Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ
B. Uma – Appellant
Versus
Indian Bank – Respondent
WA No. 1420 of 2026|CMP NO. 13090 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.Elumalai
When a court relegates a party to pursue departmental appellate remedies, it must refrain from opining on the merits of the case to ensure the appellate authority makes an independent decision uninfluenced by judicial observations.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge to an order passed by a Single Judge who relegated the appellant, a bank employee dismissed from service, to pursue departmental appellate remedies under the relevant service regulations. The court initially directed the appellant to approach the appellate authority within a specified timeframe while providing conditional relief regarding limitation periods. The core issue was whether the learned Single Judge erred by making observations on the merits of the case while directing the appellant to avail of the statutory appellate remedy. The Court held that when a petitioner is relegated to departmental remedies, it is improper to render definitive findings on the merits that might prejudice the appellate authority, as the issues must be decided independently based on the departmental proceeding record. The writ appeal is disposed of with a modification extending the time for the appellant to prefer the appeal and clarifying that the appellate authority must decide the matter strictly uninfluenced by the findings of the Single Judge.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of prior proceedings regarding departmental appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. granting procedural relief while protecting the independence of the appellate process. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan J.)
Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The appellant was an employee of Indian Bank. She was dismissed from service. Challenging the same, WP.No.7402 of 2008 was filed by the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 30.04.2026 on the following terms.
“114. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority, as provided under Regulation 17 of the Regulations, 1976. In the event of the petitioner filing the appeal within 30 days from today, the respondent shall entertain the said appeal without reference to the limitation of 45 days prescribed under the Regulations, 1976 and decide the said appeal in accordance with law, uninfluenced by observations if any, made herein above. The respondents / appellate authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter (i) pass a speaking order; and (ii) communicate the said order to the petitioner at the address mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, within two weeks from the date of passing of the order.’
3. Learned Senior Counsel states that he will avail the appeal remedy, but he wants extension of time granted by the learned Single Judge to prefer the appeal.
4. We are inclined to accept the said request.
5. The appellant is given time till 30.06.2026 to prefer the appeal before the Appellate Authority.
6. We also make it clear that since the appellant has been relegated to avail the departmental remedy, no finding could have been rendered on merits. Therefore, the Appellate Authority will decide the issue without being influenced by any of the findings given by the learned Single Judge. All the contentions of the appellant are left open.
7.This Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
