Home Home   Contact Us Contact Us   Sitemap Sitemap
Hindi Site
Interest Rates - Deposit
Interest Rates - Loans & Advances
Service Charges
EMI Calculator
Bank’s Code of Commitment
Sachar Committee
Apply for Bank Products
Search Our Network
Home >> About Us >> Our Commitment >> Vigilance



Chief Vigilance Officer

Tel: 011-26102405

Dy General Manager
Tel: 011-26175708

Asstt General Manager
Tel: 011-26169341

Vigilance Officers In ZAOs                                                                                             Chief Manager

Manager                                                                                                                         Functional Managers


Click here for Detail


                                                          VIGILANCE SET UP


1.1          Role of Vigilance in Banks


                Risk taking is an integral part of the business of banking.  The purpose of vigilance activity in Public Sector Banks (PSBs) is not to stifle such ability or obstruct the achievement of organizational goals and objectives but to enhance the managerial effectiveness, both at micro as well as at the macro levels. Considering the special needs of Banking and in order to address the problems faced in the day-to-day functioning, the special chapter on vigilance management for Public Sector Banks has been prepared and rules clearly defined by the Central Vigilance Commission.


1.2          Central Vigilance Commission-Role and Functions


                The monitoring of the vigilance activities, implementation of the anti-corruption measures in the Public Sector, maintenance of purity, integrity and probity in the Public Sector viz, Public Sector Undertakings, Central Government Departments, Ministries and Public Sector Banks is done by the Government through Central Vigilance Commission. It acts as the apex body for exercising general superintendence and control over the vigilance matters in administration.  The Commission exercises a general check and supervision over vigilance cases and anti corruption work in the organizations within its jurisdiction


1.3          Jurisdiction & cut off level


                The Commission's jurisdiction is co-terminus with the executive powers of the Union.  It can undertake any inquiry into any transaction in which a public servant is suspected or alleged to have acted for an improper or corrupt purpose; or cause such an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint of corruption, gross negligence, misconduct, recklessness, lack of integrity or other kinds of mal-practices or misdemeanors on the part of a public servant.  The Commission tenders appropriate advice to the concerned Disciplinary Authority in all such matters.


                For practical considerations, the Commission has restricted its jurisdiction to the officers of the rank of scale V and above in the public sector banks.  However, in composite cases involving officials who fall in the Commission’s jurisdiction along with others who do not, the case as a whole has to be referred to the Commission for its advice.  Such composite references enable the Commission to take an overall view of the individual accountabilities in the transaction.


                The officials working/recruited directly in the Bank’s subsidiaries are also covered under the Vigilance setup of the parent Bank.


1.4          Consultation mechanism


                Cases of officials of the rank of scale V and above,  as well as of others who do not fall within the CVC’s jurisdiction but by virtue of being involved in a composite case as mentioned in para 1.3 above are required to be referred to the commission.  All references to Central Vigilance Commission by the Bank shall be through the CVO/Vigilance Department.


2.             VIGILANCE ANGLE


2.1          Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has modified the definition of the vigilance angle in the role of the officials of the Bank keeping in view the paradigm shift in their functions. As per this revised definition, vigilance angle is obvious in the following acts:


                      i.        Demanding and / or accepting gratification, other than legal remuneration, in respect of an official act or for using his influence with any other official.


                     ii.        Obtaining valuable thing, without consideration, or with inadequate consideration, from a person with whom he has or likely to have official dealings or his subordinates, have official dealing or where he can exert influence.


                    iii.        Obtaining for himself, or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant.


                    iv.        Possession of assets, disproportionate to his known source(es) of income.


                     v.        Cases of mis-appropriation, forgery or cheating or other similar criminal offences. 


There are, however, other irregularities where circumstances will have to be weighed carefully to take a view whether the officer’s integrity is in doubt.  Gross or willful negligence; recklessness in decision making; blatant violations of systems and procedures; exercise of discretion in excess where no ostensible / public interest is evident; failure to keep the controlling authority / superiors informed in time – these are some of the irregularities where the Disciplinary Authority with the help of the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) should carefully study the case and weigh the circumstances to come to a conclusion whether there is reasonable ground to doubt the integrity of the Officer concerned.


2.1(a)     Any undue / unjustified delay in the disposal of a case, perceived after considering all relevant factors, would reinforce a conclusion as to the presence of vigilance angle in a case. 


