Hari Narayan v. Union Bank Of India ..., Allahabad High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

WRIT - A No. - 8800 of 2026

Disposition

in part

Attorney(S)

Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Asim and Sadaf Tariq
Ashish Sinha

Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Bhatia

Acts

Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POSH Act').
5 Others .....Respondent(s) 1 Section 18 of the POSH Act read with Rule 10

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, an employee of Union Bank of India, faced a complaint concerning improper conduct by a colleague. An Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, conducted an inquiry and issued recommendations against the petitioner on 5 August 2025. [1][2]

The petitioner’s appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act and Rule 10 of the applicable bank memorandum was dismissed on 13 November 2025. A further appeal before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner was dismissed on 13 August 2026 for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner challenged these orders in the present writ petition. [3][4]

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction over the petitioner’s appeal against the appellate order passed under Section 18 of the POSH Act. [4]
Whether dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal dated 13 November 2025 without granting an opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice. [5][6][7]

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The appeal was dismissed in the petitioner’s absence without granting a hearing or considering the grounds raised in the appeal. [5]
The appellate order therefore violated the principles of natural justice and should be quashed. [5]

Respondents' Arguments

The petitioner’s principal grievance concerned non-supply of documents, but after dismissal of the appeal he was issued a show-cause notice and charge sheet, with an opportunity to admit the charges and inspect the relevant documents. [8][9]
The petitioner allegedly failed to disclose these facts in the writ petition, amounting to material concealment warranting dismissal of the writ petition. [8][10]
The appellate authority rightly dismissed the appeal because the documents and the video referred to in the Committee’s report had been shown to the petitioner. [11]

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found that the appellate order dated 13 November 2025 had been passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and that this was supported by the supplementary affidavit. [6]

Section 18 of the POSH Act provides an appeal against an order of the Committee. Although the Act and Rules did not expressly prescribe a hearing procedure for such an appeal, the Court held that the principles of natural justice must be read into statutory provisions where no hearing requirement is specified. [6][7]

Consequently, dismissal of the appeal without hearing the petitioner constituted a violation of natural justice. The Court confined its intervention to this limited ground and did not sustain the appellate order. [7][12]

Holding and Implications

PARTLY ALLOWED: The appellate order dated 13 November 2025 was quashed because it was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. [12][13]

The appellate authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s appeal and pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law. [14] The decision’s direct effect is limited to reconsideration of that appeal; no new precedent was set.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Hari Narayan v. Union Bank Of India Thru. Its Managing Director And Chief Executive Officer Mumbai And 5 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

LUCKNOW

WRIT - A No. - 8800 of 2026 Court No. - 6

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashish Sinha, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4/Bank.

3. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.08.2026 passed by Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Internal Complaints Committee constituted by the respondents/bank as well as the appellate order dated 13.11.2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

4. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is an employee to the respondents/bank and a complaint was made by one of the colleagues of the petitioner against the improper conduct of the petitioner which led to setting up of an inquiry by the Internal Committee constituted by respondents/Bank under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POSH Act'). The said committee conducted an inquiry and made its recommendation against the petitioner vide its report dated 05.08.2025. Aggrieved against the said, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Versus

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava, Asim, Sadaf Tariq

Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Sinha

Hari Narayan

.....Petitioner(s)

Union Bank Of India Thru. Its Managing Director

And Chief Executive Officer Mumbai And 5

Others .....Respondent(s)

Section 18 of the POSH Act read with Rule 10 of the Memorandum issued by the respondents and applicable to the services of the petitioner. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 13.11.2025.

5. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2026 as no jurisdiction is vested in the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner against the appellate order passed under Section 18 of the POSH Act, as such, to that extent, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. As regards the order dated 13.11.2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 18 of the POSH Act read with Memorandum issued by the respondents/Bank has been dismissed, learned counsel for the petitioner states that prior to the dismissal of the appeal no hearing was granted and the appeal was dismissed in the absence of the petitioner and without even considering the grounds taken by the appellant in his appeal, which is also on record. It is, thus, argued that the order of appeal is also in violation of principles of natural justice and thus, is liable to be quashed.

7. A supplementary affidavit has been filed alleging that no opportunity of hearing was granted by the appellate authority prior to the passing of the order dated 13.11.2025.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that the main grievance of the petitioner as raised in the appeal was non-supply of the documents. It is argued that after the appeal was dismissed, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice alongwith the charge sheet giving an option to the petitioner to admit the charges with a proposed punishment in case the petitioner admits the charges. It is argued that this fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition which amounts to material concealment.

9. It is further argued that the disciplinary authority has also given a liberty to the petitioner to peruse whatever documents are required and the petitioner has appeared before the said disciplinary authority, and this fact ought to have been disclosed in the writ petition, as such, the writ WRIA No. 8800 of 2026

petition should be dismissed on that count alone.

10. As regards the appellate order dated 13.11.2025 it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents/Bank that the appellate authority has rightly dismissed the appeal keeping in view the fact that all the documents had been shown to the petitioner which fact is admitted by the petitioner and thus, no error can be seen in the order dated 13.11.2025. It is also argued that even the video referred to in the report of the Committee was shown to the petitioner as also admitted by him.

11. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, perusal of the appellate order dated 13.11.2025 reveals that the appeal was dismissed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which fact is also substantiated by the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. Section 18 of the POSH Act provides for an appeal against the order passed by the Committee. The Rules framed in terms of the said Act are similar in providing as that of Section 18; no specific procedure for hearing of the appeal has been prescribed in the Rules.

12. It is well settled that in the absence of any provision providing for a hearing, the principles of natural justice have to be read into the statutory provisions. Although, there is no provision of right of granting hearing by the appellate authority contained in the Act or the Rules, the principles of natural justice are implicit in the said provision, as such, not granting the hearing while dismissing the appeal is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice.

13. Thus, on the said limited ground, the appellate order dated 13.11.2025 cannot be sustained and is quashed.

14. The appellate authority is directed to pass fresh order on the appeal preferred by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law.

15. Present petition is partly allowed in above terms.

September 16, 2026

nishant WRIA No. 8800 of 2026

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

Hari Narayan v. Union Bank Of India ...