1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86197 Court No. - 49 Reserved Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19059 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ankur Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi,Utkarsh Khanna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of the entire disciplinary proceedings against him, arising out of the charge-sheet dated 13.03.2024, instituted by the respondents, along with all orders in the disciplinary proceedings, prejudicial to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted and the departmental inquiry against him has run its full course. He has been punished by an order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 10.07.2024 with reduction to a lower grade from OMMGS-2 to GMGS-1. There is further direction that his basic pay would be fixed at Rs.48,480/- i.e. the initial pay scale (new scale) for a GMGS-1 in terms of Rule 67(g) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 (for short, 'the Rules of 1992'). The petitioner has appealed this order to the Appellate Authority, which is some Committee of Bank Managers, sitting at Mumbai. They have issued a notice of enhancement of penalty from reduction in rank to removal from service. 3. Heard Mr. Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi along with Mr. Utkarsh Khanna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing and Mr. Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel appearing 2 on behalf of the respondents. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Satish Chaturvedi that this petition by the petitioner is premature because the petitioner has only been given a notice of enhancement of penalty by the Appellate Authority upon the petitioner preferring an appeal from the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The course open to the petitioner is to file objections to the notice and await the outcome of the Appellate Authority's decision. There is then a provision for review under the Rules as well. 5. It is next submitted that the earlier writ petition that was filed by the petitioner at the stage of disciplinary proceedings was for a similar relief, inasmuch as it was filed against a tentative order of punishment. That petition was dismissed as withdrawn because no final order had been passed. Now, that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the final order and there is a notice of enhancement from the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is in the same position and has again raised a premature challenge. 6. The proceedings before the Appellate Authority, may be for enhancement, are still pending and under the Service Rules, there is a provision for review as well. No final orders have yet been passed by the respondents. Rather, the process of departmental proceedings is in midstream, where after being held guilty by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner has been punished by the Disciplinary Authority, whereagainst his appeal is pending with the Appellate Authority. May be the Appellate Authority has issued a notice for enhancement, but it cannot be said that in the respondents' establishment, the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have come to a terminus. At this stage, to quash the disciplinary proceedings 3 together with the adverse orders made against the petitioner, would be a very anomalous exercise of jurisdiction. It would be always open to the petitioner to question the final orders made, where all other adverse orders can be impugned as well. 7. No case for interference with the ongoing disciplinary proceedings is made out. 8. This writ petition fails and is dismissed, subject to the above liberty. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Anoop (J.J. Munir) Judge Digitally signed by :- ANOOP KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad