Delhi High Court – Orders
Sakshi Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1571/2026, CM APPL. 7635/2026
SAKSHI SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Priyanka Yadav, Mr. Gulshan
Kumar and Ms. Vanshika Nagpal,
Advocates along with Petitioner in
person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Mahapatra,
Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan
and Mr. Abhimanyu, Advocates for
R-1.
Ms. Praveena Gautam, Mr. Pawan
Shukla, Ms. Tissy Annie Thomas and
Mr. Rohan Bansla, Advocates for
Bank of Baroda/R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 12.02.2026
1. The petition challenges the penalty of removal from service imposed
upon the Petitioner, an officer of Bank of Baroda/Respondent No. 2, and the
rejection of her departmental appeal. The gravamen is that disciplinary
proceedings were allegedly unfair, the charges were vague, witnesses were
not examined, and the findings are unsupported by evidence. The record,
however, tells a different story.
Background and undisputed chronology
W.P.(C) 1571/2026 Page 1 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:37:39
2. The Petitioner served as Officer/Manager (Branch Operations/Credit)
at Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Branch from 1st November, 2017 to 27th
January, 2021 and thereafter as Manager (Credit) at Abhay Khand,
Ghaziabad Branch from 28th January, 2021 to 16th August, 2021.
3. On 15th July, 2022, she was placed under suspension under the
applicable discipline and appeal regulations, in connection with allegations
of unlawful financial gain and misappropriation through office accounts.
4. An investigation followed, and an Explanatory Note was issued
highlighting multiple suspect transactions in GL/PL/office accounts of the
concerned branches, seeking her response.
5. Major penalty disciplinary proceedings were initiated by
memorandum dated 5th January, 2023 in terms of Regulation 5(2) read with
Regulation 6(3) of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline &
Appeal) Regulations, 1976.
6. On 20th January, 2023, the Bank set the disciplinary process formally
in motion by appointing the Inquiry Authority and the Presenting Officer.
The inquiry thereafter unfolded over a series of hearings. The Petitioner
remained present and participated through the course of those proceedings.
After the evidentiary stage and submissions were completed, the inquiry was
brought to a close on 18th April, 2023. The Presenting Officer then placed a
written brief on record, and the Petitioner responded with her own written
brief. Upon considering the material and the rival submissions, the Inquiry
Report dated 19th June, 2023 concluded that each of the seven allegations
stood proved and, on that foundation, held all five charges proved.
7. The matter then moved to the stage of penalty. By order dated 17 th
August, 2023, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of “Removal
W.P.(C) 1571/2026 Page 2 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:37:39
from Bank’s Service which shall not be a disqualification for future
employment.” The suspension period was directed to be treated as “not
spent on duty”, and recovery of INR 1,81,681/- was ordered towards the
pecuniary loss attributed to the misconduct.
8. The Petitioner carried the matter in appeal. The Appellate Authority
examined the charge memorandum, the Inquiry Report, the Petitioner’s
submissions, and the penalty order. The appeal did not find favour and was
rejected by order dated 26th September, 2024. The penalty was affirmed in
exercise of powers under Regulation 17.
Contentions
9. Ms. Vanshika Nagpal, counsel for the Petitioner, raises the following
grounds to assail the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority
as well Appellate Authority:
9.1. The Bank failed to examine a single witness during the inquiry,
despite the controversy involving “Maker-Checker” controls. Fixing liability
solely on the Petitioner as the “Maker,” without questioning the “Checkers”
(Branch Head and Credit Officers) who authorized the transactions, resulted
in an incomplete and biased record.
9.2. The proceedings violated the principle of audi alteram partem. The
Petitioner was denied a genuine opportunity to produce her own witnesses or
test the Bank’s case through evidence, rendering the inquiry a mere
formality rather than a fair hearing.
9.3. The Bank relied on transaction summaries and descriptions rather
than primary documents like vouchers and supporting bills. These essential
records were never properly produced or proved, depriving the Petitioner of
the ability to meet the charges against her.
