While displaying zero tolerance for sexual harassment of women at workplace, the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Dr DY Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi have just recently on February 25, 2020 in a notable judgment titled Punjab and Sind Bank and Others v/s Mrs Durgesh Kuwar in Civil Appeal No. 1809 of 2020 have minced no words to make it abundantly clear that sexual harassment at the workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman.

This was so remarked while upholding a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had quashed a transfer of a woman bank employee! Very rightly so! There must be no tolerance for sexual harassment at any workplace and those indulging in it must be made to face the music of law!

To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 2 of this noteworthy judgment authored by Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud for himself and Justice Ajay Rastogi wherein it is observed that, "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."

Be it noted, para 3 then discloses that, "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."

To recapitulate, it is then remarkably laid bare in para 4 that, "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 1. 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 Saraswa 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."

After hearing both sides, the Bench then observes in para 17 that, "We must begin our analysis of the rival submissions by adverting to the settled principle that 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. These principles emerge from the judgments which have been relied upon by the appellants in support of their submissions and to which we have already made a reference above. There can be no dispute about the position in law."

For the sake of brevity, the key issue in real terms that is raised in para 18 is as stated that, "The real issue which the Court needs to enquire into in the present case is as to whether the order of the High Court quashing the order of transfer can be sustained, having regard to the above principles of law. The material on record would indicate that commencing from 31 December 2016 and going up to 15 November 2017, the respondent, who was posted as Chief Manager in her capacity as a Scale IV officer at Indore branch, submitted as many as six communications drawing attention to the serious irregularities which she had noticed in the maintenance of bank accounts of and transactions by liquor contractors. The contents of the complaints raised serious issues. The order of transfer was served on the respondent within a month of the last of the above representations, on 14 December 2017. On 19 February 2018, the respondent levelled allegations specifically of sexual harassment against the Zonal Manager. The bank initially constituted an ICC. The respondent raised an objection to the presence of some of the members of the Committee."

Going forward, para 19 then stipulates that, "The report of the ICC contains a reference to the objections which the respondent raised to the members at serial numbers (ii), (iv) and (vi) above. These objections were noted in the course of the report of the ICC dated 26 February 2019. The respondent drew the attention of the Presiding Officer of the ICC to the fact that Ms Rashmita Kwatra, AGM is the spouse of a retired General Manager, who was part of the process of the transfer of the respondent. As against Ms Seema Gupta, who was nominated as an independent member, the respondent noted that she was a panel advocate of the bank and was regularly contesting cases in court involving the bank. The respondent also raised an objection in regard to the presence of Mr Vimal Kumar Attrey as a member of the Committee. The report of the Committee contains a reference to the fact that following the objections which were raised by the respondent, the Committee was reconstituted, as a result of which Ms Rashmita Kwatra and Mr Vimal Kumar Attrey were substituted by two other officers of the bank. However, Ms Seema Gupta, Advocate continue to be a member of the ICC."

Most significantly, it is then elegantly postulated in para 20 that, "The 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 the workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under Articles 14 and 15 and her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as her right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business."

What's more, it is then rightly brought out in para 22 that, "Clause (c) of Section 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. The purpose of having such a member is to ensure the presence of an independent person who can aid, advise and assist the Committee. It obviates an institutional bias. During the course of hearing, we have received a confirmation from the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the bank that Ms Seema Gupta was, in fact, a panel lawyer of the bank at the material time. This being the position, we see no reason or justification on the part of the bank not to accede to the request of the respondent for replacing Ms Seema Gupta with a truly independent third party having regard to the provisions of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. This is a significant facet which goes to the root of the constitution of the ICC which was set up to enquire into the allegations which were levelled by the respondent."

Simply put, the Bench then goes on to add in para 24 that, "The material which has been placed on record indicates that the respondent had written repeated communications to the authorities drawing their attention to the serious irregularities in the course of the maintenance of accounts of liquor contractors and in that context had levelled specific allegations of corruption. The respondent was posted on 14 December 2017 to a branch, which even according to the bank, was not meant for the posting of a Scale IV officer.

The sanctity which the bank attaches to posting officers of the appropriate scale to a branch commensurate with their position is evident from the Board's Resolution to which we have adverted earlier. Admittedly, the branch to which the respondent was posted was not commensurate to her position as a Scale IV officer.

There can be no manner of doubt that the respondent has been victimized. Her reports of irregularities in the Branch met with a reprisal. She was transferred out and sent to a branch which was expected to be occupied by a Scale I officer. This is symptomatic of a carrot and stick policy adopted to suborn the dignity of a woman who is aggrieved by unfair treatment at her workplace. The law cannot countenance this. The order of transfer was an act of unfair treatment and is vitiated by malafides."

To put it succinctly, it is then observed in para 25 that, "In view of the above analysis, we are of the view that the High Court cannot be faulted in coming to the conclusion that the transfer of the respondent, who was holding the office of Chief Manager in the Scale IV in Indore branch to the branch at Saraswa in the district of Jabalpur was required to be interfered with. At the same time, a period of nearly four years has since elapsed. Despite the order of stay, the respondent was not assigned an office at Indore and had to suffer the indignity of being asked to sit away from the place assigned to a Branch Manager. Considering the period which has elapsed, it would be necessary for the Court to issue a direction, which, while sub-serving the interest of the bank, is also consistent with the need to reserve the dignity of a woman employee who, we hold, has been unfairly treated."

Now coming to the concluding paras, para 26 holds that, "We accordingly direct that Ms Durgesh Kuwar, the respondent officer, shall be reposted at the Indore branch as a scale IV officer for a period of one year from today. Upon the expiry of the period of one year, if any administrative exigency arises the competent authority of the bank would be at liberty to take an appropriate decision in regard to her place of posting independently in accordance with law keeping in view the relevant rules and regulations of the bank, in the interest of fair treatment to the officer."

Lastly, it is then held in para 27 that, "While affirming the decision of the High Court, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the above directions. The respondent would be entitled to costs quantified at Rs 50,000 which shall be paid over within one month."

To sum up, the crux of this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment is that there has to be zero tolerance for sexual offences directed against women . Those men who dare to still indulge in it have to be made to suffer most swiftly the penal consequences of their reprehensible actions! The sum and substance of this noteworthy judgment is that sexual harassment of women at workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under Articles 14 and 15 and her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as her right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

The provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 must be strictly and swiftly implemented so that the woman victim gets the due relief at the earliest! There can be no denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh