PNB Scale 4 Officer Charge Sheeted for not maintaining SFF Registers and Vouchers in Branch

All India Punjab National Bank Officers Federation (AIPNBOF) GS – Krishna Kumar has once again highlighted a crucial matter in Punjab National Bank. He has again highlighted the issue of unnecessary disciplinary actions being taken by bank against the officers.

He said that – A few days back, in one back office, I met a young Chief Manager. I asked him what you are doing here. He said that a few months back, he had been punished under a major vigilance charge sheet with a reduction of one increment for 3 months. Krishna Kumar said that earlier he was a member of AIPNBOF, so he knew him for more than 10 years. He was a very good branch head in both scale 3 and scale 4 posts for many years.

Krishna Kumar said – I have never been able to digest this one increment down for 3 months under a major vigilance charge sheet because if the Disciplinary Authority is convinced that the charged officers deserve this mild punishment, then it could be done under minor non-vigilance or minor vigilance so that the officer is not placed under LODI for 3 years. In case of scale 4, this punishment will cost the bank one crore rupees because one year CTC for a scale 4 officer is above 30 lakh, and for the officer concerned, in monetary terms, this will cost him max 15000 rupees, but non-financial cost in terms of professional stigma and denial of promotion for 3 years are too high.

He asked the officer to share his charge sheet with him. After going through the case, the General Secretary was completely startled. He wrote further – This is a very, very unfortunate order of punishment. Because the order itself says that the charged officer has been punished for not maintaining the SFF register in the branch and not maintaining the vouchers of the branch after DMS report checking.

Do these two lapses deserve a major vigilance penalty for a scale 4 branch head? He said – My answer is a big no, and had I been a disciplinary authority, I could never have given this order, and if vigilance officials have not agreed with my proposed punishment under minor penalty, then I would have escalated this issue to MD & CEO as per existing bank guidelines for reconciliation of differences. He has again requested the MD & CEO of Punjab National Bank to get an independent audit of LODI.

This incident raises concerns that the bank may have adopted an excessively harsh approach to disciplinary action. Banks function through a clearly defined hierarchy and control mechanism, where the work performed by junior staff at branch level is subject to multiple layers of review and approval by senior officers at the Circle Office, Zonal Office, and Head Office. This system exists precisely to detect, correct, and prevent errors at an early stage.

When a mistake occurs despite such checks, it reflects not only on the individual who executed the task but also on the supervisory framework responsible for oversight. In such cases, the focus should be on identifying gaps in processes and strengthening controls rather than placing blame on individuals. Disciplinary action should be a measure of last resort, reserved for cases of wilful misconduct or negligence, and not for procedural lapses that could have been corrected through timely supervision and guidance.