# Mr. Puneet Sachdeva v. IndusInd Bank & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 2037
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-07
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 273 of 2026
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mr-puneet-sachdeva-v-indusind-bank-ors-54487
- **Pages:** 21

## Text

_Characters 0–39,954 of 74,096. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39954 for what follows._

4 All. Mr. Puneet Sachdeva Vs. IndusInd Bank & Ors.
2037

20. Considering the provisions of Section 372 read with Section 379 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925, in answer to the questions formulated in para 3 above, I am of the view, for the reasons
discussed, that the deposit of the sum to be expended on the fee referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section
379 is not mandatory, and non-deposit of the same along with the filing of the application that issuance of
Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Act, does not affect the maintainability of the application
or of the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed to deciding the application..."

16. It is apparent that a token amount of Rs.25/- is to be paid at the time of moving application
seeking letters of administration under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act and only when the court
allows that application then the petitioner is required to deposit the complete Court fees, for the actual
issuance of the letter of administration. It is apparent that the petitioner is not supposed to deposit the
complete fee at the time of moving the above petition seeking grant of letters of administration.

17. In view of the above facts and law, the impugned order passed by the trial court is certainly
erroneous and is liable to be set aside, which has directed the petitioner to deposit the entire Court fees on
the petition seeking letters of administration prior to grant and issuance of certificate to the petitioner. This
appeal has merit and is liable to be allowed.

18. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated
30.07.2024 is set aside and the petitioner's application 39-A Kha stands allowed and the petitioner is
permitted to make good the deficiency of court fees after grant but before the issuance of letters of
administration.

19. This court has not expressed any opinion as to the genuineness and authenticity of the Will dated
16.04.2022 executed by late Smt. Veer Bala Jain. The trial court is directed to decide the petition seeking
letters of administration as a contentious case under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, after
giving due opportunity to the opposite parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order, without affording unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties, in accordance with law.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 2037
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 273 of 2026

Mr. Puneet Sachdeva ...Appellant
Versus
IndusInd Bank & Ors. ...Respondents

Issues for Consideration
2038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(i) Whether a civil suit instituted by an employee of a private bank challenging his dismissal from service was
barred for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the relief claimed pertained to termination of service?
(ii) Whether the Trial Court rightly held that the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 2(2) CPC, as inserted by Section
13 of U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976, barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit?
(iii) Whether an employee of a private bank, whose service conditions are governed by contractual service
rules and not by statutory rules, is entitled to reinstatement and consequential service benefits or is confined
to the remedy of damages for wrongful termination?
(iv) Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit solely on the question of jurisdiction without
adjudicating the dispute on merits?

Headnotes
Civil Procedure-Civil Court-Jurisdiction-Employee of private bank challenging dismissal from
service-Maintainability of suit.

HELD: The jurisdiction of a Civil Court under Section 9 CPC can be excluded only by an express statutory
provision or by necessary implication coupled with the availability of an adequate and efficacious alternative
remedy. Neither the Executive Staff Service Rules, 1994 governing the plaintiff nor any statutory provision
expressly barred institution of a civil suit challenging the legality of his dismissal. Since the defendant is a
private bank and the plaintiff's service conditions were purely contractual, the Civil Court alone constituted the
appropriate judicial forum for adjudicating the dispute. The Trial Court, therefore, erred in holding that it
lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit. [Paras 42, 46 to 49]

Civil Procedure-Order XXXIX Rule 2(2) CPC (U.P. Amendment)-Section 13 of U.P. Act No. 57 of
1976-Scope-Bar against grant of injunction distinguished from jurisdiction to entertain suit.

HELD: The proviso inserted by Section 13 of U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 merely prohibits grant of injunction in
specified service matters. It does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to examine the legality of
termination or to grant such reliefs as are otherwise permissible in law. The Trial Court wrongly treated the
statutory restriction on grant of injunction as a complete bar to its jurisdiction and thereby failed to exercise
jurisdiction vested in it. [Paras 47 to 49]

Private employment-Contract of personal service-Termination-Relief of reinstatement-When
impermissible.

