Mala fide transfer and defective sexual harassment committee lead to judicial interference with workplace action

Transfer orders remain ordinarily incidental to service, but may be interfered with where surrounding circumstances show mala fide reprisal or victimisation. On the facts stated, repeated complaints about irregularities and sexual harassment were followed by a transfer to a less commensurate branch, supporting the inference that the move was punitive in effect and unfair to the employee. The Internal Complaints Committee was also held not duly constituted because the so-called independent member was in fact the bank's panel lawyer, defeating the statutory requirement of genuine independence and undermining fairness in the harassment inquiry. The transfer was therefore set aside in substance and the employee was to be reposted for a limited period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer order could be interfered with in judicial review on the ground that it was vitiated by mala fides and victimisation after the officer raised complaints of irregularities and sexual harassment; (ii) Whether the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee was defective for want of a truly independent member, affecting the fairness of the inquiry.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer order could be interfered with in judicial review on the ground that it was vitiated by mala fides and victimisation after the officer raised complaints of irregularities and sexual harassment.

Analysis: Transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and courts do not interfere unless the order is shown to be mala fide, contrary to statutory prescription, or passed by an incompetent authority. On the material before it, the Court found that the officer had repeatedly complained about serious irregularities in branch transactions, and the transfer followed soon thereafter. The destination branch was not commensurate with her scale, though the bank itself recognised the need to post officers according to branch classification. The sequence of events, together with the surrounding circumstances, supported the inference that the transfer was punitive in effect and amounted to unfair treatment of a woman employee at her workplace.

Conclusion: The transfer order was vitiated by mala fides and was liable to be interfered with; the challenge was accepted in favour of the officer.

Issue (ii): Whether the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee was defective for want of a truly independent member, affecting the fairness of the inquiry.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires an Internal Complaints Committee with an independent external member to secure impartiality and avoid institutional bias. The Court found that the so-called independent member was in fact a panel lawyer of the bank, which undermined the statutory purpose of independence. This defect went to the root of the constitution of the Committee and impaired the fairness of the process dealing with the complaint of sexual harassment.

Conclusion: The Internal Complaints Committee was not duly constituted in accordance with the statutory requirement of independence.

Final Conclusion: The transfer was set aside in substance, the officer was directed to be reposted at Indore for a limited period, and the decision of the High Court was affirmed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer order may be interfered with where the surrounding circumstances show that it is a mala fide reprisal for an employee's protected complaints, particularly where the employer's own statutory safeguards for addressing workplace sexual harassment are not fairly implemented.

---