SBI Staff Penalised for Sexual Harassment; Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Increment Cut

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently rejected an appeal filed by a State Bank of India (SBI) employee challenging disciplinary action initiated against him over allegations of sexually harassing a female customer during her visit to the branch. The court has upheld the penalty of stoppage of two increments with a cumulative effect.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma was hearing a plea filed by the appellant, a Customer Assistant at SBI, challenging the Single Judge’s order dated February 19, 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by him had been dismissed.

While upholding the Single Judge's order, the High Court held, "Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.3958 of 2018 (Ram Krishna Soni v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director and others)."

The case arose after a woman customer filed a complaint against the appellant, alleging misbehaviour during her visit to the branch.

Following this, the Bank’s Regional Office initiated an inquiry. The Investigating Officer submitted his report listing the following allegations: misbehaviour with a customer, sexual harassment of women employees and customers, delay in customer service, making derogatory remarks about women, creating a negative atmosphere at the branch, and habitual late coming.

The report was then forwarded to the Internal Complaints Committee, and the Committee’s Chairperson recommended disciplinary action against the appellant. The Disciplinary Authority sought a response from the appellant, which was duly submitted.

After finding the explanation unsatisfactory, Articles of Charge were issued, which the appellant denied in full. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted under the bipartite settlement. The Inquiry Officer found three charges proved and three partially proved.

The Disciplinary Authority issued two show-cause notices, to which the appellant responded. Finally, the authority imposed a penalty that included a reduction of two increments in pay with a cumulative effect till retirement and ineligibility for any increment for the next two years.

Subsequently, the appellant filed a departmental appeal before the DGM (B&O), Raipur Module. The said authority revised the punishment and imposed a penalty of a stoppage of two increments with a cumulative effect. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Single Judge.

Before the High Court, it is the appellant's case that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of the law. It was contended that the statements of the victims had not been recorded in the presence of the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

He further argued that he was not granted sufficient opportunity to present his defence and that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition.

Opposing these submissions, the respondent contended that the charges against the appellant were serious. Out of six charges, three were found proven and three were partially proved against him.

Taking note of the submissions of both parties, the High Court at the outset noted that the allegations regarding sexual harassment were partly proved and supported by witness statements.

Observing that the appellant was given adequate opportunity and that the principles of natural justice were complied with, the court said, "...show cause notices from time to time were issued and the appellant/writ petitioner filed a reply to those notices, but the appellant/writ petitioner had nowhere stated in the writ petition that he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses or relevant documents were not provided."

Referring to the penalty imposed on the appellant, the court held that it was neither shocking nor disproportionate in the given circumstances.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Ram Krishna Soni v. Chairman Cum Managing Director, National Banking Division Group