PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND ORS. versus MRS. DURGESH KUWAR

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 207 · Decided: 25-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
207
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND ORS.
v.
MRS. DURGESH KUWAR
(Civil Appeal No. 1809 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Service Law – Banking Service – Order of transfer – Judicial
review of – Respondent, Chief Manager in Scale IV at Indore Branch
of the first appellant-Bank was transferred to Branch Office at
Sarsawa, Jabalpur – Submitted representation to Zonal Manager
for being retained at Indore – Had earlier pointed out irregularities
w.r.t accounts of liquor contractors – Also made sexual harassment
allegations against the Zonal Manager – Single Judge quashed the
order of transfer – Affirmed by Division Bench – Held: Transfer is
an exigency of service – Unless an order of transfer is established
to be malafide or contrary to statutory provision or has been issued
by an authority not competent to order transfer, the Court in exercise
of judicial review would not be inclined to interfere – In the present
case, respondent wrote repeated communications to authorities
drawing their attention to serious irregularities in the course of
maintenance of accounts of liquor contractors and levelled specific
allegations of corruption – Admittedly, the branch to which the
respondent was posted was not commensurate to her position as a
Scale IV officer – Respondent was victimized – Order of transfer
was an act of unfair treatment vitiated by malafides – Decision of
High Court is affirmed – Respondent be reposted at the Indore
branch as a Scale IV officer for one year from today – Upon the
expiry of said period, if any administrative exigency arises the
competent authority is at liberty to take appropriate decision w.r.t
her place of posting independently in accordance with relevant rules
and regulations of the bank, in the interest of fair treatment to the
officer – Respondent be paid costs of Rs.50,000 /- within one month
– Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – ss.3, 4 and 6 – Constitution
of India – Arts.14, 15 and 21.
207
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 207
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – s.4(2)(c) – Respondent, Chief
Manager in Scale IV at Indore Branch of the first appellant-Bank
was transferred to Branch Office at Sarsawa, Jabalpur – She had
inter alia made sexual harassment allegations against the Zonal
Manager – Constitution of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)
objected by the respondent – Held: 2013 Act was enacted to provide
protection against sexual harassment of women at the workplace
as well as for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual
harassment – Sexual harassment at workplace is an affront to the
fundamental rights of a woman to equality u/Arts.14 & 15 and her
right to live with dignity u/Art. 21 as well as her right to practice
any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business–
Clause (c) of s.4(2) indicates that one member of the ICC has to be
drawn from amongst a non-governmental organization or
association committed to the cause of women or a person familiar
with issues relating to sexual harassment– Purpose thereof is to
ensure the presence of an independent person who can aid, advise
& assist the Committee – It obviates an institutional bias – In the
present case, such member was a panel lawyer of the bank at the
material time – No justification on the part of the bank not to accede
to the request of the respondent for replacing that person with a
truly independent third party having regard to the provisions of
s.4(2)(c) – There was a fundamental defect in the constitution of
the ICC set up by the bank – Constitution of India – Arts.14, 15 and
21 – Service Law – Banking Service.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Transfer is an exigency of service. An employee
cannot have a choice of postings. Administrative circulars and
guidelines are indicators of the manner in which the transfer policy
has to be implemented. However, an administrative circular may
not in itself confer a vested right which can be enforceable by a
writ of mandamus. Unless an order of transfer is established to
be malafide or contrary to a statutory provision or has been issued
by an authority not competent to order transfer, the Court in
exercise of judicial review would not be inclined to interfere. [Para
17][218-C-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
209
1.2 The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(P

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.