HELD: Where employment is governed purely by contract and the employer is neither the State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution nor a statutory body governed by statutory service rules, the
contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced. Even if termination is found to be illegal, the
employee is not entitled to reinstatement or declaration that the contract of employment subsists. The remedy
is confined to damages for wrongful termination. [Paras 43 to 46]

Private Bank-Service Rules-Executive Staff Service Rules, 1994-Non-statutory characterEffect.

HELD: The plaintiff's service was regulated by the Executive Staff Service Rules, 1994 and the Code of
Conduct framed by the private bank. The said Rules were contractual and not statutory in nature. The
defendant Bank was neither 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 nor were Articles 309 and 311 of the
Constitution or labour law protections applicable to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff could neither
invoke writ jurisdiction nor claim reinstatement as a matter of right. [Paras 27, 37, 43 and 46]

Specific Relief Act, 1963-Contract of personal service-Wrongful dismissal-DamagesMaintainability of claim.
4 All. Mr. Puneet Sachdeva Vs. IndusInd Bank & Ors.
2039
HELD: Although reinstatement and mandatory injunction compelling continuance in service cannot be granted
in respect of private contractual employment, the employee is entitled to establish that his dismissal was
illegal or contrary to the applicable service rules and principles of natural justice and may recover damages for
wrongful termination. Such claim is maintainable before the Civil Court. [Paras 43, 49 and 50]

Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 40-Damages in addition to or in substitution of injunctionAmendment of plaint.

HELD: The Trial Court failed to consider that the plaintiff had already filed an application under Order VI Rule
17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to claim damages and that under Section 40 of the Specific Relief
Act, damages may be claimed in addition to or in substitution of an injunction and such amendment may be
permitted at any stage of the proceedings. Failure to decide the amendment application before dismissing the
suit reflected non-application of mind. [Para 50]
Civil Procedure-Dismissal of suit solely on preliminary issue of jurisdiction-Failure to decide
merits-Illegality.

HELD: The Trial Court dismissed the suit exclusively on the issue of jurisdiction without examining the legality
of the disciplinary proceedings, the plaintiff's challenge to the dismissal order or the relief of damages. Since
the Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the impugned judgment was legally unsustainable and
liable to be set aside with a direction for fresh adjudication on merits. [Paras 49 to 55]

Remand-Trial Court-Directions.

HELD: The judgment and decree dismissing the suit were set aside. The suit was restored to its original
number with a direction to the Trial Court to decide it expeditiously, preferably within six months, on the basis
of the pleadings and evidence already on record. It was clarified that the High Court had expressed no opinion
on the merits of the disciplinary proceedings or the legality of the plaintiff's dismissal. [Paras 51 to 55]

Appeal allowed with costs. Judgment and decree set aside. Suit restored for decision on merits.
(E-14)

Case Law Cited
Dhruv Green Field Ltd. v. Hukam Singh and Others, (2002) 6 SCC 416 - relied on; Ramendra
Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, (1999) 1 SCC 472 - relied on; Shivdhesar Singh v. District
Judge, Mirzapur and Others, 1996 (2) AWC 1317 (All) - relied on; Saurabh Kumar Pandey v.
IndusInd Bank Ltd., Writ-A No. 7007 of 2023 (Allahabad High Court) - relied on; Federal Bank
Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Others, (2003) 10 SCC 733 - relied on; Sitaram Kashiram Konda v.
Pigment Cakes and Chemicals Manufacturing Co., AIR 1979 SC 745 - relied on; S.N. Goyal v.
Bank of Baroda, (2008) 8 SCC 92 - relied on; Kailash Singh v. Mayo College General Council,
(2018) 18 SCC 216 - relied on; Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, (1973) 1 SCC 409
- relied on; Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, (1976) 1 SCC 496 -
referred to; Ram Swarup v. Shikar Chand, AIR 1966 SC 893 : (1966) 2 SCR 553 - referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes/Books
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Constitution of India; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947;
Banking Regulation Act, 1949; U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976.

