Patna High Court
Amrendra JhaversusPunjab National Bank
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed; the order directing the petitioner to approach the alternative remedy stands.
Summary
Amrendra Jha challenged his compulsory retirement order passed by Punjab National Bank's disciplinary authority through a writ petition. The Single Judge, noting the availability of an alternative remedy before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court, directed the petitioner to approach that forum and set a 90‑day deadline for the bank to cooperate. The bank raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, relying on the Awadhesh Singh v. PNB judgment, while the petitioner argued that the matter had been pending since 2011 and should be decided on its merits. The appellant also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in M/S Utkal Highways Engineers v. Chief General Manager, contending that the High Court should not have relegated the petition to an alternative forum without adjudicating the merits. The Division Bench held that there was no perversity, unreasonableness, or inconsistency in the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging a disciplinary order is maintainable when an alternative remedy exists before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court.
- Whether the High Court erred in directing the petitioner to approach the alternative forum without deciding the merits of the writ petition.
- Whether the order of the Single Judge exhibits any perversity, unreasonableness, or inconsistency with law.
Subjects
- compulsory retirement
- disciplinary action
- writ jurisdiction
- alternative remedy
- industrial tribunal
- letters patent appeal
- maintainability
- perverse order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.197 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4888 of 2011
======================================================
Amrendra Jha S/O Sri Ugra Narayan Jha Resident of-At and P.O.- Sitapur,
Via-Balua Bazar, Police Station- Birpur, District - Supaul, Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank
2. Dy. General Manager, Appellate Authority, Human Resources Development
Division, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi.
3. Chief Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office
Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nalin Vilochan Tiwary, Adv.
Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Satyam, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv.
For the PNB : Mr. Suryakant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 01-04-2026
The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging
the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge
in CWJC No. 4888 of 2011. The writ petition was filed with a
prayer for quashing of the order dated 09.07.2010, passed by the
Dy. General Manager (Appellate Authority), Punjab National
Bank whereby and whereunder the appellate authority has
affirmed the order of punishment dated 08.04.2009, passed by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2025 dt.01-04-2026
2/6
the Chief Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Punjab National
Bank, Circle Office, Darbhanga whereby and whereunder the
petitioner has been awarded the punishment of compulsory
retirement.
2. When the matter was taken up on 20.01.2025, the
learned counsel for the Bank raised a preliminary objection
regarding maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that
there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner to
challenge such order before the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, and reliance has been placed on a
judgment of this Court in the case of Awadhesh Singh -Vrs.-
The Punjab National Bank & Ors., (CWJC No. 5753 of 2018)
which came to be disposed off on 21.02.2024 by holding as
follows:-
“4. Learned counsel for the
State, on the other hand, submits that the
petitioner has earlier moved before this
Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 5873 of 1997
which was decided in his favour on
24.08.2012 and subsequently, challenged
by the Bank in LPA No. 1847/2012 which
was dismissed vide order dated
31.03.2016 and on this ground that the
case of the petitioner has earlier looked
by the single Bench as well as by the
Division Bench, there is no need for him
to move before the Tribunal and this case
may be decided in the writ petition itself.”
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2025 dt.01-04-2026
3/6
when the matter was pending before this Court since 2011 and
the pleadings are complete; the Court should have adjudicated
the matter on its own merit rather than passing the impugned
order giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other
hand, submitted that the order was passed on consensus,
therefore, should not be interfered with.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, however,
submitted that there is no consensus to pass such order. For
ventilating his grievance, learned counsel has placed reliance on
a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
M/S Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors -Vrs.- Chief
General Manager & Ors., [Special Leave Petition (C) No.
15596 of 2022], which is held as follows:-
“Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for
the parties.
3. The order under challenge
dated 15.03.2022 is passed by the High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P.(C)
No.8037 of 2011 whereby the writ petition
filed by the appellant has been disposed
of by relegating the writ petitioner (i.e.,
the appellant herein) to avail alternative
remedy.
4. In the connected matter, the
order under challenge is dated
05.01.2022 passed by the same High
Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2025 dt.01-04-2026
4/6
Court whereby W.P.(C) No.16899 of 2010
filed by the appellant has been disposed
of by relegating the writ petitioner (i.e.,
the appellant herein) to pursue its remedy
before the authority.
5. The short submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant in both
the appeals is that the writ petitions were
filed in the year 2010, parties had
exchanged their affidavits, and the
matters were ripe for final disposal. In
these circumstances, without even
adverting to the facts borne out from the
affidavits exchanged by the parties, there
was no justification for the High Court to
relegate the appellant to avail other
remedies.
6. In the light of the aforesaid
submission, we put a specific question to
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned senior counsel
representing respondent, as to whether
parties had exchanged their affidavits in
the course of the writ proceedings.
7. Mr. K.M. Nataraj fairly
stated that the parties had exchanged
their affidavits. However, respondents had
taken a plea that writ petitions related to
a money claim, which had become barred
by time, therefore, writ petition was not
maintainable.
8. Be that as it may, the High
Court has not dealt with the merits of the
writ petition. Moreover, it is not an
inviolable rule that no money claim can
be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ
jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted
dues, inter alia, may be considered an
arbitrary action on the part of
respondents and for claiming the same, a
writ petition may lie. Further, throwing a
writ petition on ground of availability of
alternative remedy after 10 years,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2025 dt.01-04-2026
5/6
particularly, when parties have
exchanged their affidavits, is not the
correct course unless there are disputed
questions of fact which by their very
nature cannot be adjudicated upon
without recording formal evidence.
9. The High Court, in the
impugned orders, has not set out any
factual foundation of the kind which may
suggest that there were disputed questions
of fact that necessitated recording of
evidence.
10. In these circumstances, we
are of the view that the writ petition must
be restored for fresh adjudication by the
High Court. Consequently, we set aside
the order of the High Court and restore
the Writ Petition to its original number(s)
for fresh adjudication in accordance with
law.
11. The Civil Appeal is
disposed of in the above terms.
12. Pending application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of.”
6. There is no dispute that against the impugned order,
which was challenged before the writ Court, the alternative
remedy is available with the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and this fact could only be pointed
out when it was taken up on 20.01.2025. Consequently, the
learned Single Judge taking into account statutory alternative
remedy, besides that, there has already been delay on account of
the pendency of the matter before this Court, directed the
concerned Court to expedite the matter and to pass order within
Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2025 dt.01-04-2026
6/6
90 days with a further direction to the Bank to co-operate with
the proceedings and further directed that no unnecessary
adjournments is to be sought by the Bank. Therefore, on the face
of the order we do not find any perversity in the same.
7. A Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench
is the power which is exercised in the appellate jurisdiction by
the High Court as a Court of correcting the error, if any, and if
there is no evidence of any perversity, palpable,
unreasonableness or any inconsistency with any particular
position of law, the order cannot be interfered with in the
exercise of the appellate jurisdiction.
8. In view of such settled position of law, since we do
not find any perversity, we are not inclined to interfere with the
same. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…