Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh Rajawat vs Punjab National Bank on 3 January, 2023
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14558/2022
Mahendra Singh Rajawat S/o Late Shri Jai Singh Rajawat, Aged
About 59 Years, Resident Of House No. 82, Khasra No. 5,
Navdurga Colony District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Office, Plot No. 4, Sector 10, Dwarka New Delhi.
2. General Manager, Hrd, Corporate Office, Plot No. 4, Sector
10, Dwarka New Delhi.
3. Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, 2, Nehru Palace, Tonk
Road Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Chief Manager (Hrd), Punjab National Bank, Circle Office,
Angira Darpan, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
5. Circle Head, Punjab Bank, Circle Office, Angira Darpan,
Chopasni Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
6. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Basni Branch, 6 And
7 Transport Nagar, Basni, Iind Phase, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11792/2022
Mahendra Singh Rajawat S/o Late Shri Jai Singh Rajawat, Aged
About 59 Years, House No. 82, Khasra No. 5, Navdurga Colony,
Jodhpur District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Office, Plot No. 4, Sector 10, Dwarka New Delhi.
2. General Manager, Hrd, Corporate Office, Plot No. 4, Sector
10, Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, 2 Nehru Palace, Tonk
Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Angira
Darpan, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
5. Chief Manager (Human Resources Development
Department), Punjab Bank, Circle Office, Angira Darpan,
Chopasni Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
6. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Basni Branch, 6 And
7 Transport Nagar, Basni, Iind Phase, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:46:25 PM)
(2 of 11) [CW-14558/2022]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhavit Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
03/01/2023
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner
aggrieved against the action of the respondents against the
petitioner under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of
Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,
2013 ('the Act') and Rules made thereunder ('the Rules').
CWP No.11792/2022 was filed questioning the validity of
transfer order dated 22.7.2022, consequential relieving order
dated 22.7.2022, report of the Internal Complaints Committee
('ICC') dated 15.7.2022 along with the recommendations made by
it.
During pendency of the said writ petition, by order dated
18.8.2022, noticing various contentions raised by the petitioner
and the fact that the representation made by the petitioner was
pending, while issuing notices, the competent authority of the
respondent-Bank was directed by this Court to decide the pending
representation of the petitioner by a speaking order.
On decision of the representation by order dated 25.8.2022,
CWP No.14558/2022 has been filed by the petitioner questioning
the validity of all the previous orders i.e. transfer order dated
22.7.2022, relieving order dated 22.7.2022, report of the ICC
dated 15.7.2022 along with order dated 25.8.2022 rejecting the
representation of the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:46:25 PM)
(3 of 11) [CW-14558/2022]
It is inter alia indicated in the petition, after giving a
background pertaining to the complaints made by the complaint in
the past, that a complaint dated 5.7.2022 (Annex.4) was filed by
the complainant against the petitioner purportedly alleging
molestation and harassment at work place. The competent
authority forwarded the complaint to the ICC, which visited the
branch where the petitioner was serving on 14.7.2022 and held
inquiry including seeking petitioner's explanation.
The petitioner submitted his explanation alleging the
complaint as malicious and false. On the same day i.e. 15.7.2022,
a report was submitted by the ICC, which found the petitioner
guilty and recommended that the petitioner be transferred to
some other branch, based on which, order dated 22.7.2022
(Annex.7) was passed by the respondent requiring transfer of the
petitioner to branch Khara and required that he must report at the
said branch. On the same day vide Annex.8, the petitioner was
relieved for reporting at branch Khara.
The petitioner objected to the action of the respondents in
transferring the petitioner on several grounds including the fact
that his wife was suffering from serious ailments and had been
operated for brain tumor and requiring that he may be transferred
to any branch nearby. The petitioner also filed representation
seeking copy of the complaint and the report of the ICC, which
formed the basis of taking action against the petitioner. The
petitioner also questioned the passing of the order of transfer in
absence of any administrative exigency or public interest and
made reference to the provisions of the Act, 2013 and Rules,
(Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:46:25 PM)
(4 of 11) [CW-14558/2022]
2013, along with the policy issued by the Bank and alleged that
entire action was in infraction of the said provisions.
The petitioner filed CWP No.11792/2022 raising all the issues
and as noticed on 18.8.2022 order was passed seeking the
respondents to decide the pending representation of the
petitioner. The said representation has been decided on 25.8.2022
(Annex.11) refuting the allegations made in the representation
and reiterating that the prayer made by the petitioner seeking
transfer to a branch nearby did not find favour with the competent
authority.
Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement
submissions that the entire action of the respondents is ex facie
contrary to the provisions of the Act, 2013 & Rules, 2013 and
Policy formulated by the Bank. Submissions have been made that
in terms of second proviso to Section 11 of the Act, during course
of inquiry the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of
being heard and a copy of the findings should have been made
available to the petitioner enabling him to make representation
against the findings before the Committee, however, the copy of
the findings was never made available to the petitioner.
Further submissions have been made that under the
provisions of Section 13 of the Act, the report of the ICC, which
was submitted to the respondent - Bank, said report should have
been made available to the petitioner, however, the same was also
not made available to the petitioner and the recommendations
(Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:46:25 PM)
(5 of 11) [CW-14558/2022]
made in the report were implemented, which is ex facie in
violation of principles of natural justice.
Submissions have also been made that under provisions of
Section 13(3), specific punishment has been provided on the ICC
arriving at the conclusion that the allegations against the
respondent have been proved, wherein, none provides that an
employee can be recommended to be transferred and, therefore,
the recommendation made being ex facie contrary to the
provisions of the Act passing of the order transferring the
petitioner is ex facie illegal.
Learned counsel also made reference to the provisions of
Rule 7 of the Rules of 2013 providing for manner of inquiry into
the complaint and submitted that the entire exercise is in gross
violation of the said provisions and, therefore, the ICC has acted
contrary to the provisions of the Act & Rules and the respondents
were not justified in acting on a report, which was in gross
violation of the provisions of the Act & Rules and, therefore, the
entire exercise on part of the respondents deserve to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank made submissions
that the action of the petitioner is writ large on record, wherein, in
the past also on complaints being made, he apologized and that
when on complaint made, the ICC has found the petitioner guilty
of the allegations, the action of the respondents in transferring the
petitioner, cannot be faulted.
Submissions have been made that the respondents could
have taken action far more harsh, however, based on the
recommendation, has only ordered for transfer and, therefore, the
action does not call for any interference.
(Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:46:25 PM)
(6 of 11) [CW-14558/2022]
It was not denied that the provisions of the Act & Rules
requiring of making available copy of the findings as well as
inquiry report could not be followed by the ICC, however, it was
submitted that, insofar as, taking of action of transferring the
petitioner is concerned, the same is well protected by provisions of
Section 12 of the Act, wherein, during pendency of an inquiry, the
transfer of the respondent to any other work place could be
recommended and as such, insofar as, the challenge laid to the
transfer of the petitioner is concerned, it was submitted that the
same does not call for any interference.
Reliance was placed on judgments in Dr. P.S. Malik v. High
Court of Delhi & Anr.: (2020) 19 SCC 714 and Somesh Tiwari v.
Union of India: (2009) 2 SCC 592.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The provisions dealing with the Sexual Harassment of
Women at Work Place stands duly codified by enactment of Act,
2013 and Rules 2013.
Insofar as, relevant to the present case, the relevant
provisions inter alia reads as under:-
"11. Inquiry into complaint- (1).....
Provided.....
Provided further that where both the parties are
employees, the parties shall, during the course of
inquiry, be given an opportunity of hearing heard and a
copy of the findings shall be made available to both the
parties enabling them to make representation against
the findings before the Committee.
.......
12. Action during pendency of inquiry- (1) During the pendency of an inquiry, on a written request made by (Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:46:25 PM) (7 of 11) [CW-14558/2022] the aggrieved woman, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, may recommend to the employer to-
(a) transfer the aggrieved woman or the respondent o any other workplace; or
13. Inquiry report.- (1) On the completion of an inquiry under this Act, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide a report of its findings to the employer, or as the case may, the District Officer within a period of ten days from the date of completion of the inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties.
(2) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has not been proved, it shall recommend to the employer and the District Officer that no action is required to be taken in the matter.
(3) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be-
(i) to take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent or where no such service rules have been made, in such manner as may be prescribed;
(ii) to deduct, notwithstanding anything in the service rules applicable to the respondent, from the salary or wages of the respondent such sum as it may consider appropriate to be paid to the aggrieved woman or to her legal heirs, as it may determine, in accordance with the provisions of Section 15:"
Rules "7. Manner of inquiry into complaint.- (1) Subject to the provisions of section 11, at the time of filing the complaint, the complainant shall submit to the Complaints Committee, six copies of the complaint along with supporting documents and the names and addresses of the witnesses.(Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:46:25 PM)
(8 of 11) [CW-14558/2022] (2) On receipt of the complaint, the Complaints Committee shall send one of the copies received from the aggrieved woman under sub-rule (1) to the respondent within a period of seven working days.
