Arup Kumar Gupta vs The State Bank Of India & Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 2777 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Arup Kumar Gupta vs The State Bank Of India & Ors on 8 April, 2026

Author: Amrita Sinha

Bench: Amrita Sinha

OD-6                               ORDER SHEET
                                 WPO No.105 of 2026
                          IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                            Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                   ORIGINAL SIDE



                                  ARUP KUMAR GUPTA
                                         -VS-
                                 THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
Date: 8th April, 2026.

                                                                       Appearance:
                                                        Mr. Ranjan Kumar Roy, Adv.
                                                                Mr. Ranajit Ray, Adv.
                                                       Mr. Indra Prosad Mullick, Adv.
                                                                     ...for Petitioner.

                                                       Mr. Subrata Kumar Sinha, Adv.
                                                                   ...for Respondents.

1. The petitioner is a dismissed employee of the State Bank of India. The

order of dismissal was passed in the year 2006. The petitioner, though

challenged the order of suspension, but did not challenge the order of

dismissal in the earlier writ proceeding filed by him in the year 2014.

2. The writ stood dismissed and the order of dismissal of the writ petition

was affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench.

3. For the first time, the order of dismissal passed against him in the

disciplinary proceeding has been challenged by the petitioner by filing

the instant writ petition in March, 2026. It has been submitted that

there has been violation of the principle of natural justice. No

opportunity of defence was given to the petitioner. The entire proceeding

was conducted when he was in jail custody.

4. Prayer has been made to set aside the order of dismissal on the ground

of violation of the principle of natural justice.

5. Learned advocate for the bank opposes the submission and prayer of

the petitioner. It has been submitted that the instant writ petition is

gross abuse of the process of law. The petitioner was all along aware of

the disciplinary proceeding and he deliberately did not take part in the

same. The writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay and the

same ought not to be entertained.

6. Prima facie, the Court is of the view that the writ petition has been filed

nearly twenty years after the order of dismissal was passed in the

disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner.

7. To allow the bank to revert with a written report by way of an affidavit

disclosing the timeline of the disciplinary proceeding, the Court directs

the bank to file a report by way of an affidavit within a period of four

weeks from date. Exception, if any, may be filed within a fortnight

thereafter.

8. List the matter for further consideration on 8 th June, 2026.

9. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

(AMRITA SINHA, J.)

nm