State Bank of India (SBI) employee penalised for misbehavior: Bank's disciplinary action of cutting 2 salary increments upheld by high court

Time of India

a day ago

The High Court upheld State Bank of India's disciplinary action against an employee found guilty under the POSH Act. The court rejected the employee's appeal, affirming that SBI's inquiry followed due process and provided sufficient opportunity. Allegations of misconduct towards customers and staff were substantiated, leading to the stoppage of salary increments. Read below to know more about this case.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
How did this case start?
April 17, 2015: This lady customer made a complaint that a bank officer misbehaved with her during her visit to the bank's branch for depositing cash. The regional office of SBI immediately appointed an investigating officer.
This lady customer made a complaint that a bank officer misbehaved with her during her visit to the bank's branch for depositing cash. The regional office of SBI immediately appointed an investigating officer. May 26, 2015: The investigating officer submitted his report and considered the following allegations against the employee, such as misbehavior with the customer; sexual harassment of women employees/valued customers; acts done to attribute delay in customer service, passing of derogatory remarks on lady customers and staff and creating a negative atmosphere in the branch affecting business/customer service….
The investigating officer submitted his report and considered the following allegations against the employee, such as misbehavior with the customer; sexual harassment of women employees/valued customers; acts done to attribute delay in customer service, passing of derogatory remarks on lady customers and staff and creating a negative atmosphere in the branch affecting business/customer service…. May 2015: The report was handed over to the Sexual Harassment Committee. The Chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee on Sexual Harassment submitted its report and recommended disciplinary action against the appellant/writ petitioner.
The report was handed over to the Sexual Harassment Committee. The Chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee on Sexual Harassment submitted its report and recommended disciplinary action against the appellant/writ petitioner. June 23, 2015: The Disciplinary Authority called for an explanation on the basis of the report submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee.
The Disciplinary Authority called for an explanation on the basis of the report submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee. July 20, 2015: He submitted his reply about the internal complaints committee report.
He submitted his reply about the internal complaints committee report. October 26, 2015: The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply, issued an Article of Charge.
The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply, issued an Article of Charge. November 18, 2015: The SBI employee submitted a reply to the Article of Charge on, wherein he denied all allegations.
The SBI employee submitted a reply to the Article of Charge on, wherein he denied all allegations. December 31, 2016: In terms of bipartite settlement, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him, and the inquiry report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority. The Inquiry Officer found 03 charges proved and 03 charges partially proved of sexual harassment.
In terms of bipartite settlement, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him, and the inquiry report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority. The Inquiry Officer found 03 charges proved and 03 charges partially proved of sexual harassment. September 6 to September 25 of 2017: The Disciplinary Authority issued a first show cause notice on September 6, 2017, and the second show cause notice on September 20, 2017. The SBI employee against whom these sexual harassment charges were filled, submitted a reply to the show cause notices on September 14 and 25 of 2017.
The Disciplinary Authority issued a first show cause notice on September 6, 2017, and the second show cause notice on September 20, 2017. The SBI employee against whom these sexual harassment charges were filled, submitted a reply to the show cause notices on September 14 and 25 of 2017. October 9, 2017: The Disciplinary Authority taking a sympathetic view altered the proposed punishment. The punishment was: lowering two increments from his present pay scale with cumulative effect till retirement and further penalty was inflicted to the effect that he would not be eligible for increment for a period of 2 years.
The Disciplinary Authority taking a sympathetic view altered the proposed punishment. The punishment was: lowering two increments from his present pay scale with cumulative effect till retirement and further penalty was inflicted to the effect that he would not be eligible for increment for a period of 2 years. April 6, 2018: He filed 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. He filed an appeal against this order in the High Court.
What did the State Bank of India's lawyers say in the High Court?
There were serious allegations against the appellant (employee) and out of 6 charges, 3 were found proved and 3 were found partially proved.
Further it's submitted that there were allegations of sexual harassment, therefore, the matter was referred to the Chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee on sexual harassment and according to its report, the allegations were found proved.
It has been contended that the appellant (employee) was afforded sufficient opportunity, and the Article of Charge was issued along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses.
