Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Romesh Bhandari vs Axis Bank Limited (2025:Rj-Jd:8300) on 11 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:8300]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3724/2025
Romesh Bhandari S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Bhandari, Aged About 40
Years, R/o D-45, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Near ESI Hospital, District
- Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Axis Bank Limited, Ethics Department, Through The
Head-Ethics, Having Its Corporate Office At Axis House,
P.B. Marg, Worli, Mumbai (Maharashtra).
2. Appellate Authority, Axis Bank Limited, Axis House, P.B.
Marg, Worli, Mumbai (Maharashtra).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari assisted by
Mr. Nishit Shah
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
11/02/2025
1. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and assailed the order dated 30.12.2024, whereby he has
been visited with an order of punishment of dismissal from
services. Subsequent order dated 20.01.2025, whereby the appeal
preferred against such order has been rejected by the respondent
no.2 - Appellate Authority, Axis Bank Limited has also been
challenged.
2. At the outset, the Court posed a question to Mr. Muktesh
Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner that how the writ
petition laying challenge to the order of disciplinary authority or
Appellate Authority of respondent-Bank (Axis Bank Limited), which
[2025:RJ-JD:8300] (2 of 6) [CW-3724/2025]
is not a nationalized bank, is maintainable? To which, Mr.
Maheshwari responded by submitting that the petitioner has been
dismissed from service in violation of principles of natural justice
and since his fundamental right under Article 16 of the
Constitution of India has been infracted, he can maintain the writ
petition.
3. Learned counsel further argued that since the petitioner has
exhausted the remedy available under By-laws of the Bank, he
has no other option but to approach this Court by invoking its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned counsel submitted that in many a cases, civil courts
have held that they would not sit as an Appellate Authority over
the order(s) passed by the disciplinary authority and the Appellate
Authority and, therefore, the writ petition be entertained.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that since the
respondent-Bank is also discharging public functions, the present
writ petition is maintainable in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Ramesh Ahluwalia
vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2012) 12 SCC 331
and Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in (2005) 4 SCC 649.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. It is not in dispute that the respondent - Bank is not a
Nationalized Bank. Hence, barring exceptional cases, it cannot be
treated to be a 'State' or 'instrumentality of State' within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, more
particularly when it comes to dispute relating to employer-
employee relationship.
[2025:RJ-JD:8300] (3 of 6) [CW-3724/2025]
8. True it is, that in the cases of Zee Telefilms Ltd. (supra) and
Ramesh Ahluwalia (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held
that an instrumentality, which is discharging public functions is
covered in the sweep of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution
of India, but the first question to be considered is, as to whether
the functions, which the respondent - Bank is discharging are
public functions?
9. According to this Court, the respondent - Bank is accepting
deposits, operating saving accounts and advancing loans, which
can purely be defined as carrying of business or commercial
activities and cannot be said to be public functions by any stretch
of imagination.
10. A gainful reference of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas &
Ors., reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733 be made, wherein the
Apex Court has observed thus:
"There are a number of such companies carrying
on the profession of banking. There is nothing
which can be said to be close to the
governmental functions. It is an old profession in
one form or the other carried on by individuals or
by a group of them. Losses incur~ed in the
business are theirs F as well as the profits. Any
business or commercial activity, may be banking,
manufacturing units or related to any other kind
of business generating resources, employment,
production and resulting in circulation of money
are no doubt, are such which do have impact on
the economy of the country in general. But such
activities cannot be classified one falling G I in
the category of discharging duties, functions of
[2025:RJ-JD:8300] (4 of 6) [CW-3724/2025]
public nature. Thus the case does not fall in the
fifth category of cases enumerated in the case of
Ajay Hasia (supra). Again we find that the
activity which is carried on by the appellant is not
one which may have been earlier carried on by
the government and transferred to the appellant
company. For the sake of H 152 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A argument
even if it may be assumed that one or the other
test as provided in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra)
may be attracted that by itself would not be
sufficient to hold that it is an agency of the State
or a company carrying on the functions of public
nature."
11. In cases of Zee Telefilms Ltd. (supra) so also Ramesh
Ahluwalia (supra), the facts were starkly different, if compared
with the facts of the present case.
12. In the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia's (supra), it was observed
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the respondents were
performing public functions by way of providing education to
children and the respondent - institution was held to be 'State'
under Article 12 of the Constitution of India despite the fact that it
was unaided private educational institution. Whereas, in the case
of Zee Telefilms Ltd. (supra), it was held by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court that merely because some element of public duty is involved
in discharge of the Board's function, that by itself would not suffice
for bringing the Board within the net of 'State' under Article 12 of
the Constitution of India. Per contra, in the present case, the
respondent - Bank cannot be even said to have performed the
public functions.
[2025:RJ-JD:8300] (5 of 6) [CW-3724/2025]
13. This Court is cognizant of legal position that no person can
be rendered remediless, but in each case the writ petition cannot
be entertained, as panacea for all ills. The petitioner or any citizen
for that matter being aggrieved of any order can file a civil suit on
the permissible grounds, including laying challenge to the order of
dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority and the
order of the Appellate Authority.
14. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers wide
powers upon the civil courts to try and decide all civil suits unless
they are expressly or impliedly barred by any statute. According to
this Court, since the Banking Regulations do not bar a civil suit,
the petitioner can very well file a civil suit alongwith the
application for injunction, if so advised.
15. This Court is of the considered view that the present writ
petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or
invocation of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is not permissible, even if petitioner's
fundamental right to earn livelihood under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India has been infracted.
16. So far as the argument of Mr. Maheshwari that civil courts
have held that they will not sit as an Appellate Authority is
concerned, such finding depends upon facts and circumstances of
each case. If in a given case, civil court has held that it will not sit
as an Appellate Authority, such decision per-se cannot make a writ
petition maintainable. Because in any event, even the High Court
can well say that it shall not sit as an Appellate Authority over the
orders passed by the disciplinary authority and departmental
appellate authority.
[2025:RJ-JD:8300] (6 of 6) [CW-3724/2025]
17. The writ petition filed against a private entity is, therefore,
dismissed as not maintainable.
18. The petitioner shall, however, be free to file a civil suit before
the competent court. In case, civil suit alongwith an application for
temporary injunction is filed, the competent court shall consider
the same in accordance with law, preferably at an early date given
that the petitioner has been dismissed from the service.
19. It is, hereby, made clear that the discussion made
hereinabove is only confined to maintainability of the writ petition.
Any observation made hereinabove shall not affect or prejudice
the decision and discretion of the civil court, as merit of
petitioner's case has not been examined.
20. Stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
18-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
