State Bank Of India, Central Office, ... vs Sri Anil Kishore And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 12809 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Bank Of India, Central Office, ... vs Sri Anil Kishore And Another on 20 November, 2025

Author: Jaspreet Singh

Bench: Jaspreet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 



 

 

 

 

 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW
 
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 335 of 2025
 

 

 

 
..Appellants(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
..Respondents(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
 
:
 
Anurag Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
Y.S. Lohit (Sr.Adv.), Ram Achal Gupta, Pankaj Nath
 

 

 
Along with :
 

 
1.
 
Special Appeal No. 472 of 2023: 
 
State Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai through its Chairman and others 
 

 
Versus
 

 
Anil Kishore and another
 
2.
 
Special Appeal No. 489 of 2023: 
 
State Bank of India through it Chief General Manager and others 
 

 
Versus
 
Anil Kishore Gupta
 

 
Chief Justice's Court
 
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
 
HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 16.08.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 6758 of 2004 and Writ-A No. 6145 of 2002 and the order dated 01.07.2025 passed in Civil Misc. Review Petition No. 110 of 2024 by learned Single Judge whereby initially the writ petition was allowed, disciplinary order dated 31.03.2004 and appellate order dated 05.08.2004 as well as order dated 04.09.2004 were quashed and appellants were directed to treat the respondent No. 1 to be appointed as Senior Assistant with effect from 01.04.2002 with all consequential benefits including further promotions to all the next higher posts, which order on review preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein was modified and further directions were issued that the respondent No. 1 be deemed to have been promoted as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001, the date when the officers lesser in merit than to him were promoted by the appellant-Bank, without calling him to appear in the interview in pursuance to the written exams held on 10.03.2002 and he shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result thereof.

2. The respondent No. 1 filed Writ-A No. 6145 of 2002 seeking following reliefs:

22. Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court be pleased to call for the records of the case, and

i) by a suitable writ, order or direction or by a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus hold and declare that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001- the date when persons of Lesser Merit than to him were promoted, as such, by the respondent-Bank, without calling the petitioner to appear in the interviews-in pursuance of the Written Exams held on 10.03.2002 and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result thereof;

ii) by a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus command the respondent-authorities:

a) to issue formal promotion order in favour of the petitioner-promoting him as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001, as a result of the above deemed promotion and issue posting orders to the said effect forthwith;

b) to allow the petitioner all consequential benefits as a result of the above viz. Arrears of pay, seniority etc. etc.

c) to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the aforesaid arrears of pay etc.

ii) (a) By a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quash the report of IBPS dated 17.05.2002 enclosed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.

iii) by a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of interim Mandamus command the respondent-authorities to at least issue, forthwith, formal posting orders in favour of the petitioner as Trainee Officer, and pay him as current and future salary of the said post of Trainee Officer, without any interruption or hindrance, whatsoever in view of his deemed promotion as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001;

iv) to issue such other writ, Order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and, in the interest of justice, and

v) allow exemplary costs of the petition, to the petitioner, against the respondents.

3. It would be seen that the said petition pertained to claim of the respondent for promotion as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001.

4. The writ petition no. 6758 of 2004 was filed seeking following reliefs:

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased :-

i) to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and be further pleased to quash the Disciplinary Order dated 31.03.2004 (Annexure-1) together with Appellate Order dated 05.08.2004 (Annexure-2);

ii) to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and be further pleased to quash the 2nd Order of Promotion to the Post of Senior Assistant dated 04.09.2004 (Annexure-27);

iii) to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities to give effect to the order dated 01.08.2003, (Annexure-3) treating the Petitioner having been appointed to the post of Senior Assistant with all consequential benefits including Salary and Allowances attendant to the said post w.e.f. 01.04.2002 as also to pay to the Petitioner the arrears since accrued pursuant to the said promotion with 24% interest on delayed payment thereof while giving effect to order dated 01.08.2003, (Annexure-3);

iv) to allow exemplary cost of the Writ Petition to the Petitioner against the Respondent Authorities; and

v) to pass such other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

5. A perusal of the above would reveal that the petition was filed questioning the validity of the disciplinary order dated 31.03.2004 and appellate order dated 05.08.2004 and also quashing of the order of promotion to the post of Senior Assistant dated 04.09.2004 and give effect to the order dated 01.08.2003 according promotion on the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 01.04.2002. The relief pertained to quashing of the orders passed pursuant to disciplinary proceedings and promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 01.04.2002.

6. Both the petitions were contested by the appellant-Bank by filing counter affidavits.

7. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties on both the petitions together, by judgment impugned dated 16.08.2023 granted the relief, as noticed hereinbefore. Whereafter, on a review petition filed by the respondent No. 1, further relief was granted while accepting the review petition on 01.07.2025.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank took the Court through the order passed by learned Single Judge. Submissions were made that the order impugned quotes list of dates and synopsis in both the writ petitions, submissions made on behalf of respondent No. 1, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant-Bank, summary of the judgments cited on behalf of both the sides and thereafter, while quoting the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority has in three paragraphs, without any reference to the context, has come to the conclusion that the petition deserved to be allowed and further without pointing out any defect in the disciplinary/appellate order, has quashed the same and granted relief qua the post of Senior Assistant, no indication in the relief pertained to post of Trainee Officer qua which Writ-A No. 6145 of 2002 was filed and purportedly decided. Whereafter, review petition was filed, wherein the relief pertaining to promotion to the post of Trainee Officer has been granted.

