What Pankaj Dwivedi’s demotion tells us about sexual harassment cases at public sector banks

Who is the complainant and what are the allegations, how was Dwivedi’s appointment in March 2024 cleared despite these pending cases, and why did the government take so long to act? Read on to find out.

Why was Pankaj Dwivedi’s appointment controversial?

In March 2024, Pankaj Dwivedi was appointed executive director of Union Bank of India. He had previously been general manager at Punjab & Sind Bank. However, a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Delhi High Court revealed in August 2024 that Dwivedi was facing a pending sexual harassment case dating back to 2018.

On 24 June the union government reversed the appointment. A gazette notification, reviewed by Mint, from the department of financial services confirmed that Dwivedi was demoted to his earlier role as general manager at Punjab & Sind Bank.

The complainant, a senior bank official, had alleged harassment by Dwivedi 一 then the zonal manager. Emails sent to Punjab and Sind Bank, Union Bank of India, vigilance officers, and the ministry of finance remained unanswered. Pankaj Dwivedi did not respond to multiple calls and messages from Mint.

How did we get here?

According to an official memorandum, the central vigilance commission had as early as 28 May 2024 advised against granting vigilance clearance to Dwivedi. The agency cited a first information report (FIR) registered on 25 August 2019 and the related charge sheet, which had already been filed.

The complainant had approached multiple legal forums:

• the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2018, after she was served a transfer order following her report on irregularities and corruption in the bank;
• the local complaints committee constituted under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (POSH) in 2019 against sexual harassment; and
• the Delhi High Court in 2024 through a PIL.

On 30 April the government’s counsel told the Delhi High Court that the government would revisit Dwivedi’s appointment order within three weeks. The court granted the request and scheduled the next hearing for 16 July to know about the government’s action.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represented the complainant in the PIL, said Dwivedi’s appointment violated several rules. He mentioned that the Supreme Court had ruled that this POSH committee was illegal because of a conflict of interest.

To be clear, the Supreme Court noted in a 2020 order that the complainant in the Dwivedi case had earlier approached the Supreme Court, alleging professional retaliation after reporting irregularities and sexual harassment. The court also noted that the internal complaints committee was not legally constituted.

Anurag Tiwary, a lawyer who has been working with Bhushan in this case, said, “Once a charge sheet is filed and a criminal trial is pending, vigilance clearance should not even be under consideration unless the case is closed with a clean chit. That’s standard administrative law. This kind of appointment shows either a breakdown in protocol or intentional overlooking.”

Tiwary added, “The fact that an executive director-level promotion was processed without proper verification speaks volumes about the lack of due diligence in public financial institutions, especially when sexual harassment allegations are involved.”

Why did the government delay action?

Experts said delays in the bureaucratic system and a lack of urgency caused the delay. “This delay can be attributed to bureaucratic inertia, lack of urgency until court intervention, and possibly internal pushback or shielding,” said Alay Razvi, managing partner at Accord Juris.

Aslam Ahmed, partner, Singhania & Co., said the delay in action highlighted significant lapses in internal scrutiny and enforcement of clearance requirements for senior posts in public sector banks.

What does the law say?

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 mandates the establishment of internal complaints committees at every workplace to independently investigate complaints.

According to norms laid down by the department of financial services and the central vigilance commission, any top-level appointment at a public sector bank must undergo a vigilance clearance. This is intended to ensure that candidates do not have any pending disciplinary proceedings, criminal complaints, or allegations that could compromise the integrity of the role.

Was the demotion proportionate?

Abha Singh, a senior lawyer who works on sexual harassment cases said Dwivedi’s return to the bank where the complainant still works highlights a “serious flaw in justice delivery”.

“This kind of demotion is not proportionate. Once a charge sheet is filed, and if the ICC was found illegal by the Supreme Court, why is he being reinstated at all? Termination should have been considered,” she said.

Singh also mentioned deeper structural concerns with ICCs in both public and private sector banks. “The Sexual Harassment Act mandates inclusion of an external NGO member on the ICC, but many committees bypass this. In some banks, ICCs are composed entirely of internal employees, often legal heads or HR officers, which is a clear conflict of interest,” she said.

Nirmala Menon, founder and chief executive of Interweave Consulting, emphasised the importance of due process in sexual harassment cases. “Not every sexual harassment case ends in a dismissal. People deserve a chance to correct themselves. The punishment must match the gravity of the offence,” said Menon. Interweave is a consulting firm that focuses on diversity management and inclusion in the workplace.

Menon said it was hard to judge the fairness of the demotion without full access to the committee’s findings. ICC reports are confidential and shared only with the complainant, the accused, and the company management for implementation.

Are there differences in the way public and private sector banks handle sexual harassment cases?

The case casts a spotlight on how public sector banks handle sexual harassment cases compared to private banks.

“Enforcement in public banks is often slow and influenced by hierarchy and procedure. In contrast, private banks are generally quicker in acting on complaints, often prioritising immediate internal inquiry and damage control,” said Ahmed.

In FY25, the top public sector bank, SBI, had 44 sexual harassment complaints (8 from FY24 and 36 from FY25), of which 35 were disposed of. Bank of Baroda, another public sector bank, said it received 22 complaints that year and disposed of 17.

Meanwhile India’s largest private sector lender HDFC Bank received 77 sexual harassment complaints in FY24, of which 65 were disposed of. ICICI Bank, another large private lender, received 133 complaints, all of which were disposed of in the same financial year. Data for FY25 from these banks is not yet available.

Menon of Interweave Consulting said authority structures at public sector banks often discourage reporting. “In the public sector, people in authority have significant influence. Most people stay quiet. But it’s good that people have started to come forward – it’s something worth paying attention to,” said Menon.

“Zero complaints doesn’t mean no harassment — it may mean people are afraid to report,” she added.