Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed interference with a bank officer’s retaliatory transfer after she reported serious irregularities. Posting a Scale IV Chief Manager to a branch meant for a Scale I officer constituted victimisation and mala fide treatment on the facts. The bank’s complaints committee also suffered a fundamental defect because its purported independent member was its panel lawyer. Reposting at Indore for one year and payment of ₹50,000 costs were directed.
Issues
- Whether the transfer was mala fide despite the ordinary limits on judicial review of postings.
- Whether inclusion of the bank’s panel lawyer met the requirement of an independent complaints-committee member.
Provisions considered
- Section 4(2)(c), Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013Required a genuinely independent external member to guard against institutional bias; the bank’s refusal to replace its panel lawyer fundamentally affected the committee’s constitution. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
Held
- Transfer is ordinarily an exigency of service, and administrative guidelines do not themselves necessarily create an enforceable vested right. Judicial interference is justified where a transfer is mala fide, contrary to statute or ordered by an incompetent authority. (¶ 17)
- An external committee member provides independent assistance and guards against institutional bias. Given the admitted panel-lawyer relationship, there was no justification for refusing the officer’s request for a genuinely independent replacement. The Court identified a fundamental defect in the committee’s constitution. (¶¶ 19, 21, 22, 23)
- Repeated reports of serious irregularities were followed by transfer to a branch admittedly inappropriate to the officer’s scale. In these circumstances the transfer was a reprisal and victimisation, vitiated by mala fides. (¶¶ 18, 24, 25)
- Reposting at Indore as a Scale IV officer for one year preserved fair treatment while allowing a lawful independent posting decision afterwards if administrative exigency arose. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Result
High Court decision affirmed and appeal disposed of with a direction to repost the officer at Indore for one year. Costs of ₹50,000 payable to her within one month; any later posting decision to comply with law and fair treatment.