Dismissed¶18

Ankur Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 May 2025WRIA/19059/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Premature writ petition; Article 226 Constitution; disciplinary proceedings in midstream; departmental inquiry completed; punishment order dated 10.07.2024 reducing OMMGS-2 to GMGS-1; basic pay Rs.48,480/-; Rule 67(g) State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992; appeal pending before Appellate Authority; notice of enhancement of penalty from reduction in rank to removal from service; alternative remedy of review; liberty to challenge final orders; Ankur Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others; WRIT - A No. 19059 of 2024; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; J.J. Munir, J.; decided 21.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:86197.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed, subject to liberty reserved to the petitioner to question the final orders in the disciplinary proceedings, where all other adverse orders can be impugned as well.

Ankur Singh Vs State of Up and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed, subject to liberty reserved to the petitioner to question the final orders in the disciplinary proceedings, where all other adverse orders can be impugned as well.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of the entire disciplinary proceedings is premature where the petitioner has already been punished, his appeal with a notice of enhancement of penalty is pending before the Appellate Authority, and a remedy of review exists under the Service Rules.

¶12

Court's answer

The disciplinary proceedings have not come to a terminus: the petitioner's appeal against the Disciplinary Authority's punishment order is pending before the Appellate Authority (which has issued only a notice of enhancement), review lies under the Service Rules, and no final orders have yet been passed by the respondents; hence the Article 226 challenge is premature.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Quashing the ongoing disciplinary proceedings together with the adverse orders at this stage would be a very anomalous exercise of jurisdiction; it remains open to the petitioner to question the final orders when made, where all other adverse orders can also be impugned.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (J.J. Munir, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 by Ankur Singh seeking quashing of the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by charge-sheet dated 13.03.2024. The petitioner had already been punished by the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 10.07.2024 with reduction from OMMGS-2 to GMGS-1, his basic pay being fixed at Rs.48,480/- under Rule 67(g) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992. His appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority (a Committee of Bank Managers at Mumbai), which had issued a notice of enhancement of penalty from reduction in rank to removal from service. Held: the challenge was premature — the departmental process was in midstream, no final orders had been passed, review lay under the Service Rules, and quashing the proceedings at that stage would be a very anomalous exercise of jurisdiction. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to question the final orders when made, where all other adverse orders could also be impugned. Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86197

¶3

Court No. - 49 Reserved

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19059 of 2024

¶5

Petitioner :- Ankur Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi,Utkarsh Khanna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi

¶6

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶7

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of the entire disciplinary proceedings against him, arising out of the charge-sheet dated 13.03.2024, instituted by the respondents, along with all orders in the disciplinary proceedings, prejudicial to the petitioner.

¶8

2. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted and the departmental inquiry against him has run its full course. He has been punished by an order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 10.07.2024 with reduction to a lower grade from OMMGS-2 to GMGS-1. There is further direction that his basic pay would be fixed at Rs.48,480/- i.e. the initial pay scale (new scale) for a GMGS-1 in terms of Rule 67(g) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 (for short, 'the Rules of 1992'). The petitioner has appealed this order to the Appellate Authority, which is some Committee of Bank Managers, sitting at Mumbai. They have issued a notice of enhancement of penalty from reduction in rank to removal from service.

¶9

3. Heard Mr. Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi along with Mr. Utkarsh Khanna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing and Mr. Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel appearing

¶10

¶11

on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

4. It is submitted by Mr. Satish Chaturvedi that this petition by the petitioner is premature because the petitioner has only been given a notice of enhancement of penalty by the Appellate Authority upon the petitioner preferring an appeal from the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The course open to the petitioner is to file objections to the notice and await the outcome of the Appellate Authority's decision. There is then a provision for review under the Rules as well.

¶13

5. It is next submitted that the earlier writ petition that was filed by the petitioner at the stage of disciplinary proceedings was for a similar relief, inasmuch as it was filed against a tentative order of punishment. That petition was dismissed as withdrawn because no final order had been passed. Now, that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the final order and there is a notice of enhancement from the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is in the same position and has again raised a premature challenge.

¶14

6. The proceedings before the Appellate Authority, may be for enhancement, are still pending and under the Service Rules, there is a provision for review as well. No final orders have yet been passed by the respondents. Rather, the process of departmental proceedings is in midstream, where after being held guilty by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner has been punished by the Disciplinary Authority, whereagainst his appeal is pending with the Appellate Authority. May be the Appellate Authority has issued a notice for enhancement, but it cannot be said that in the respondents' establishment, the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have come to a terminus. At this stage, to quash the disciplinary proceedings

¶15

¶16

together with the adverse orders made against the petitioner, would be a very anomalous exercise of jurisdiction. It would be always open to the petitioner to question the final orders made, where all other adverse orders can be impugned as well.

¶17

7. No case for interference with the ongoing disciplinary proceedings is made out.

¶18

8. This writ petition fails and is dismissed , subject to the above liberty.

¶19

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Anoop

¶20

(J.J. Munir) Judge

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANOOP KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankur Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases