[2026:RJ-JP:16426] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16406/2025 Firoz Ahmad S/o Shri Abdus Salam, Aged About 55 Years, B- 294, Paramount Golfofreste, Zeta 1, Greater Noida, Po - Container Depot, Dist - Gautam Buddha Nagar 201311 (U.p.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Bank Of India, Through Its Chairman, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. 2. Chief General Manager, Jaipur Circle, State Bank Of India, Local Head Office, Tilak Marg, Jaipur-302005. ----Respondents Present-in-Person : Mr. Firoz Ahmad (Petitioner) For Respondent(s) : Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal Mr. Vikram Singh Chauhan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 18/04/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the Chief General Manager, Jaipur (CGM) in deciding the appeal of the petitioner contrary to the circular dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure-P4). 3. The facts disclose that the petitioner was allegedly compulsorily retired as a disciplinary action for unauthorized absence and the said action has been initially challenged before the CGM who was the appellate authority. Subsequently, there was a circular dated 02.07.2020, whereby all the appeals pending before the CGM were withdrawn and directed to be decided by the Central Office, Mumbai. In compliance with the said circular, a [2026:RJ-JP:16426] (2 of 2) [CW-16406/2025] majority of the appeals pending before the CGM appeared to have been withdrawn and transferred to the Central Office, Mumbai; however, it appears that the CGM, without noting the circular, had decided the appeal of the petitioner contrary to the circular. Subsequently, the CGM realized the mistake and he withdrew the order on the appeal and the appeal was decided by the Central Office which also dismissed the appeal. The petitioner, challenging the order of the Central Office, has filed a writ petition, which is pending before a coordinate Bench of this Court at the principal seat at Jodhpur. 4. The primary ground taken in the present case is that the CGM decided the appeal contrary to the circular as such disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated. This Court is not a forum to take vengeance. Perhaps, the CGM decided the appeal, as if it still vested with the appellate jurisdiction, without noting the circular dated 02.07.2020. This itself is not misconduct so as to warrant the initiation of any action against the CGM. It is for the employer to take an appropriate decision. This Court cannot issue any mandamus for initiating action against the CGM . 5. In view of the above, this Court finds that the present writ petition is misconceived and, therefore, the same is dismissed. 6. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 16 - BhumikaP/-