SBI Una Branch Case: High Court Slams Bank for Failing to Protect Female Officer.The Punjab and Haryana High Court criticised SBI for mishandling a sexual harassment complaint at its Una branch. Read the full legal analysis and implications.sbi girl asbi
SBI Una Branch Case: High Court Strongly Criticises Bank for Failing to Protect Female Officer
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a sharp rebuke to the State Bank of India (SBI) for its handling of a sexual harassment complaint involving a female officer posted at the bank’s Una branch in Himachal Pradesh. The judgment exposes serious institutional lapses and underscores the responsibility of large public sector institutions to protect employees, particularly women, from workplace harassment and victimisation.
The ruling has wider implications for India’s banking sector, especially in the context of compliance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly referred to as the POSH Act.
Background of the SBI Una Branch Incident
The case arose from the complaint of a female deputy manager who alleged prolonged mental harassment, intimidation, and inappropriate conduct by her branch manager. According to court records, the officer experienced sustained workplace hostility that affected her mental health and professional functioning.
Instead of activating the legally mandated Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), the bank treated the officer’s communications as administrative correspondence rather than formal complaints. When the officer stopped reporting to duty due to stress and medical issues, SBI proceeded to treat her absence as a “deemed resignation.”
The High Court found this approach deeply flawed and contrary to both statutory obligations and principles of natural justice.
POSH Act and Employer Obligations
The POSH Act was enacted to ensure a safe working environment for women across all sectors. It places a clear legal duty on employers to:
Constitute an Internal Complaints Committee
Promptly inquire into sexual harassment complaints
Protect complainants from retaliation
Ensure confidentiality and fairness during proceedings
As a public sector bank with an extensive employee base, SBI is expected to demonstrate exemplary compliance. The court observed that failure to implement these safeguards undermines not only employee safety but also public trust in institutional governance.
High Court’s Key Observations and Findings
Failure to Recognise and Process the Complaint
The court noted that the officer’s repeated representations clearly indicated harassment and distress. Treating these communications as mere administrative issues instead of invoking POSH mechanisms reflected institutional insensitivity and procedural negligence.
Misuse of “Deemed Resignation” Provision
Declaring the officer’s resignation without a formal inquiry was held to be arbitrary. The court emphasised that absence caused by workplace harassment cannot be equated with voluntary abandonment of service.
Violation of Natural Justice
The inquiry process was found to be one-sided and incomplete. The alleged harasser was neither properly examined nor subjected to an impartial investigation. This failure violated fundamental principles of fairness.
Non-Compliance with Internal Policies
SBI’s own internal policy on workplace dignity and harassment prevention was found to be inadequately implemented. The court remarked that internal policies cannot remain symbolic documents without operational commitment.
Judicial Direction and Relief Granted
The High Court quashed SBI’s order treating the officer’s resignation as voluntary. It directed the bank to reinstate her with full continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
This directive reinforces the principle that institutional convenience cannot override statutory protections designed to safeguard employees’ dignity and mental well-being.
Broader Context: Workplace Harassment in the Banking Sector
The Una branch case is not an isolated incident. Over the years, courts have repeatedly intervened in matters involving workplace misconduct in financial institutions. These rulings highlight systemic weaknesses in grievance redressal mechanisms, particularly in hierarchical and high-pressure environments such as banking.
Public sector banks, given their size and social responsibility, are under increased judicial and public scrutiny. Courts have made it clear that non-compliance with workplace safety laws will invite strict consequences, regardless of institutional stature.
Implications for SBI and Corporate Governance
Strengthening POSH Implementation
Banks must ensure that POSH committees are not merely procedural requirements but active, independent bodies with authority and training.
Leadership Accountability
Branch managers and senior officials must be sensitised to identify harassment complaints and forward them without delay. Failure to do so can attract personal and institutional liability.
Cultural Shift in Workplace Ethics
Beyond legal compliance, organisations must foster a culture where employees feel safe to report misconduct without fear of retaliation or career damage.
Historical Perspective on Workplace Protection Laws
India’s workplace harassment laws evolved after judicial recognition of women’s right to dignity at work. The POSH Act transformed this recognition into enforceable obligations. However, implementation gaps continue to undermine its effectiveness.
The SBI Una case serves as a reminder that laws achieve their purpose only when institutions internalise their spirit and intent.
Conclusion
The High Court’s ruling in the SBI Una branch case marks a significant moment in the enforcement of workplace protection laws in India’s banking sector. It highlights that institutional reputation, size, or public ownership cannot shield employers from accountability when statutory duties are ignored.
This judgment reinforces a crucial message: workplace safety is not optional, and procedural shortcuts at the cost of employee dignity will not withstand judicial scrutiny. For public sector banks and corporate India alike, the case underscores the urgent need to move beyond symbolic compliance toward genuine, empathetic, and legally sound grievance redressal systems.