Mumbai based businessman is jailed for mistreating a female bank employee

 


A 54-year-old businessman was sentenced to a year of hard labor in a Mumbai magistrate's court for insulting the dignity of a female bank employee who had come to his home on business. The businessman was not only given a jail sentence, but the court also fined him Rs. 1000. When the female bank employee came to his house to verify, the businessman mistreated her. 


 Narendra Sagvekar, the defendant, is 54 years old. On November 27, 2020, the victim, a 27-year-old deputy manager at a bank, visited Sagvekar's home to confirm his address in connection with his application for a bank account.


A day prior, Sagvekar had gone to the bank to open a savings account, but he neglected to bring a photo. An employee was tasked with going to his home to confirm his address in accordance with bank policies. 


 Around 12:30 p.m., the woman arrived at the house and discovered Sagvekar by himself. She was going to depart after doing the necessary paperwork when Sagvekar allegedly used unlawful force, kissed her on the cheek and neck, held her hard, and made illegal physical contact. She was able to shove him away and left the scene right away.


Following her escape, the victim went back to her bank branch and told the operations head, branch manager, and a coworker about what had happened. She later complained to the Malad Police Station. Two days after being taken into custody on December 17, the accused was freed on bond. 


 The accused claimed that no witnesses were present at the scene of the crime and that the accusations were unfounded. However, even under cross-examination, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate B.N. Chikne deemed the woman's statement to be reliable and consistent throughout the trial. Despite the lack of eyewitnesses, the court found that the victim's testimony was sufficient to convict the accused.


Next, a point was raised – Why the female employee took time to file FIR? Why was there delay in reaching to the police?


The magistrate said that panic and fear in such situations are natural, and it is common for Indian women to hesitate before taking such cases to the public eye. “The delay has been properly explained,” the judge said.


In an attempt to justify himself, Sagvekar said that the woman had made a fake complaint against him because he disagreed with a savings plan she recommended and failed to reply to her "Hello" WhatsApp message. 


 The court dismissed this argument, ruling that the claim lacked credibility and that the woman had no reason to falsely accuse him. In addition to refusing to release Sagvekar on probation or a bond of good behavior, the accused asked the court to release him on a bond of good behavior. The magistrate declared, "The accused does not deserve leniency because this is an offense of moral turpitude."



Share:

Complaint Against DGM for Misconduct and Abusive Language in PSU Bank


The State Bank of India, Panchkula administrative office employees have officially filed a complaint, pointing out the Deputy General Manager's alleged misbehavior, hostile conduct, and use of derogatory language, which has resulted in a hazardous work environment and poisonous workplace culture. 


Staff and officers from State Bank of India's Administrative Office (AO) and Regional Business Office (RBO) in Panchkula filed a formal complaint with the State Bank of India Officers' Association at the Local Head Office in Chandigarh on June 24, 2025. In the complaint, the Deputy General Manager (DGM) (Business and Operations) is accused of misconduct, using abusive language, and engaging in behavior that has created a toxic and unhealthy work environment.


Allegations of Misconduct and Abusive Language


According to the complaint letter, the DGM has been accused of using abusive and insulting language towards employees. The staff allege that this behavior extends to senior officers, including Assistant General Managers and Chief Managers (CM). 


The letter mentions that the officer has frequently shouted at and threatened staff during office hours. Specific remarks highlighted in the complaint include phrases like "I will slam you to the ground," "All of you are idiots," "The entire AO staff is mad," "Bring him by the neck," "You all are garbage," and “Get out of my cabin.”




Concerns Over Mental Distress and Workplace Safety


The complaint emphasizes how the officer's actions have led to a poisonous workplace culture and a hazardous working environment. Deep emotional suffering, including anxiety, depression, and in certain cases, suicide thoughts, has been reported by staff personnel. Additionally, the petition notes that staff members are afraid to work under the DGM and are afraid to visit the the office due to the hostile atmosphere.


Request for Action

In the letter, the staff members have requested the Officers' Association to take up the matter with higher management. They seek necessary action to restore a safe and respectful work environment at the office.


