<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (2) TMI 1748 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463552</link>
    <description>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&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2025 21:25:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=848468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1748 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463552</link>
      <description>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&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463552</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>