Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Bank of Baroda officer challenging her removal from service following disciplinary proceedings that found her guilty of misappropriating funds through internal office accounts. The petitioner had routed bank payments — purportedly made to car dealers and for sanitization services — into accounts belonging to herself and her family members. Upholding the penalty, the Court held that the maker–checker framework is a risk-control mechanism and does not confer immunity on an officer whose transactions reveal personal benefit, observing that an unauthorized or self-serving transaction remains illicit regardless of subsequent supervisory approval.

The petitioner, a bank officer who served at branches in Ghaziabad between 2017 and 2021, was placed under suspension on 15 July 2022 in connection with allegations of unlawful financial gain and misappropriation through GL/PL office accounts. An explanatory note identified multiple suspect transactions. Major penalty proceedings were initiated under Regulation 5(2) read with Regulation 6(3) of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. An Inquiry Authority and Presenting Officer were appointed, hearings were conducted, and written briefs were exchanged. By Inquiry Report dated 19 June 2023, seven allegations were held proved and five charges sustained. The Disciplinary Authority imposed removal from service, directed the suspension period to be treated as “not spent on duty,” and ordered recovery of INR 1,81,681/-. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal.

Also Read: Compassionate Assistance To Deceased Government Employee's Dependents Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation To Extent Of Overlapping Pecuniary Loss: Supreme Court

The petitioner contended that no witnesses were examined, that the maker-checker framework was ignored, that primary documents were not properly produced, that alleged losses were unclear, and that the punishment was disproportionate. The bank relied on documentary exhibits, including transaction-wise tabulations reflecting debits from office heads and credits to the petitioner and her family members.

The Court observed, “A writ court does not rehear a departmental inquiry, nor does it reassess the evidence as if sitting in appeal.” It stated, “The limited enquiry is whether the process was fair, whether the employee had a real opportunity to meet the case, whether the findings are such a reasonable authority could arrive at, and whether the conclusion is so irrational or perverse that it cannot stand.”

On the nature of banking duties, the Court recorded, “Banking is a fiduciary calling. A bank officer handles other people’s money, bank funds, and internal ledgers that exist only because the institution trusts its officers to maintain scrupulous discipline.”

With respect to procedural fairness, the Court stated, “The process therefore shows the essential elements of fairness in departmental adjudication: notice, disclosure of material relied upon, an opportunity to respond, and a reasoned decision.” On the absence of witnesses, it observed, “Departmental proceedings are not controlled by the strict rules of the Evidence Act.” It further noted that absence of oral witnesses is not fatal unless prejudice is shown.

On the merits of the transaction trail, the Court recorded that office accounts were debited while the ultimate beneficiaries included the petitioner and her relatives. It observed, “A transaction that is unauthorized, unjustified, or tainted by a conflict of interest remains fundamentally illicit regardless of whether it was subsequently vetted by a supervisor.” Regarding the maker-checker framework, the Court stated, “The maker-checker framework is a risk-control mechanism; it does not legitimise an unauthorised transaction nor dilute personal accountability.”

On the scope of interference with punishment, the Court observed, “Interference arises only where the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks judicial conscience.” It further recorded that in cases concerning probity in banking operations and diversion of payments to the employee or family members, removal from service could not be described as outside the range of rational disciplinary response.

Also Read: Mere Refusal To Marry And Non-Response To Messages Cannot Amount To Abetment Of Suicide; Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bai

The Court directed, “The petition, in substance, asks the Court to revisit the evidence, re-evaluate the transaction trail, and draw alternative inferences. That exercise lies beyond the writ court’s remit once the process is fair and the findings rest on material that can reasonably sustain them. The challenge therefore fails. For these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Priyanka Yadav, Mr. Gulshan Kumar, Ms. Vanshika Nagpal, Advocates along with Petitioner in person

For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Mahapatra, Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan, Mr. Abhimanyu, Advocates ; Ms. Praveena Gautam, Mr. Pawan Shukla, Ms. Tissy Annie Thomas, Mr. Rohan Bansla, Advocates

Case Title: Sakshi Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 1571/2026
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula