Madhya Pradesh High Court
Meenakshi Pandey vs Central Bank Of India on 10 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 29047 of 2022
(MEENAKSHI PANDEY Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS)
Dated : 10-01-2023
Shri Akash Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Adamya Bajpai,
Advocate for the respondents.
Petitioner is aggrieved of transfer order dated 01.10.2022 whereby petitioner was transferred from Regional Office, Chhindwara to Zonal Office, Kolkata for further placement. Petitioner is also aggrieved of other consequential orders.
Petitioner's contention is that petitioner had made a complaint against the Chief Manager under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013'). Despite the fact that petitioner herself is a victim of harassment, she has been transferred. This transfer order is assailed on several grounds.
On the last date, Shri Ghildiyal was requested to seek instructions from the Management of the Bank whether they are willing to accommodate the petitioner at some nearby place.
Shri Ghildiyal on his instructions submits that it is not possible to accommodate the petitioner, inasmuch as, the Chief Manager was transferred to Chennai and the Regional Manager was transferred to Rajkot, Gujarat, Signature Not Verified therefore, no further adjustment is possible.
SAN Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHANIt is also submitted by Shri Ghildiyal reading from the departmental Date: 2023.01.11 16:49:59 IST proceedings as are contained in Annexure P-14 that petitioner had shown her 2 willingness to reconcile the matter and since similar consent was given by the so called oppressor i.e. the Chief Manager, therefore, matter was closed at the departmental level.
Shri Akash Choudhary, in his turn, reading provisions contained in Section 10 of the Act of 2013 submits that consent for conciliation does not mean that settlement was arrived at. Therefore, merely consent for conciliation could not have prompted the departmental authorities to close the proceedings. They were required to follow the procedure as provided under Section 10 of the Act of 2013, therefore, without following the procedure prescribed under the Act proceedings could not have been closed by the ICC. Thus closure of the proceeding is arbitrary and illegal and has been made with a view to favour the oppressor/harasser i.e. the Chief Manager. It is further submitted that to save their interest, petitioner has been transferred to a far-flung place.
Shri Ghildiyal submits that petitioner had since already joined at Kolkata and thereafter she came back due to personal difficulties, no stay can be granted at this juncture.
Taking these facts and rival arguments are taken into consideration, respondents represented by Shri K.C. Ghildiyal is again given two weeks time to file detailed reply to the petition along with the contention of the petitioner that proceedings could not have been closed by ICC merely on an offer to reconcile the matter without completing the proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Act of 2013.
List on 01.02.2023.
Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN (VIVEK AGARWAL)JUDGE Date: 2023.01.11 16:49:59 IST 3 Tabish Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2023.01.11 16:49:59 IST