BIBHA PANDAY …..Petitioner
VERSUS
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS …. Respondents
INTRODUCTION
The case at hand involves a writ petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and subsequent actions taken by the Punjab National Bank (Bank). The dispute arises from a complaint filed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, by the Petitioner against Respondent No.3, who held the position of General Manager at the Bank in Mumbai. The ICC, constituted by the Bank, concluded that the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 was based on personal grounds with mutual consent and dismissed the allegations of sexual, emotional, and mental harassment. However, the ICC recommended disciplinary action against both parties for inappropriate and unbecoming behavior.
The Petitioner, dissatisfied with the ICC's recommendations, filed the present petition challenging not only the ICC's findings but also the subsequent charge sheet issued by the Bank based on the ICC's report. The matter was initially stayed by a single judge pending further hearings.
RULE
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013,
ANALYSIS
The petitioner has submitted this petition in opposition to the Internal Complaints Committee's (henceforth referred to as "ICC") recommendations, which are detailed in the report dated March 15, 2017, in addition to further action that the Punjab National Bank (henceforth referred to as the "Bank") has taken based on the ICC's representative.
Briefly put, the Petitioner filed a complaint against Respondent No. 3 under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). He was employed by Respondent No. 1 Bank in Mumbai as its general manager. The four-member ICC, which was established by the Bank, received the aforementioned complaint. After reviewing the complaint, it was determined that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 had a personal connection that was based on consent between them. The Petitioner did not provide evidence to support the claims of emotional, mental, or sexual harassment. As a result, the complaint against Respondent No. 3 was dismissed.
However, the ICC continued observing that the parties' actions had been improper and unacceptable to Bank officers and employees. As a result, the ICC advised the Competent Authority to take necessary action against the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 as it saw fit.
After the publication of the report, it resulted in a charge sheet was issued which was served to the petitioner. The single judge stayed the ICC recommendations and the charge sheet. During the proceedings, the Petitioner became eligible for promotion, which was being withheld due to the pending petition. The court directed the Bank to independently consider the Petitioner's promotion, keeping it in a sealed cover. The Bank placed on record the Petitioner's performance and eligibility for promotion independent of the charge sheet but the learned counsel for the bank argued that whenever there is a pending proceeding the bank is bound to keep the promotion under sealed cover as per the promotion policy of the bank.
The counsel appearing for the petitions submits that upon the complaint being rejected, the ICC should close the inquiry. the Petitioner, for personal reasons, does not contest the ICC's conclusions but insists on setting aside the recommendation.
The court identifies the recommendation of the ICC into two parts.
The first part mentions that the allegations made are not substantiated and the complaint is not made out. In the second part, it goes further and recommends that the bank “may take suitable action”. The court, after hearing both parties, found that the ICC's recommendation for disciplinary action exceeded its jurisdiction, leading to the quashing of the charge sheet against the Petitioner.
`Moral Policing’ is not the job of the Management or of the ICC. Any consensual relationship among adults would not be the concern of the Management or of the ICC, so long as the said relationship does not affect the working and the discipline of the organization and is not contrary to the Rules or code of conduct binding on the said employees. It is only if a complaint is made of sexual harassment under the Act that the Management can constitute the ICC to enquire into the same. The ICC cannot make comments on the personal conduct of the parties and the ICC’s jurisdiction would be restricted to the allegations of sexual harassment and whether a complaint is made out or not, to that effect. Under these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the last paragraph of the recommendation of the ICC, which comments on the conduct of the parties and recommends to the competent authority to take action against the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3, for their inappropriate disciplinary conduct, is not tenable and is liable to be set aside.
The Petitioner's eligibility for promotion was recognized, and the court directed the Bank to offer her promotion based on seniority, performance, and merit, without the hindrance of the chargesheet.
CONCLUSION
In its concluding remarks, the court delivered a pivotal judgment, definitively outlining the parameters of the Internal Complaints Committee's (ICC) authority in the context of workplace harassment cases. A focal point of the ruling was the court's explicit pronouncement that the ICC and Management are not tasked with engaging in 'Moral Policing.' Arising from a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, the case traversed intricate legal nuances. Consequently, the chargesheet, hinged on the ICC's broader disciplinary stance, was quashed, providing tangible relief to the petitioner. Importantly, this legal intervention removed impediments to the petitioner's promotion, as her eligibility was no longer hindered by the shadow of the annulled chargesheet.
Comments