Disciplinary System in PNB has become JOKE: AIPNBOF GS Raises Serious Concerns Over Charge Sheet issued to Branch Manager

AIPNBOF General Secretary Krishna Kumar has raised strong objections to what he calls a wrong and unreasonable major vigilance charge sheet issued to a Punjab National Bank (PNB) branch manager in Uttar Pradesh. In a detailed note, he said the disciplinary system in the bank is being misused and has “become a joke”.

On X (formerly Twitter), Kumar narrated an old incident from nearly 20 years ago when he was the Regional Secretary in Patna. A Scale-1 officer had asked him to help get his name included in the LoDI list (List of Officers with Doubtful Integrity) in exchange for a donation to the union fund. When Kumar asked why anyone would want such a label, the officer replied that once placed in the LoDI list, he would get a full salary without any risk, would not have to sanction loans, and would not have to handle sensitive work.

“I was shocked by his logic,” Kumar wrote.

Manager demoted due to LoDI listing

Kumar said he remembered this incident because a few days ago, a branch head was suddenly transferred and made the second officer in another branch after only a few months of posting. When he enquired, the Circle Head of the UP region told him the officer’s name appeared in the LoDI list, due to which the transfer was made.

Kumar then contacted the manager and asked him to share his charge sheet. After reading it, he said he became “furious” and immediately escalated the matter to the Zonal Manager, who signed the charge sheet, as well as to the CGM of the Internal Audit Department (IAD), since the IAC (Internal Advisory Committee) — which decides whether charges are major or minor — works under IAD.

Charge Sheet Based on Routine Inspection Observations

According to Kumar, the manager worked as Deputy Manager in a UP branch from 12 October 2020 to 5 October 2021, but received a major vigilance charge sheet dated 28 October 2025. He said the charges were based on a routine inspection report and included common issues that appear in almost every audit report. As a former auditor for more than five years, Kumar said he had written over 100 such inspection reports with similar items.

Key Charge: Accounts Turning NPA Soon After Sanction

The most serious allegation was that 21 accounts became SMA/NPA due to failure of monitoring and post-sanction follow-up. However, Kumar pointed out that:

• Many of these accounts were sanctioned only 2–3 weeks before the officer was relieved.
• Some accounts were sanctioned even after his relieving date, such as those sanctioned on 02 November 2021, although he left the branch on 05 October 2021.
• Most loans were sanctioned in the last two months of his posting, making proper post-sanction monitoring impossible in such a short period.

He questioned how an officer could be blamed for NPAs in accounts that were too new, or sanctioned after his transfer.

No Fraud, No Personal Gain — Yet Major Vigilance Action

Other charge-sheet items included typical audit observations:

• Missing sanction letters
• Incomplete documents
• Stock reports not available
• Security verification pending

Kumar said these are standard operational lapses seen across branches and do not indicate fraud, impersonation, or personal gain. Such issues, he argued, cannot justify a major vigilance charge sheet.

“Officials Issuing This Charge Sheet Should Themselves Be Charge-Sheeted”

Kumar strongly criticised the Zonal Office SAC, IAC members, the vigilance authorities, and those who drafted the charge sheet, saying:

“They deserve a charge sheet for not applying their mind properly while discharging their duty. They have made the entire disciplinary process a joke in our bank.”

This is a serious issue, and the bank should properly investigate the matter.