(3) The respondent shall file his reply to the complaints along with his list of documents, and names and addresses of witnesses, within a period not exceeding ten working days from the date of receipt of the documents specified under sub-rule (1).
(4) The Complaints Committee shall make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
(5) The Complaints Committee shall have the right to terminate the inquiry proceedings or to give an ex-
parte decision on the complaint, if the complainant or respondent fails, within sufficient cause to present herself or himself for three consecutive hearings convened by the Chairperson or President Officer, as the case may be:
Provided that such termination or ex parte order may not be passed without giving a notice in writing, fifteen days in advance, to the party concerned.
(6) The parties shall not be allowed to bring in any legal practitioner to represent them in their case at any stage of the proceedings before the Complaints Committee.
(7) In conducing the inquiry, a minimum of three Members of the Complaints Committee including the President Officer or the Chairperson, as the case may be, shall be present."
A perusal of the above-quoted provisions would reveal that where both the parties to the complaint are employees, they would be given an opportunity of being heard and copy of the findings shall be made available to both the parties enabling them to make representations against the findings before the Committee. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, at no stage, the petitioner was provided with the copy of the findings by (Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:46:25 PM) (9 of 11) [CW-14558/2022] the ICC enabling him to make representation against the findings of the Committee and the Committee without seeking representation from the petitioner, made the recommendation to the Employer.
Further, under Section 13, the report made by the ICC should have been made available to the petitioner, which also was not made available to the petitioner and, therefore, apparently the making of the report by the ICC as well as the action of the respondents on the said report is ex facie contrary to the statutory provisions and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Further, the Rule 7 of the Rules provides for an elaborate manner of inquiry into the complaints, from material available on record, apparently none of the stipulations indicated in the said Rule have been followed by the ICC and as such, the entire proceedings before the ICC stand vitiated.
In view of the above, the entire action of the ICC as well as the respondents in arriving at a finding against the petitioner based on the allegations made, cannot be sustained only on account of the violation of the statutory settled procedure.
There is further substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the ICC by way of final recommendation, could not recommend transfer of the petitioner from one place to another as the same is beyond the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act.
However, the submissions made by learned counsel for the Bank in this regard requires consideration, inasmuch as, once th entire procedure adopted by the ICC, has been held to be contrary to the provisions of the Act & Rules, the matter will have to be (Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:46:25 PM) (10 of 11) [CW-14558/2022] remanded back to the ICC to follow the procedure as provided and discussed hereinbefore in terms of the Act & Rules and the Policy of the respondent-Bank and the recommendation, which has been made by the ICC though in the form of a final recommendation, may be taken as recommendation during pendency of the inquiry under Section 12 of the Act, which inter alia provides for making a recommendation to the Employer to transfer the respondent to any other work place under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act so as to ensure that the inquiry to be held is not affected and/or that there is no further perpetuation of the circumstances in this regard.
So far as the challenge laid by the petitioner to the transfer based on his family circumstance, wherein, his wife had been operated, despite directions of the Court requiring the respondents to decide the representation to be made by the petitioner, the same has been dealt with in a wholly cursory manner by the competent authority and, therefore, to the said extent and specially in view of the fact that due to passage of time, due to change in circumstances, the competent authority must revisit the said aspect.
Consequently, CWP No.14558/2022 is partly allowed. The inquiry report of the ICC dated 15.7.2022 forming part of Annex.21 to the extent of holding the petitioner guilty, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the ICC to hold the inquiry in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2013 & Rules made thereunder and the Policy of the respondent - Bank by following principles of natural justice.
The order transferring the petitioner dated 22.7.2022 (Annex.7) is held to be within Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, 2013, (Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:46:25 PM) (11 of 11) [CW-14558/2022] by way of interim measure and the respondent-Bank is directed to reconsider the representation made by the petitioner seeking transfer at a nearby place. It is expected of the ICC to conclude the inquiry with utmost expedition and it shall not be prejudiced on account of its earlier findings. The petitioner would cooperate with the inquiry. It is expected of the Bank to do the needful with regard to the representation of the petitioner in relation to place of posting within a period of ten days from the date of this order. The petitioner would be free to file a fresh detailed representation, if so advised.
CWP No.11792/2022 also stands disposed of in light of order passed in CWP No.14558/2022 (supra).
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 40-41-Sumit/-
(Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:46:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)