Termination without a departmental enquiry violates natural justice principles and relevant service rules, necessitating fair procedures prior to imposing major penalties.

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 24.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.8962 of 2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner has been allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/petitioner is a former Army personnel who joined the State Bank of India in the year 2021 as Armed Guard. One of the female employees filed a complaint against him for sending indecent whatsapp messages. The Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) found the allegation to be true vide its report dated 06.11.2023. Based on this report, the Internal Appellate Committee (IAC) dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the ICC. Thereafter, the appellants issued a show cause notice and punishment order Ext.P10 without initiating a formal departmental enquiry under the State Bank of India Officers’

Service Rules.

3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside Ext.P10 on the ground that without departmental enquiry, the respondent cannot be terminated only on the basis of the report of the ICC.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the fact that the misconduct alleged and proved against the respondent herein is of grave nature and the punishment which is to be inflicted falls within the exclusive domain of the employer i.e. the appellant-Bank. It is settled legal position that a court exercising power of judicial review will not interfere with the punishment imposed, more so in view of the gravity of the complaints against the respondent. In fact there was no need to conduct regular departmental enquiry since the duly constituted committee under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POSH Act’) had already conducted enquiry and clearly found the respondent guilty of the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ofMedha Kotwal Lele & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. [ AIR Online 2012 SC 632 ] wherein it has been observed that an enquiry report of the complaints committee envisaged in the case ofVishaka v. State of Rajasthan [ (1997) 6 SCC 241 ] under the POSH Act shall be deemed to be an enquiry report in a disciplinary action against the delinquent employee. It was further observed that the findings of the report of the complaints committee shall not be treated as a mere preliminary investigation or enquiry leading to disciplinary action, but shall be treated as a finding/report in an enquiry into the misconduct of the delinquent. The aforesaid aspects were never considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the order deserves to be set aside.

5. The legal issues which crop up for consideration before us are:

i) Whether the employer (State Bank of India) can impose punishment solely on the basis of the report of the ICC without initiating independent disciplinary proceedings as mandated under the Service Rules?

ii) Whether the procedural safeguards under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing a fair hearing or enquiry before penalising the respondent?

iii) Whether the POSH Act overrides the requirement of following disciplinary procedures under the applicable Service Rules in cases involving sexual harassment?

6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer of the appellants and submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly come