2025:JHHC:33940 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.4107 of 2024 ----- Manish Kumar, S/o Mr. Yogesh Lal permanent R/o Gol ghar Chauraha, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Patna, Bihar at present r/o at Flat No.001, Munna Joshi Appartment, Naya Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Chakulia, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.Bank of Baroda, through its Chief Manager, Bardikanpur Branch Chakuliya, P.O. & P.S. Chakuliya, Jharkhand 2.Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Officer, Surya Bhawan, Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Bishtupur, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum 3. DRM, Bank of Baroda, Regional Officer, Surya Bhawan, Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Bishtupur, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum 4.Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Officer, Surya Bhawan, Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Bishtupur, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum 5.Senior Manager HRM Department, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Surya Bhawan, Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Bishtupur, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum 6.Zonal Head, Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office Patna, 5th Floor Anand Vihar, West Boring Canal Road, P.O. & P.S. Patna, District Patna, Bihar 7.Chief Manager (HRM Department), Bank Of Baroda, Zonal Office Patna, 5th Floor Anand Vihar, West Boring Canal Road, P.O. & P.S. Patna, District Patna, Bihar 8. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Bardi Kanpur Branch, P.O. & P.S. Chakuliya, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Amrita Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate …...... 18 / 13.11.2025: I.A. No.15120 of 2025 In the main writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to accept the joining of the petitioner and allow the petitioner to continue in the service of the respondent Bank of Baroda and to pay current admissible pay and allowances as also the arrears of pay and allowances to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has filed this interlocutory application challenging his order of removal after departmental proceeding. The prayer which he is seeking through the amendment and the facts therein is an absolutely separate cause of action and the same will change the nature of the entire writ petition. Thus, I am not inclined to allow this interlocutory application. 3. Accordingly, the interlocutory application stands dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge his order of removal including the disciplinary proceeding in a separate application, if maintainable in accordance with law as it has been submitted that the order is appealable. W.P. (S) No.4107 of 2024 4. Since the petitioner has already been removed from service after a departmental proceeding, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 5. The petitioner may avail his other remedies by challenging the order of removal before an appropriate forum. 6. I.A. No.11323 of 2024 also stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 13th November, 2025 R.S./