Meeting of Charter of Demands

When Vigilance becomes Audit, Justice becomes the Casualty

When Vigilance becomes Audit, Justice becomes the Casualty (जब विजिलेंस ऑडिट बन जाए, तो न्याय की हत्या तय है।)

Vigilance is meant to identify corruption, fraud, mala fide actions and abuse of official position—not to act as a second audit department. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has repeatedly clarified that vigilance action must be based on credible evidence and a clear vigilance angle, not on mere procedural or operational lapses. Yet, in many banking cases, (Presently I, can quote example of more than 10 live cases ) routine operational mistakes are bundled together to inflate charge sheets, while the real question—where is the vigilance angle?—is conveniently ignored.

Even more disturbing is the disregard for the Bank's own Staff Accountability Policy. The policy clearly provides that accountability should ordinarily be confined to officials connected with the preceding three years, should rely on audit observations of the previous four years, and that disciplinary proceedings should ordinarily NOT be initiated where lapses were not detected within two successive audits or beyond the prescribed period, except in cases involving fraud or mala fide conduct. It also states that mere procedural lapses, where an account became NPA due to external factors, should not be the basis for fixing accountability.

Instead of applying these filters, old cases are reopened after six, seven or even ten years, operational issues are portrayed as misconduct, and innocent officers spend years defending themselves. This wastes management time, demoralizes honest bankers, and diverts vigilance from genuine corruption.

Justice is not achieved by making charge sheets longer. It is achieved by making them fair, evidence-based, timely, and consistent with CVC guidelines and the Bank's own policies.

Vigilance should punish corruption—not criminalize bona fide banking decisions.

Suggestions for charter of demands

Your suggestion please

Suggestions for charter of demands

1. *Merger of Special Pay with Basic Pay* 

2. *5-Day Banking*  

Settlement should not signed  without  above two issues

3. *Substantial Salary Hike*  

Basisc should  be atleast equalbto RBI/LIC/GIS + increase  same as last increase for LIC/RBI/GIC

*Regulated working hours with no working on weekend*

*2. Working Conditions & Leave*

- *No calls/office on holidays* + *Fixed EOD time* + *unch break* 

- *Casual leave 12 → 15 days*

- *Paid Child Care Leave* 2 years CCL like Central Govt, till child turns 18

- *Maternity leave*: 9-12 months per child

- *Transfer policy*:  transfer of spouse  working in different PSBs at one place,  no outside zone/state transfer upto scale 3 

- *Equal PLI for all* 

- *Sodexo Meal Vouchers* like LIC

- *Stagnation increment removed*, increment slab 20 → 25-30

- *PF for all PSB like SBI*

- *Security guard* in all branches, 3 shifts + staff recruitment

- *Appointment of Officer/Workmen Directors* in boards

- 

*medical expenses reimbursement without any limit* like in SBI 

*OPS for bankers with immediate  and retrospective  implementation of OPS in case of death/disability in service of NPS covered employees* at par with central government employees

High Court Draws a Red Line on Departmental Inquiries

BIG WIN FOR EMPLOYEES | जबरदस्त  फैसला 

High Court Draws a Red Line on Departmental Inquiries 

Can an employer dismiss an employee only on the basis of documents, without examining a single witness? The Jharkhand High Court has answered with a firm NO.

In a landmark judgment, Justice Deepak Roshan set aside the dismissal of Abhai Kumar, a former Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) employee who had served for nearly 39 years with an unblemished record.

Just before his retirement, Kumar was accused of obtaining employment fraudulently. An inquiry was conducted with 18 hearings, yet not a single oral witness was produced by the management. The dismissal was based solely on documentary evidence.

The High Court held that a departmental inquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding, and documents do not prove themselves. Their authenticity and relevance must be established through the testimony of competent witnesses. Relying only on documents, without giving the employee a meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence, violates the principles of natural justice and fair procedure.

The Court quashed both the dismissal order and the appellate order, directing CCL to release all terminal and retirement benefits, including gratuity, provident fund, pension under CMPS-1998, leave encashment and other dues within 12 weeks.

Key Takeaway:

No witness = No proof.

No proof = No valid punishment.

This judgment reinforces the settled principle laid down by the Supreme Court in cases such as Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha—a departmental inquiry cannot become a mere paper exercise.

The report identifies the employee as Abhai Kumar, the employer as Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), and the judgment as delivered by Justice Deepak Roshan. The ruling emphasizes that documentary evidence alone cannot sustain disciplinary charges without oral evidence establishing those documents.