Mukesh Kumar Vs The State Bank of India — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Mukesh Kumar Vs The State Bank of India — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner permitted/directed to file a representation with a copy of the order before respondent no. 3 (Regional Manager/Disciplinary Authority), who shall decide the pending disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law, preferably within four months of receipt/production of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be commanded to take necessary steps for early disposal of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ application is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation with a copy of the order before the Regional Manager/Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Nalanda (respondent no. 3), who shall proceed in accordance with law and decide the proceeding pending against the petitioner at the earliest, preferably within four months from receipt/production of a copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that no purpose would be served in keeping the application pending, since even per the respondents' case the proceedings were already pending before the Disciplinary Authority (respondent no. 3).

Key takeaways

The Court made clear that it had not entered into the merits of the petitioner's case, which is to be decided by the respondent concerned.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226-type civil writ jurisdiction (CWJC No.10360 of 2026) filed by an individual facing a departmental disciplinary proceeding initiated by the State Bank of India, seeking mandamus for early disposal of the proceeding, consideration of his reply dated 13.03.2026 to the charge sheet, enhancement of subsistence allowance up to 100% under the S.B.I. Award Staff Rules dated 06.04.2026, and consideration of his representation dated 31.01.2026 for non-payment of salary, petrol allowance and Higher acting allowance allegedly in violation of the Bipartite Settlement and S.B.I. allowance rules. Held (Partha Sarthy, J): since the proceeding was already pending before the Disciplinary Authority (respondent no. 3), no purpose would be served in keeping the application pending; the writ application was disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation with a copy of the order before respondent no. 3, who shall proceed in accordance with law and decide the pending proceeding at the earliest, preferably within four months of receipt/production of the order. The Court expressly did not enter into the merits of the petitioner's case, leaving those to the respondent authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10360 of 2026

======================================================

Mukesh Kumar Son of Vanarasi Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Kare, Post Office- Kare, Police Station- Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Bank of India through the Assistant General Manager, Local Head Office, Patna, Bihar.

The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Gaya.

The Regional Manager/ Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Nalanda.

The Chief Manager-cum-Enquiry Officer, State Bank of India, Enquiry Department Ltd., Patna, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate For the S.B.I. : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

2 21-07-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State Bank of India.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:

“(i) For the issuance of a writ/writs, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondents to take necessary steps for early disposal of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner.

(ii) To consider reply submitted by the petitioner on 13.03.2026, pursuant to the show cause/charge sheet issued by the Respondent Bank.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10360 of 2026(2) dt.21-07-2026 2/3

(iii) To consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for enhancement of subsistence allowance upto 100% under S.B.I. Award Staff Rules dated 06.04.2026.

(iv) To consider the Representation dated 31.01.2026 submitted for non-payment of salary, petrol allowance and Higher acting allowance in gross violation of Bipartite Settlement and S.B.I. allowance rules.”

In view of the nature of grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant application and the relief sought as stated herein above, the Court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served in keeping the application pending. Even as per the respondents case the proceedings are already pending before the Disciplinary Authority (respondent no. 3).

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ application is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation along with a copy of this order before the Regional Manager/Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Nalanda (respondent no. 3) who shall proceed in accordance with law and decide the proceeding pending against the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10360 of 2026(2) dt.21-07-2026 3/3

It is made clear that the Court has not entered

into the merits of the case of the petitioner which is to be

decided by the respondent concerned.

The writ application stands disposed of.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

Amit/Bibhash

U