W.P.(C) 1571/2026 Page 3 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:37:39
9.4. The alleged anomalies were of a non-financial nature. The basis upon
which the Bank claims financial losses were incurred remains unclear and
uncertain, despite the Petitioner raising this concern.
9.5. The Petitioner was singled out for punishment while other officers
involved in the approval and verification chain faced no action. This
selective targeting constitutes unequal treatment and discrimination in
disciplinary action.
9.6. The Petitioner has no prior adverse record placed against her in these
proceedings. In that background, the punishment is out of scale, and that the
disciplinary authority did not examine whether a lesser major penalty could
meet the ends of discipline, especially when the case rests substantially on
documentary assertions without witness-led proof.
10. Ms. Praveena Gautam, counsel for Bank of Baroda, supports the
impugned orders and submits that the Petitioner’s own replies to the show
cause notice furnish the most damaging link in the chain. The Petitioner has
not disputed that the impugned entries were made. What is offered by way
of explanation is beside the point and does not meet the substance of the
charges, which concern misuse of office heads and diversion of funds in
breach of settled banking controls.
11 Ms. Praveena Gautam hands over two documents during the course of
hearing, comprising a tabulation of the impugned GL/PL transactions and
the corresponding account-credit details relied upon by the disciplinary
authority. The same are taken on record. Ms. Gautam then illustrates the
submission by inviting attention to a set of transactions where debits were
raised in the PL/GL accounts under the description “payment of charges to
car dealers”. The corresponding credits, however, are reflected not in the
W.P.(C) 1571/2026 Page 4 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:37:39
name of any car dealer, but in the names of Anita Sharma, the Petitioner
herself, and Deepak Kumar Sharma. Anita Sharma and Deepak Kumar
Sharma, it is not disputed, are the Petitioner’s parents, and it is equally not
disputed that they are not engaged in the business of car dealership. On this
pattern, counsel submits, the inference drawn by the disciplinary authority is
neither conjectural nor excessive; it flows from the entries themselves and
the Petitioner’s inability to furnish a lawful, contemporaneous basis for
routing such payments to her immediate family.
Analysis and findings
12. The Court has considered the pleadings, the disciplinary record as
placed, and the rival submissions. The controversy must be approached with
the correct lens. A writ court does not rehear a departmental inquiry, nor
does it reassess the evidence as if sitting in appeal. 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.1
13. A second principle must also be kept in view. 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. When the charge touches integrity, misuse of
office accounts, unauthorised routing of payments, or manipulation of
internal heads, courts have consistently recognised that the employer is
1
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749; Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority)
v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612.
W.P.(C) 1571/2026 Page 5 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:37:39
entitled to insist upon a high standard of probity.2
14. With these guardrails, the Petitioner’s challenge broadly proceeds on
three planks. First, the inquiry is attacked as procedurally unfair because the
bank examined no witnesses and because the Petitioner alleges denial of a
meaningful opportunity. Second, it is argued that the “maker-checker”
framework in banking dilutes individual culpability and that the Petitioner
was singled out. Third, it is urged that the findings are unsupported and the
punishment is excessive.
15. The record does not support the plea of procedural unfairness. The
Petitioner was served with a major penalty charge memorandum. She
responded. A presenting officer and inquiry authority were appointed.
Hearings were held on several dates. The Petitioner participated. Written
briefs were filed by both sides. The inquiry report was rendered with
allegation-wise findings and charge-wise conclusions. Thereafter the
disciplinary authority issued a reasoned penalty order. The appeal was
considered with reference to the inquiry material and the Petitioner’s
grounds. 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.
16. The Petitioner emphasises that no management witnesses were
examined, and that officials in the checking chain were not produced. That
submission sounds attractive at first blush, yet it cannot be treated as a rule
of invalidation. Departmental proceedings are not controlled by the strict
rules of the Evidence Act. The question is whether the delinquent officer
2
Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC
364; Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan (1998) 4 SCC 310.