2.2          The background / idea behind vigilance activity is not to reduce but to enhance the level of managerial efficiency and effectiveness in the organization. Commercial risk taking forms part of business. Therefore, every loss caused to the organization, either in pecuniary or non-pecuniary terms, need not necessarily become the subject matter of a vigilance enquiry.  Thus, whether a person of common prudence, working within the ambit of the prescribed rules, regulations and instructions, would have taken the decision in the prevailing circumstances in the Commercial / operational interests of the organization is one possible criterion for determining the bonafides of the case. A positive response to this question may indicate the existence of bonafides.  A negative reply, on the other hand, might indicate their absence.


2.3          Absence of vigilance angle in various acts of omission and commission does not mean that the concerned official is not liable to face consequences of his actions.  All such lapses not attracting vigilance angle would, indeed, have to be dealt with appropriately as per the disciplinary procedure under the service rules.




The guidelines of the CVC envisage that each bank will set up an ‘Internal Advisory Committee’ (IAC) of 3 members (preferably at the level of GMs but not below the rank of Dy. General Managers) to scrutinize the complaints received in the bank and also the cases arising out of inspections, audits etc. for determination of existence of the vigilance angle or otherwise in specific transactions.  In our bank, the Inspection & Audit Division, HO is the nodal division for placing the cases before the IAC.


The process for determination of vigilance overtone in the role of any official corresponding to any actionable lapse comprises of the following stages :



·         The Circle Office / Division where cause of action have occurred refer the matter of all the erring officials to Internal Advisory Committee (IAC) to examine existence of vigilance overtone.






·         The IAC independently examines the role of the officials for determining as to whether vigilance overtone exists there or not, on the basis of the information provided by the Circle Office / Division where cause of action have occurred.



·         The views of the IAC on the existence of vigilance overtone or otherwise in the role of any official are then sent to the Chief Vigilance Officer, who examines the same afresh and conveys his views to the Disciplinary Authority.


·         After receiving the views of CVO, the Disciplinary Authority examine the matter and form his independent views on existence of vigilance overtone and send his views to CVO.


In case there is a difference of opinion between the CVO and the Disciplinary Authority regarding determination of existence of vigilance overtone, the issue should be initially referred to the CMD of the Bank through CVO for resolution of the difference in respect of the officials not falling within the purview of the Commission. If the difference still persists the same may be referred to the Commission for a final view. However, such issues be referred to the Commission in respect of the officials coming under the jurisdiction of the Commission (Scale V & above).


In case the vigilance overtone is perceived by the DA in agreement with the CVO (whether initially or after reconsideration), a vigilance case is registered at the Vigilance Department and where vigilance overtone is not perceived by the DA in agreement with the CVO, further action is initiated against the officials in a manner deemed appropriate by the DA / the Administrative Authority under non vigilance category. The following points are also required to be kept in view by the DA:


·         Since the vigilance overtone is examined in the role of the officials corresponding to the actionable lapses, no reference is required to be made to the IAC or to the Vigilance Department, in cases where it is beyond doubt, that the concerned official is found to have played no role in the given actionable lapse or there is no actionable lapse in his role.


·         The actionable lapses of extreme vigilance nature like forgery, misappropriation, etc. and of extreme non vigilance nature like unauthorized absence, riotous behaviour, etc. are not required to be referred to IAC but these cases are to be referred to the Vigilance Department, HO directly.


·         The cases of officials due for retirement should be sent well in time to I & A Divn., HO for placing before Internal Advisory Committee to ensure timely disposal of these cases.


·         While referring the cases to IAC for determination of vigilance overtone a self contained note containing all aspects of the case, specific roles played by the respective officials, deviations resorted by them, amount involved, amount of the security available, apprehended loss, etc. are to be furnished by the Disciplinary Authority.


4.             JURISDICTION




The Commission has decided that only such vigilance cases in which an Officer of the level of scale-V & above is involved, are required to be referred to the Commission for advice through Chief Vigilance Officer.  However, in case if there is involvement of official of the level of Scale-IV or below in the same matter in which an officer of scale V or above is involved, the Commission’s advice would be necessary for all the officials.  These cases are categorized as ‘CVC Cases’.




All the cases of officials upto the level of Scale-IV or which do not fall within the direct jurisdiction of the Commission are required to be referred to the CVO for concurrence before any action is taken against them. The cases under this category are known as ‘Non CVC cases’.


(It may also be mention that failure to refer the cases to CVO can invite Disciplinary Action against the DA)




All vigilance cases are required to be referred to the CVO / CVC for 1st & 2nd stage advice by the DA. 


The 1st stage reference shall be made by the DA to the Vigilance Department, HO for seeking advice of CVO / CVC for the nature of the penalty proceedings proposed to be initiated. The second stage reference is made by the DA seeking advice of the CVO/CVC in finalising the concerned vigilance disciplinary action case either by way of imposition of major penalty / minor penalty or otherwise.


6.             1st STAGE REFERENCE


The tentative recommendations of the DA, being the first stage reference whether CVC / non-CVC case is to be forwarded to Vigilance Department, HO. In case matter is under the jurisdiction of CVC, the case with the views of CVO shall then be forwarded to the CVC for their 1st stage advice. In the matter under non-CVC case, the 1st stage reference is examined by Vigilance Department, HO and placed before the CVO for his consideration. Accordingly, 1st stage advice is given to DA with request to send a copy of charge sheet served upon the erring officials for reference and necessary action.




The following documents / records are required to be forwarded to the Vigilance Department, HO while referring the case for 1st stage advice of CVO / CVC.


a)                 The preliminary investigation report alongwith relevant documents and records connected with the case, on the basis of which the allegations are proposed to be established / dropped.


b)                 A copy of note placed before DA clearly indicating the facts and DA’s own tentative recommendation on the proposed penalty proceedings.  In cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the comments of the DA on the recommendation of the CBI should also be mentioned.


c)                 The tabular statement neatly typed as prescribed hereunder :




Name & Designation of erring official

Allegations in brief

Findings of the Investigation

Comments of the Erring  Official

Comments / recommendations of the DA








d)                 The list of officials connected, alongwith present status in respect of staff accountability in their cases, or specific confirmation that no other official is involved.


e)                 A copy of draft charge sheet against the erring official alongwith the list of documents and witnesses through which it is intended to prove the charges.


f)                   Amount involved in the case.


g)                                                                  The bio-data of the official concerned (Annexure-’A’).




          DA should ensure that:


-               Piecemeal references to Vigilance Department, HO are avoided and complete reference of all the officials involved in the given case is sent simultaneously.


-               Relevant documents are ready and the charge sheet can be issued within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of 1st stage advice.


-        Papers / documents are required to be legibly typed and submitted. In case the matter requires reference to Central Vigilance Commission, all the papers should be submitted in duplicate.




Once the Disciplinary Authority accepts the 1st stage advice of CVO/ CVC, it is the responsibility of the DA to take necessary steps for implementation of the advice expeditiously and proceedings are to be initiated accordingly. 


In case of major penalty proceedings (for officers) / proceedings for gross misconduct (for workmen), 1st stage advice of CVC /CVO would be deemed to have been implemented when the departmental enquiry is instituted.  In case of minor penalty proceedings (for officers) / for minor misconduct (for workmen), the 1st stage advice of CVC/ CVO would be deemed as implemented, when final orders are passed.


7.             2nd  STAGE REFERENCE


The 2nd stage advice is required to be sought from the Vigilance Department  Head Office invariably in all registered vigilance cases.




For 2nd stage advice of CVO / CVC, the following documents are required to be submitted to Vigilance Department, HO.


a)     The report of the Enquiry Officer and the connected records.


b)     Representation/submission of the Charged Official on the enquiry report.


c)     A copy of note placed before the DA containing tentative findings and conclusions drawn by the DA along with the proposed penalty by a speaking order. In case DA differs with the findings of Enquiry Officer, memorandum of dissent of DA with justification for differing with the findings of EO.


d)     The tabular statement neatly types as prescribed hereunder :




Name & Designation of erring official

Allegations in brief

Findings of the Enquiry on each allegation

Submission of the Erring Official on the findings of enquiry.

Comments / Recommendations of DA








e)     Amount of loss, if any, attributable to each and every Charged Official against the charges established against him.


f)      Past track record of the Charged Official – latest bio-data.


g)     Financial implication of proposed punishment.


h)     Status of the connected officials / case.


i)      Speaking draft order, proposing a penalty commensurate with the gravity of proven charges.


While proposing penalty, DA should consciously play the role of the DA and  

 ensure that:


-               Penalty proposed to be imposed upon the Charged Official is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct proved against the Charged Official.