List of Keywords
Civil Court jurisdiction; Private employment; Contract of personal service; Private bank; Dismissal from
service; Reinstatement; Wrongful termination; Damages; Specific Relief Act; Executive Staff Service Rules;
Jurisdiction; Remand.

Case Arising From
2040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Judgment and decree dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court
No. 16, Prayagraj in Original Suit No. 180 of 2015, Puneet Sachdeva v. IndusInd Bank and
Others.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal.
For the Respondents: Sri Mayank Awasthi and Sri Saurabh Raj Srivastava.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 CPC against the
impugned judgment and decree dated 10.7.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division)
Court No. 16, Allahabad in O.S. no. 180 of 2015 Puneet Sachdeva vs.IndusInd Bank and others,
whereby the plaintiff 's suit has been dismissed on the ground that the Court lacks inherent
jurisdiction to try and decide the suit.

Plaint case

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.no.180 of 2015 against the defendants who are IndusInd Bank and its
officials, with the averments that he joined the Bank on 21.8.2008 as Senior Relationship Manager
at its Barakhamba Branch, New Delhi and by his dedication, devotion, hard work, excellent
performance and appraisal, was promoted as Branch Manager and was transferred to Allahabad
Branch of the defendant Bank in June 2011,where he worked there till 9.5.2013. It was further
averred that during his tenure of 6 years with the bank, he received commendations, appreciation
letter for his work and his appraisal ratings in 4 years from 2008 - 2009 to 2011 - 12 remained
outstanding and excellent and he earned promotions from the rank of Deputy Manager to Asst.
Vice President on the basis of his hard work, commitment and devotion.

3. It was further averred that in the financial year 2011 - 12 he received appreciation for
detecting fraud of ₹ 5 lakhs on account of Mr.Shobhit Srivastava and recovery of ₹ 3 lakhs was
effected against the outstanding of ₹ 5 lakhs.

4. It was further averred that as Branch Manager he was not dealing with disbursement/receipt
of cash/cheque etc. but was required to examine transactions of ₹ 5 lakhs and above from the daily
reports that were brought by the staff to his notice apart from his other routine duties and as Branch
Manager, he was required to counter sign the vouchers of ₹ 5 lakhs and above which were initially
signed by operation of staff and Manager - Customer Service and Operations(MCSOP). It was
further averred that the defendant Bank had given MCSOP the discretionary power to authorise all
transactions and to counter sign the voucher for the transaction up to ₹ 5 lakh and vouchers of
transaction of ₹ 5 lakh and above were to be signed by the operational staff, MCSOP and Branch
Manager. At the relevant time Mr. Neeraj Verma was the MCSOP.

5. It was further averred that the prime responsibility of cash officer Mr. Sachin Yadav of the
defendant Bank at Allahabad was receipt and payment of cash to ensure cash management is within
retention limit, maintenance of cash registers, joint custodian of vault and ATM. The clearing
officer Mrs.Amba Lakshmi of defendant Bank was overall in charge of inward/outward clearing,
4 All. Mr. Puneet Sachdeva Vs. IndusInd Bank & Ors.
2041
reconciliation of accounts with banks, lodgment of outward cheques, all work related to ECS
credits, reporting, returns and effective closure of complaints/issues related to it.

6. It was further averred that the prime responsibility of remittance officer Mrs. Suchitra
Prajapati of the defendant Bank was issuance, revalidation, cancellation of demand draft and pay
orders to customers, transfer entries,RTGS, arrangement of vouchers, daily reconciliation of FD
suspense accounts, daily report checking and arrangement and verifying the vouchers which are
incomplete, dispatching a voucher to VVU and responding to their querries.

7. It was further averred that the Branch Monitoring Unit (BMU) audit was done on quarterly
basis in each Branch and the audit of the defendant Banks' Allahabad Branch was reviewed by Mr.
Anurag Chaudhary on 14.3.2013 which was for the period 27.8.2012 to 13.3.2013 and certain
observations were made in the audit, which were resolved during course of the report submission
and Mr. Neeraj Verma MCSOP mentioned his feedback on various points highlighted in the audit
report .The plaintiff has specifically averred that in the above audit there was no mention of
missing vouchers and none of the fraudulent transactions could be traced and detected. It was
further averred that in the internal audit conducted by the Bank the performance of the Branch was
found satisfactory and no fraud of any kind was found in the Branch.

