Expected DA for Banker from February 2026

Expected DA Calculation Updated on 31.12.25 on the basis of CPI for the month of Nov'25 with the assumptions of CPI for Dec'25. The CPI for the month of Nov'25 announced on 31.12.25 as 148.2

with an increase of 0.50 points from Oct'25. (as per revised base year 2016) (The base year was changed from Oct 2020)

Keeping in view of recent CPI announced , we may assume there would be an increase in CPI index by 0.50 points in Dec'25. Accordingly, on this assumption, we may expect there would be an increase of 1.23% DA in terms of 12th BPS on revised pay. Total 25.17% DA will become payable from Feb'26.

On assumptions if there is an increase in CPI index by 0.40 points in in Dec'25, we may expect there would be be an increase of 1.19% DA in terms of 12th BPS on revised pay. Total 25.13 percentage of DA will become payable from Feb'26.

On assumptions if there is an increase in CPI index by 0.40 points in in Dec'25, we may expect there would be be an increase of 1.16% DA in terms of 12th BPS on revised pay. Total 25.10 percentage of DA will become payable from Feb'26.

Female Branch Manager of Canara Bank arrested by CBI, Agency says she’s involved in opening Mule Accounts

Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh: Banks in Varanasi were left shocked on Wednesday afternoon after a CBI team arrived and arrested a bank manager in connection with a major cyber fraud case.

The Central Bureau of Investigation arrested Shalini Singh, the Branch Manager of Canara Bank’s Chitaipur branch, for her alleged role in opening mule accounts that were used in cyber fraud linked to a case registered in Delhi.

After her arrest, Shalini Singh was produced in court late in the evening under tight security. She was presented before Special Judge Ravindra Kumar Srivastava, who granted transit remand till 12 noon on December 26. She will now be produced before the concerned court in Delhi within the given time.

Let us understand the full story

The CBI registered this cyber fraud case on April 15, 2025 in Delhi. During the investigation, it was found that cyber criminals were cheating people through online advertisements. Victims were trapped and made to transfer money.

The investigation revealed that employees of several public and private banks were involved in helping cyber criminals. The role of the Canara Bank branch manager in Varanasi was also established, following which the CBI team came to the city and made the arrest.

According to the CBI, fake bank accounts worth around ₹85 lakh were opened across 743 branches of different banks across the country. These accounts were used to move money received from cyber fraud victims.

The agency told the court that proper customer verification was not done while opening these accounts. Many accounts showed suspicious transactions and are now under detailed investigation.

The CBI also revealed that bank officials helped cyber fraudsters by opening and operating these fake accounts. Bank employees allegedly assisted in withdrawing money from victims’ accounts and transferring it through mule accounts. Intermediaries were also involved and worked in collusion with bank staff.

The investigation is still ongoing, and the role of other bank officials is being examined. This case has raised serious questions about bank security, customer verification, and internal controls, and has sent a strong message that action will be taken against anyone found helping cyber criminals.

Preliminary Enquiry Alone Not Enough for Dismissal

In a strong message on fairness and due process, the Rajasthan High Court has set aside the dismissal of a police constable, holding that punishment cannot be based only on a preliminary enquiry when the regular departmental enquiry fails to prove the charges.

The case was heard by Justice Farjand Ali, who ruled that senior police authorities committed a serious error by relying almost entirely on a preliminary enquiry while ignoring the evidence that emerged during the regular disciplinary proceedings. The Court made it clear that once a formal enquiry begins, only evidence recorded during that enquiry can be used to decide guilt.

The constable was appointed in 2008 and later faced allegations of demanding ₹1.3 lakh from a person by promising a job as a constable, and allegedly receiving ₹50,000 as advance. After a departmental enquiry, he was found guilty and initially punished with stoppage of two annual increments. This punishment was later increased to stoppage of four increments after an appeal.

However, the Inspector General of Police later used suo-motu review powers under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules and imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. This dismissal was challenged before the High Court

The constable argued that the disciplinary authority’s order was detailed and reasoned, running into 27 pages, and therefore the claim that it was “non-speaking” was incorrect. He also pointed out that during the regular enquiry, key prosecution witnesses turned hostile, weakening the case against him. Despite this, the reviewing authority relied heavily on statements made during the preliminary enquiry.

The Court agreed with these arguments. It observed that a preliminary enquiry is meant only to check whether a prima facie case exists. Once a regular enquiry starts, charges must be proved through legally acceptable evidence presented during that enquiry. Ignoring witness testimony from the formal enquiry and relying on preliminary statements amounts to punishment without legal evidence.

The High Court also expressed concern that the same authority first remanded the matter for a harsher penalty and later dismissed the constable using review powers. This, the Court said, raised serious doubts about fairness and objectivity.

Calling the action arbitrary and against Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court held that review powers must be used carefully and not with a predetermined aim to impose a particular punishment.

Bad Loans written off by public sector Bank

Banking Industry will get 5 days banking soon

Customers should wait for investigation before filing case in Bank Transactions Dispute

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has dismissed a complaint filed against Kotak Mahindra Bank over alleged unauthorised credit card transactions, saying the case was premature as the matter was still under investigation.

The Commission, headed by President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member B.M. Sharma, noted that the bank had not yet taken a final decision on the disputed transactions.

The complainant, Joginder Singh, said that while checking his credit card statement dated January 15, 2025, he noticed two transactions of ₹19,520.29 and ₹31,040.25, both dated December 23, 2024, which he claimed were unauthorised. He also stated that he did not receive any transaction alerts.

After contacting the bank’s customer care, the amounts were initially credited back to his account. However, later, ₹19,520.29 was withheld by the bank citing an ongoing investigation, while ₹31,040.25 was shown as unbilled outstanding, with the complainant being informed that he would have to pay the amount if the issue was not resolved.

Alleging poor service and unfair practices, and stating that repeated emails did not bring any final solution, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission seeking refund, interest, compensation, and legal costs.

Kotak Mahindra Bank, its Nodal Officer, and the Reserve Bank of India did not appear before the Commission despite receiving notices and were proceeded against ex parte.

After examining the case, the Commission observed that the complainant himself admitted that the ₹19,520.29 transaction was still under investigation. For the second amount, the Commission referred to an email dated August 11, 2025, in which the bank stated that the refund depended on a response from the beneficiary bank.

Since neither transaction had been finally decided by the bank, the Commission held that the complaint was filed too early. It ruled that no findings could be given at this stage.

Bank of Maharashtra issues Strict Order: No Leave to Be Granted on December 26

 The Navi Mumbai Zone of Bank of Maharashtra has issued a strict directive instructing all branches under its jurisdiction not to sanction leave for any staff member on December 26, 2025. The order has been circulated with high importance to ensure smooth completion of quarterly and year-end targets.

In an email sent by Zonal Office, branch managers were informed that several key performance parameters are still pending and targets have not yet been met. To avoid disruption during the crucial year-end closing on December 31, 2025, all staff must remain available. The communication clearly states that:

• No leave should be approved for December 26, 2025.
• If any leave has already been sanctioned, it must be cancelled immediately and the concerned employee must be informed without delay.
• The instruction applies not only to branch staff but also to Branch Managers.

People on the social media platform X are criticizing the bank for not allowing leave. What do you think of this – let us know in the comment section below