-               Extenuating circumstances, if any, as they emerge from the inquiry and the track record of the charged officer should also be taken into consideration.


-               The penalty proposed to be imposed is not academic or ineffective; for example, if an officer is at the ceiling of his pay scale, imposition of the penalty of withholding increment will be rendered infructuous. Similarly for an officer who is not due for promotion, imposition of penalty of withholding of promotion for a specified period will have no meaning.


-                      In case the concerned official is under suspension on account of the case under reference, the order should, inter alia, contain decision with regard to payment or otherwise of salary/wages for the period of suspension.




After obtaining the 2nd stage advice of CVO or CVC, final order should be passed at the earliest to enable closing of the case. However, in case of workmen such final orders are to be passed after complying with the provisions of Bipartite Settlement. A copy of such final order, so passed, should be sent to the Vigilance Department, Head Office.


8.             TIME FRAME


CVC has prescribed the time frame for various action points which is as per Annexure- B. The time limit so given by the Commission represents the outer limit for the given action point. Undue delays may result in departmental action against the concerned officials.


In case of any delay in referring the cases for 1st or 2nd stage advice to Vigilance Department, HO, the DA will have to specifically comment on the delay.




9.1          NON CVC CASES


In case of difference of opinion between CVO & DA, the CVO shall report the matter to the CMD for resolution of difference of opinion.



9.2          CVC CASES


                If the Disciplinary Authority, in a case, does not intend to accept the Commission’s advice, the case may be referred back to the Commission for reconsideration within a period of 2 months with the prior approval of the CMD. Commission’s advice is necessary regardless of whether the DA proposes to take “more severe ” or “lighter” action than that recommended by the Commission. Decisions taken in a manner, other than as mentioned above, would be treated as cases of non-acceptance of the Commission’s advice and commented in the Commission’s annual report.  As a rule, the Commission entertains only one request for reconsideration.


10.          VIGILANCE- “F” CASES


Frauds of Rs.1.00 crore & above perpetrated with a criminal intention by any bank official, either alone or in collusion with insiders / outsiders including the following are to be classified as vigilance “F”.  Following is the illustrative list :


·         Mis-appropriation and criminal breach of trust.


·         Fraudulent encashment through forged instruments, manipulation of books of accounts of through fictitious accounts and conversion of property.


·         Unauthorised credit facilities extended for reward or for illegal gratification.


·         Negligence and cash shortages.


·         Cheating and forgery.


·         Irregularities in Foreign Exchange transactions.


Care: These cases have to be decided within 4 months.


10.1        TIME LIMIT (Overall)


                Time limit for conducting Investigations and Departmental Inquiries in respect Vigilance–F cases is given in Annexure “C”. The cases under Category ‘F’ are to be decided positively within 4 months of serving of charge sheets.




A Vigilance Officer (VO) is appointed in each Circle and he / she extends assistance to the CVO and the Vigilance Deptt. in investigating / following up of vigilance issues. Offices / Circle may, if necessary, refer to him issues regarding vigilance matter. His functions are broadly  as under :


-               To conduct / supervise investigations entrusted by the Vigilance Department, HO and to submit the report as per the time schedule prescribed by the Commission;

-               To ensure that the vigilance angle in various cases is perceived in accordance with the guidelines of the CVC;

-               To ensure that staff side cases are referred to IAC as per the guidelines. Likewise he is also to ensure that the directions of the Commission pertaining to the Consultative Mechanism in the Circle is adhered;

-               To ensure that the statement of Assets and Liabilities are timely submitted by the officials and that scrutiny thereof is being undertaken at the Circle Office in terms of the guidelines;

-               He / she will be responsible for any other task that may be entrusted to him / her by the CVO / Vigilance Department, H.O.




12.1        Although the CBI has powers to take up any fraud case for investigation irrespective of the amount of loss involved, in order to maximize the effectiveness of investigations, presently the following guidelines are to be followed:-




Banking Securities & Fraud Cell (BS&FC), CBI at Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore and Kolkata to handle cases.


Rs. 7.50 crores and above

Branch of CBI having territorial jurisdiction over the area to handle cases as under:

·         Where staff involvement is prima facie evident- CBI (Anti Corruption Branch)

·         Where staff involvement is prima facie not evident-CBI (Economic Offences Wing)




Between Rs.1.00 crore and upto  Rs.7.50 crores.

