Telangana High Court
Union Bank Of India vs S. Ramachandra Rao on 10 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.1187 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Dr. K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Standing
Counsel for Union Bank of India, appears for the appellants
and Mr. B.Chanakya, learned counsel representing
Mr. P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Upon remand in the earlier W.P.No.7402 of 2018 on
the quantum of penalty to be imposed in a case of dismissal
from service of the writ petitioner, the disciplinary authority
passed a speaking order dated 12.04.2024 reiterating the
major penalty of dismissal from Bank Service under
Regulation 4(j) of the Andhra Bank Officer Employees'
(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 as earlier imposed
and upheld up to the appellate stage. On being challenged
again, the learned writ Court vide impugned judgment dated
08.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.12232 of 2024 has once again
directed the authorities to consider the representation dated
14.02.2024 afresh and pass appropriate orders with regard
to the modification of the punishment from dismissal to
compulsory retirement along with consequential benefits
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of the order. The impugned order is extracted in extenso as
it is a short order:
"This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of
Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 1st respondent
MD and CEO in RA 413:2024 dated 12.4.2024 in rejecting my
representation dated 14.2.2024 for modification of the
punishment from dismissal to that of compulsory retirement
keeping in view of the orders passed by the High Court in
W.P.No.7402 of 2018 dated 25.1.2024 and confirming the
orders of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority dated
21.8.2017 confirmed by the Appellate Authority dated
30.11.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article
14,16 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the
orders passed by the High Court in W.P.No.7402 of 2018
dated 25.1.2024 consequently declare that the petitioner is
entitled for modification of the punishment orders from
dismissal to that of compulsory retirement and entitled to
receive all pension and retirement benefits from the date of
superannuation with all consequential attendant benefits in
the interests of justice and to pass...."
2. Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner had earlier approached this Court challenging his
dismissal order, dated 30.11.2017 passed by respondent No.2
by filing a W.P.No.7402 of 2018. After hearing both sides, vide
order, dated 25.01.2024, this Hon'ble Court passed the
following order:
"Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the
petitioner to make a fresh representation before the
respondent authorities for modification of the punishment
from dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement
in terms of Regulation 4(h) of the Andhra Bank Officer
Employees' (Dismissal & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 within a
period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order and on receipt of the same, the respondent bank
authorities are directed to consider the same and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of
eight (08) weeks thereafter".
4. After hearing both sides and observing the merits of
the case, this Court had passed the above order and directed
the petitioner to make a fresh representation. Subsequently
in compliance with the said order, the petitioner made a
representation before the authorities. However, the
authorities without properly understanding the order passed
by this Court, once again simply rejected the same on the
very same aspect. The intention of this Court was that after
hearing both sides, considering the issues involved, the Court
has passed modification of the original order from dismissal
to compulsory retirement. After hearing the arguments
submitted by the counsel for the respective parties, the
aforesaid order was passed. Even today, the learned counsel
for the respondent again submitted the same arguments.
5. In view of the above said submissions, this Court
deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by
directing the authorities to consider the representation, dated
14.02.2024 afresh and to pass appropriate orders with regard
to the modification of the punishment from dismissal to
compulsory retirement along with the consequential benefits
within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed."
3. It is argued by learned Standing Counsel for the
appellants that the writ petitioner failed to raise any fresh
grounds in the present challenge beyond what was
canvassed in the earlier proceedings. The learned writ Court
failed to record specific findings as to why the fresh speaking
order reiterating the major penalty of dismissal from Bank
service is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged
misconduct or has failed to consider the relevant grounds
urged by the writ petitioner. Therefore, prayer is made to set
aside the order.
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that in
teeth of the direction passed by the writ Court in the
previous round of litigation, the appellant Bank has once
again reiterated the same penalty of dismissal from Bank
service without any application of mind or consideration of
the observations passed by the writ Court.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel
for the parties.
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the
learned writ Court has not recorded any finding as to why
the speaking order passed by the disciplinary authority after
remand suffers from such errors which warrant
reconsideration. The learned writ Court has simply directed
the authorities to once again consider the writ petitioner's
representation dated 14.02.2024, on consideration of which
the order dated 12.04.2024 was passed.
7. We, therefore, feel that the matter requires
reconsideration by the learned writ Court.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The
mater is remitted to the file of the learned writ Court for
reconsideration.
9. The instant Writ Appeal is allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove. However, there shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 10.11.2025
KL
