Dismissed¶¶41

Sneh Gaglani v. Bank of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jan 2026IA/7991/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

recall of order; Interim Application No. 7991 of 2025; Writ Petition No. 3847 of 2025; Sneh Gaglani vs Bank of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court; departmental appeal dated 1 March 2025; final punishment; departmental inquiry; disciplinary proceedings; representation dated 1 February 2021; reasoned order; timelines 45/30/60 days; video conferencing hearing; Appellate Authority Pune; petitioner in person; pro bono advocate Preeti Bhushan Walimbe; Committee of Registrars; interim application rejected

What did the court decide?

The Court found no reason to recall its order dated 25 November 2025 and rejected the Interim Application seeking its recall ¶¶40

Sneh Gaglani vs Bank of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 25 November 2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 3847 of 2025 should be recalled on the Petitioner's contention that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her caused her severe prejudice

¶¶13

Court's answer

The Court found no reason to recall its order dated 25 November 2025 and rejected the Interim Application seeking its recall

¶¶40

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner's grievance regarding her pending Departmental Appeal had already been considered in the order under recall, with a timeline given to the Bank to follow the steps set out in the directions

¶¶34

Key takeaways

All the grounds set out in the Interim Application pertained to the disciplinary action already initiated against the Petitioner and the punishment already inflicted upon herratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ravindra V. Ghuge & Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.), by order dated 30th March, 2026, rejected Interim Application No. 7991 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 3847 of 2025 filed by Sneh Gaglani, who appeared in person, seeking recall of the Court's order dated 25th November, 2025. By that order the writ petition against Bank of Maharashtra had been disposed of with directions: the Bank to decide the Petitioner's Departmental Appeal dated 1st March 2025 against the final punishment awarded pursuant to the departmental inquiry (with notice and hearing in person at Pune or by video conferencing), to deliver a reasoned order within 30 days of completion of the hearing (45 days granted for the hearing), to communicate the reasoned order within 24 hours to [email protected], and to decide her representation dated 1st February, 2021 and connected representations within 60 days, all timelines running from service of the order. Rejecting recall, the Court held that the grounds in the Interim Application pertained to disciplinary action already initiated and punishment already inflicted, that her grievance regarding the pending Departmental Appeal had actually been considered with timelines fixed for the Bank, and that no reason existed to recall the order. The Interim Application was rejected. (Earlier, the Court had engaged Mrs. Preeti Bhushan Walimbe, Advocate, to conduct the case pro bono after the Petitioner, appearing in person, became emotional in Court.)

¶1

3.IA-7991-2025.odt

¶2

Digitally signed by GAURI GAURI AMIT AMIT GAEKWAD GAEKWAD Date: 2026.04.04 11:26:26 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7991 OF 2025 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3847 OF 2025

¶6

Sneh Gaglani ….Applicant/Petitioner Versus

¶7

Bank of Maharashtra ….Respondent

¶8

Ms. Sneh Gaglani, Petitioner present in person. None for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶10

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 30^th MARCH, 2026

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

The Petitioner, appearing in person, seeks recall of the order dated 25^th November, 2025.

¶14

When we had heard the Petitioner in person in Writ Petition No.3847 of 2025, we noted that the Committee of Registrars of this Court had, by its opinion dated 26^th September, 2025, expressed that the Petitioner would not be able to assist the Court. Yet, we permitted the Petitioner to address the Court. We observed that, being in person, she became emotional and

1 of 4

Gauri Gaekwad

3.IA-7991-2025.odt

sentimental and, within a minute or two of advancing her submissions, started weeping in Court. We, therefore, counseled her and rendered assistance to her by engaging Mrs. Preeti Bhushan Walimbe, the learned Advocate practicing in the field of service law, who has conducted the case ‘Pro-bono’.

¶19

After hearing the learned Advocate, the Petition was disposed off with the following directions below paragraph no.6 of the order dated 25^th November, 2025 :

¶20

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off with the following directions :

¶21

(a) The Respondent shall decide the Departmental Appeal dated 1^st March 2025, filed by the Petitioner challenging the final punishment awarded to her pursuant to the departmental inquiry. If the Rules permit, the Bank shall issue notice to the Petitioner, calling upon her to remain present before the Appellate Authority at Pune and to participate in the hearing on such dates as the appeal may be posted. Since the head office of the Bank is in Pune, the Petitioner would be at liberty to either travel for the hearing or address the Appellate Authority through video conferencing;