State CID / Economic Offences Wing of the State concerned.

The cases of financial fraud of the value of Rs.1.00 lakh but below Rs.1.00 crore

Local Police to handle cases*

Less than Rs. 1.00 lakh **



The above limits should be followed meticulously.


*The complaint / FIR with police can be lodged only with the prior concurrence / approval of Circle Head (Circle).


**(All fraud cases of value below Rs.10,000/-, involving bank officials shall be scrutinized by Circle Head with a view as to whether it should be reported to local police stations for legal action.)


In addition to the above mandatory references, CVO in consultation with CMD may refer a case involving less than Rs.1.00 crore or a case which cannot be classified on monetary limits, to the CBI, if in the opinion of the CVO, the case is of serious nature and / or has an inter-state or international ramification.


If the matter / case warrants reporting to CBI, the Circle Head should submit the proposal to FPIS, HO along with full facts of the case for their processing and placing the case to CMD through CVO for his decision in the matter. 


12.2        The complaints / FIR with CBI can be lodged only with the prior concurrence / approval of CMD, if the allegations:


                      i.        are criminal in nature (e.g. bribery, corruption, forgery, fraud, criminal breach of trust, possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, cheating, etc;) or


                     ii.        require inquiries to be made from non-official persons; or


                    iii.        involve examination of private records; or


                    iv.        need expert police investigation for arriving at a conclusion; or need investigation abroad.


(For detailed guidelines, circulars issued by FPIS : HO, in this regard may be referred.)


12.3   The Department prepares & maintains the ‘List of Officers of Doubtful Integrity’ (LODI). Besides this, a list of officials against whom there are complaints, doubts or suspicion as regards their honesty or integrity (Agreed List) is also prepared by the Department in consultation with CBI. These lists are prepared in accordance with Government guidelines and it is ensured that officers appearing in these lists are not posted in sensitive positions.




Under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, it is necessary for the prosecuting authority to have the previous sanction of the appropriate administrative authority for launching prosecution against a public servant. The officials of the bank are ‘public servants’, within the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.


The requirement of previous sanction is intended to afford a reasonable protection to public servant from frivolous, malicious or vexatious prosecution and to save him from unnecessary harassment or undue hardship. The administrative authority alone is in a position to assess and weigh the accusation against the background of their own intimate knowledge of the work and conduct of the official. The sanctioning authority has an absolute discretion to grant or to withhold sanction after satisfying himself whether the material placed before it discloses a prima facie case against the officials sought to be prosecuted. The grant of sanction or refusal of prosecution is given by the competent authority after a clear-cut application of mind as the same is an administrative function performed in a quasi-judicial manner. The competent authority should, therefore, record reasons even in cases where sanction for prosecution is not accorded. The Sanctioning Authority has only to see whether the facts would prima-facie constitute the offence. The question of giving opportunity to the employee at this stage does not arise.


In terms of the Supreme Court directives, the matter with regard to according permission to prosecute should be expeditiously processed and required sanction accorded within a period of three months [outer limit].  In case, the Disciplinary Authority takes a view different from that of the CBI/Police/State CIDs/Economic offences Wing of State Police, a reference is required to be made to the CVC through CVO for advice of CVC irrespective of the level of the official involved. It may be noted that when the Bank refuses permission for sanction of prosecution as requested for by CBI, the issue may come up for arbitration at CVC. The Bank would be required to defend its decision with documentary proof, if called for. Hence, DA should be extremely careful in taking a decision in this regard.


Further, where the investigation has been made by State Police authorities involving a Central Government Employee (including Bank Officials) request for sanction for prosecution of the Competent Authority may be considered, even though such request was not routed through  CBI.




The following jobs/ works under taken are to be reported to CTEs in the Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs) on the prescribed proforma :


q  Civil works where accepted/tender value exceeds Rs.1 crore.


q  Electrical / mechanical works where accepted/tender value exceeds Rs.30 lacs


q  Medical equipments where accepted/tender value exceeds Rs.1.00 crore


q  Horticulture works where accepted/tender value exceeds Rs.2 lacs.


q  Supply/purchase where accepted/tender value exceeds Rs.2 crore.


q  Two largest consultancy contracts


q  Two largest service contracts


q  Four largest contracts for supply of medicines.


