Patna High Court
Abhiraj KumarversusThe Indian Bank
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, with the court directing the bank's appellate authority to hear and decide the pending appeal within three months.
Summary
Abhiraj Kumar, a former officer of Indian Bank, challenged a disciplinary order that removed him from service. He filed an appeal under Regulation 17(1) of the Indian Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 on 28‑11‑2024, but the appeal remained pending beyond the 90‑day period prescribed. He sought a writ directing the bank to conclude the appeal, restrain the forfeiture of his gratuity, and grant other reliefs. The bank contended that the appeal was pending and asked the court to clarify whether it could intervene. The Patna High Court held that since the petitioner had availed the alternative remedy of filing an appeal, the writ could not substitute for it, but the court could direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the court disposed of the writ, ordering the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal within three months, and dismissed the request for restraining the gratuity forfeiture.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can intervene and direct the bank's appellate authority to decide a pending appeal under Regulation 17(1) of the Indian Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.
- Whether a writ relief to restrain execution of the gratuity forfeiture is maintainable when the aggrieved employee has already filed an appeal under the bank's internal regulations.
Subjects
- writ petition
- disciplinary action
- removal from service
- appeal
- Regulation 17
- Indian Bank
- procedural fairness
- alternative remedy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.351 of 2026
======================================================
Abhiraj Kumar Son of Late Hansraj Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-
Chhoti Mahuli, District- Munger, Bihar, 811202.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Indian Bank Through Chief General Manager, (HRM) 254-260 Corp.
Off. Avvai Shanmugam, Salai, Roypettah, Chennai 600014.
2. The General Manager (HR), Indian Bank (254-260 Corp.Off. Avvai
Shanmugam, Salai, Roypettah, Chennai 600014).
3. The Deputy General Manager-cum-Appellate Authority, Indian Bank, Indian
Bank (254-260 Corp. Off. Avvai Shanmugam, Salai, Roypettah, Chennai
600014).
4. The Assistant General Manager/ Special Disciplinary Authority, Indian Bank
(254-260 Corp. Off. Avvai Shanmugam, Salai, Roypettah, Chennai 600014).
5. The Assistant General Manager (HRM), Indian Bank HRM Settlement
Section, Indian Bank (254-260 Corp. Off. Avvai Shanmugam, Salai,
Roypettah, Chennai 600014).
6. The Assistant General Manager/ Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office,
Berhampore (West Bengal).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/Indian Bank : Mr. Dr. Binod Kumar Jha
Mr. Devendra Pd., Advoate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 02-02-2026 The petitioner has filed this writ application for
following relief/s:-
“(I) For conclusion of the Appeal
dated 28.11.2024 filed by the petitioner in
the matter of an appeal under Regulation
17(1) of the Indian Bank Officer Employees
(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976
against the final orders of the Assistant
General Manager (HRM) Disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.351 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
2/4
Authority concluding the departmental
proceeding in respect of the charge sheet no.
CO/HRM/ IRC/ 79917/ 2023-24 dated
29.01.2024 on 18.10.2024 whereby imposing
on him the major penalty of Removal from
service which shall ordinarily not be a
disqualification for future employments”.
The period of suspension under
gone by Mr. Abhiraj Kumar (the CSO) will
be treated as one on suspension (non-duty)
only's in absence of reasonable opportunity
for defending his claim and showing
bonafidy. Whereas reasonable opportunity is
an elementary, basic and mandatory law and
alone on reasons entire proceeding was
vitiated and order of punishment void ab-
initio and otherwise bad in eyes of law.
(II) For directing the respondent
the Assistant General Manager (HRM)
Indian Bank, Head Office to restrain the
execution/implementation of the letter Ref.
CO/HRM/IRC/ 79917/ 2023-24 dated
01.01.2025 whereby payment and forfeiting
of gratuity and other terminal benefit, till the
disposal of the Appeal which should have to
be disposed of within 90 days from the date
of receipt of the Application of the aforesaid
Appeal in terms of Regulation 17(5) of the
Indian Bank Officer Employee (Discipline &
Appeal) Regulation 1976.
Patna High Court CWJC No.351 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
3/4
(III) For that necessary
relief/reliefs for which he is entitled on basis
of facts and circumstances described herein
after.”
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
referring to the prayer made in the writ application submits that
the petitioner has preferred an appeal in terms of Regulation
17(1) of the Indian Bank Officer Employees (Discipline &
Appeal) Regulations, 1976 on 28.11.2024 against the final order
dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Assistant General Manager
(HRM)/Disciplianry Authority, which is still pending although
the same is required to have been decided within 90 days from
the date of filing of the appeal. He further confines his prayer to
the extent that the appeal may be directed to be decided and
disposed of within a reasonable time.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent-Bank submits that he would be required an
instruction in this regard whether such appeal, as contended by
the petitioner, is filed before the appellate authority or not and
even if it is filed, a direction may be passed to dispose of the
appeal within a reasonable time.
4. Having regard to the submission advanced by the
learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that
Patna High Court CWJC No.351 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
4/4
since the petitioner has availed the alternative remedy by way
of filing an appeal and the same is pending consideration before
the appellate authority, it would be appropriate, at this stage, to
dispose of the writ application directing the appellate authority
to hear and decide the appeal of the petitioner, in accordance
with law, after affording ample opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
5. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U
Checking your session…