Chhattisgarh High Court: In a writ appeal filed by an employee of the State Bank of India against the rejection of his writ petition assailing disciplinary punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect awarded to him, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha*, CJ., and Arvind Kumar Verma, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that the Single Judge passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons.
Background
The appellant, working as a Customer Assistant at State Bank of India, Branch Nawapara (‘the Bank’), was accused of misbehaviour by a lady customer. After the receipt of the complaint, an inquiry was initiated by the Regional Office and the Investigating Officer (‘IO’). The IO’s report considered allegations levelled against the appellant were misbehaviour with the customers, misbehaviour with the staff and colleagues, sexual harassment of women employees/ customers, acts done to delay customer service, passing of derogatory remarks on lady customers and staff, creating a negative atmosphere in the Bank affecting business/customer service, habitually coming late to work, and having an argumentative attitude and disturbing the Bank’s discipline.
The IO’s report was handed over to the Internal Complaints Committee on Sexual Harassment (‘ICC’) constituted according to the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (‘POSH Act’). The ICC submitted its report and recommended disciplinary action against the appellant. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority/Regional Manager (‘DA’) called for an explanation from the appellant, which he provided. However, the DA, unsatisfied with such an explanation, issued an Article of Charge. The appellant submitted a reply to the Article of Charge denying all the allegations.
Thereafter, in the departmental inquiry initiated against the appellant, the Inquiry Officer found three charges proved and three charges partially proved. Accordingly, the DA issued two show-cause notices seeking the appellant’s response. Taking a sympathetic view, the DA altered the proposed punishment and inflicted the penalty of lowering two increments from his present pay scale with a cumulative effect till retirement. A further penalty was inflicted to the effect that the appellant would not be eligible for an increment for two years.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal before DGM (B & O), Raipur Module. The Appellate Authority revised the punishment and inflicted the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved yet again, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Single Judge, but it was dismissed vide the impugned order.
Hence, the present writ appeal.
Analysis of SBI employee’s appeal against increment stoppage
Considering the matter in its entirety and the impugned order, the Court noted that the DA and the Appellate Authority recorded concurrent findings and found the allegations of misbehaviour with customers and staff and sexual harassment of women employees and valued customers proved against the appellant. The claims made by the complainant concerning sexual harassment were found to be partly proved as the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. Thereafter, the principles of natural justice were complied with as the appellant was allowed to be heard and show cause notices from time to time were issued to which the appellant filed replies. The Court further noted that the appellant had nowhere stated in the writ petition that he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses or that relevant documents were not provided.
The Court also noted that the disciplinary inquiry was conducted by the Competent Authority, and there was no allegation concerning the competence of the authority. Initially, a penalty of lowering two increments from his present pay scale with cumulative effect till retirement was imposed, but later, it was modified by the Appellate Authority to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Thus, the penalty inflicted was neither shocking nor disproportionate.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court opined that the Single Judge passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order.
Thus, holding that the writ appeal lacked merit, the Court dismissed it.
[Ram Krishna Soni v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director National Banking Division Group, Hoshangabad, WA No. 292 of 2025, decided on 02-05-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: Tanmay Thomas and Kavita Bansal
For the respondent: P.R. Patankar