W.P.(C) 1571/2026 Page 6 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:37:39
knew the case, had access to the material relied upon, and had a fair chance
to answer it. Where the case is built primarily on documentary trails
generated within the banking system itself, the absence of oral witnesses is
not, by itself, fatal, unless prejudice is shown. The Supreme Court has
repeatedly held that a procedural lapse must be shown to have caused real
prejudice before the Court sets aside a disciplinary outcome.3
17. Turning to the merits, the record discloses that the finding against the
Petitioner is based on cogent evidence. It is a conclusion drawn from a
pattern of entries in GL/PL (office) heads and connected credits, as reflected
in transaction-wise material. The Respondents’ note, collating the
discrepancies relied upon by the disciplinary authority, is instructive:
17.1. First, in “Payment of charges to car dealer” transactions (Annexure A,
transactions 1-5), the disciplinary authority records breach of bank
guidelines and, more damagingly, that the payments were made into the
accounts of the Petitioner, her father and her mother. This is consistent with
the case set out against the Petitioner that office accounts were debited while
the ultimate beneficiary was the Petitioner or her close relatives, who are
concededly not in this business.
17.2. Second, on “Law Charges Other / Sundry Charges / New
Intermediary Account” entries said to relate to stamp papers (Annexure A,
transactions 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 21), the disciplinary authority found that
payments were made to one Vivek Sharma, who was not an empanelled
advocate, and also that, as per bank guidelines, stamp papers were to be
arranged by the customer and not by the bank, and in any event payments
should not be routed in the manner found.
3
State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364.
W.P.(C) 1571/2026 Page 7 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:37:39
17.3. The contemporaneous note further records that out of the twenty-eight
GL/PL transactions, fifteen were routed through an account of Vivek
Sharma, and amounts paid by the bank were thereafter transferred to the
Petitioner’s account or relatives’ accounts or withdrawn as cash after
deductions.
17.4. Third, for “Payment for sanitization” (Annexure A, transactions 23,
24, 25, 26, 28), the disciplinary authority found payments were again made
to Vivek Sharma under the pretext of sanitization, without supporting
documentation, bills, or vouchers establishing prior approval and
justification.
17.5. Fourth, where the head was again “Payment of charges to car dealers”
(Annexure A, transactions 19 and 20), the disciplinary authority found
“double payment” against the same bill, and that the payee was not even a
car dealer.
17.6. Fifth, even in a seemingly routine head like stationery payment
(Annexure A, transaction 16), the finding is of violation of the due process
requiring joint authority and the absence of bills supporting reimbursement.
17.7. The Annexure B findings take the matter further into the domain of
staff-account related impropriety. The disciplinary authority records that
LABOD (Loan/Overdraft Against Bank’s Own Deposit) was availed in the
name of the Petitioner’s sister (Mansi Sharma), without documentary
support, and contrary to extant guidelines governing staff conduct and
sanction discipline.
17.8. The disciplinary authority also notes fund transfers inter se family
accounts without debit mandate or authority, cash deposits followed by
inter-account transfers and cash withdrawals, which it characterises asW.P.(C) 1571/2026 Page 8 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:37:39
“layering” of transactions into staff accounts.
18. These are not stray technical lapses. In a bank, GL/PL heads are
designated for specific operational expenditures and do not constitute a
discretionary pool for routing funds to staff or connected accounts. 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. Where the payees and the subsequent
credit trail reveal personal benefit, the “maker” cannot seek immunity by
pointing to downstream checking.
19. The Petitioner’s challenge, as articulated, attempts to reframe the
controversy as one of investigation gaps, non-examination of other officials,
and an alleged failure to follow the maker-checker principle. The appellate
record notes that such allegations were raised in broad strokes without
demonstrating how the proceedings were vitiated.
20. The maker-checker framework is a risk-control mechanism; it does
not legitimise an unauthorised transaction nor dilute personal accountability.
Its existence does not operate as immunity for a maker, particularly where
office heads are debited without documentation or the payment trail points
to self-interest. While a bank may hold multiple officers answerable where
facts justify, the maker’s responsibility remains direct and personal. As
underscored in Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, conduct inconsistent with banking
procedure and probity attracts strict discipline, notwithstanding attempts to
portray it as routine operational action.