It should also be certified that all the works / purchase / consultancy and other contracts in progress as per the above prescribed monetary limits are included in the QPR and in case monetary value of such work is less than the limits prescribed above, the report of two largest works in progress in each discipline should be reported.


15.          TENDERS


The Commission had issued specific directions that the use of information technology be maximised so as to eliminate the personal interaction of Government officials with public, with a view to increase the element of transparency in functioning and to ensure elimination of the corrupt practices by the public servants. For improving vigilance administration by leveraging technology, the Commission issued the following broad guidelines:


a)            All the tenders are to be floated/ placed on the website of the Bank.


b)            The summary of all the procurements with threshold limit of Rs.5.00 lac and above as approved by CMD, is required to be placed on the website of the Bank.


c)             Complete information with regard to laws, rules and procedures governing the issue of licences, permissions, clearances, etc. are to be placed on the website of the organization.  Similarly, all application forms/ proformas should be made available on the website in the downloadable form.  Besides this, all documents/ information to be provided by the applicant should be clearly explained on the website and should also form part of the application form.  As far as possible, arrangement should be put in place so that immediately on receipt of the application, the applicant is informed about the deficiencies, if any, in documents/information submitted.


It had also been added that repeated queries in a piecemeal manner should be viewed as a misconduct having vigilance angle and that the organisations should give adequate publicity about these facilities in newspapers and such an advertisements must give the website address of the organisation concerned.


d)             The status of the individual applications/ matters should be made available on the organisation’s website and should be updated from time to time so that the applicants remain duly informed about the latest status of their application.


e)             The guidelines of the Commission for tender are clear that for engaging any work / project for the organization, transparency, competitiveness and fair practices should be ensured.


f)             The Central Vigilance Commission has banned post tender negotiations. Negotiations, if at all with L1, shall be an exception only in the case of proprietary items or in the case of items with limited source of supply with prior concurrence of the competent authority.  Counter offers tantamount to negotiations and should be treated at par with negotiations. 


g)             Negotiations with L1, can be recommended in exceptional circumstances only after due application of mind and recording valid, logical reasons justifying negotiations.  In case of inability to obtain the desired results by way of reduction in rates and negotiations are rendered futile, satisfactory explanations are required to be recorded by the Committee, which recommended the negotiations.  The Committee shall be responsible for lack of application of mind in case its negotiations have only unnecessarily delayed the award of work / contract.


h)             If the quantity to be ordered is much more than L-1 alone can supply then in such cases, the quantity ordered may be distributed in such a manner that fairness, transparency and equitable distribution is ensured.


i)              On the question of considering the L-2 offer, if L-1 withdraws his offer before the work order is placed, or before the supply or execution of work order takes place, it is clarified that such a situation may be avoided if a two bid system is followed (techno/commercial) so that proper assessment of the offers is made before the award of work order. Therefore, if L-1 backs out, there should be re-tendering in a transparent and fair manner. The authority may, in such a situation,  call for limited or short notice tender if so justified in the interest of work and take a decision on the basis of lowest tender.


j)              The consideration of offer of single technically acceptable bidder is not prohibited provided tendering process has been followed in a fair, just and transparent manner and the rate received is considered reasonable.


k)             In case any difficulty is found in the application of any of the guidelines of the Commission in this regard, specific case with a proposed generic solution may be referred for the examination by the CVO / CVC. The issues of general nature having elements of managerial decision making and concerning a particular procurement may be examined and decision be taken at the level of Circle Office.


l)              The Commission (CVC) has emphasized that its guidelines are mandatory in nature and all out efforts are required to be made to ensure that they are not only implemented timely but also in letter and spirit.




In terms of Clause 20(2) of PNB Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1977, it is incumbent upon every officer employee to submit the complete returns of his / her movable, immovable and valuable property including liquid assets, like shares, debentures (Assets & Liabilities Statement) as on 31st March every year. These returns are to be submitted by 30th June every year.


All the officers working in the bank should file their Assets & Liabilities as on 31st March in PNB Pariwar (HRMS) by using the link ‘Assets & Liabilities” available under ‘Employees Self Service´ and also to print the same for submission of the same to the competent authority in physical form after appending their signatures.


It is the responsibility of the Circle Head / Divisional Head of HO Divisions to ensure that the return is not only received in time from all the officials under their respective jurisdictions but is also scrutinized carefully as per the Government guidelines (20 % of the returns) as a part of Preventive Vigilance.


