The Internal Complaints Committee's jurisdiction is limited to allegations of sexual harassment, and it cannot recommend disciplinary action based on inappropriate conduct.

JUDGMENT :

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.

2. The Petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter as “ICC”) as given in the report dated 15th March 2017, as well as further action which has been taken by the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter as “Bank”) on the basis of ICC’s report.

3. The brief background is that a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter as “Act”) was filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No. 3, who was working as the General Manager of the Respondent No. 1 Bank, in Mumbai. The said complaint was referred to the ICC, which was constituted by the Bank, consisting of four members.

4. The constituted ICC, upon analysing the complaint, came to the conclusion that the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 were based on personal grounds with mutual consent, and that the allegations of sexual, emotional and mental harassment were not substantiated by the Petitioner. Thus, the complaint against the Respondent No. 3, was rejected. However, the ICC did not stop there. The ICC went on to make an observation that the behaviour of the parties had been inappropriate and unbecoming of Officers/Employees of the Bank and accordingly the ICC recommended the Competent Authority to take suitable action against the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3, as deemed fit.

5. This report, thereafter, resulted in a charge-sheet being issued on 15th April, 2017, against the Petitioner, under Regulation 6 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The foundation of the said charge-sheet was the ICC’s report and certain other facts, which the Bank had ascertained out of the various communications between the Respondent No. 3 and the Petitioner. The said charge-sheet was served upon the Petitioner, and at that stage, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

6. Vide order dated 19th April, 2017, the ld. Single Judge, while entertaining the present petition, had stayed the ICC’s recommendation and the consequent charge-sheet. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

“9. Till the next date of hearing, operation of report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) dated 15.03.2017, insofar as it recommends an action to be taken against the petitioner and the consequent charge sheet issued to the petitioner, shall remain stayed.”

7. Thereafter, pleadings were being completed in the matter and at some point during the pendency of the petition, the Petitioner also became eligible to be considered for promotion. At that stage, the Petitioner, as recorded in the order dated 1st October, 2019, submitted that her promotion is being held up in view of the pendency of the present petition. On the said date, the following order was passed:

“Matter is to be heard. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that her promotion is being held up in view of the pendency of the present petition. Ld. counsel for Punjab National Bank to take instructions as to whether the Petitioner is entitled to promotion, keeping aside, the recommendation of the Internal Complaints Committee (‘ICC’) and charge sheet arising therefrom as the same are subject matter of the present petition and an interim order has already been passed in favour of the Petitioner. Let instructions be sought before the next date.

List on 3rd December 2019.”

8. Thereafter, vide order dated 3rd December, 2019, the Bank was directed to independently consider the Petitioner’s candidature for promotion. However, it was directed that the same would not be given effect to and shall be kept in a sealed cover. Due to the lockdown, the matter could not be heard thereafter.

9. In the meantime, the Bank has also placed on record, in a sealed cover, the relative performance of the Petitioner and her prospects for promotion, independe