HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 16817 of 2024 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Namit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Pashupati Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment passed by disciplinary authority without availing the alternative remedy to file a departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority and has filed this writ petition directly before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred paragraph Nos.47 and 72 of this writ petition that it is a case where principles of natural justice were violated, therefore, this Court can entertain this writ petition directly at first instance against the punishment order of compulsory retirement. For reference, the relevant paragraph Nos.47 and 72 are reproduced hereinafter :- "47. That at this place It is relevant to mention here that the inquiry authority has illegally and arbitrarily in an ex-parte and predetermined manner concluded the said inquiry as ex-parte. At this place it is relevant to mention here that the inquiry authority was conducting the said inquiry proceedings on day-to-day basis and lastly the inquiry proceeding was conducted at Abhay Khand Branch on 08.05.2024 till late evening upto 07:00 PM. During course of inquiry, the petitioner informed the inquiry authority that he had received noticed with regard to another enquiry at Vasundhara Branch on 09.05.2024 and the inquiry notice for hearing dated 09.05.2024 was also produced by him before inquiry authority even though he has fixed the date for hearing of said inquiry (with regard to first charge sheet) on the same date i.e. 09.05.2024 and the venue of the inquiry has also been changed from Abhay Khand Branch Ghaziabad to Delhi on 09.05.2024 when the petitioner reached at Vasundhara Branch along with his witness in the morning at scheduled time where he was informed by the Branch Manager Vasundhara Branch that the Inquiry has been postponed and further a letter of postponement of inquiry was also provided to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner proceeded for second inquiry scheduled at Delhi but on reaching at the venue it was found that the inquiry authority Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma was not available there and thereafter petitioner Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gunjan Sharma, Namit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pashupati Nath Tripathi Narendra Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Indian Bank Through Its General Manager And Another .....Respondent(s) received a copy of minutes of proceeding of inquiry dated 09.5.2024 concluded at Abhay Khand Branch, Ghaziabad and concluded on the same date as ex-parte. In this regard, the petitioner also sent his objection/representation before Disciplinary authority on 16.05.2024 but nothing has been done. A Xerox copy of minutes of proceedings of inquiry dated 08.05.2024 and 09.05.2024 as well as the petitioner's representation dated 16.05.2024 are being filed herewith and marked as NO.14 & 15 respectively to this writ petition. 72. 72. That the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 imposing major penalty of "Compulsory Retirement" upon the petitioner passed by respondent No.2 is in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent authorities as well as the Inquiry Officer during course of inquiry and Departmental proceeding not afforded fair opportunity of hearing even after passing of order of this Hon'ble Court and further the respondent No.2 prior to passing impugned order of major penalty neither issued any show cause notice nor considered the written brief submitted by the petitioner hence the said order is ex-parte, therefore, the petitioner is invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing present writ petition without preferring Departmental Appeal." 4. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. The provision for consideration of an appeal by the Appellate Authority in a departmental proceedings is not a mere formality and it is an important authority to raise grounds on law as well as on facts, even contention of violation of principles of natural justice could be considered and the High Court also would have a benefit if there are orders of disciplinary authority as well as of Appellate Authority, therefore, without going into merit of case further, this writ petition is disposed of that in case, the petitioner files an appeal taking the grounds mentioned in this writ petition specifically in paragraph Nos.40, 41, 43, 47 and 72 and other grounds as well, the Appellate Authority will consider the said grounds. In case, Appellate Authority returned a finding that there was a violation of principles of natural justice, the matter will be remitted to disciplinary authority to decide afresh. If the appeal is filed within three weeks from today, the Appellate Authority will decide it within six weeks. 5. The Appellate Authority will also take note of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Chatrapal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2024 INSC 115, that Appellate Authority may consider whether Disciplinary Authority has not followed the principle of natural justice in conducting the proceedings and findings of fact was based on no evidence etc. September 16, 2025 P. Pandey WRIA No. 16817 of 2024 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad