OTHER BLOGS LINK
YOU ARE VISITOR
Blog Archive
LIVE
Wednesday, December 31, 2025
Expected DA for Banker from February 2026
Monday, December 29, 2025
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.
Saturday, December 27, 2025
Wednesday, December 24, 2025
Monday, December 22, 2025
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
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
Friday, December 19, 2025
Locker facilty start at ultadanga branch pnb
Tuesday, December 16, 2025
_Friendship Recession_ article in Harvard Business Review
Sunday, December 14, 2025
UIDAI New Aadhaar Card Redesign – Full details✨
Saturday, December 13, 2025
Thursday, December 11, 2025
If life certificate is not submitted by pensioner; before stopping his pension, _it is the duty of the bank to visit the house of pensioner and know the readon for not submitting
Wednesday, December 10, 2025
Monday, December 8, 2025
Sunday, December 7, 2025
Sabbatical Leave Rules for Women Employees in Banks
The Government of India provides Sabbatical leave for women employees of Public Sector Banks to help them meet their special needs during their career. The Sabbatical Leave Scheme for women employees of the bank is provided to address their special problems during their careers. Women employees can request sabbatical leave for any purpose such as medical reasons, care of family members or children, higher studies, or visiting their spouse.
Who can apply for Sabbatical Leave?
The employee applying for sabbatical leave should have completed a minimum of 5 years of service. Sabbatical leave before completing 5 years of service will be granted only in exceptional cases and must be approved by the authority next above the competent authority as mentioned in the scheme. However, the following employees are not eligible for sabbatical leave:
If during the sabbatical leave there is a change in circumstances and the employee wants to withdraw or reduce the leave, this will be allowed only after completing a minimum period of 3 months of sabbatical leave, and a request must be submitted at least 15 days before resuming duty. During the sabbatical leave, the employee is not allowed to take up any other job, business, vocation, or profession.
Employees on sabbatical leave will not be allowed to take part in any promotion process during the leave period, even if they are otherwise eligible. The competent authority has full discretion to approve or reject the request for sabbatical leave based on the bank’s requirements, and the reasons for rejection must be recorded in writing. The decision on approval or rejection will be communicated in writing to the employee. If an employee is allowed to rejoin duty before the approved leave period ends, the leave already taken will still be treated only as sabbatical leave and will not be converted into any other type of leave
- employees serving abroad under special arrangements or bonds,
- employees who have executed service bonds and have not completed them,
- employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or who are under suspension,
- employees appointed on a contract basis, and
- any other category of employee as may be specified by the Board of Bank.
What is the duration of Sabbatical Leave?
The period of sabbatical leave shall be a maximum of 2 years during the entire career, and it must be taken for at least 3 months at a time. The leave cannot be taken more than once in a year.
Important Points of Sabbatical Leave
Only completed years of service will be counted to decide the minimum eligible service. A request for sabbatical leave will not take effect unless it is accepted in writing by the competent authority. The employee must apply for sabbatical leave at least 15 days before the intended start date. If the leave has already been sanctioned and the employee wants to withdraw it before starting, she must give at least 7 days’ notice.
Saturday, December 6, 2025
If Bank gives Home Loan, Can it be treated as Financial Creditor? Is Builder Liable to Pay?
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has given an important decision – if a Bank gives Home Loan, then can it be treated as a Financial Creditor or not?
The Court held that a bank giving loans to homebuyers cannot be treated as a financial creditor in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of a builder. This is because the loan was given to the homebuyers, not to the corporate debtor (builder). The Tribunal also noted that the builder had never agreed to repay the bank if the homebuyer failed to pay. Therefore, the bank’s claim does not qualify as a “claim” under Section 3(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The NCLAT examined the tripartite agreement and found that the builder had no responsibility to repay the loan. Its role was only to facilitate the transaction. The Tribunal said, “None of the clauses of the Tripartite Agreement cast any obligation on the corporate debtor to make repayment of the loan to the bank.”
Regarding the indemnity clause, the Tribunal clarified that “Clause 41 does not create any indemnity in favour of the bank. It only records the builder’s acceptance of the agreement terms.”
The Tribunal held that a financial debt must involve disbursal of money against consideration for the time value of money. In this case, the builder neither received the loan as a borrower nor took any financial responsibility. Therefore, the amount could not be treated as a financial debt.
Relying on the Axis Bank judgment, the Tribunal stated that banks giving home loans cannot be considered financial creditors of the builder. It observed that a tripartite agreement alone does not change the nature of the loan, which remains a loan between the bank and the homebuyer, not the builder.
Thursday, December 4, 2025
5 days banking ever or never
State-run banks write off Rs 6.15 lakh cr of loans in 5.5 years
Public sector banks have written off loans worth Rs 6.15 lakh crore in the last five and a half years, Parliament was informed on Monday. In...
-
Changes in leave rules for bank employees and Bank officers were updated in terms of the 12th BPS/9th Joint Note dated 08.03.2024 This post ...
-
The Government of India has approved a new transfer policy for Public Sector Bank Employees. This new policy will be applicable from 1st Apr...
-
The December 2024 CPI [IW] was just announced. It is 143.7, down 0.8 points from the October or November 2024 figures. The exact DA slabs wi...







