For Petitioner : Ms. Kavita Bansal, Advocate holding
the brief of Mr. Basant Kaiwartya,
Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
19/02/2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and
appropriate."
2. The facts of the present case are that at the relevant time, the
petitioner was working as a Customer Assistant at State Bank of India,
Branch Nawapara, Rajim District Gariyaband. On 17.04.2018, a lady
customer of the Bank made a complaint regarding misbehavior by
bank staff i.e. the petitioner during her visit to the branch for cash
deposit on 16.04.2015. After the receipt of the complaint, an inquiry
was initiated by the Regional Office and Shri Abhay Joshi was
appointed as Investigating Officer. The officer concerned submitted its
report on 26.05.2015 and considered the following allegations against
the petitioner:-
(I) Misbehavior with the customer;
(II) Misbehavior with the staff and colleagues;
(III) Sexual harassment of women employees/valued customers;
(IV) Acts done to attribute delay in customer service, passing of
derogatory remarks on lady customers and staff and creating
a negative atmosphere in the branch affecting
business/customer service; and
(V) Habitual late coming and argumentative attitude and
disturbing the bank's discipline.
The report was handed over to the Sexual Harassment
Committee constituted according to the provisions of "The Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013". The Chairperson of the Internal Complaints
Committee on Sexual Harassment submitted its report and
recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner. On 23.06.2015,
the Disciplinary Authority/Regional Manager called for an explanation
on the basis of the report submitted by the Internal Complaints
Committee. The petitioner submitted his reply on 20.07.2015. The
Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply, issued an Article
of Charge on 26.10.2015. The petitioner submitted a reply to the Article
of Charge on 18.11.2015, wherein he denied all allegations. In terms of
bipartite settlement dated 10.04.2002, a departmental inquiry was
initiated against the petitioner and it was concluded on 31.12.2016.
The inquiry report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority. The
Inquiry Officer found 03 charges proved and 03 charges partially
proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued a first show cause notice on
06.09.2017 and the second show cause notice on 20.09.2017. The
petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notices on 14.09.2017
and 25.09.2017. The Disciplinary Authority taking a sympathetic view
altered the proposed punishment and vide order dated 09.10.2017
inflicted the penalty of lowering two increments from his present pay
scale with cumulative effect till retirement and further penalty was
inflicted to the effect that the petitioner would not be eligible for
increment for a period of 02 years. The petitioner preferred a
departmental appeal before DGM (B & O), Raipur Module. The
Appellate Authority vide order dated 06.04.2018 revised the
punishment and inflicted the penalty of stoppage of two increments
with cumulative effect.
3. Ms. Kavita Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the allegations made against the petitioner are false. She
would contend that statements of victims were not recorded and the
petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine those witnesses. She
would submit that the inquiry was not conducted strictly in accordance
with law and sufficient opportunity was not afforded. She would state
that the order passed by the Appellate Authority may be quashed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. P. R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents would submit that there were serious allegations
against the petitioner and out of 06 charges, 03 were found proved and
03 were found partially proved. He would contend that there were
allegations of sexual harassment, therefore, the matter was referred to
the Chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee on sexual
harassment and according to its report, the allegations were found
proved. He would further submit that the petitioner was afforded
sufficient opportunity. He would also submit that the Article of Charge
was issued to the petitioner along with the relevant documents and a
list of witnesses. The petitioner filed a reply to the article of charges. He
would also contend that during the course of the departmental inquiry,
no objection was raised by the petitioner. He would further argue the
enquiry report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority and
thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner. He would also argue
that the Disciplinary Authority taking a lenient view inflicted the penalty
of lowering two increments from his present pay scale with cumulative
effect till retirement and two increments were withheld for a period of
02 years. He would state that the Appellate Authority considered his
appeal and taking a sympathetic view, modified the punishment and
only imposed a stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. He
would further state that there were serious allegations with regard to
sexual harassment of women at the workplace and misbehavior with
valued customers and staff and all the allegations were found proved.
In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deputy
General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava,
reported in AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 38.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents.
6. In the matter of Ajai Kumar Srivastava (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that in the matter of disciplinary inquiry, the Court is to
examine and determine - (i) whether the enquiry was held by the
competent authority; (ii) whether rules and natural justice are complied
with; and (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some
evidence and authority has the power and jurisdiction to reach findings
of fact or conclusions. It is also held that the strict rules of evidence are
not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings, the only
requirement of law is that the allegations against the delinquent must
be established by such evidence. It is also observed that while
exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article
136 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court should not interfere
with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry
proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity. Paras- 26, 27,
28 and 29 are reproduced herein below:-
"26. When the disciplinary enquiry is
conducted for the alleged misconduct against the
public servant, the Court is to examine and
determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by
the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of
natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the
findings or conclusions are based on some
evidence and authority has power and
jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusions.
27. It is well settled that where the enquiry
officer is not the disciplinary authority, on
receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary
authority may or may not agree with the findings
recorded by the former, in case of disagreement,
the disciplinary authority has to record the
reasons for disagreement and after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may
record his own findings if the evidence available
on record be sufficient for such exercise or else
to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further
enquiry.
28. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not
applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings.
However, the only requirement of law is that the
allegation against the delinquent must be
established by such evidence acting upon which
a reasonable person acting reasonably and with
objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the
gravity of the charge against the delinquent
employee. It is true that mere conjecture or
surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even
in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
29. The Constitutional Court while exercising
its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226
or Article 136 of the Constitution would not
interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the
departmental enquiry proceedings except in a
case of malafides or perversity, i.e. where there
is no evidence to support a finding or where a
finding is such that no man acting reasonably
and with objectivity could have arrived at that
findings and so long as there is some evidence
to support the conclusion arrived at by the
departmental authority, the same has to be
sustained."
7. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority have recorded a concurrent findings and found the
allegations of misbehavior with customers and staff and sexual
harassment of women employees and valued customers proved
against the petitioner. The allegations made by the complainant with
regard to sexual harassment were found partly proved. The witnesses
supported the case of the prosecution.
8. The petitioner was afforded opportunity and the principles of natural
justice were complied with. Show cause notices from time to time were
issued and the petitioner filed a reply to those notices. The petitioner
has nowhere stated in the petition that he was not permitted to cross-
examine the witnesses or relevant documents were not provided.
9. The disciplinary enquiry has been conducted by the Competent
Authority and there is no allegation with regard to competence of the
authority. Initially, the punishment of penalty of lowering two increments
from his present pay scale with cumulative effect till retirement was
imposed which was modified by the Appellate Authority to stoppage of
two increments with cumulative effect, thus, the penalty inflicted is
neither shocking nor disproportionate. There are no allegations with
regard to malafides or perversity. The findings are based on evidence.
10. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajai Kumar
Srivastava (supra), no case is made out for interference.
11. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No Costs.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