Association Says Issue Taken Up Immediately with Circle Management

Speaking to Kanal, the association representative stated “Once we received the letter, we immediately took up the issue with the Circle Management. The Circle Management also took necessary action. A General Manager-level officer is heading the investigation.On June 26, an investigation was already conducted by him, and he was present at the office for the whole day. 


All the affected members have given their statements to him. The bank has taken necessary action, and we are closely following up the issue. We assure that whatever action is required will be taken because our Circle Management is very particular that such incidents should not happen in any office. The incident was reported just three days ago, and we are monitoring the situation closely. Let us wait and see how it unfolds over the next 2-3 days.”


The complaint by SBI AO/RBO Panchkula staff lists detailed incidents and includes staff signatures, reflecting their collective concerns about the work environment under the current leadership. The issue has been taken up by the association and is currently under internal investigation.

Share:

Bank of Baroda Chief Manager Dies by Suicide Due to Work Pressure


 A horrible event occurred in Baramati, Pune, where 52-year-old Shivshankar Mitra, the branch manager of Bank of Baroda, committed suicide. At the Bank of Baroda branch on Bhigwan Road, he served as the Chief Manager. 


 Finally, the suicide note is delivered. To view the suicide note, please scroll down. The event took place on Thursday, July 17, late at night. Inside the bank's grounds, Shivshankar Mitra was discovered dead. He had gone so far as to hang himself from the limb itself. He was originally from Uttar Pradesh.


Shivshankar Mitra left behind a devastating letter outlining his reasoning for taking his own life. He wrote that the bank was putting a lot of pressure on him. 


 Five days prior, he had submitted a voluntary retirement request, citing his inability to cope with the mounting pressure and workload. However, it is thought that he felt helpless and took this extreme action because senior officials failed to respond. 


 He stated unequivocally in his letter:

“I, Shivshankar Mitra, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Baramati, am committing suicide due to the additional pressure from the bank. Please do not put such pressure on other staff members. Everyone is doing their job with full dedication.”


He also expressed a noble wish — that his eyes be donated, if possible.

In his note, he also made it apparent that no one in his family was accountable and that he was acting alone and rationally. He requested that no one be held responsible for anything other than the stress he was experiencing at work. 


 He sent the following in a heartfelt letter to his family: 

“Priya, forgive me. Mahi, forgive me.”

(These are believed to be his wife and daughter.)


The cause of death has not yet been formally established by the authorities. Nonetheless, the circumstances and the note's contents suggest that work strain is the primary cause. This incident emphasizes how banking workers are experiencing increasing levels of mental stress and how their wellbeing needs to be given careful consideration.



Share:

Initial Report released by AAIB on Ahmedabad Air India Plane Crash : Full Report


Initial Report

 On June 12, 2025, an accident involving an Air India B787-8 aircraft registered VT-ANB occurred in Ahmedabad.


FOREWORD

This document has been prepared based on the preliminary facts and evidence collected during the investigation. The information is preliminary and subject to change.


In accordance with Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Rule 3 of Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents), Rules 2017, the sole objective of the investigation of an Accident/Incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents and not to apportion blame or liability.


The investigation conducted in accordance with the provisions of the above said rules shall be separate from any judicial or administrative proceedings to apportion blame or liability. Consequently, the use of this report for any purpose other than for the prevention of future accidents or incidents could lead to erroneous interpretations.




2. Background

On 12 June 2025, AAIB was notified of an accident involving Air India's B787 aircraft bearing registration VT-ANB at Ahmedabad. As per the notification, the aircraft was operating Flight AI171 from Ahmedabad to Gatwick and crashed at about 0809 UTC immediately after takeoff. The notification was received from the Airport Authority of India and the Airline Operator.


On receipt of the notification, a team of five officers from AAIB including DG, AAIB reached Ahmedabad on the same day. Another three officers from DGCA's Air Safety Directorate arrived from Mumbai to assist in the accident site activities and were put up at disposal of the DG, AAIB. The efforts at the site were led by the DG, AAIB and evidence collection and other site activities were carried out.


The Initial notification of the accident as per ICAO Annex 13 was sent to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), USA which represented the State of Design & Manufacture. As per the information notified to AAIB, the fatalities amongst passengers also included citizens from United Kingdom, Portugal and Canada. The initial notification of the accident as per ICAO Annex 13 was also sent to the AAIB-UK, GPIAAF-Portugal and Transportation Safety Board (TSB)-Canada which represented the other States whose citizens suffered fatalities in the accident.


