Allahabad High Court
VINEET KUMAR SINGHversusTHE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable because an alternative remedy under Regulation 69 of the SBI Officers Service Rules, 1992 exists.
Summary
The petitioner, Vineet Kumar Singh, challenged an order dated 25 March 2026 that imposed a minor punishment on him. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner could appeal the punishment under Regulation 69 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992. The petitioner’s counsel did not contest the existence of this alternative remedy. The court examined whether the availability of the statutory appeal barred the writ petition. Finding that the alternative remedy was indeed available, the court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy under Regulation 69 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 is available
Legislation cited
- State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 — s. Regulation 69
Subjects
- writ petition
- maintainability
- alternative remedy
- service rules
- disciplinary action
- minor punishment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7320 of 2026
Vineet Kumar Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Chairman And Managing Director State Bank Of
India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Kumar Asthana
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Satish Chaturvedi
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2026, whereby minor
punishment has been imposed upon him.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 has
raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the instant
writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy to file an
appeal under Regulation 69 of the State Bank of India Officers Service
Rules, 1992.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not refuted the contention as
advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 qua
availability of the alternative remedy to file an appeal.
4. As such, instant writ petition is dismissed, being not maintainable, on the
ground of availability of the alternative remedy to file an appeal, as
mentioned above.
May 14, 2026
vinay
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…