Introduction
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the disciplinary action against an employee of State Bank of India (SBI) who was accused of misconduct towards a female customer at the bank and sexual harassment, thereby affirming the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.
A division bench comprising Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Ramesh Sinha and Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma passed the judgement in Writ Appeal No. 292 of 2025 that:
"From the records, it is evident that the disciplinary inquiry was conducted by the Competent Authority, with no allegations regarding its competence. Initially, the penalty imposed was the reduction of two salary increments in the accused employee's pay scale with cumulative effect until retirement. However, the Appellate Authority later modified this penalty to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Consequently, the imposed penalty is neither excessive nor disproportionate."1
Background of the Case:
The write appeal was filed by the accused/appellant (Customer Assistant) employed with State Bank of India, challenging the order of aSingle Judgewho had earlier dismissed his writ petition against the disciplinary action.
The appellant was initially accused of misconduct towards a female customer at the Bank, which initiated an internal disciplinary inquiry. The Investigating Officer examined several allegations against him, including:
- Inappropriate behavior towards customers.
- Sexual harassment of employees and customers.
- Derogatory remarks directed at female customers.
- Delays in customer service.
- Habitual late coming and his disruptive behavior.
TheInternal Committee on Sexual Harassmentreviewed the matter and concluded that the allegations were substantiated. Consequently, the committee recommended stopping the employee's salary increment as a penalty. The employee contested this decision before the appellate authority, which upheld the findings. Dissatisfied with the order, he challenged it by filing a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting the annulment of the penalty and findings.2
Legal Issues
The petition raised the below mentioned issues before the
court:
a) Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in
accordance with the principles of natural justice?
- b) Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the allegations of sexual harassment?
- c) Whether the punishment of stoppage of salary increment was legal and proportionate?
- d) The extent of the High Court's authority to intervene in the findings and factual determinations made by disciplinary and appellate authorities.3
Judicial Reasoning and Findings
- Observance of Natural Justice by the
court
The petitioner (accused employee) contended that the inquiry was flawed and that he was denied fair hearing. The High Court dismissed this argument, noting that both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority had followed the due procedure during inquiry. The employee was given notice, allowed to respond to the allegations, and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses was also provided to him.
The Court cited Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, reaffirming that "principles of natural justice are not a rigid doctrine" and may vary depending on the context. The Court held that the inquiry was compliant with procedural fairness.
- Evaluation of Evidence
The petitioner claimed that the findings were unsupported by any credible evidence. However, the Court observed that multiple testimonies from victims and witnesses were corroborative, and that the internal committee report clearly established a pattern of inappropriate conduct.
The Court emphasized that in departmental proceedings, strict rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are not applicable. Citing State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491, the Court observed:
"There is no allergy to hearsay evidence in administrative inquiries provided it has a reasonable nexus and probative value".
Thus, the evidence presented during the internal inquiry was found adequate under the standard of "preponderance of probabilities."
- Proportionality of Punishment
The petitioner argued that the penalty of stoppage of increment was disproportionate. However, the Court disagreed, asserting that the punishment was in fact lenient, considering the seriousness of the misconduct, the Court noted: "The Court/Tribunal cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the disciplinary authority. The Court can intervene only if the punishment is deemed shockingly unjust. In the present case, the stoppage of increment was considered appropriate and legally justified. - Limited Scope of Judicial Review
The Chhattisgarh High Court reiterated that its role in service matters is supervisory and not appellate. Relying on State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212, the Court held:
"Findings of fact recorded by the departmental authority are not to be interfered with unless they are perverse or based on no evidence."
The Court concluded that the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities had followed due process, based their conclusions on relevant material, and imposed a reasonable penalty. Hence, no interference was warranted.5
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court's dismissal of the SBI employee's writ appeal sends a clear message: misconduct, especially of a sexual or abusive nature, will not be tolerated in public sector institutions. The Court upheld procedural fairness, accepted the findings based on a reasonable standard of proof, and reinforced the principle of proportionality in punishment.
By declining to interfere, the High Court has strengthened the hands of disciplinary authorities and underscored the importance of institutional mechanisms in maintaining workplace integrity and safety.
While the decision is legally sound, it also highlights the need for proper implementation of the POSH Act, greater awareness of sexual harassment laws, and continuous sensitivity training within the workplaces. Only through such integrated efforts can a culture of respect and accountability be cultivated in public institutions.
References:
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/05/30/chhattisgarh-hc-rejects-sbi-employees-appeal-increment-stoppage-misbehavior-sexual-harassment/#:~:text=Chhattisgarh%20High%20Court%3A%20In%20a,Verma%2C%20J.%2C%20dismissed%20the
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12063115/
- https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/chattisgarh-high-court/sbi-employee-sexual-harassment-disciplinary-action-penalty-293587
- Ram Krishna Soni v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, National Banking Division Group and Others
- https://news.locallaw.in/chhattisgarh-high-court-upholds-disciplinary-action-against-sbi-employee-accused-of-sexual-harassment/
Footnotes
1 WA No. 292 of 2025
3 Writ Petition (S)No.3958 of 2018 (Ram Krishna Soni v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director and others).
4 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12063115/
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
