Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The General Manager (Hrd) vs National Aviation on 27 January, 2026
APHC010711052025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3568]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1380/2025
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set-side the order of
the learned single judge in W.P.No.24910 of 2025 dated 17.12.2025 and
consequently dismiss the W.P.No.24910 of 2025 and to pass
Between:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (HRD), PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, HEAD
OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,BLOCK 3,NBCC COMPLEX. EAST KIDWAI
NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110023.
2. THE ZONAL MANAGER,, PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, ZONAL OFFICE,
VIJAYAWADA, H.N0.54-14-4C/1, FOURTH FLOOR, R.K GALLERIA,
SERVICE ROAD, SRINIVASANAGAR, BANK COLONY, BESIDE
SWEET MAGIC, VIJAYAWADA, AP. - 520008.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. NALAGANGU MOHAN SAI KRISHNA, Aged 41 years, S/o. Nalagangu
Madhava Rao, Near Marri Chettu, Main Road, Musunuru Kavali,
Nellore, Andhra Pradesh- 524201 Currently working as Manager (Scale
II), Punjab AND Sind Bank.
...RESPONDENT
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the order dated
17.12.2025 at this stage and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
2
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 17.12.2025 passed in
W.P.No. 24910 of 2025, pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal and pass
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. A.SAI ROHIT
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. K.S BALA SAI TEJA
The Court made the following:
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT APPEAL No.1380 of 2025
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) The present writ appeal is filed, aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2025 in Writ Petition No.24910 of 2025 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. For convenience, the parties arrayed in the writ petition are referred herein.
4. The writ petitioner, who is working as Manager at Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office at Vijayawada, filed the writ petition against the action of the respondents in not relieving him from service in accordance with the resignation submitted by him on 03.06.2025.
5. The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the respondent-Bank on 15.07.2019 and promoted as Manager Scale-2 on 01.04.2023 and working at Nellore Branch. On 05.06.2023, he was posted as Manager In-Charge at Tirupati Branch. On 03.01.2025, the State Bank of India issued an advertisement for recruitment of Specialist Cadre Officers on regular basis. The post advertised is Trade Finance Officer (MMGS-II) and the last date of 4 registration is 23.01.2025. On 06.01.2025, the petitioner submitted an application for "No Objection Certificate (NOC)" to the respondent-Bank through the Bank's HRMS portal and also applied for leave through HRMS portal on 18.03.2025 to attend the interview at the State Bank of India at Hyderabad. The said NOC application was approved on 29.03.2025. On 03.04.2025, the State Bank of India published a list of provisionally selected candidates. The petitioner's name was shown at Sl.No.32, confirming his selection. Thereafter, he received an offer letter dated 10.06.2025 with an initial joining date of 16.06.2025. Meanwhile, the petitioner has submitted his resignation from the Post of Manager Scale-2, Tirupati Branch Office on 03.06.2025 to enable him to join in the State Bank of India and intimated that the last working date would be 01.09.2025. On 19.05.2025, the petitioner had received an email from the Chief Manager of State Bank of India for document verification and for medical checkup and an offer letter was issued. As the petitioner has to issue three (3) months mandatory notice to the respondent-Bank, the petitioner could not join the State Bank of India immediately. Though the petitioner submitted resignation letter to the respondent-Bank for formal relieving and in spite of his best efforts, he was not relieved and instead of that he was transferred from the Post of Branch In- Charge to ordinary Manager on 03.07.2025, accordingly reported at Zonal Office, Vijayawada on 23.07.2025 as per the instructions of the respondent- Bank. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bank in not relieving him, he 5 approached this Court by filing the writ petition.
6. It is the contention of the respondent-Bank that to process the resignation, the petitioner should deposit an amount equivalent to the salary for the shortfall in the notice period and he has to return the furniture allowance availed by him and to create a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) towards perquisite tax liabilities. The conditions are standard requirements under the Bank's internal procedures and compliance with the same is necessary to accept the resignation. Though the petitioner had initially deposited the amount towards the shortfall in the notice period as required, subsequently, he had withdrawn the said amount and therefore, the process of resignation could not be processed further. It is also contended that the three (3) months notice period can only be accepted with the prior approval of the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer and the procedural requirement naturally entailed some time and internal correspondence between the concerned authorities.