8. The plaintiff has mentioned relevant details in the plaint to point out that Mr. Neeraj Verma
was not performing properly, which was also in the notice of higher officials of the Bank. The
plaintiff has also averred that Mrs. Suchitra Prajapati who was reporting to Mr. Neeraj Verma
MCSOP, was also not deliberately preparing the vouchers of fraudulent transactions and had been
showing wrong POD. Mr. Neeraj Verma was also providing wrong and false information to him
regarding sending of pending vouchers and this fact was brought to his notice by VVU(voucher
verification unit). It is the case of the plaintiff that if transfer vouchers would have been sent to the
VVU promptly by Mr. Neeraj Verma then the fraud in regard to unauthorised transactions would
have been traced.

9. It was further averred that on 1.5.2013 the plaintiff received a transfer order from the
defendant bank that he had been transferred to his home town Delhi at Naraina Branch of the
defendant Bank. The plaintiff handed over the charge of his branch to Mr. Vishwaneet Khosla on
9.5.2013, and the plaintiff was relieved on 13.5.2013. The plaintiff was later on directed by the
defendant Bank to join Gujranwala Branch on 18.5.2013, to which he complied.

10. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on 30.5.2013 he came to know that Mrs. Suchitra
Prajapati has committed fraud in internal accounts and misappropriated funds in several customer
accounts and the BMU team of the Bank was locating fraudulent entries done by her. The plaintiff
was also informed that fraudulent entries beyond her power were authorised by using ID of Mr.
Neeraj Verma MSCOP and Mr. Vineet Gupta , Authoriser. The plaintiff was further informed that
Mrs. Suchitra Prajapati has confessed to committing fraud amounting to ₹ 41 lakhs consisting of ₹
17.77 lakhs during the tenure of plaintiff and the remaining ₹ 23.23 lakhs in the period of his
successor. The plaintiff was also informed that the Bank has recovered most of the amount.
Subsequently,Mrs. Suchitra Prajapati denied that the fraud was committed by her. She also lodged
2042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a case of sexual harassment against all the officials of the defendant bank, who persuaded her for
depositing back the amount of fraud, with police authorities and to higher authorities of the Bank.

11. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the fraud committed by Mrs. Suchitra Prajapati
was due to sheer negligence of Mr. Neeraj Verma MCSOP, which was detected by Mr. Gautam
Singh of the Branch Monitoring Unit( BMU) who visited the Branch on 27.5.2013 to take stock of
the situation and checked the transactions for missing vouchers along with Mr. Neeraj Verma
MCSOP.

12. The plaintiff has further averred that due to the above fraud committed by Mrs. Suchitra
Prajapati he was suspended by the Bank on 30.9.2013, a disciplinary enquiry was instituted by the
Bank regarding the above fraud in which the chargesheet was served on Mrs. Suchitra Prajapati on
9.10.2013, Mr. Neeraj Verma and on him on 18.2.2014, but the disciplinary enquiry was only
conducting enquiry for the charges levelled against Mrs. Suchitra Prajapati in the chargesheet given
to her whereas, the same should have been done for all the employees to whom the chargesheet was
served. According to the plaintiff, it was strange that for one offence different chargesheets were
issued. It is the case of the plaintiff that the higher officials of the defendant Bank intimated to him
that the fraud had been committed by Mrs. Suchitra Prajapati but to make it appear as serious
action, they had also suspended plaintiff for the brief period. It was further averred that on
22.6.2013 the defendant Bank lodged FIR against Mrs. Suchitra Prajapati for committing fraud of ₹
41 lakhs, in which there was no mention of his involvement, in any manner whatsoever, which is
still pending for investigation, in which no chargesheet has been filed till date.

