Appointments

Govt cancels appointment of Pankaj Dwivedi as ED of Union Bank

➡️ Get instant news updates on Whatsapp. Click here to join our Whatsapp Group.

In a rare step, the Government of India has cancelled the appointment of Shri Pankaj Dwivedi as Executive Director (ED) at Union Bank of India. The Government has reverted him back to his earlier post of General Manager (GM) at Punjab & Sind Bank. He was appointed as ED of Union Bank of India on 27.03.2024.

According to an official notification from the Department of Financial Services (under the Ministry of Finance), his appointment as ED—made earlier on March 27, 2024—has been cancelled. The reason for this action is that there is a legal case pending against him in the Delhi High Court.

Govt cancels appointment of Pankaj Dwivedi as ED of Union Bank
Governemnt Letter: Govt cancels appointment of Pankaj Dwivedi as ED of Union Bank

Why Pankaj Dwivedi has been removed as ED of Union Bank of India? Delhi High Court Case

As per sources, Pankaj Dwivedi was appointed as ED without getting proper clearance from the vigilance department. Clearance from Vigilance Department is a must rule for such senior appointments. Pankaj Dwivedi is accused of Sexual Harassment and Corruption.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed last year in the Delhi High Court challenging his appointment. The court, led by the then Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, had questioned how such a high-level appointment was made without approval from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).

The PIL was filed by a woman who accused Pankaj Dwivedi of sexually harassing her. She questioned his appointment, which was made on March 27, 2024, for a three-year term. The notice was issued by a two-judge bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.

The woman’s lawyer, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, told the court that the appointment of Pankaj Dwivedi did not follow proper rules. He pointed out that Mr. Dwivedi did not receive clearance from the vigilance department, which is necessary for such high-level posts in public sector banks. He also said that a chargesheet had already been filed against Mr. Dwivedi in a sexual harassment case.

The petitioner (the woman) also said that Pankaj Dwivedi was earlier a General Manager in Punjab & Sind Bank. She had raised issues about financial irregularities at her branch, including suspicious transactions involving liquor contractors. She also alleged that Mr. Dwivedi sexually harassed her in 2018.

The woman said she was issued transfer orders for raising her voice against corruption and harassment, and then approached Supreme Court. In 2020, the Supreme Court cancelled the woman’s transfer order.

Due to these concerns and the ongoing case, the government has decided to cancel his appointment and send him back to his previous post as General Manager.

RTI Appeal on Pankaj Dwivedi’s Appointment Dismissed by Commission

RTI Appeal on Pankaj Dwivedi’s Appointment Dismissed by Commission
RTI Appeal on Pankaj Dwivedi’s Appointment Dismissed by Commission

An RTI application was filed on 31 July 2023 seeking documents related to the appointment of Pankaj Dwivedi as Executive Director of Union Bank of India, including vigilance clearance and internal file notes.

After not receiving a reply, the applicant filed a First Appeal. The CPIO responded later, denying the information, stating it was personal and protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The applicant then filed a Second Appeal, arguing that Mr. Dwivedi had pending criminal and sexual harassment allegations, and his appointment lacked proper clearance. Applicant claimed denying the information hid corruption and violated public transparency.

The Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) defended its position, saying the documents were private and sharing them would invade privacy without any public benefit.

After reviewing both sides, the Central Information Commission agreed with the FSIB. It ruled that personal records are protected unless a clear public interest is proven, which was not the case here. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *