Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ
IDBI Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sharanjeet Kaur – Respondent
LPA 38/2026 | CM APPL. 6025/2026 | CM APPL. 6028/2026 | CM APPL. 26661/2026
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Sexual Harassment at Workplace
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.14, Art.15, Art.21
IDBI Ltd. Officers’ Service Rules, 2006: S.Cl.25A
Headnote
(B) Hostile Work Environment - Unauthorised Absence - Where an employee's absence is directly attributable to a hostile work environment and the employer's failure to conduct a proper fact-finding inquiry as mandated by the POSH Act, such absence cannot be characterized as voluntary cessation of service (VCS). (Para 47, 48, 55)
(C) Interim Relief - Section 12 of POSH Act - The failure of an employer to constitute a valid Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) prevents the employee from seeking interim relief (such as leave) under Section 12; consequently, the employee should not be penalized for the employer's own statutory lapse. (Para 44, 45, 48)
Issues: Whether the Service Rules are subordinate to the POSH Act and whether the Respondent's absence from work was justified given the hostile work environment and the absence of a duly constituted ICC.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Pinky Anand, Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mr. Nitin Pal, Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Ms. Priya Pathak, Mr. Samrat Pasriccha, Ms. Adeti Salooja, Mr. Shashank Chamoli, Mr. Vinayak Tiwari
For the Respondents: Ms. Sharanjeet Kaur, Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Rea Bhalla, Ms. Divita Vyas
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
CM APPL. 6029/2026 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
LPA 38/2026
3. The present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against judgment dated 17.12.2025(“ImpugnedJudgment”)passedinW.P.(C)17666/2024titledas ‘Sharanjeet Kaur v. IDBI Bank Ltd.’ (“Writ Petition”), whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition with the following directions:
“a) The petitioner shall appear before the ICC and cooperate in the conduct of the inquiry; the said inquiry shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory rules and regulations. The composition of the ICC shall be as contemplated under section 4 of the POSH Act. The ICC shall adhere to the procedural requirements as contemplated under the statute and the rules framed thereunder.
b) It shall be for the ICC to consider whether during pendency of the inquiry, the petitioner is entitled to leave as contemplated under section 12 of the POSH Act;
c)Theimpugnedterminationorderdated02.09.2024issetaside.The petitioner shall be reinstated in service, and the respondent Bank shall pay the petitioner full back wages (since October 2020) as also all the benefits, including emoluments and other admissible entitlements (including for the past period since October 2020).
d) As regards the claim for compensation, in view of the overall conspectus, particularly the protraction of the proceedings under the POSH Act, it is directed that the petitioner shall be paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (which shall be deemed to include litigation expenses) by the respondent.
e) After conclusion of ICC proceedings, it shall be open to the respondenttoprospectivelyinvoke/applythe‘ServiceRules’,asmay be warranted.”
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The Respondent joined the Appellant, Industrial Development Bank of India (“IDBI Bank”), as Assistant Manager (Grade A) at the Pitampura Branch, Delhi, on 25.07.2011. In 2016, the Respondent was promoted to the post of Manager (Grade B) and was, thereafter, transferred to the Chandigarh Zone.
5. As per the Appellant, the Respondent has a history of unauthorised absence from duty from 20.02.2017 to 29.04.2017, for which the Appellant had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent and issued an imputation of lapses vide letter dated 14.03.2018.
6. On 01.03.2018, the Respondent was transferred to the Appellant’s Sector 8C Branch at Chandigarh. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded on another spell of leave from 03.03.2018 to 23.06.2018.
7. On 08.10.2018, the Respondent reported that she had been subjected to sexually coloured derogatory remarks and a hostile work environment during her posting at the Appellant’s Chandigarh Branch. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent lodged a complaint against the then General Manager of the Appellant at Chandigarh.
8. TheRespondentfiledaworkplaceharassmentcomplainton11.10.2018 (“Complaint”), which was dismissed pursuant an inquiry report dated 22.11.2018 on the ground that the incident complained of pertained to a business instruction issued in the ordinary course of office functioning, and that the allegations were not substantiated by any evidence. Thereafter, on 30.11.2018, the Respondent requested that her complaint be treated as one under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, ProhibitionandRedressal)Act,2013(“POSHAct”)and,accordingly,lodged her first complaint under POSH Act before the Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC”) of the Appellant on 11.12.2018 (“POSH Complaint”).
9. Vide e-mail dated 04.02.2019, the Respondent unconditionally withdrew the POSH Complaint in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, the proceedings under the POSH Act were concluded on 26.02.2019 by the ICC of the Appellant.
10. The Respondent again approached the ICC on 21.06.2019 seeking to re-agitate the POSH Complaint. On 01.07.2019, the Respondent was transferred to the Pitampur
