Ipsit Roy v. Indian Bank And ORS.

27-04-2026 Item No.20 Subrata Bhattacharyya IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side AR(C) WPA No.23535 of 2025 Ipsit Roy -vsIndian Bank & Ors.

with CAN No.1 of 2026 Mr. Atindra Nath Mr. Tamal Mondal ...for the petitioner Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh ...for the bank 1.

The petitioner was employed with the Allahabad Bank which subsequently merged with the Indian Bank. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and penalty of removal from service with no bar for future recruitment was imposed on him. The order of the disciplinary authority stood affirmed by the appellate authority.

2.

The petitioner has thereafter filed an application for review of the punishment imposed upon him. He alleges that the said application for review is pending consideration before the authority for a considerable period of time.

3.

Learned counsel for the Indian Bank submits that there is hardly any provision for review of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. The order of the disciplinary authority has been affirmed by the appellate authority. It has been submitted that there is no proof of service of the review application upon the competent authority. 4.

Be that as it may, as the application seeking

review dated November 20, 2025 is annexed to the connected application filed by the petitioner being CAN No.1 of 2026, accordingly, without entering into the merits of the same at this stage, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by directing the competent authority of the bank to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation seeking review of the penalty imposed upon him strictly in accordance with law at the earliest but positively within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall forward a copy of the representation dated November 20, 2025 to the aforesaid respondent at the time of communicating this order.

6.

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the prayer of the petitioner and that all points, including the point of maintainability of the prayer for review, are left open to be decided by the respondent at the time of consideration of the petitioner's representation. 7.

Since the writ petition is disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

8.

Consequentially, CAN No.1 of 2026 stands disposed of.

9.

All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

10.

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

[Amrita Sinha, J]