Writ Petition Inadmissible Against Suspension Order Where Contractual Remedy of Representation Exists Under Bipartite Settlement.

The petitioner, an employee of Union Bank of India (non-officer cadre), challenged a suspension order dated 02.01.2026 issued by the Bank.

The petitioner challenged a speaking order dated 14.01.2026 issued by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) debarring him for life from CRP examinations.

The petitioner contended that the disciplinary actions were based on unilateral findings by the IBPS without providing an opportunity for a hearing.

The Bank raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under the relevant settlement agreement.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against the IBPS.

2. Whether the petitioner is required to exhaust internal administrative remedies provided under the Memorandum of Settlement before approaching the High Court.

The court relied on the precedent established in Vikash Kumar v. IBPS & Others (CWJC No. 1694 of 2026), which integrated the Supreme Court’s holding in Rajbir Surajbhan Singh v. The Chairman, IBPS (Civil Appeal No. 4455/2019), affirming that IBPS is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or 226.

Clause 45 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11/11/2020 (between Indian Banks’ Association and Workmen Unions), specifically Clause 45(h), provides a contractual right for a suspended employee to represent to the management for reconsideration of a suspension order.

Regarding the IBPS, the Court noted that its role at this stage was limited and, per settled law, it does not fall under the definition of "State" for the purpose of writ jurisdiction.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s service conditions are governed by the Bipartite Settlement/Memorandum of Settlement dated 11/11/2020.

Clause 45(h) explicitly mandates that an employee placed under suspension pending disciplinary action "shall be given an opportunity to represent to the management to reconsider the order of suspension".

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner had not yet exhausted this specific internal remedy provided by the settlement, the writ petition was premature and not maintainable at this juncture.

The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation under Clause 45(h) of the Settlement, with a direction to the concerned Authority to take a decision on such representation within 60 days of filing.