13. It was further averred by the plaintiff that he was suspended by the defendant Bank on
7.10.2013, chargesheet was served on him on 18.2.2014, on 19.2.2014 he was served with the fresh
chargesheet on the same grounds in Delhi, on which enquiry was already held in Allahabad. It was
further averred that the plaintiff was not given proper opportunity of submitting his reply, since he
had to collect and peruse the relevant records for negating the charges, the opportunity given to him
was too short, due to which he could not prepare his proper defence statement, the defendant Bank
also failed to comply with the principles of natural justice. The plaintiff has further averred that in
the meanwhile the higher officials of the Bank were sending clear signal to him that he would be
exonerated in the enquiry since he was not part of the fraud as such, he need not raise all those
objections.

14. The following charges were levelled against the plaintiff in the disciplinary enquiry
conducted by the defendant Bank :-

"(i)Despite mails from BMU, the charged executive and the Manager Customer Service
and Operations(MCSOP) failed to reconcile internal account.

(ii)The charged executive and the MCSOP failed to send the vouchers to VVU despite
follow-up by BMU. No proper tracking was done at the branch by the charged executive and the
MCSOP.

(iii)Daily report was not checked by the charged executive and the MCSOP.

(iv)Mrs. Suchitra Prajapati had not prepared the vouchers and ensured that the vouchers
were not sent to VVU, to avoid detection of unauthorised entries by VVU Hub.
4 All. Mr. Puneet Sachdeva Vs. IndusInd Bank & Ors.
2043

(v)The MCSOP Mr.Neeraj Verma has allegedly shared the password to Mrs. Suchitra
Prajapati which was done by her with his authority and used in the transaction undertaken by her."

15. It was further averred by the plaintiff that a 2nd domestic enquiry on 25.2.2014 was
conducted against him at the corporate office of the defendant Bank at Mumbai by Mr. Sachin
Pandey, who was junior to him. It was further averred that the plaintiff came to know from the
BMU team that Mr. Neeraj Verma has been reinstated in the job with some punishment. The
plaintiff was ultimately dismissed on 19.5.2014 by the defendant no. 2 Mr.Ashok Nair, Head
Human Relations of the defendant Bank, on the basis of the report of the disciplinary enquiry,
which according to the plaintiff was grossly disproportionate and unwarranted, since there was no
evidence against him. According to the plaintiff, the fraud was committed by Mrs. Suchitra
Prajapati and Mr. Neeraj Verma, MCSOP but he was wrongly punished. It has been specifically
averred by the plaintiff that he has never made any admission of his guilt in the disciplinary enquiry
before any official of the Bank or of his wrongdoing in any manner whatsoever. It was specifically
averred by the plaintiff that his password was not used in committing fraud nor he had authorised
any fraudulent transaction undertaken by Mrs. Suchitra Prajapati and Mr. Neeraj Verma MCSOP.

16. It has been further averred by the plaintiff that for filing Appeal against his dismissal
order, he demanded the relevant documents from the Bank which were not provided to him on the
ground that they were not relevant. The plaintiff submitted his Appeal against the order of
disciplinary authority to defendant no. 2 on 19.6.2014.

17. It was further averred that the Appellate Authority added 2 additional charges on
7.10.2014 against him, which were not before the disciplinary authority in the chargesheet dated
18.2.2014, which was against the principles of natural justice, which read as under :-

"(i) There has been many lapses on your part such as debiting dormant accounts and
booking life insurance policies in dummy names and allowing free hand to Mrs. Suchitra Prajapati
to undertake transactions to inflate business.

(ii)Password sharing too seems to have been done under your pressure since Mrs.
Suchitra Prajapati was managing with some of the customers by selling life insurance policies as
also making the MCSOP and the authorisers move out for business."

18. It was further averred that the Appellate Authority failed to conduct impartial enquiry,
which failed to properly examine the material on record, who has illegally upheld his termination
from the Bank. The plaintiff further averred that due to the illegal termination,he has suffered a loss
of about ₹ 26,49,663/-which he is entitled to get with interest @ 18% per annum from the
defendant Bank and its officials.

