Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition challenging the transfer order on the grounds that the impugned transfer appeared to be a penalty due to the ongoing sexual harassment proceedings rather than an administrative necessity, a single-judge bench of Vivek Jain, J., held that the transfer amounted to undue victimisation and harassment of the petitioner as it was not based on any administrative necessity or formal recommendation from the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) but was based on pendency of the Internal Committee proceedings and quashed the transfer order.
In the instant matter, the petitioner, a Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) in the VIth Battalion SAF, Jabalpur, was transferred to the Office of Superintendent of Police, Maihar by an order dated 01-07-2024, based on a recommendation made due to allegations of harassment between the petitioner and a female Head Constable (the intervenor). The petitioner was given a clean chit in two prior inquiries (12-03-2024 and 10-06-2024), and he claimed that his transfer was a form of penalty. The intervenor alleged sexual harassment and initiated proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). She also expressed distrust in the ICC investigating the matter and requested the petitioner’s transfer, citing a provision under Section 12 of the POSH Act.
The petitioner contended that the transfer was punitive, not based on administrative grounds, and came despite him being cleared in earlier inquiries. The petitioner argued that the ICC’s proceedings were stalled due to the intervenor’s non-cooperation and that his transfer was unjustified. However, the Intervenor argued that the transfer was necessary under Section 12 of the POSH Act to ensure a conducive work environment and to facilitate the inquiry. The intervenor also expressed a lack of trust in the ICC and any local committee.
The Court noted that Section 12 of the POSH Act allows transfers only upon the ICC’s recommendation, which was absent in the present case. The Court noted that the transfer recommendation came from the Commandant of the VIth Battalion, not the ICC, thereby making the transfer unjustified under the POSH Act. The Court further noted that the ICC proceedings had stalled due to the intervenor’s refusal to cooperate and her expression of mistrust in the committee, without specific reasons or grounds, further exacerbated the situation.
The Court held that the petitioner’s transfer was not based on administrative exigency but rather on the pendency of the POSH Act inquiry, which had reached a standstill due to the intervenor’s conduct.
“…the transfer of the petitioner merely on account of pendency of the Internal Committee proceedings is not justified in absence of any recommendation of the committee, and the committee proceedings having been brought to an indefinite stalemate by the intervenor herself.”
The Court held that impugned transfer amounts to “nothing but undue victimisation and harassment of the petitioner” and quashed the transfer order dated 01-07-2024. The Court granted the respondents the liberty to transfer or attach the petitioner to any other office within Jabalpur, ensuring that a cordial work atmosphere is maintained without causing undue disturbance to the petitioner.
[Shankarlal Namdeo v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 5512, Decided on 03-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Brijesh Kumar Choubey, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Monu V. John, Counsel for the Respondent
Shri Sanjay Ram Tamrakar, Senior Advocate with Shri Ankit Chopra, Counsel for the Intervenor
