SBI Employee Charged with Complaint of Sexual Harassment, High Court Punishes Staff

An Employee working with State Bank of India was charged with complaint of Sexual Harassment. A female customer and female employee had filed sexual harassment case against him. Following the complaint, SBI conducted an inquiry and SBI’s disciplinary committee and appellate authority found him guilty under POSH Act, 2013. The Employee said he was not guilty and did not sexually harass the female customer and employee.

But SBI took the disciplinary action against this employee by stopping two salary increments. Though he was not removed from service, there were six counts of legal charges against him and only 3 of them were fully proved and the other 3 were partially proved. SBI said that 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.

The Employee filed an appeal against this disciplinary action order of SBI and the matter reached the high court. Now, the Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected his appeal on May 2, 2025.

The employee said in High Court that SBI did not conduct the inquiry about this sexual assault in accordance with law and proper opportunity to present his case was not provided to him. His lawyer also quoted six Supreme Court judgements which have already set a precedent in cases similar to his.

Let’s Understand Background of the Case

The petitioner was working as a Customer Assistant at State Bank of India, Branch Nawapara, Rajim District Gariyaband. On 17.04.2018, a lady customer of the Bank made a complaint regarding misbehavior by bank staff i.e. the petitioner during her visit to the branch for cash deposit on 16.04.2015.

After the receipt of the complaint, an inquiry was initiated by the Regional Office and Shri Abhay Joshi was appointed as Investigating Officer. The officer concerned submitted its report on 26.05.2015 and considered the following allegations against the petitioner, such as (i) Misbehavior with the customer; (ii) Misbehavior with the staff and colleagues; (iii) Sexual harassment of women employees/valued customers; (iv) 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; and (v) Habitual late coming and argumentative attitude and disturbing the bank’s discipline.

The report was handed over to the Sexual Harassment Committee constituted according to the provisions of “The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013”. The Chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee on Sexual Harassment submitted its report and recommended disciplinary action against the appellant/writ petitioner.

On 23.06.2015, the Disciplinary Authority/Regional Manager called for an explanation on the basis of the report submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee. The appellant/writ petitioner submitted his reply on 20.07.2015. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply, issued an Article of Charge on 26.10.2015.

The appellant/writ petitioner submitted a reply to the Article of Charge on 18.11.2015, wherein he denied all allegations. In terms of bipartite settlement dated 10.04.2002, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the appellant/writ petitioner and it was concluded on 31.12.2016. The inquiry report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority.

The Inquiry Officer found 03 charges proved and 03 charges partially proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued a first show cause notice on 06.09.2017 and the second show cause notice on 20.09.2017. The appellant/writ petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notices on 14.09.2017 and 25.09.2017.

The Disciplinary Authority taking a sympathetic view altered the proposed punishment and vide order dated 09.10.2017 inflicted the penalty of lowering two increments from his present pay scale with cumulative effect till retirement and further penalty was inflicted to the effect that the appellant/writ petitioner would not be eligible for increment for a period of 02 years.

Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before DGM (B & O), Raipur Module. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 06.04.2018 revised the punishment and inflicted the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

Chhattisgarh High Court final judgement

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal of the employee against whom this sexual harassment charge was pressed and said:

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.

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.

• Download Court Order