Aditya Nand Upadhyay v. Indian Bank And ORS

M/L 237 15.05.2026 Court No.18 SD

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION WPA 9201 of 2026 Aditya Nand Upadhyay Vs.

Indian Bank & Ors.

Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury Ms. Pritha Biswas Ms. Upasana Sarkar ... for the Petitioner.

Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh ... for the Respondents.

1.

Affidavit of service filed by in Court today be kept with the records.

2.

The petitioner is an employee of the Indian Bank. He is aggrieved by the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him on the ground of impersonation. It has been submitted that the respondent authorities suspended him illegally and arbitrarily.

3.

The provision relating to suspension prescribed in the Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 has been relied upon. 4.

Prayer has been made to set aside the order of suspension and the charges leveled against him. 5.

Learned advocate representing the Bank opposes the submission and the prayer of the petitioner. 6.

It has been submitted that the petitioner has been found guilty of impersonation. The Institute of Banking Personnel Selection who conducted the selection test through which the petitioner got selected, has found that the biometric taken by the petitioner at the time of appearing in the examination

in the year 2023 matched with two other candidates. The petitioner impersonated two other candidates in the said selection process.

7.

Learned advocate representing the Bank relies upon the intimation sent to the petitioner regarding his selection and the pre-joining verification process annexed at pages 13 to 15 of the writ petition wherein it has been clearly mentioned that if at any stage of selection process / employment, the candidate is found guilty of impersonation or any of the documents are concluded as fake, the service in the bank will be terminated forthwith and will render the employee liable for criminal prosecution.

8.

It has been submitted that the bank has taken a lenient stand and not yet terminated the service of the petitioner. The bank has issued a show cause notice and thereafter a regular disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him.

9.

Upon hearing the submission made on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the charge against the petitioner is of impersonation. The petitioner has already been provided an opportunity to participate in the disciplinary proceeding. It will be open for the petitioner to take all his defence in the said proceeding.

10.

The bank shall take necessary steps to conclude the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law.

11.

The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 12.

Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

13.

Certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)