State Bank of India (SBI) found one of its employees guilty under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as POSH Act, 2013, while the employee claimed to be innocent. The employee, a customer assistant in the State Bank of India (SBI), was accused of sexually harassing a customer and bank staff. When the matter finally reached the Chhattisgarh High Court, the Court upheld the Bank's decision regarding disciplinary action against the employee. The division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, held, “Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition.”
SBI Employee’s Pay Hike Stopped For Misbehaviour With Customer And Staff, HC Rejects His Appeal
The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the appeal of a State Bank of India (SBI) employee’s appeal against the penalty imposed on him for being guilty of misbehaviour and sexual harassment of customer and staff
How Did The Matter Begin?
The matter began in April 2015 when a female customer made a complaint to the bank against a bank employee (the petitioner in the writ case). The complaint was regarding his misbehaviour with her during one of her visits to the branch. The bank initiated an inquiry into the matter, and the investigating officer submitted the report in May 2015.
The inquiry was against the allegations of misbehaviour with the customer and staff and colleagues, sexual harassment of women employees and customers, passing derogatory remarks to them, argumentative attitude, etc.
The report was submitted to the SBI's Internal Complaints Committee on Sexual Harassment, which recommended disciplinary action against the employee.
In June 2015, the regional manager (Disciplinary Authority) asked for an explanation from the employee who submitted his response in July 2015. After taking into account the reply of the employee, the authority issued an article of charge in October 2015, to which the employee submitted his reply in November 2015, denying the charges and calling himself innocent.
Further, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him, which submitted its report in December 2016. In October 2017, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty on the employee, which included ‘lowering two increments from his existing pay scale with cumulative effect till retirement and no increment for him for next two years.
Arguments Of The Parties
The employee then made a departmental appeal before the DGM (B&O), Raipur Module, where the Appellate Authority passed the order in April 2018. It revised the punishment to ‘stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect’.
The employees filed a writ petition against this, which was rejected in February 2025. Then, he filed an instant appeal, with the reasons: the allegations were false, the victims’ responses were not recorded, and the petitioner (employee) was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. He requested the appeal to be accepted.
The bank’s counsel argued that the allegations were serious, and the petitioner was found guilty in three and partially guilty in the other three allegations of the total six allegations.
Court’s Observation And Judgement
The Court noted, “The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have recorded a concurrent finding and found the allegations of misbehaviour with customers and staff and sexual harassment of women employees and valued customers proved against the appellant/writ petitioner. It has been further reflected that the allegations made by the complainant with regard to sexual harassment were found partly proved as the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution.”
The Court observed that the authority (who conducted the disciplinary enquiry) was competent. It held, “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.”
The Court then dismissed the writ appeal.