19. In the above backdrop ,the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs in his plaint:-

"(A) Pass a decree of declaration to the effect that the Appellate order dated 8.10.2014
passed by defendant no. 3 and order dated 19.5.2014 passed by defendant no. 2 is illegal and is
nullity;
2044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(B) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant no.1 Bank injuncting the
defendant No. 1 Bank to terminate the plaintiff;

(C)Pass a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to his back wages
with interest and all employment benefits;

(D)Pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 Bank to reinstate the
plaintiff forthwith with full back wages and employment benefits;

(E)Award cost of the suit in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants;

(F)Pass any such order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case."

Written statement of the defendants

20. All the defendants filed their joint written statement before the trial court,in which the
plaint averments were denied. It was averred that the relief claimed by the plaintiff cannot be
granted in original suit, which was not maintainable for the reliefs claimed by him. It was further
averred that the plaintiff was directly responsible for the fraud which was committed in his Branch
for which appropriate disciplinary proceedings were drawn against him and in pursuance of that,
the plaintiff has been rightly dismissed from service of the Bank. It was further averred that the
plaintiff, being the Branch Manager, was responsible for all high-value transactions, he was
supposed to check and sign the vouchers, being the custodian and overall incharge of the Branch.

21. It was further averred by the defendants that during enquiry several transactions above ₹ 5
lakhs were found, which were not duly checked by the plaintiff, on account of which fraud was
committed, which caused serious financial and reputational loss to the Bank. It was further averred
that MCSOP worked under the supervision of the plaintiff and it was his duty to ensure that
MCSOP worked in a fair and error free manner, in which the plaintiff failed. It was further averred
that on account of several supervisory and controlling lapses committed by the plaintiff, Mrs.
Suchitra Prajapati, a subordinate employee of the plaintiff, was able to commit fraud amounting to
₹ 40 lakhs. The defendants in their written statement have justified the dismissal of the plaintiff, for
the alleged lapses committed by him during his tenure as a Branch Manager.

22. It was further averred by the defendants that after disciplinary enquiry Mrs. Suchitra
Prajapati has also been dismissed from service. It was further averred that plaintiff was charged for
his negligence and dereliction of duties towards the Bank and because the plaintiff was negligent,
the fraud was perpetuated in the Branch, during his tenure as Branch Manager. It was further
averred that the plaintiff was given full opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings in
which chargesheet was given to him, and thereafter, final order of dismissal was passed. It was
further averred that the plaintiff has not pointed out any procedural irregularity in the disciplinary
proceedings conducted by the defendant Bank, and has only pressed upon the factual aspects of the
matter, which have already been dealt with in the enquiry proceedings, hence the dismissal as well
as the appellate orders, does not warrant any interference by this Court. It was further averred that
Mr. Neeraj Verma was also punished in the disciplinary enquiry.

23. It was further averred by the defendants that the relief of re-instatement in service cannot
be granted by the Court. Further, the order of dismissal from service cannot be challenged by way
4 All. Mr. Puneet Sachdeva Vs. IndusInd Bank & Ors.
2045
of civil suit. It was further averred that the plaintiff was suspended on 30.9.2013, a chargesheet was
served on him on 18.2.2014 for breach of the Executive Staff Service Rules,1994 and the Code of
Conduct, as applicable to him. It was further averred that the appeal preferred by the plaintiff
before the Appellate Authority was dismissed by a reasoned order on 8.10.2014. It was averred by
the defendants that no illegality has been committed by the Bank in dismissing the plaintiff, in view
of this, the suit was liable to be dismissed with costs.

Issues framed by the trial court

24. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues:-

"(i)Whether the plaintiff had been unlawfully suspended from service by the defendants ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff suffered any economic loss due to unlawful and arbitrary act of
defendant no.1 ?

(iii)Whether the suit is under valued ?

(iv)Whether the court fees paid by the plaintiff is insufficient ?

(v)Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit ?

(vi)Whether any cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff ?

(vii)Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed by him ?"

25. It is evident from the record of the trial court that the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1
before the trial court, but he was not cross-examined by the defendants, inspite of numerous
opportunities provided by the trial court, as such, the opportunity of the defendants to crossexamine plaintiff was closed on 29.10.2021. No further evidence was adduced by the plaintiff. The
case was proceeded ex-parte against the defendants on 11.11.2022 and after the closure of plaintiffs
evidence, the case was fixed for hearing ex-parte arguments, the arguments of the plaintiff were
heard on 04.7.2023 and thereafter, the suit was dismissed on 10.7.2023.

