The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.2498 of 2025 Saumya Srividya ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Dr. Purusottam Chuli -versus- Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Union Bank of India, Mumbai & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. -
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 24.02.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: Admit this writ application; “Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- i. ii. Call for the records/documents from the opp. parties: iii. Quash the Findings of the Enquiry Report of the Sexual Harassment Redressal Committee (SHRC) dated 23.03.2022 under Annexure-4 series: the message dated 25.03.2022 and iv. Quash the message refusing to share the CCTV the office dated 01.04.2022 under footage of Page 1 of 5. Annexure-5; v. Quash the order dated 20.09.2022 under Annexure-8; vi. Quash the Memorandum No. HRAD: 15865A: 2022 dated 14.12.2022 extending the petitioner's probation period under Annexure-10; vii. Quash the Report dated 21.08.2023 issued by the Sexual Harassment Redressal Committee (SHRC), Central Office under Annexure-14; ix. viii. Quash the order of termination dated 21.10.2023 issued by the opp. party No.2-Assistant General Manager (HR), Union Bank of India, Nariman Point, Mumbai under Annexure-15; Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate opp. writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) parties, particularly opp. party No. 1, to reinstate the petitioner as Assistant Manager (Law) in any Branch of Union Bank of India in Odisha with effect from 21.10.2023 within a stipulated period: directing the x. Direct the opp. parties to pay compensation of Rs 3 crore to the petitioner. xi. Direct the opp. Parties to grant the petitioner an experience certificate for her duration of work in Union Bank of India. xii. Pass such other order orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to give complete relief to the petitioner.” 4. The factual background leading to filing of the present writ application at the instance of the Petitioner in a nut shell is that, the Petitioner, who is a lady, on being appointed as a Law Officer by the Deputy Zonal Head, Union Bank of India, FGMO, Bhubaneswar, the Petitioner joined in service on 14.12.2020 as a Law Officer under Annexure-1 to the writ application. It has been alleged in the writ application that since the date of her joining, the Petitioner was being subjected to sexual harassment by one of her colleague, namely, Page 2 of 5. Santosh Yadav. Subsequently, the above named Santosh Yadav died while he was working in the bank. As a result, the colleagues of the above named Santosh Yadav subjected the Petitioner to further sexual harassment. On 31st December, 2020, the Petitioner reported the matter before the HR Manager of the Bank in writing. However, no action was taken on her complaint although she kept on inquiring about the status of the complaint. 5. While the matter stood thus, again on 13.02.2022, the Petitioner filed a complaint under Annexure-2 to the writ application. Thereafter, an Internal Committee was constituted and the matter was inquired into. While the aforesaid inquiry was going on, the Petitioner was transferred from Bhubaneswar to Regional Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad, Telangana on 07.03.2022. Subsequent to which, the Petitioner joined on 7th March, 2022. Finally, the Sexual Harassment Redressal Committee (SHRC) submitted a copy of the inquiry report dated 23.03.2022 on 25.03.2022. In the said inquiry report, the committee has concluded that the allegation made by the present petitioner lacks evidence and the same was filed after an abnormal delay. Further, an allegation has also been made against the Petitioner of filing a false complaint. Accordingly, the Committee rejected the Petitioner’s complaint. 6. The pleadings contained in the writ application further reveals that the Petitioner was subjected to further sexual harassment at the Regional Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that being aggrieved by such conduct, the Petitioner preferred an appeal on 05.04.2022 within the time stipulated under the Rules. He further contended that the service condition of the Petitioner is required to be governed as per the Page 3 of 5. Regulation of the Opposite Party-Bank i.e. Union Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979. In view of Regulation-20 of the aforesaid Regulation, a provision for appeal has been provided to the employees and that such appeal lies to the Board of Directors of the Bank. Accordingly, the Petitioner preferred an appeal through the Managing Director of the Bank, who happens to the Chief Executive of the Bank and who was required to place the matter before the Board of Directors. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that no final decision has been taken on such appeal, as is stipulated under the Regulation-20 of the Regulations, 1979. Being aggrieved by such inaction, when the Petitioner made further inquiry, she was informed that her services have been terminated and that she is no longer an employee of the bank. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on a careful examination of the pleadings made in the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto, this Court observes that initially the Petitioner was appointed as a Law Officer in the year 2020. Thereafter, as per the Petitioner’s allegation, she was subjected to sexual harassment. As a result, she had lodged a complaint before the (Sexual Harassment Redressal Committee) SHRC of the Bank. However, such complaint was rejected. Thereafter, the Petitioner had preferred an appeal under the Regulation-20 of the Bank’s Regulation, 1979. Such appeal memo which has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure-16 reveals that the same has been addressed to the Managing Director of the Bank. Although the Regulation provides that a decision is to be Page 4 of 5. taken on such appeal memo by the Board of Directors, however, such appeal has not been placed before the Board of Directors. Keeping in view the provisions contained in Regulation-20 of the Bank’s Regulation, 1979, this Court is of the view that the Managing Director of the Bank-Opposite Party No.1 should have placed the matter before the Board of Directors for consideration of the appeal memo of the Petitioner under Annexure-16 to the writ application. However, while disposing of the present writ application, this Court directs that the Opposite Party No.1 shall place the appeal memo under Annexue-16 to the writ application dated 02.10.2024 before the Board of Directors of the Bank in their next meeting. In such eventuality, the Board of Directors of the Bank are further directed to consider such appeal of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with the Bank’s Regulation, 1979 and dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. The final decision so taken by the appellate authority i.e. the Board of Directors of the Bank shall be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such a decision. 8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Feb-2025 14:24:55