21. The Petitioner also urges that vouchers were not produced, and that
the bank could tamper with internal records during the period of suspension.
Courts do treat record-custody issues seriously when such issues areW.P.(C) 1571/2026 Page 9 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:37:39
supported by a factual foundation. Here, the challenge remains in the realm
of conjecture. A charge cannot be defeated by a general assertion that
vouchers are “tamperable”. The Petitioner was required to point to specific
inconsistencies, to show that records were withheld despite a request, or to
establish that the inquiry relied on material that the Petitioner never saw and
could not answer. The case placed before the Court does not show that kind
of demonstrable prejudice.
22. The material, on the other hand, shows that the inquiry proceeded on
documentary evidence which the Petitioner accepted as genuine, and the
inquiry authority returned transaction-wise findings. The management
placed twenty-four documents on record, marked as Management Exhibits
ME-1 to ME-24, and these were accepted as genuine by the Petitioner
during the enquiry.
23. The attendance sheets and the daily order sheets were shared with her
and were countersigned, which is inconsistent with the later suggestion that
the proceedings were opaque or that the Petitioner was kept out of the
process.
24. The inquiry then proceeded, as many service inquiries do, on the
strength of admitted and contemporaneously acknowledged documents.
Neither side chose to lead oral evidence. The Presenting Officer did not
examine witnesses, and the Petitioner also did not produce witnesses. That
choice does not, by itself, vitiate the inquiry, particularly when the
documentary trail is not in dispute and the inquiry officer has returned
transaction-wise findings, mapping each entry to the alleged misconduct.
25. In writ jurisdiction, the task is not to re-weigh that material as an
appellate forum, but to see whether the decision-making is fair and whetherW.P.(C) 1571/2026 Page 10 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:37:39
the conclusions rest on some admissible material and a rational chain of
reasoning. On that limited canvas, the contemporaneous acceptance of the
exhibits and the transaction-wise analysis materially answer the Petitioner’s
core grievance that the inquiry was slipshod or unreasoned.
26. The argument that the alleged anomalies were “non-financial” and
that loss is unclear also does not assist. In banking discipline, the focus is
not confined to final loss figures. Misuse of PL/GL heads, unauthorised
debits, and payments without bills or mandate expose the institution to
financial risk and reputational harm. Even if a bank later recovers money or
corrects entries, the act that violates procedure and integrity remains
actionable as misconduct. The recovery direction of Rs. 1,81,681/- is an
added consequence. The gravamen of the penalty is the breach of trust and
the misuse of internal mechanisms.
27. The Petitioner’s plea of discrimination and selective targeting was
also pressed. Even where such a plea is raised, it does not dilute the
requirement that the Petitioner must meet the evidence against her. Two
wrongs do not cancel each other. In any case, the bank’s record indicates
that action was taken against other officials as well. That takes the sting out
of the selective targeting argument.
28. The Court has also tested the decisions for reasons. The disciplinary
and appellate orders cannot be called unreasoned. They engage with the
transaction pattern, the absence of supporting documentation and mandate,
the nature of office-account heads, and the Petitioner’s defence. Reasons are
not expected to read like a judgment of a civil court. They must disclose that
the authority applied its mind to the case and the defence. That threshold is
met.
W.P.(C) 1571/2026 Page 11 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:37:39
29. The remaining question is punishment. The Court does not interfere
with penalty merely because another view on punishment is possible.
Interference arises only where the punishment is so disproportionate that it
shocks judicial conscience.4 When the misconduct concerns probity in
banking operations and the alleged diversion of payments through internal
heads to the employee or the employee’s family, removal from service
cannot be described as a punishment outside the range of rational
disciplinary response. A bank is entitled to treat such conduct as destructive
of confidence.
30. 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.
31. For these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications,
if any, also stand disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2026
nk4
Jai Bhagwan v. Commissioner of Police (2013) 11 SCC 187; Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism
Development Corpn. Ltd. (2003) 8 SCC 9.
W.P.(C) 1571/2026 Page 12 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:37:39
