Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Appointment Of Union Bank Executive Director Over Sexual Harassment Allegations

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) against the appointment of Pankaj Dwivedi as the Executive Director of Union Bank of India over sexual harassment allegations by a woman.

Dwivedi was appointed as the Executive Director of Union Bank of India on March 27. The appointment is for a tenure of three years.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued notice on the plea moved by the woman.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the woman contended that the appointment is against the Rules as no vigilance clearance took place. He said that this is against the appointment regulations of public sector undertakings like banks.

He said that a chargesheet was also filed against Dwivedi in the sexual harassment case by the woman.

During the hearing, the bench questioned Dwivedi's appointment and remarked that the same cannot be done without a vigilance clearance. 

The court asked the Central Government's counsel as to how Dwivedi can be appointed if the vigilance clearance is denied. You should not have appointed him without getting prior clearance, it remarked orally.

Prior to joining Union Bank of India, Dwivedi was General Manager in Punjab & Sind Bank.

In 2020, the Supreme Court had quashed the transfer of the woman who filed plea over her reports about irregularities and corruption about Dwivedi, at her branch, and her complaints against him alleging that he sexually harassed her in 2018.

The woman had written various communications to the authorities drawing their attention to the alleged irregularities in the course of the maintenance of accounts of liquor contractors. She had further levelled specific allegations of corruption against Dwivedi.

The Apex Court had directed the woman to be reposted at the branch office in question as a Scale IV officer for a period of one year. It had also ordered Rs. 50,000 as costs to the woman.