1. Senior bank officer transferred to lower-scale rural branch following reports of corruption and allegations of sexual harassment — Challenge to transfer order under Article 226. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 618
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
Punjab and Sind Bank and Others – Appellants
Versus
Mrs. Durgesh Kuwar – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1809 of 2020, SLP (C) No. 11985 of 2019
Decided On : 25-02-2020
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer is an exigency of service, but if it is established to be mala fide or contrary to a statutory provision, the court may interfere. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of preventing sexual harassment at the workplace and ensuring fair treatment of employees.
Subject
Employment - Workplace Harassment
Act Referred
Headnote
Transfer - Service Law - Sexual Harassment - Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 - Sections 3, 4, 6 - The judgment discusses the intersection of service law with fundamental constitutional precepts about the dignity of a woman at her workplace. The respondent, a senior officer of a public sector banking institution, complained about irregularities and corruption at her branch and sexual harassment by a superior. The court analyzed the respondent's transfer in violation of circulars and guidelines, and the allegations of sexual harassment. The court found that the transfer was mala fide and vitiated by unfair treatment, and directed the respondent to be reposted at the Indore branch as a Scale IV officer for a period of one year.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a senior officer of a public sector banking institution, complained about irregularities and corruption at her branch and sexual harassment by a superior. The order of transfer was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court quashed the order of transfer, which was affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's transfer was in violation of circulars and guidelines, and was mala fide and vitiated by unfair treatment. The court directed the respondent to be reposted at the Indore branch as a Scale IV officer for a period of one year.
Issues: The issues involved the respondent's transfer, allegations of sexual harassment, and the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and Local Complaints Committee (LCC) under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfer is an exigency of service, but unless an order of transfer is established to be mala fide or contrary to a statutory provision, the court would not interfere. The court found that the respondent's transfer was vitiated by mala fides and unfair treatment, and directed her reposting at the Indore branch for one year.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the direction to repost the respondent at the Indore branch as a Scale IV officer for a period of one year. The respondent was entitled to costs quantified at Rs 50,000.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- labor and employment law
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. P.S. Sudheer, Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Ms. Anne Mathew, Mr. Bharat Sood, Ms. Shruti Jose.
For the Respondent: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Ms. Olivia Bang, Mr. Satya Mitra.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. P.S. Sudheer, Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Ms. Anne Mathew, Mr. Bharat Sood, Ms. Shruti Jose.
For the Respondent: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Ms. Olivia Bang, Mr. Satya Mitra.
Table of Contents
2. Bank asserts transfer as service exigency and denies mala fides — Respondent alleges reprisal for whistleblowing and harassment, citing improper ICC constitution and scale mismatch. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. Transfer to a lower-scale branch immediately following reports of corruption indicates victimization and mala fides — ICC constitution was defective due to lack of a truly independent member. (Para 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. Transfer orders are generally not interfered with unless established to be mala fide, contrary to a statutory provision, or issued by an authority not competent to order transfer. (Para 17 )
5. Transfer order quashed — Respondent reposted as Scale IV officer for one year — Costs awarded. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )
6. Under what circumstances can a court interfere with a transfer order in service law?
Courts generally refrain from interfering with transfer orders as they are exigencies of service. However, judicial review is permissible if the order is established to be mala fide, contrary to a statutory provision, or issued by an authority not competent to order the transfer. (Para 17 )
7. What is the requirement for the independent member of an Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013?
Section 4(2)(c) requires one member from a non-governmental organization or association committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with sexual harassment issues to ensure independence and obviate institutional bias. A panel lawyer of the employer does not satisfy this requirement. (Para 21 , 22 )
8. How does the court determine if a transfer order is mala fide or a reprisal?
The court examines the timing of the transfer relative to the employee's actions, such as reporting corruption, and whether the new posting is commensurate with the employee's rank. A transfer to a significantly lower-scale branch following whistleblowing indicates victimization and mala fides. (Para 18 , 24 )
JUDGMENT :
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. A senior officer of a public sector banking institution complains that her reports about irregularities and corruption at her branch and her complaints against an officer who sexually harassed her met with an order of transfer. The case involves the intersection of service law with fundamental constitutional precepts about the dignity of a woman at her workplace.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 18 March 2019 in a Writ Appeal arising out of an order of the learned Single Judge dated 11 February 2019.
4. The respondent was appointed as a Probationary Officer of the Punjab and Sind Bank, the first appellant, on 8 October 1998 in Junior Management Grade Scale I. She was promoted to the post of Chief Manager in Scale IV. On 2 September 2011, the respondent was transferred to the Zonal Office at Mumbai. On 7 October 2011, she was transferred to the Branch Office at Indore. In September 2016, the first respondent was promoted to the post of Chief Manager in Scale IV. On 23 September 2016, the competent authority of the bank decided to continue her at the branch in Indore upon promotion. On 11 December 2017, the respondent was transferred from the Branch Office at Indore to the Branch Office at Sarsawa in the district of Jabalpur. Intimation of the transfer was furnished to her on 14 December 2017. On 31 January 2018, the respondent submitted a representation to the Zonal Manager, recording a reference to the circulars of the bank governing the posting of women officers. She made a request for being retained at Indore. Following the earlier representation, she submitted a reminder on 15 February 2018 and a representation on 19 February 2018 to the Executive Director of the bank.
5. In the course of her representations, the respondent submitted that during the course of the previous two years, she had, as a Branch Manager, inquired into the concentration of accounts maintained by liquor contractors at the branch and had detected grave irregularities which were hazardous to the interest of the bank. The respondent had submitted a detailed report to the Zonal Manager, Bhopal on 31 December 2016. In her report, she made several observations about lapses such as the existence of duplicate Bank Guarantee registers. She had recorded that the registers were not identical and some entries are missing from the new register. She observed that limits were sanctioned to parties not having any connection to Indore for the execution of liquor contracts. The Respondent’s grievance was that instead of taking steps to rectify the irregularities, she was being pressurized to cover up the misdemeanors at the level of the branch. Moreover, she alleged that this was compounded by the Zonal Manager (who was named) calling her at late hours at home to discuss business which was not of urgent nature. The respondent made a specific allegation against the Zonal Manager. For the purpose of the present proceedings, it would be necessary to extract from the representation which was submitted by the respondent to the Executive Director. It reads thus:
“I was surprised to observe that within a span of last 2 years during my predecessor time many accounts of liquor contractors had shifted to this branch from local branches as well as from far off places in UP. Many accounts of newly floated firms were opened and fresh limits of substantial amounts were sanctioned in a very haphazard manner, where even KYC norms were not followed. In a very short time concentration of liquor accounts had reached to such a high level that created a suspicion. When I started analyzing these accounts as per banking norms, I found many grave irregularities hazardous to the interest of the Bank. Furthermore, high value BGs were issued where copies of such Bgs were neither available in branch nor at ZO. Guarantees were issued to the liquor contractors in a ma