During the course of the departmental inquiry, no objection was raised by the appellant (employee) and thereafter, a notice was issued to him and the Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view…
The Appellate Authority considered his appeal and took a sympathetic view, modified the punishment and only imposed a stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.
There were serious allegations with regard to sexual harassment of women at the workplace and misbehavior with valued customers and staff and all the allegations were found proved.
What did the employee say in the High Court?
It submitted that the impugned order (SBI disciplinary action) is illegal and bad in the eyes of law.
The allegations made are false. The statements of victims were not recorded and were not allowed to cross-examine those witnesses. It has been further contended that the inquiry was not conducted strictly in accordance with law and sufficient opportunity was not afforded.
Chhattisgarh High Court final judgement
From the records, it has been further reflected that the disciplinary enquiry has been conducted by the Competent Authority and there is no allegation with regard to competence of the authority. Initially, the punishment of penalty of lowering two increments from his present pay scale with cumulative effect till retirement was imposed which was modified by the Appellate Authority to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, thus, the penalty inflicted is neither shocking nor disproportionate.
It has been reflected that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have recorded a concurrent findings and found the allegations of misbehavior with customers and staff and sexual harassment of women employees and valued customers proved against the appellant (employee).
It has been further reflected that the allegations made by the complainant with regard to sexual harassment were found partly proved as the witnesses were supported the case of the prosecution.
Thereafter, the appellant (employee) was afforded opportunity, the principles of natural justice were complied with and show cause notices from time to time were issued and the appellant (employee) filed a reply to those notices, but the appellant (employee) had nowhere stated in the writ petition that he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses or relevant documents were not provided.
The chief justice of Chhattisgarh High Court on May 2, 2025, rejected a State Bank of India (SBI) employee's appeal about strong disciplinary action taken by the bank against him after the bank found him guilty of sexual harassment of a customer and the bank's employees. SBI's disciplinary committee and appellate authority found him guilty under POSH Act, 2013. However, he always maintained the position that he is innocent and did not sexually harass the lady customer of the bank, who filed the original complaint, and others.SBI took the disciplinary action against this employee by stopping two salary increments from his present pay scale with cumulative effect. Though he was not fired from the job, there were six counts of legal charges against him and only 3 of them were fully proved and the other 3 were partially proved. The matter gradually reached the High Court after he filed an appeal against this disciplinary action order of SBI.The employee said in High Court that SBI did not conduct the inquiry about this sexual assault in accordance with law and sufficient opportunity was not afforded to him. His lawyer also quoted six Supreme Court judgements which have already set a precedent in cases similar to his.The Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court rejected all the arguments presented by the employee. The chief justice said that the findings by SBI's disciplinary authority and SBI's appellate authority are concurrent and the allegations of sexual misconduct (namely POSH) by this SBI officer with both customers and staff has been proved. The chief justice also said that no principles of natural justice were violated, and everything was done by following the law of the land.Read below to know why the chief justice upheld SBI's disciplinary committee's findings and which legal reasoning(s) established that this SBI employee sexually harassed the branch employees and its customers both.According to the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court dated May 2, 2025, here is a timeline of events:According to the order of Chhattisgarh High Court dated May 2, 2025, here are the details of what SBI's lawyers said:The employee against whom this sexual harassment allegation charge was pressed said:The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal of the employee against whom this sexual harassment charge was pressed and said:Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris, a law firm, says: 'The allegations, including delay in service and derogatory behavior, were proven through a departmental inquiry and an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) investigation under the POSH Act. Wherein it was suggested for stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which was upheld by both the disciplinary and appellate authorities. The High Court found no procedural lapses or denial of natural justice and held that the penalty was proportionate. The judgment reinforces judicial deference to internal disciplinary processes and upholds accountability in workplace misconduct.'Razvi says: 'The Court emphasized that it would not interfere with departmental decisions unless there was a clear violation of principles of natural justice or procedural irregularity, which was absent in this case. The decision reiterates that Article 226 writ jurisdiction is not an appellate forum for re-evaluating factual disputes from internal inquiries, unless there's mala fide, bias, or violation of natural justice.'