Disposed¶17

Tanuj Kumar v. Chairman / Managing Director Bank of Baroda and 3 Other

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025SPLA/688/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Court No. 39; Special Appeal 688 of 2025; Tanuj Kumar vs Chairman/Managing Director Bank of Baroda and 3 others; bank disciplinary proceeding against Manager; demotion; disproportionate punishment; writ petition partly allowed by single Judge on 08.07.2025; Supreme Court declarations of law; revised punishment order dated 28.10.2025; withholding of increments with cumulative effect for four years; retrospective effect from 14.03.2016; adjourned to 12.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Adjournment granted to the appellant to consider whether he will accept the revised punishment order dated 28th October, 2025; special appeal listed for hearing on 12th January, 2026 at 2:00 PM. ¶17

Tanuj Kumar vs Chairman / Managing Director Bank of Baroda and 3 Other — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Adjournment granted to the appellant to consider whether he will accept the revised punishment order dated 28th October, 2025; special appeal listed for hearing on 12th January, 2026 at 2:00 PM.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the alleged irregularities committed by the appellant caused any financial loss to the bank (first ground of challenge: appellant asserts they did not). +2 more

¶2

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim (adjournment) order dated 16 December 2025 in SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 688 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 39 (Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh, JJ.). Tanuj Kumar, who was working as Manager in respondent bank (Bank of Baroda), appeals in person against judgment dated 8th July, 2025 of the learned single Judge which partly allowed his writ petition against disciplinary punishment. The disciplinary proceeding had produced orders dated 14th March, 2016 (disciplinary authority), 8th June, 2017 (appellate authority) and 5th October, 2017 (reviewing authority). The single Judge, relying on declarations of law of the Supreme Court, ruled against appellant’s first two grounds (irregularities caused no financial loss to the bank; appellant’s unfulfilled requests to serve in a position other than Manager preceding the alleged irregularities) and, on the third ground (demotion being a major punishment and shockingly disproportionate), directed reconsideration by remitting back to the authority. On counter dated 11th December, 2025 filed by Mrs. Archana Singh (senior advocate for respondent bank), it stood disclosed that a fresh punishment order dated 28th October, 2025 had issued from the disciplinary authority revising the earlier punishment to withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect for a period of four years, with the suspension order to continue to be treated as period of not on duty, operative from the date of the original punishment order, i.e. 14th March, 2016. The Bench granted the appellant adjournment to decide whether to accept the revised punishment; hearing fixed for 12th January, 2026 marked at 2:00 PM.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 688 of 2025

Tanuj Kumar

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Chairman / Managing Director Bank Of Baroda And 3 Other

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Tanuj Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashok Trivedi

¶9

Court No. - 39

¶10

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

¶11

This is a special appeal, specially assigned. Appellant appears in person. Mrs. Archana Singh, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of respondent (bank). Under challenge is judgment dated 8th July, 2025 of the learned single Judge partly allowing appellant's writ petition.

¶12

Appellant was working as Manager in the bank. He was show caused on irregularities said to have been committed by him. There was disciplinary proceeding resulting in orders dated 14th March, 2016, 8th June, 2017 and 5th October, 2017 respectively by the disciplinary, appellate and reviewing authorities. The writ petition was allowed in part inasmuch as appellant had taken three grounds of challenge. Firstly, he said that the irregularities did not cause any financial loss to the bank. Secondly, he had been asking to be made to serve in a position other than Manager. He had made representation but the bank not having acceded, thereupon alleged irregularities and followed up with disciplinary proceeding requiring interference. Thirdly, punishment of demotion is a major punishment and shockingly disproportionate. The learned single Judge relied on declarations of law made by the Supreme Court to rule against first two grounds of challenge. On the third there was direction for reconsideration on remitting back to the authority.

¶13

Mrs. Singh files counter dated 11th December, 2025. She submits, in its stands disclosed fresh order of punishment dated 28th October, 2025 made by the disciplinary authority revising earlier punishment to be,

¶14

SPLA No. 688 of 2025

¶15

¶16

withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect for a period of four years and suspension order to continue to be treated as period of not on duty. We see that the order has been made to take effect from date of original punishment order i.e. 14th March, 2016.

¶17

Appellant has adjournment to consider whether he will accept the revised punishment order. Otherwise, he is to get ready to make submissions on law in respect of his three grounds of challenge, keeping in mind the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned single Judge.

¶18