Reasoning of the trial court

26. The trial court considered Section 9 and Order 39 Rule 2(2) CPC, as well as the
amendment made by Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Act 57 of 1976, and from their combined
reading, concluded that the trial court lacked inherent jurisdiction to try the suit since the plaintiff
was seeking the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction against the order of termination of
service, which was specifically barred by Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Act 57 of 1976. In the
light of the above conclusion, issue no. 5 relating to jurisdiction was decided against the plaintiff.
The trial court did not examine the controversy on merit. The plaintiff 's suit was dismissed on the
ground of being barred by jurisdiction, aggrieved against which, the plaintiff has filed the instant
appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.

Submissions made by the learned counsel of the parties

27. Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant submitted that the
defendant IndusInd Bank is a private bank, which is not owned by the Government, the employees
of which are not governed by any statutory rules, but only governed by the private rules and Code
2046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Conduct framed by the Bank. It was further submitted that the Bank does not fall in the
definition of State or other authorities, so as to attract the provisions of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, as such, the Bank is not amenable to Writ jurisdiction of the Constitutional
Courts, meaning thereby, that the employee cannot challenge his illegal dismissal from service by
invoking the Writ jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts. It was further submitted by the learned
counsel that the plaintiffs service was not governed by any statutory rules but by Executive Staff
Service Rules,1994 of the defendant Bank and the plaintiff was also bound by the Code of Conduct
applicable to him.

28. It was further submitted that since the plaintiff appellant has exhausted the departmental
remedy of Appeal provided by the defendant Bank, as such, since no other remedy was available to
him, hence, he can very well challenge his illegal termination from the service of the Bank by filing
the instant suit, and can also claim the relief that his illegal termination from service be set aside, he
be reinstated in service and he be also paid back wages for the illegal duration of termination.
Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff can also claim damages for his illegal
termination from the defendants.

29. It was further submitted that the provisions of Section 13 of U.P.Act 57 of 1976, were
inapplicable and the trial court has misread the above provision. It was further submitted that the
jurisdiction of civil court was not barred in this matter, as such the trial court has committed
material illegality in rejecting the plaintiff 's suit on this ground, which is liable to be set aside.
With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed, the impugned order be set aside
and the matter be remanded back to the trial court for deciding it on merits. In support of his
contention, the learned counsel has relied on the following case law :-

"(i)Shivdhesar Singh vs.Union of India 2010 SCC OnLine All 1820.

(ii)Ramendra Kishore Biswas vs.State of Tripura and ors. (1999)1SCC472(By 3 Judges).

(iii)Saurabh Kumar Pandey vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.Writ 'A' no.7140 of 2021
decided on 01.10.2021 by Allahabad High Court.

(iv)Dhruv Green Field Ltd. vs.Hukum Singh and others AIR 2002 SC 2841.

(v)Sitaram Kashiram Konda vs.Pigment Cakes &Chemicals Mfg.Co.(1979)4SCC 12."

30. Per contra,Sri Saurabh Raj Srivastava learned counsel for the defendant respondent Bank
submitted that the plaintiff committed certain serious lapses during his tenure as Branch Manager
of the Allahabad Branch of the defendant Bank, due to which the bank suffered financial loss of ₹
41 lakhs and the reputation of the Bank was also tarnished, for which disciplinary enquiry was
conducted as per the rules and regulations of the bank against responsible employees, by following
the principles of natural justice and affording full opportunity to the plaintiff to submit his defence,
in which he was found guilty, as a result of which, he was dismissed from the services of the Bank,
which was challenged by the plaintiff by filing appeal, which was also dismissed on merits by the
Bank.