9. Submissions have been made that there has been no discussion worth the name in the entire judgment pertaining to the validity of the disciplinary or appellate order, wholly cursory discussion qua the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant has been made and in the review petition without any discussion pertaining to the promotion to the post of Trainee Officer, the relief has been granted, which orders cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside.

10. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents, attempted to make submissions seeking to re-argue the writ petitions in an effort to sustain the orders passed by learned Single Judge. Attempt was made to indicate that action of the appellant-Bank in denying the promotion to the post of Trainee Officer and Senior Assistant was not justified and, therefore, the appeals deserve dismissal. With reference to the contentions, as noted by learned Single Judge, it was sought to be contended that the same were the reasons, which prevailed while passing the orders impugned.

11. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

12. Learned Single judge, in the impugned order dated 16.08.2023, after noticing the contentions of the parties and summarizing the judgments cited, quoted the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities and came to the following conclusion:

23. While vide impugned order dated 04.09.2004, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Senior Assistant and was directed to be posted at Lalganj Branch, District Pratapgarh.

24. Even, if case of the respondent(s) -Bank is admitted on its face value and if charge of using unfair means against the petitioner was found proved and as a result, warning was issued to him by the disciplinary authority by making a suitable note in this regard in his service book, which was also affirmed by the appellate authority and there was no whisper by the respondent(s) at any point of time imposing the rider that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get benefit for grant of appointment to the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f 01.04.2002, the same cannot be denied to him, if similarly situated persons have been provided the same.

25. It is specific case of respondent(s) that, as per bank's norms, name of petitioner, who was under disciplinary proceedings, could not be considered and therefore, he could not be appointed as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 01.04.2002. Once, the punishment of "warning" has been awarded to him and a note in this regard has been made in his service book, there is no occasion to deny the petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 01.04.2002.

26. Loss of seniority to a government servant with consequent loss of promotional prospects, higher pay and emoluments is a matter of serious consequence to him.

27. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents do not attract to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

28. Given the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed.

29. The impugned disciplinary order dated 31.03.2004, the appellate order dated 05.08.2004 as well as the order dated 04.09.2004 appointing the petitioner on the post of Senior Assistant are hereby quashed.

30. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondent(s) - Bank to treat the petitioner to be appointed as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 01.04.2002 with all consequential benefits including further promotions to all the next higher posts.

31. The said exercise shall be completed in any event not later than eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this judgment and order is produced before the respondents.

32. No order as to costs.

13. In would been seen that learned Single Judge, in view of the fact that while passing the order of punishment of warning, no indications were made qua the promotion of the respondent to the post of Senior Assistant, came to the conclusion that there was no occasion to deny the same. Nowhere the Bipartite Settlement, which is the basis of disciplinary action and procedure therefor, has been discussed/referred in relation to the effect of the punishment imposed. Whereafter without any discussion in the entire judgment has quashed the disciplinary and the appellate order, which part of the order cannot be sustained under any circumstances. Further, though Writ-A No. 6145 of 2002 pertained to the promotion to the post of Trainee Officer, neither any discussion nor any indication pertaining to the relief qua the said writ petition was indicated.

14. From the above, it would be seen that the judgment of learned Single Judge was wholly deficient while dealing with the contentions raised and in relation to the relief granted.

15. So far as the submission made on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the contentions of the parties noted are the reasons for grant of relief is concerned, the said submission has been noted for rejection only inasmuch as mere noting of the contentions of the parties and assuming, based on result of the writ petition, that the contentions of the party in whose favour the relief has been granted/refused have been accepted cannot be the basis. While deciding the case, contentions raised by either of the parties are required to be dealt with, which forms the basis for decision/judgment and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard cannot be accepted.

16. In review petition filed seeking introduction of relief pertaining to Trainee Officer in the order dated 16.08.2023, the following observations and directions were made by learned Single Judge:

6. Writ A No.6758 of 2004 was allowed by means of judgment rendered in the present case and connected Writ A No.6145 of 2002 was also allowed but no consequential relief has been granted to the petitioner, therefore, in view of above material, the consequential prayer made in paragraph 3 of the present judgment is to be granted, in case the petition is allowed.

7. In this regard, against the judgment dated 16.08.2023, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed special appeal before Division Bench of this Court, which is sub judice and no final order has been passed till date, therefore, the argument advanced by him is misplaced.

8. In view of above, the submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant has merit in the case and therefore, the consequential reliefs are granted to him.

9. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is issued holding and declaring that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001 the date when persons of lesser merit than to him were promoted by the respondent - Bank, without calling the petitioner to appear in the interviews-in pursuance of the written Exams held on 10.03.2002 and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result thereof.

10. In view of reasons recorded above, the review application is allowed.

17. It would be seen that the Court noticed that Writ-A No. 6145 of 2002 was also allowed but no consequential relief was granted and allowed the relief, as prayed in the writ petition (quoted hereinbefore). The manner of dealing with the review petition also falls short of the requisite parameters inasmuch as when there was no discussion in the entire judgment dated 16.08.2023 qua the subject matter, the relief pertaining to the promotion to the post of Trainee Officer could not have been granted by way of review petition.

18. In view of the above fact situation, the orders passed by learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2023 and 01.07.2025 impugned in these three appeals cannot be sustained.

19. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The orders dated 16.08.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 6758 of 2004 and Writ-A No. 6145 of 2002 and the order dated 01.07.2025 passed in Civil Misc. Review Petition No. 110 of 2024 are set aside. The writ petitions are remanded back to learned Single Judge for rehearing the same on merits and pass appropriate orders.

November 20, 2025

P.Sri.