Dismissed

Sanjeev Mishra S/O Shri Shri Kailash Chand Mishra v. the Disciplinary Authority and General Manager

Rajasthan HC23 Mar 2021SAW/109/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this DB Special Civil Appeal, the High Court dismissed the contention that the disciplinary authority lacked jurisdiction to prosecute a Chief Manager for alleged sexual harassment of subordinate staff via digital messages sent outside office hours. The court held no error in the lower court's findings on jurisdiction and emphasized adherence to official conduct regardless of timing. The appeal

What the court decided

AI extract

Sanjeev Mishra S/O Shri Shri Kailash Chand Mishra… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 109/2021

¶3

Sanjeev Mishra S/o Shri Shri Kailash Chand Mishra, Aged About 54 Years, Permanent Resident Of 19, Adarsh Nagar Colony, Behind Head Office, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 321001 (E.C. No. 156335), Chief Manager, Presently Posted In Bank Of Baroda (EVijaya Bank), Moore Street Branch, Chennai.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Disciplinary Authority And General Manager, Zonal Head, Bank Of Baroda, Zonal Office, Baroda Bhawan, Plot No. 13, Airport Plaza, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 302018.

¶7

Shri Rajeev Krishna Assistant General Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Ssi Branch, Sikar Road, Jaipur. (Being The Inquiry Authority In Charge Sheet No. Jz/hrm/2019-20/2234, Dt. 4.1.2020 To Shri Sanjeev Mishra, Chief Manager (E.c. 156332) And Assistant General Manager)

¶8

Shri Nand Lal Meena, Chief Manager, (E.c. No. 57582) Bank Of Baroda, Power House Road Branch, Jaipur (Being Presenting Officer In Charge Sheet No. Jz/hrm/201920/2234 Dt. 4.1.2020 To Shri Sanjeev Mishra, Chief Manger (E.c. 156332)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Gautam Mr. Lokesh Mishra For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

23/03/2021

¶14

This DB Civil Special Appeal has been filed against order dated 11.01.2021 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 150/2021 vide

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[SAW-109/2021]

¶17

which the petition seeking direction to quash the charge sheet and notice issued against the appellant in the disciplinary proceedings on the charges of sexual harassment of lady subordinate staff has been dismissed.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material made available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the disciplinary authority who has issued charge sheet and notice against the petitioner has no jurisdiction as the petitioner and the complainant are working in different States. Further the charges are not sustainable as the same have been levelled for the alleged sending of messages after working hours and on the day when the petitioner was not on duty. The charge sheet and notice issued against the petitioner is sheer abuse of the disciplinary power. Hence, the proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be allowed to continue. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition without considering the matter in proper perspective. The appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶19

Heard. Considered.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we find that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against the appellant petitioner for the charges of sexual harassment of subordinate lady staff. The petitioner is free to raise all his legitimate objections before the disciplinary authority or in case the disciplinary proceedings goes against him, he would have appropriate departmental remedy against thereof. However, without expressing any opinion on merits, we find no error in the findings of learned Single Judge regarding jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority in view of charges of sexual harassment

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[SAW-109/2021]

¶23

using the digital platform. Further, prima facie the appellant cannot be allowed to escape from adhering to his official conduct as a highly placed executive holding the post of Chief Manager on the ground that such messages were sent after office hours or on the date he was not on official duty. Every officer in public undertaking cannot be allowed to act which can be termed as unbecoming of the officer holding such a high position in public field.

¶24

As a result the present appeal is dismissed.

¶25

(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA),J

¶26

(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

¶27

RAHUL CHHIKARA /18

Sanjeev Mishra S/O Shri Shri Kailash Chand Mishra v. the Disciplinary Authority and General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sanjeev Mishra S/O Shri Shri Kailash Chand Mishra v. the Disciplinary Authority and General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Vs Income Tax Officer

Amar Singh Son of Dayal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Mubrak Begum W/O Late Shri Mohammad Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Bairwa S/O Shri Rameshwar Prasad Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirma D/O Shri Devendra Khoja Vs State of Rajasthan

Nipun Singhvi Son of Shri Praveen Singhvi Vs State of Rajasthan