31. Learned counsel further submitted that the dismissal of the plaintiff has attained finality,
which neither can be set aside by the civil court nor it can order plaintiffs reinstatement in the
service of the defendant Bank. It was further submitted that at the most,if the plaintiffs termination
4 All. Mr. Puneet Sachdeva Vs. IndusInd Bank & Ors.
2047
was found illegal by the Court, it can only award damages to the plaintiff for his illegal termination,
but the plaintiff has not claimed any damages as such, even the damages cannot be awarded to the
plaintiff.

32. It was further submitted that the plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration that his
termination from the service of the Bank was illegal,the relief of permanent injunction for
restraining the Bank from terminating him from the service of the Bank,back wages with interest
and all employment benefits and mandatory injunction for his reinstatment with full back wages
and employment benefits, which cannot be granted by the Court. It was further submitted that since
the plaintiff has already been terminated from the service of the Bank as such, the relief of
permanent injunction cannot be granted to the plaintiff. With these submissions, it was prayed that
the appeal is meritless and is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of
the Apex Court in State Bank of India and ors. vs. S.N.Goyal (2008)8 SCC 92.

33. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the
record of the trial court. Appeal is admitted.

34. The following issues arises for determination in this appeal :-

"(A)Whether the civil court lacked inherent jurisdiction to examine whether plaintiffs
termination from the service of the defendant Bank was illegal ?

(B)What relief could have been granted by the Court to the plaintiff in the suit?"

Analysis of case law submitted by the learned counsel

35. This Court in the case of Shivdhesar Singh (supra) was considering a case where the
services of Constable employed in the Central Reserve Police Force was terminated and he had
challenged it by filing civil suit. It was contended by the respondents that an alternative remedy
under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act was available to the plaintiff, as such, the suit was
not legally maintainable, but the submission was rejected by this Court, on the ground that, the
exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court in view of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act or
even on account of the fact that the Central Reserve Police Force Act provides for a complete
mechanism for redressal of the grievance of the plaintiff appellant, cannot be inferred. It was
further held that where the relevant service rules neither expressly nor by implication takes away,
the jurisdiction of the civil court to deal with the service matter, it was not proper to hold that the
civil court had no jurisdiction.

36. The Apex Court in the case of Ramendra Kishore Biswas (supra) was considering a case
where the employee of the Central Government had challenged his dismissal from service as void
and illegal and had filed civil suit claiming reinstatement. The High Court held that under Rule 24
of the CCS(CCA)Rules,1965 the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred, and only in the writ
petition the termination order could have been challenged. In these circumstances,it was held by the
Apex Court as under:-
2048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"5. The opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that in view of the
CCA Rules, the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted from dealing with an order passed by the
disciplinary authority which can be questioned under the Service Rules and that even after
recourse is had to the departmental proceedings, recourse can only be to file a writ petition is
palpably erroneous. The learned Single Judge readily accepted the ouster of jurisdiction of civil
courts to deal with service matters without proper consideration of the matter. Indeed, it is
appropriate to relegate a person to exhaust departmental remedies when he approaches the court
without exhausting departmental remedies under the Service Rules but to hold that the civil court
had no jurisdiction while hearing a second appeal, after the matter has been litigated in civil courts
for more than five years was, to say the least, not proper. The learned Single Judge ought to have
decided the case on its own merits and not made a short-cut of it. The appellant could not have
been non-suited on the ground that he had failed to take recourse to proceedings under the CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965 against the order of dismissal.

6. Again the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge to the effect:

It is my firm conviction that in the present case, the civil court cannot make a declaration
under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as its jurisdiction has been taken away by the
special rules, i.e., the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Under the circumstances, it means a civil court does
not have jurisdiction in respect of matters which are entertained and decided by the statutory
tribunal in conformity with the powers conferred by the enactment."

is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Service Rules, neither expressly nor by
implication, have taken away the jurisdiction of the civil courts to deal with service matters. The
opinion of the learned Single Judge does violence both to the Code of Civil Procedure, the Specific
Relief Act and the Service Rules. As a matter of fact it appears to us that the learned Single Judge
failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him while non-suiting the appellant. It, therefore,
appears appropriate to us to allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and
remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision of the regular second appeal and the crossobjections on their own merits. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The RSA and crossobjections are remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law."

37.