Back
2026 Supreme(All) 279
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN, J.
Mr. Puneet Sachdeva - Appellant
Versus
Induslnd Bank And Others – Respondent
First Appeal No. 273 of 2026
Decided On : 07-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Wrongful Termination
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH ACT : S.13
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.12, Art.226, Art.309, Art.311
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT : S.14, S.40
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES : R.24
Headnote
(B) Employment Law - Natural justice - Employee's claims against termination may not result in reinstatement, but may allow for damages if wrongful dismissal is proved - Private bank's employment governed by contract not statutory provisions. (Paras 45-48)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, formerly a Branch Manager at a private bank, contested his termination following allegations of negligence leading to fraud by a subordinate employee. The trial court dismissed his suit based on jurisdictional grounds, asserting it couldn't entertain service-related claims due to statutory restrictions.
Findings of Court:
The court deemed the trial court's decision incorrect, confirming that civil law courts may indeed address contractual employment claims without being bound by statutory exclusions.
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of civil courts in employment matters and the appropriateness of the reliefs claimed by the employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that civil courts are competent to adjudicate wrongful termination claims; however, reinstatement is not an option unless under specific statutory provisions.
Result: Plaintiff's appeal allowed, trial court's decision set aside, and reinstatement of the case for adjudication on merits ordered.
For the Appellant : Anshul Kumar Singhal
For the Respondent: Mayank Awasthi, Saurabh Raj Srivastava
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context of employment and alleged fraud (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. arguments regarding dismissal and jurisdiction (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 3. court’s analysis on jurisdiction and contractual obligations (Para 24 , 26 , 27 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 4. jurisdiction of civil courts regarding employment disputes (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 5. conclusion and order for retrial (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
Judgment :
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 Rs. 5 lakhs on account of 5 lakhs on account of Mr.Shobhit Srivastava and recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of 3 lakhs was effected against the outstanding of Rs. 5 lakhs on account 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 Rs. 5 lakhs on account 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 Rs. 5 lakhs on account 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 Rs. 5 lakhs on account of 5 lakh and vouchers of transaction of Rs. 5 lakhs on account 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, 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 respondin
