BIPLAB KUMAR DAS Vs. IDBI BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the legality and validity of the judgement and order dated 18/7/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing his WP(C) No. 5261/2015.

(2.) The brief facts are these. The appellant, while working as the branch manager of Golaghat Branch of Industrial Development Bank of India Limited was assigned to attend a training programme at Kolkata from 15/12/2013 to 18/12/2013. At the time, the Respondent No.4-An Assistant Manager of Jowai Branch, Meghalaya, of the same bank was also attending another training programme there. Both the appellant and respondent no. 4, were put into a Visiting Officers Flat (VOF) at Kolkata in two separate rooms with attached bathrooms. The bathrooms of both the appellant and respondent no.4 were separated by a common wall, having a louver for the purpose of ventilation. On 18/12/2013, respondent no.4 lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against the appellant stating inter alia that someone had taken her photograph from the common window of the adjoining bathroom, when she was using her bathroom in the morning and see also saw a black mobile phone pointed towards her bathroom. The appellant was sought for reply and he in his reply dated 19/12/2013 denied the allegations and stated that at that point of time he was not present in the room as he had gone for looking of his misplaced I-Pod. He also stated that he treated respondent no.4 as his sister since she was junior to him in his College. However, the matter was ultimately referred to the Internal Complaints Committee which visited the place of occurrence, inspected the bathrooms, and questioned the attendant attached to the flat regarding the whereabouts of the appellant and also sent the mobile phone of the appellant to Intech, Mumbai, for forensic investigation and obtained its report. Although, no sufficient incriminating material could be found in his mobile phone to decisively point the finger of guilt towards him, the Internal Complaints Committee vide report dated 12/02/2014 observed that there was strong possibility of the appellant being involved in the alleged incident specially when his explanation that he was not present in the room at that point of time was without any substance. It was opined that there appeared to be sufficient truth in the complaint of respondent no.4.

(3.) Subsequently, on 18/6/2015 a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant informing him about the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to impose major penalty on him in terms of Rule 6 of the Industrial Development Bank of India Limited Officers' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2006 for alleged misconduct. Charge was also framed against the appellant as follows:-