NTSB, USA appointed an Accredited Representative and Technical Advisers from Boeing, GE and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to assist in this Investigation. A team led by the NTSB Accredited Representative comprising of representatives from Boeing, GE and FAA arrived at Ahmedabad on 15.06.2025 and participated in the Investigation. A team of officials from AAIB, UK also arrived at Ahmedabad and visited the site with DG, AAIB.


The DG-AAIB, in exercise of power conferred to him by the Rule 11 (1) of the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules 2017, appointed Investigation team comprising Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh as Investigator-in-Charge, Mr. Jasbir Singh Larhga as Chief Investigator and, Mr. Vipin Venu Varakoth, Mr. Veeraragavan K and Mr. Vaishnav Vijayakumar as Investigators.


Experienced Pilots, Engineers, Aviation Medicine Specialist, Aviation Psychologist and Flight Recorder Specialists have been taken on board as Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to assist the Investigation in the area of their domain expertise.



The last major line maintenance check as per the Aircraft Maintenance Program was L1-1 and L1-2 check carried out at 38504:12 Hrs and 7255 cycles. The next major check (D Check) was due on the aircraft in Dec 2025. The LH Engine with ESN956174 was installed on 01 May 2025 and the RH Engine with ESN956235 was installed on the aircraft on 26 Mar 2025.


There were four CAT ‘C' Minimum Equipment List (MEL) items active on aircraft as of 12.06.2025. These MELs were invoked on 09.06.2025 and validity of these MEL were till 19.06.2025. These MEL were for flight deck door visual surveillance, airport map function, core network, FD printer.


There was a CAT A MEL active w.r.t. Nitrogen generation performance, which was valid till 20.06.2025. There were other Category D MELs/NEFs on the aircraft related to cabin and cargo, the validity of these MELs were also within the due date. All applicable Airworthiness Directives and Alert Service Bulletins were complied on the aircraft as well as engines.


The FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 on December 17, 2018, regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature. This SAIB was issued based on reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. The airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive (AD) by the FAA. The fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models including part number 4TL837-3D which is fitted in B787-8 aircraft VT-ANB.


As per the information from Air India, the suggested inspections were not carried out as the SAIB was advisory and not mandatory. The scrutiny of maintenance records revealed that the throttle control module was replaced on VT-ANB in 2019 and 2023. However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switch. There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB.


5. Damages

The Aircraft was destroyed due to impact with the buildings on the ground and subsequent fire. A total of five buildings shown in the figure below were impacted and suffered major structural and fire damages.



6. Wreckage and Impact

After takeoff, the aircraft impacted the BJ Medical College hostel which is 0.9 NM from the departure end of Runway 23. The Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) was not activated during this event.


The wreckage, from the first impact point till the last identified aircraft item, was distributed in an area of approx. 1000 ft * 400 ft.A layout of the crash site has been given in Fig. 2 indicating the significant parts of the aircraft. The buildings at the wreckage site have been labelled alphabetically from A–F in the layout for easy reference.



As the aircraft was losing altitude, it initially made contact with a series of trees and an incineration chimney inside the Army Medical Corps compound before impacting the northeast wall of the Building A.




The distance between the tree on which the aircraft made its initial contact and the point on the Building A where the aircraft impacted is 293 ft.


As the aircraft moved forward, it continued fragmenting and collided with other structures and vegetation. The impact witness marks on the building and airplane indicated a likely nose-up attitude (about 8°) and wings level.



The vertical stabilizer (fig. 5) separated from the aft fuselage and came to rest about 200 feet south of the initial point of contact with the Building A.




The tail section and the RH Main Landing Gear (MLG) of the aircraft were found embedded in the northeast wall of the Building A while the rest of the airplane continued its forward movement.


As the airplane continued its path across the roof of the Building A, the right engine (fig. 6) struck the concrete water tank structure, separated from the airplane, and rested underneath the water tank structure facing a heading of approx. 226 degrees near the southwest wall of the Building A.




The inboard parts of the right wing were found in Buildings A & B and the areas surrounding the buildings. The right-wing mid-section and the outboard section (fig. 7) was about 280 feet and 520 feet southwest respectively from the initial point of contact with the Building A.




