In banking disciplinary proceedings, misuse of office accounts by routing payments to oneself or family constitutes serious misconduct warranting removal, and the maker-checker framework does not dilute personal accountability of the maker.

1. The petition challenges the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the Petitioner, an officer of Bank of Baroda/Respondent No. 2, and the rejection of her departmental appeal. The gravamen is that disciplinary proceedings were allegedly unfair, the charges were vague, witnesses were not examined, and the findings are unsupported by evidence. The record, however, tells a different story.

Background and undisputed chronology

2. The Petitioner served as Officer/Manager (Branch Operations/Credit) at Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Branch from 1st November, 2017 to 27th January, 2021 and thereafter as Manager (Credit) at Abhay Khand, Ghaziabad Branch from 28th January, 2021 to 16th August, 2021.

3. On 15th July, 2022, she was placed under suspension under the applicable discipline and appeal regulations, in connection with allegations of unlawful financial gain and misappropriation through office accounts.

4. An investigation followed, and an Explanatory Note was issued highlighting multiple suspect transactions in GL/PL/office accounts of the concerned branches, seeking her response.

5. Major penalty disciplinary proceedings were initiated by memorandum dated 5th January, 2023 in terms of Regulation 5(2) read with Regulation 6(3) of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

6. On 20th January, 2023, the Bank set the disciplinary process formally in motion by appointing the Inquiry Authority and the Presenting Officer. The inquiry thereafter unfolded over a series of hearings. The Petitioner remained present and participated through the course of those proceedings. After the evidentiary stage and submissions were completed, the inquiry was brought to a close on 18th April, 2023. The Presenting Officer then placed a written brief on record, and the Petitioner responded with her own written brief. Upon considering the material and the rival submissions, the Inquiry Report dated 19th June, 2023 concluded that each of the seven allegations stood proved and, on that foundation, held all five charges proved.

7. The matter then moved to the stage of penalty. By order dated 17th August, 2023, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of “Removal

from Bank’s Service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment.” The suspension period was directed to be treated as “not spent on duty”, and recovery of INR 1,81,681/- was ordered towards the pecuniary loss attributed to the misconduct.

8. The Petitioner carried the matter in appeal. The Appellate Authority examined the charge memorandum, the Inquiry Report, the Petitioner’s submissions, and the penalty order. The appeal did not find favour and was rejected by order dated 26th September, 2024. The penalty was affirmed in exercise of powers under Regulation 17.

Contentions

9. Ms. Vanshika Nagpal, counsel for the Petitioner, raises the following grounds to assail the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well Appellate Authority:

9.1. The Bank failed to examine a single witness during the inquiry, despite the controversy involving “Maker-Checker” controls. Fixing liability solely on the Petitioner as the “Maker,” without questioning the “Checkers” (Branch Head and Credit Officers) who authorized the transactions, resulted in an incomplete and biased record.

9.2. The proceedings violated the principle of audi alteram partem. The Petitioner was denied a genuine opportunity to produce her own witnesses or test the Bank’s case through evidence, rendering the inquiry a mere formality rather than a fair hearing.

9.3. The Bank relied on transaction summaries and descriptions rather than primary documents like vouchers and supporting bills. These essential records were never properly produced or proved, depriving the Petitioner of the ability to meet the charges against her.

9.4. The alleged anomalies were of a non-financial nature. The basis upon which the Bank claims financial losses were incurred remains unclear and uncertain, despite the Pet