Sneh Gaglani v. Bank Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1374 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3847 OF 2025 Sneh Gaglani ... Petitioner

Versus

Bank Of Maharashtra ... Respondent __________________________________________________________ Ms. Sneh Gaglani, Petitioner in person.

Mr. Neel Helekar a/w Kanhaiya Yadav, Akhilesh Adhav and Paras Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondent.

__________________________________________________________ CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 24th April, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

In Writ Petition No. 3847 of 2025, we had delivered a speaking order on 25.11.2025 and directed the Bank to decide the pending Statutory Appeal preferred by the Petitioner, on its own merits. Thereafter, the Petitioner in person preferred Interim Application No. 7991 of 2025. Considering that the Petitioner in person is unaware of the provisions of law and is unable to comprehend that her departmental Appeal was pending, we rejected the Interim Application, since there was no cause of

action, by order dated 30.03.2026. Now, the Petitioner in person has again filed one Interim Application bearing Stamp No. 1374 of 2026.

2.

During the hearing today, the Petitioner in person went to the extent of making baseless allegations that the Bank has a pecuniary interest in the matter and a bias. We are surprised by such a submission. The Respondent Bank is the Employer of the Petitioner. For alleged misdeeds and misconducts, a departmental inquiry was conducted and charges of misappropriation and misbehavior were proved. The Petitioner was removed from service.

3.

Shri. Neel Helekar, learned Advocate for the Bank informs us that the Petitioners' Statutory Appeal has been partly allowed by order dated 12.02.2026. The Petitioner in person submits that she was aware of the order.

4.

Now that the order of punishment of removal from service has been recalled by the Bank and she has been reinstated in service, with reduction to lower grade as punishment, she is called

upon to join duties. The Petitioner has still not joined the duties. 5.

In view of the above, this Interim Application need not be entertained. The same is disposed off with the following observations :- a) The Petitioner would report for duties without prejudice to her rights and contentions.

b) If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2026, she may file an independent Writ Petition and challenge the said order and put forth all her contentions. 6.

We make it clear that since the Petitioner is disallowed from appearing in person, she would be at liberty to engage any Advocate and espouse her cause.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Digitally signed by ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Date:

2026.04.29 10:01:25 +0530 ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE