Bombay High Court
BANK OF INDIAversusUNION OF INDIA
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s order directing disciplinary action against the bank officials.
Summary
The Bank of India filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10 August 2023 issued by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which directed the bank’s Chairman to take disciplinary action against a branch manager and a zonal manager for alleged non‑compliance with earlier Tribunal orders of 22 October 2019 and 5 August 2021. The bank argued that the claimant had withdrawn the entire awarded amount before the Tribunal’s order and had even communicated that there was no complaint, rendering the Tribunal’s direction arbitrary and illegal. The Tribunal relied on Rule 35 and Rule 44 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, asserting inherent powers to ensure compliance. The High Court examined whether the Tribunal had correctly applied its inherent powers and considered the factual compliance demonstrated by the withdrawal. Finding that the Tribunal ignored material facts and exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering specific disciplinary action, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal, under Rules 35 and 44, can direct disciplinary action against bank officials when its earlier orders have been substantively complied with.
- Whether the Tribunal erred by ignoring the claimant’s withdrawal of the awarded amount and the communication indicating no complaint.
- Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a directive to the bank’s Chairman to take specific action against its officers.
Subjects
- banking
- Railway Claims Tribunal
- compliance
- disciplinary action
- inherent powers
- writ petition
- jurisdiction
Judgment
35 WP 2463-24-OS.DOC
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2463 OF 2024
Bank of India …Petitioner
Versus
Union of India …Respondent
Mr. K. Dev i/by Nahush Shah Legal, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Purnima Awasthi, for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Niranjan P. Shimpi, for the Respondent No.3.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATED: 24th AUGUST 2026.
PC:-
1. The Writ Petitioner herein is the Bank of India. It has
approached this Court assailing the order dated 10 th August, 2023
passed by the Respondent No.3 – Railway Claims Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench in MA/MCC/39/2021 in OA (II U) MCC/29/2013,
the operative part of which reads as follows:-
ORDER
Digitally
signed by
1) This case, with the orders of the Tribunal, shall
PRIYA
PRIYA
RAJESH
RAJESH
SOPARKAR
SOPARKAR Date:
be put up to the Chairman, Bank of India, who
2026.08.25
19:27:59
+0530 will take appropriate action against the erring
officials (i) Branch Manager, Wakadpada Branch,
Bank of India responsible for non-compliance of
specific orders dated 22-10-2019 and 05-08-2021
Page 1 of 8
35 WP 2463-24-OS.DOC
and (ii) Shri Anil Jadhav, Zonal Manager, Bank of
India, responsible for submitting a misguiding
compliance Report without looking at the factual
position, justifying the wrong doing of Branch
concerned.
2) Also, the Chairman, Bank of India shall issue
suitable directions to all concerned to avoid
recurrence of such scenarios.
3) The Bank shall submit a Report towards action
taken in this regard within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.
4) ADR/RCT is directed to forward a copy of this
order to the Chairman of Bank of India for suitable
action. After receipt of the compliance Report from
the Bank, he shall put up the case before this
Bench.
2. From a bare reading of the operative part of the order dated
10th August, 2023, it is apparent that the direction issued therein is
primarily on account of the fact that according to the learned
Tribunal, the Bank has failed to comply with the orders dated 22 nd
October, 2019 and 5th August, 2021 for which, the Bank Manager
was held to be responsible.
3. By referring to the order dated 10th August, 2023, Mr. K. Dev,
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the
Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Claimant had withdrawn the entire
amount from the bank prior to 23rd February, 2023. On 23rd
Page 2 of 8
35 WP 2463-24-OS.DOC
February, 2023, a communication was also issued by the Claimant
to the effect that he had no complaint against the Wakadpada
branch of the Bank of India. Notwithstanding the same, submits
Mr. Dev, the learned Tribunal had passed the impugned order
directing disciplinary action to be taken against the Branch
Manager, in a manner which is completely unfair, arbitrary and
illegal. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner, that by the statements made in paragraph No.3.13 of
the Writ Petition, although the correct facts were brought to the
notice of the learned Tribunal, yet, the relevant documents were
neither taken on record nor were such facts considered before
passing the impugned order. Under such circumstances, the
Petitioner’s counsel submits that the impugned order is liable to be
set aside by this Court.
4. In response to the above arguments, Mr. Niranjan P. Shimpi,
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 has argued
that the impugned order was passed by the learned Tribunal, for
the ends of justice and in exercise of powers conferred under Rule
35of the Railway Claims Tribunal(Procedure) Rules 1989(the Rules
of 1989), as otherwise the order of the learned Tribunal would not
Page 3 of 8
35 WP 2463-24-OS.DOC
be complied with and the Tribunal would be rendered completely
toothless. According to the learned counsel, the exercise of such
jurisdiction would enable the Tribunal to effectively discharge its
judicial functions by ensuring compliance of its order(s).
5. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and
have also gone through the material on record.
6. It appears that the learned Tribunal had earlier passed
judgment and order dated 22nd October, 2019, awarding a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of the Claimant with a further direction
that the Claimant shall be permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/-
and remaining Rs.7,00,000/- to be invested in the bank in the form
of fixed deposits.
7. On 5th August, 2021, the learned Tribunal had passed
certain directions indicating the manner in which the Claimant
should be permitted to withdraw some amounts for repair of the
house.
8. As noted above, the impugned order has been passed on the
ground that the order dated 22 nd October, 2019 and 5th August,
2021 have not been complied with by the then Manager of the
Page 4 of 8
35 WP 2463-24-OS.DOC
Bank, viz., Mr. Anil Jadhav, who was held to be responsible for the
same. However, a perusal of the communication dated 23 rd
February, 2023 issued by the Claimant goes to show that the entire
amount had already been withdrawn by the Claimant from the
Bank prior to issuance of the impugned order dated 10th August,
2023.
9. A perusal of the statements made in the Writ Petition further
goes to show that in paragraph No.3.13, the Petitioner has made
the following statements:-
3.13 However, Respondent No.3 found the said
compliance report unsatisfactory. The Petitioner on
the date of the hearing i.e. on 10 th August, 2023
sought to file a detailed compliance report, however,
Respondent No.3 rejected the request of the
Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner and its
advocate attempted to make submissions in regards
to the inadvertent non-compliance of the Order on
account of the situation prevailing in the branch and
sought an apology for non-compliance of the Orders
dated 22nd October, 2019 and 5th August, 2021,
however, Respondent No.3 refused to entertain any
submissions made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner
even sought to produce the aforesaid letter dated 23 rd
February, 2023 addressed by the Respondent No.2 to
the Petitioner before the Respondent No.3 but
Respondent No.3 dismissed all the submissions of the
Petitioner and proceeded to pass the said Impugned
Order dated 10th August, 2023 directing the
Chairman of the Petitioner Bank to take appropriate
action against the erring officials of the Petitioner
Page 5 of 8
35 WP 2463-24-OS.DOC
Bank and further issue such directions to all
concerned to avoid recurrence of such scenarios. The
Respondent No.3 further directed the Petitioner to
submit yet another report towards action taken in
regard to the aforesaid directions within a month
from date of receipt of the said Order. Hereto marked
and annexed as "Exhibit F" is a copy of the said
Impugned Order dated 10th August 2023.”
10. No reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3 to
deny the above assertion. Therefore, such statements made by the
Writ Petitioner must be deemed to be correct.
11. If that be so, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal
has passed the impugned order by ignoring the intermittent
developments, which included withdrawal of the amount by the
Claimant, thus indicating substantive compliance of the order
dated 22nd October, 2019, as well as order dated 5 th August, 2021
passed by the learned Tribunal.
12. Mr. Shimpi, has relied upon Rules 35 and 44 of the Rules of
1989 which read as follows:-
“35. Orders or directions by the Tribunal-The
Tribunal may pass such orders or give such directions
as may be necessary or expedient to give effects to its
orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure
the ends of justice.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“44. Inherent powers of the Tribunal-Nothing in
Page 6 of 8
35 WP 2463-24-OS.DOC
these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise
affect the inherent power of the Tribunal to make
such orders as may be necessary for the needs of
justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the
Tribunal.”
13. It is correct that under Rule 44 the learned Tribunal would
have inherent powers to issue order for the purposes mentioned
therein which may include the purpose of ensuring compliance of
its order. However, in order to exercise such powers, the relevant
facts and circumstances of the case would have to be taken note of.
In a matter where the order(s) of the Tribunal had been apparently
implemented, there was no justification, for the learned Tribunal to
issue the directions by the impugned order dated 10 th August,
2023. Moreover, whether the bank official was guilty of
misconduct or not, is a matter entirely for the disciplinary
authority to take a decision on. Therefore, we are of the view that,
it was not correct for the learned Tribunal to issue a direction to
the Managing Director of the Bank to act in a particular manner,
directing that action should be taken against the Manager. If at all
necessary in the facts of the case, a direction could have been
issued by the learned Tribunal for compliance of its order and no
further.
Page 7 of 8
35 WP 2463-24-OS.DOC
14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that
the Petitioner has made out a good case for interference with the
impugned order by this Court.
15. Impugned order dated 10th August, 2023 is therefore, set
aside.
16. The Writ Petition stands allowed.
17. Parties to bear their own costs.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
Page 8 of 8
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.