7. It is further contended that the Bank Manager, Tirupati vide letter dated 17.07.2025 had reported serious irregularities committed during the petitioner's tenure as Branch In-Charge, including the sanction of credit facilities beyond discretionary powers, diversion and non-verification of end-use of Bank funds, sanction of loans to close relatives without obtaining the requisite approval and procedural violations of the credit manual and 6 internal circulars. In that context, the petitioner was informed vide emails on 25.08.2025 and 29.08.2025 from the Zonal Office, Vijayawada that his resignation would be kept on hold pending release of the RBIA Report and clearance of all identified irregularities. It is the further contention of the respondents that the Zonal Office, Vijayawada vide letter dated 21.07.2025 forwarded the resignation of the petitioner to the Head Office HRD with the remark that RBIA report was pending closure and the irregularities reported by the current Branch Manager, Tirupati were yet to be factually examined. As RBIA observations were not rectified up to the acceptable level of 60% and compliance remained pending, the resignation was not approved by the HRD Department. Again, vide letter dated 19.08.2025, the Zonal Office appraised the Head Office about the irregularities appeared to be serious and that a fact-finding enquiry might be warranted. In that context, the HRD Department vide letter dated 22.08.2025 kept the petitioner's resignation on hold an IRA that the order will remain pending clearance and audit compliance from the Zonal Office. Pursuant to the same, a detailed show cause notice dated 15.10.2025 was issued by the Zonal Office, Vijayawada to the petitioner calling for his explanation and further scrutiny of branch transactions and records of Tirupati Branch during his tenure as Branch Manager.
8. It is the further contention of the respondents that the petitioner had acted in a manner unbecoming of Bank Officer entrusted with fiduciary responsibility over public funds and the irregularities so revealed during Snap 7 Audit and Risk-Based Internal Audit (RBIA) are not technical lapses but serious financial misconducts. In view of the said allegations, the resignation of the petitioner was not processed.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that initiation of enquiry after resignation period of the petitioner cannot be sustained and the petitioner cannot be forced to work in spite of his resignation as the same would amount to compulsory service.
10. The learned counsel appeared for the Bank contended that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, the resignation of the petitioner was not processed and since the petitioner continued to work beyond the notice period of resignation, the resignation is deemed to have been waived.
11. Having considered the contentions of both sides and taking into note of the Punjab and Sind Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1982, which were framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 19 read with Section 12(2) of the Bank Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, the learned Single Judge came to an opinion that the Regulation 20(2) does not contemplate any written approval of the competent authority for the resignation to be effective. The Regulation 20(3)(i) requires prior approval in writing and resignation is not effective until it is accepted by competent authority is so far as individuals who are facing disciplinary enquiry. In view of the undisputed facts raising the present case, the petitioner was not placed under suspension nor any show cause notice proposing to institute 8 disciplinary proceedings in terms of the Bank Regulations prior to submission of his resignation i.e., on 03.06.2025, it is found that the show cause notice was issued in terms of Regulation 20(3)(i) only on 15.10.2025 long after the effective date of resignation and is of no consequence. On relying the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Jain Vs. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd., wherein it was held that the employee has a right of resignation and the same does not require acceptance except in cases where disciplinary proceedings are pending. The learned Single Judge held that every employee has a fundamental right of career progression under Article 19(1)(g) and unreasonable restraint contrary to the Service Regulations is a violation of the same and unsustainable and accordingly allowed the writ petition directing the respondent-Bank to issue requisite documents to enable the petitioner to join in the State Bank of India within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of the order. Assailing the said order, the present writ appeal is filed by the respondent-Bank.
12. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and upon careful examination of the material available on record, in our considered view, there is no infirmity or illegality in the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, only after submission of the resignation by the petitioner on 03.06.2025, the respondent-Bank started proceedings against the petitioner by issuing show cause notice on 15.10.2025. If there is any loss to the respondent-Bank due to the actions of the petitioner while he was working as Manager In-Charge at Tirupati Branch, it is always open to the 9 respondent-Bank to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner and the Bank can take appropriate steps to recover the loss from the petitioner. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that the insecurity of the petitioner cannot be taken advantage by the respondent-Bank and the respondent Bank should not come in the way of pursuing employment with the State Bank of India by the petitioner.
13. In view of the above and to protect the interest of the respondent-Bank, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit an undertaking to the respondent-Bank stating that after completion of the enquiry, if it is found that there is any financial loss to the Bank, it would be compensated by the petitioner. If any misappropriation or any charges requires prosecution proceedings, it is always open to the respondent-Bank to take steps in accordance with law. But keeping the resignation tendered by the petitioner pending without relieving him to join in the State Bank of India is undoubtedly not reasonable and justifiable. For the aforesaid reasons, in our considered view, there are no merits in the appeal either in law or on facts and accordingly appeal fails.
14. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner/respondent herein to submit an undertaking to the respondent-Bank stating that he would compensate any financial loss to the Bank after completion of the enquiry. It is made clear that the Bank shall pay salary to the petitioner as long as he continues the service in the respondent-Bank. There shall be no order as to costs.
10
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 27.01.2026 ANI 11 118 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT APPEAL No.1380 of 2025 Dt.27.01.2026 ANI