Maker-Checker System Doesn't Immunise Bank Officer From Personal Liability For Illicit Transactions: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has upheld the removal of an officer from the Bank of Baroda, holding that the maker–checker system is only a risk-control mechanism and does not confer immunity on an officer who initiates unauthorised or self-serving transactions.Justice Sanjeev Narula 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. Where the payees and the subsequent credit trail reveal personal benefit, the “maker” cannot seek immunity by pointing to downstream checking.”The bench was dealing with a petition challenging the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the Petitioner over allegations of unlawful financial gain and misappropriation through office accounts.Petitioner contended that Fixing liability solely on her as the “Maker,” without questioning the “Checkers” (Branch Head and Credit Officers) who authorized the transactions, resulted in an incomplete and biased record.Dismissing the plea, the High Court held that General Ledger (GL) and Profit & Loss (PL) heads are designated for specific operational expenditures and do not constitute a discretionary pool for routing funds to staff or connected accounts. “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,” it said.The Court added that while a bank may hold multiple officers answerable where facts justify, the maker's responsibility remains direct and personal.Though the Petitioner contended discrimination and selective targeting, the Court held,“...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.”The Petitioner had also contended that primary documents like vouchers were not produced by the bank, which could have been tampered with during the period of her suspension.Rejecting this contention however, the Court held, “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.”As such, the Court found no infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings or the appellate order and dismissed the petition.Appearance: Ms. Priyanka Yadav, Mr. Gulshan Kumar and Ms. Vanshika Nagpal, Advocates along with Petitioner in person; 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.Case title: Sakshi Sharma v. UoICitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 232Case no.: W.P.(C) 1571/2026Click here to read order

Maker-Checker System Doesn't Immunise Bank Officer From Personal Liability For Illicit Transactions: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags