquiry has already been held as provided in
regulation 6, the Appellate Authority shall
give a show cause notice to the officer
employee as to why the enhanced penalty
should not be imposed upon him and shall
pass final order after taking into account the
representation, if any, submitted by the
officer employee.
(5) The Appellate Authority shall
dispose of the appeal within a period of
ninety (90) days from the date of its receipt
Patna High Court CWJC No.1694 of 2026 dt.11-05-2026
7/8
from the Appellant:
Provided that the time limit
specified in this regulation shall not apply to
case having a vigilance angle and where
major/minor penalty proceedings against the
officer employee have commenced on
recommendations of the Police or Central
Bureau of Investigations or Central
Vigilance Commission, as the case may be,
investigating the matter.
(6) The cases lying pending over
ninety (90) days shall be reviewed
periodically by the Appellate Authority and
reasons for non-disposal of the cases shall
be recorded in writing.
8. It transpires to this Court that under Regulation 17
the order of suspension is an appealable order, therefore, this
Court hereby directs the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal
and the writ petition is not maintainable against the Bank at this
juncture.
9. So far as the challenge of the petitioner against the
I.B.P.S. is concerned, this Court still keep open this question for
the petitioner to challenge at the relevant time before the
relevant authority, but the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, mentioned above, shall be the guideline for the
purpose of deciding the factor before any other authority/forum.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1694 of 2026 dt.11-05-2026
8/8
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off with
liberty granted to the petitioner that he may challenge the order
of suspension before the appellate authority within 45 days from
today.
11. Further liberty is hereby granted that the petitioner
shall also move before the said appellate authority for stay of his
suspension and the protection granted to the petitioner by this
Hon’ble Court vide order dated 05.02.2026 shall continue only
and only the day on which the appellate authority shall take
decision on his stay.
12. It is made clear that this protection shall not be
any barrier in passing order for the appellate authority to take
decision on the stay for which this Court has directed him to
pass order. I.A, if any, shall stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.05.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.