Circle Heads and Divisional Heads are required to send confirmation to the Chief Vigilance Officer, HO that all the Officers upto MMG Scale-III working in the Circle Office/Division have filed Assets & Liabilities Return for the year and 20 % of the Returns have been scrutinized as per Govt. guidelines, latest by 31st July.


All officers in Senior Management Grade and Top Executive Grade i.e. Scale-IV & above are to file the returns with the Chief Vigilance Officer, Vigilance Department, Head Office, N Delhi.


17.          For broad guidelines and clarifications relating to Vigilance Administration in the Bank, it is advised to regularly visit website of Central Vigilance Commission at






Punjab National Bank                                                                               

Circle Office/Head Office : ___________






Name of the Official  (full name) with Designation




P F Number

Whether pension optee                     YES/NO




a.      Present place of posting :

b.        Immediate previous place of posting


c.        Date of joining the bank with cadre




Date of Birth




Date of Superannuation




i)              Grade

ii)             Scale of pay since when

iii)            Present basic pay (Rs.)

iv)            Date of next increment




Date of Suspension (If any) and Authority




Previous complaints, if any, against the official and results of enquiries into them



PAF for the last 3 years.




If there any previous disciplinary action decided (date of charge sheet, penalty imposed whether minor / major / gross and date of order of DA)




Remarks about integrity




Other information, if any.






Date ____________                         Signature of DA/Authorised Officer     



Time frame for conducting investigations and
Departmental Inquiries [Other than Vigilance “F cases}


S. No.

State of Investigation or Inquiry

Time Limit


Decision as to whether the complaint involves a vigilance angle.


One month of receipt of the complaint.


Decision on complaint, whether to be filed or to be entrusted to CBI or to be taken up for investigation by departmental agency or to be sent to the concerned administrative authority for necessary action.




Conducting investigation and submission of report.

Three months




Department’s comments on the CBI reports in cases requiring Commission's advice.


One month from the date of receipt of CBI’s report by the DA.



Referring departmental investigation reports to the Commission for advice.


One month from the date of receipt of investigation report.


Reconsideration of the Commission’s advice, if required.

One month from the date of receipt of Commission’s advice.



Issue of charge sheet, if required.

(i)            One month from the date of Commission’s advice.

(ii)           Two months from the date of receipt of investigation report.



Time for submission of defence statement.

Ordinarily ten days.



Consideration of defence statement.


15 (Fifteen) days.


Issue of final orders in minor penalty cases.


Two months from the receipt of defence statement.



Appointment of EO/PO in major penalty cases.


Immediately after receipt and consideration of defence statement.


Conducting departmental Inquiry and submission of report

Six months from the date of appointment of IO/PO


Sending a copy of EO’s report to the CO for his representation01

j)      Within 15 days of receipt of EO’s report if any of the Articles of charge has been held as proved:

k)     15 days if all charges held as not proved.  Reasons for disagreement with EO’s findings to be communicated.


Consideration of CO’s representation and forwarding EO’s report to the Commission for 2nd stage advice

One month from the date of receipt of representation.


Issuance of orders on the Enquiry Report

i) One month from the date of Commission’s advice.


ii)   Two months from the date of receipt of EO’s report if Commission’s advice was not required.













Issue of charge sheet

15 days from the date of the Commission’s advice or one month from the date of receipt of the Investigation Report.



Time of submission of Defence Statement

Ten  days




Consideration of defence statement


One Week


Appointment of Enquiry Officer/Presenting Officer in major penalty cases.


Immediately after receipt of consideration of defence statement.



Conduct of departmental enquiry and submission of report.


Two months from the date of appointment of Enquiry Officer/Presenting Officer.


Sending of a copy of the EO’s report to the CO for his representation.

          I.    Within one week of receipt of EO’s report if any article of charge has been held as “Proved”.

         II.    15 days from the date of charges is held as “Not Proved.”

[Reasons for disagreement of Enquiry Officer’s findings to be communicated]


Consideration of CO’s representation and forwarding EO’s Report to the Commission for forwarding second stage advice

Fifteen  days from the date of receipt of representation.




Issuance of orders on enquiry report.

Within one month from the date of receipt EO’s Report.





Copyright © 2010. Punjab National Bank. All rights reserved. FAQ’s  |  Disclaimer  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use