Employee’s Transfer Based On Organisation’s Policy Does Not Amount To Criminal Intimidation/ Conspiracy Under IPC: Calcutta High Court
Live LawThe Calcutta High Court on Thursday quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the Human Resources Manager of IDBI Bank, by an employee/opposite party No 2, against whom a female co-worker had earlier filed a complaint for sexual harassment at the workplace. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance and issuing summons against the petitioner was bad in law and that there were no charges of criminal intimidation or conspiracy against the petitioner, who had only communicated the order of transfer to the opposite party and been made a ‘scapegoat’ in a counter-blast against the transfer and disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner finally argued that the order of cognizance was without any reasoning in the absence of any criminal intimidation or conspiracy, and that the court was dutybound to apply its judicial mind to ascertain the existence of a prima facie case before issuing summons in the matter, and not “act like a post office.” It was argued by the opposite party no 2 that the petitioner upon the instigation of accused no 1, without conducting any enquiry, passed the transfer order and that the petitioner had also taken steps to “put a stigma in the character of opposite party no 2.” It was submitted that the opposite party was suffering from physical ailments due to which the doctor had advised him to stay away from hilly areas, and that the transfer was a ‘punishment transfer’ even though no steps were taken according to the PoSH Act. The opposite party no 2 argued that he had filed an RTI query and in response to the same it was found that no disciplinary proceedings had been pending against him and that on account of his transfer no action on the pending enquiry was necessary, Opposite party argued that due to the false allegations he had suffered irreparable loss and injury and that the petitioner, bank officials, and accused no 1 had committed the offence of criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy under Sections 506 and 120B against him by affecting his transfer, which was not merely administrative in nature. In quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and holding that the Birbhum Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order issuing summons under Sections 506/120B suffered from non-application of judicial mind, as well as from want of territorial jurisdiction, the Court concluded: From a perusal of the order of Magistrate it is evident that he has not given any reason for taking cognizance of offence against present petitioner, thereby showing non-application of judicial mind.