29-05-2025
SBI Employee Accused of Sexually Harassing Staff, Customers: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Penalty
Last Updated:
The court dismissed the appeal filed by Ram Krishna Soni, challenging the increment penalty imposed after an internal inquiry
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently upheld disciplinary action against a State Bank of India employee on charges including sexual harassment and misbehaviour with customers and colleagues.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma dismissed the appeal filed by Ram Krishna Soni, challenging the penalty imposed after an internal inquiry.
A woman customer filed a complaint alleging that Soni, a customer assistant at the Nawapara, Rajim branch, misbehaved with her during a cash deposit in April 2015. An internal investigation ensued, and based on the findings, the matter was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. The committee substantiated the allegations and recommended disciplinary action.
Following a detailed departmental inquiry examining six charges—including sexual harassment, misbehaviour, derogatory comments, and habitual lateness—Soni was found fully guilty of three charges and partially guilty of three others. In 2017, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of two increment reductions with a cumulative effect and disqualification from future increments for two years. The Appellate Authority later modified this in 2018 to a stoppage of two increments with a cumulative effect.
Soni contested the decision in the high court, arguing that the inquiry violated the principles of natural justice, denying him the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. His writ petition was dismissed by a single-judge bench in February this year, leading him to file the present intra-court appeal.
The division bench found no procedural irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings. It observed that the principles of natural justice were followed and that Soni failed to prove any malice or perverse findings by the disciplinary or appellate authorities.
Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Ajai Kumar Srivastava vs DGM, the high court reiterated that judicial review in such cases is limited to assessing procedural fairness and evidence-based findings, not re-appreciating evidence.
Concurrent findings were recorded by both the disciplinary and appellate authorities. The court noted that the penalty inflicted could not be termed shocking or disproportionate.
Dismissing the appeal, the court affirmed the fair conduct of the departmental proceedings and found no grounds to interfere with the imposed punishment.
Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN-News18. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
First Published:
May 29, 2025, 16:01 IST