¶22

(b) After completion of the above exercise strictly in accordance with the Rules, we expect the Bank to deliver a reasoned order within 30 days from the date of completion of the hearing in the appeal. For the above exercise, we grant 45 days'

2 of 4

Gauri Gaekwad

3.IA-7991-2025.odt

time for completing the hearing and 30 days' time thereafter for delivery of the reasoned order;

¶27

(c) The reasoned order would be communicated to the Petitioner within 24 hours of its passing, on the following email address :

¶28

Email address : [email protected]

¶29

(d) Insofar as the representation dated 1^st February, 2021 and connected representations are concerned, if they are yet to be decided, the Respondent-Bank shall consider and decide them by following the due procedure laid down in law, within 60 days from the date of service of this order on the Respondent - Bank, by Speed Post AD or on the email address of the Bank;

¶30

(e) A printout of this order obtained from the official website of the Bombay High Court would be served upon the Respondent - Bank by the Petitioner, by email or by Speed Post A.D;

¶31

(f) The above-mentioned timelines of 45 days, 30 days and 60 days, respectively would be reckoned from the date of service of this order on the Respondent-Bank.

¶32

(g) All grounds raised in the report as well as in the representations dated 1^st February, 2021 and the connected representations, would be dealt with by the Respondent - Bank.

¶33

In view of the above directions, the Petitioner’s

¶34

grievance regarding her pending Departmental Appeal was actually considered, and we had given a timeline to the Bank to follow the

3 of 4

Gauri Gaekwad

3.IA-7991-2025.odt

steps set out in the directions below paragraph no.6 reproduced above.

¶39

Today, the Petitioner again appears in person and has tendered an Interim Application seeking recall of the said order. It is contended that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her have caused prejudice to her. All the grounds set out below the heading “ REASONS WHY ORDERS CAUSE SEVERE PREJUDICE TO THE PETITIONER ” pertain to the disciplinary action that had already been initiated against her and she has been inflicted with punishment. Since her Departmental Appeal against the punishment was pending, we had directed that the same be decided expeditiously.

¶40

In view of the above, we do not find any reason to recall our order.

¶41

7. The Interim Application is rejected .

¶42

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶43

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶44

4 of 4

¶45

Gauri Gaekwad

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 25 November 2025 in Writ Petition No. 3847 of 2025, by which the petition was disposed of with directions to the Respondent-Bank regarding the Petitioner's Departmental Appeal and her representations; recall of this order was sought in Interim Application No. 7991 of 2025¶¶13
High Court of Judicature at Bombay · 25th November, 2025
Prior proceeding
Committee of Registrars of the Court, by its opinion dated 26 September 2025, expressed that the Petitioner would not be able to assist the Court¶¶14
Prior proceeding
The Court permitted the Petitioner (in person) to address it; she became emotional and wept, whereupon the Court engaged Mrs. Preeti Bhushan Walimbe, Advocate (service law), to conduct the case pro bono¶¶18
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition No. 3847 of 2025 was disposed of on 25 November 2025 with directions (below paragraph 6 of that order): the Bank to decide the Departmental Appeal dated 1 March 2025 against the final punishment, with notice and hearing (in person at Pune or by video conferencing); reasoned order within 30 days of completion of hearing, with 45 days for the hearing; communication of the reasoned order within 24 hours to [email protected]; decision of the representation dated 1 February 2021 and connected representations within 60 days; all timelines reckoned from service of the order¶¶19
Prior proceeding
The Petitioner had filed a Departmental Appeal dated 1 March 2025 challenging the final punishment awarded to her pursuant to the departmental inquiry; it was pending when the 25 November 2025 order was passed¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the Petitioner and she had been inflicted with punishment; the grounds in the Interim Application pertain to that disciplinary action¶¶39
Prior proceeding
The Petitioner, again appearing in person, tendered Interim Application No. 7991 of 2025 seeking recall of the order dated 25 November 2025, contending that the disciplinary proceedings caused her severe prejudice¶¶39

Sneh Gaglani v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sneh Gaglani v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Narsu Somana Patil vs State of Maharashtra Thr Department of Education and Ors.

Shradha Caesar Assao vs the State of Maharashtra School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Prasad Dinkar Patil vs the Chief Executive Officer Zp and Anr.

Saritha Selvan vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Rajkumar Omprakash Sharma vs State of Maharashtra Thr Govt Pleader and Ors.

Administrative Officer H /West Ward vs Kisan Bhikaji Mandavkar and Ors.