The left main landing gear (LH MLG) and left wing outboard and middle section struck Building C, came to rest approx. 345 feet south from the initial point of contact (fig. 8). The left wing middle section of the wing was stuck in the north corner of the fourth floor of the Building C while the left wing inboard section was lying about 670 feet southwest of the initial point of contact with the Building A (fig. 8).


The nose landing gear (NLG) (fig. 9) was found on the ground about 307 feet southwest from the initial point of contact with Building A.



The left engine (fig. 8) got separated from the airplane and struck the north corner of Building D at the ground level where it remained and was roughly perpendicular to the right engine resting position, at heading of approx. 326 degrees. The wall was pushed into the building and the northwest building column was damaged such that portions of the concrete. Were missing and exposing the internal metal rebar. The engine, remaining portions of attached cowling, and the surrounding area were heavily damaged by fire. After the tail section was brought down, the APU was inspected and found intact inside the APU compartment. The APU air inlet door (fig. 10), which was intact, was found open.


The fuselage fragmented and sustained thermal damage as it traveled along the northwest faces of Buildings C, D, E, and F, with the furthest debris observed at about 765 feet southwest from the initial point of contact with Building A. The flight deck area and windshield support structure came to rest at about 650 feet southwest from the initial point of contact with Building A.



The flap handle assembly (fig. 11) sustained significant thermal damage. The handle was found to be firmly seated in the 5-degree flap position, consistent with a normal takeoff flap setting. The position was also confirmed from the EAFR data. The landing gear lever was in “DOWN” position (fig. 12).


The thrust lever quadrant sustained significant thermal damage. Both thrust levers were found near the aft (idle) position. However, the EAFR data revealed that the thrust levers remained forward (takeoff thrust) until the impact. Both fuel control switches were found in the “RUN” position (fig. 13). The reverser levers were bent but were in the “stowed” position. The wiring from the TO/GA switches and autothrottle disconnect switches were visible, but heavily damaged.








11. Flight Recorders

The aircraft is equipped with two Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFR) part number 866-0084-102. The EAFR are fitted at two locations, one in the tail section at STA 1847 and the other in the forward section at STA 335.


The two EAFRs are similar in construction and record a combined data stream of digital flight data and cockpit voice information, with both stored on the same device.


The aft EAFR receives electrical power from the aircraft's main electrical system. The forward EAFR contains an additional power source from the Recorder Independent Power Supply (RIPS), a system that provides electrical power to the forward EAFR in the event of a power or bus loss on the aircraft.


This allows the forward EAFR to continue to record available digital flight data and voice data from the Cockpit Area Microphone (CAM), even after power is lost to other aircraft systems.




The aft EAFR was located on the rooftop of Building A on 13th June 2025. The EAFR had impact and thermal damages to the housing. The wires were protruding from the housing and the connectors were burnt.


The forward EAFR was located on 16th June 2025 from the wreckage debris beside Building F. The EAFR was burnt and covered in soot. The EAFR was still attached to the equipment shelf with part of the connector melted but still connected. The ULB was still connected to the housing and the lithium battery was also attached to the equipment shelf, which was removed later prior to transportation.


Both EAFRs were transported from Ahmedabad to AAIB's facility at New Delhi on 24th June 2025. Like various other cases where the data from damaged flight recorders was downloaded by AAIB after sourcing ‘Golden Chassis' and relevant download cables from the DGCA and other Accident Investigation Authorities, in this case the ‘Golden Chassis' (Identical EAFR unit) and download cables required to download data from EAFR were sourced from NTSB, USA. The items arrived on 23rd June 2025.


The download from the FWD EAFR was attempted at the AAIB Lab on 24th June 2025. The CPM was retrieved from the EAFR and found to be in good condition. The CPM was mounted on the Golden Chassis and the raw data was downloaded from the EAFR.


The downloaded flight data contained approximately 49 hours of flight data and 6 flights, including the event flight. The recovered audio was two hours in length and captured the event. Initial analysis of the recorded audio and flight data has been done.


The aft EAFR was substantially damaged and could not be downloaded through conventional means. The CPM was opened to inspect the memory card. The damage was extensive.


12. Accident Flight

On 12th June 2025, Air India's B787-8 aircraft bearing registration VT-ANB arrived at Ahmedabad airport operating flight AI423 from Delhi. The aircraft touched down at 05:47 UTC (11:17 IST) and was parked at bay 34.


The crew of the previous flight (AI423) had made Pilot Defect Report (PDR) entry for status message “STAB POS XDCR” in the Tech Log. The troubleshooting was carried out as per FIM by Air India's on-duty AME, and the aircraft was released for flight at 06:40 UTC.


The aircraft was scheduled to operate flight AI171 from Ahmedabad to Gatwick with ETD 07:40 UTC (13:10 IST). The flight was to be operated by the flight crew comprising an ATPL holder PIC, a CPL holder Co-pilot along with ten cabin crew. Both pilots were based at Mumbai and had arrived at Ahmedabad on the previous day. They had adequate rest period prior to operating the said flight. The co-pilot was Pilot Flying (PF), and the PIC was Pilot Monitoring (PM) for the flight.


The crew of flight AI171 arrived at the airport and underwent preflight Breath Analyzer test at 06:25 UTC and were found fit to operate the flight. The crew is seen arriving at the boarding gate in the CCTV recording at about 07:05 UTC (12:35 IST).


There were 230 passengers on board, out of which 15 passengers were in business class and 215 passengers were in economy class including two infants.


Fuel on board was 54,200 Kgs and as per the load and trim sheet of the flight, the Take-off Weight was 2,13,401 Kgs (Max. allowed - 2,18,183 Kgs). The take-off weight was within allowable limits for the given conditions. There was no ‘Dangerous Goods' on the aircraft.


The calculated V speeds with available conditions at Take-Off were V1 - 153 Kts, Vr - 155 Kts, V2 - 162 Kts.


The A-SMGCS replay of the flight was also carried out after the accident. The aircraft was observed departing from bay 34 at 07:48:38 UTC. The taxi clearance was received at 07:55:15 UTC and the aircraft taxied from the bay at 07:56:08 UTC. The aircraft taxied to Runway 23 via Taxiway R4, backtracked and lined up. The take-off clearance was issued at 08:07:33 UTC. The aircraft started rolling at 08:07:37 UTC.


As per the EAFR data, the aircraft crossed the take-off decision speed V1 and achieved 153 kts IAS at 08:08:33 UTC. The Vr speed (155 kts) was achieved as per the EAFR at 08:08:35 UTC. The aircraft air/ground sensors transitioned to air mode, consistent with liftoff at 08:08:39 UTC.


The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off.


In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so. The CCTV footage obtained from the airport showed Ram Air Turbine (RAT) getting deployed during the initial climb immediately after lift-off (fig. 15). No significant bird activity is observed in the vicinity of the flight path. The aircraft started to lose altitude before crossing the airport perimeter wall.


As per the EAFR data, both engines' N2 values passed below minimum idle speed, and the RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power at about 08:08:47 UTC.


RAT in extended position



As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about 08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter, at 08:08:56 UTC, the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN.


When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engine's full authority dual engine control (FADEC) automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction.


The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1's core deceleration stopped, reversed, and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11 UTC.

At about 08:09:05 UTC, one of the pilots transmitted “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY”. The ATCO enquired about the call sign. ATCO did not get any response but observed the aircraft crashing outside the airport boundary and activated the emergency response.


At 08:14:44 UTC, Crash Fire Tender left the airport premises for rescue and firefighting. They were joined by Fire and Rescue services of Local Administration.


13. Progress of Investigation

The wreckage site activities including drone photography/videography have been completed, and the wreckage has been moved to a secure area near the airport.


Both engines were retrieved from the wreckage site and quarantined at a hangar in the airport. Components of interest for further examinations have been identified and quarantined.


Fuel samples taken from the bowsers and tanks used to refuel the aircraft were tested at the DGCA's lab and found satisfactory.


Very limited amount of fuel samples could be retrieved from the APU filter and Refuel/Jettison valve of left wing. The testing of these samples will be done at a suitable facility capable of carrying out the test with the limited available quantity.


The EAFR data downloaded from forward EAFR is being analyzed in detail. The statement of the witnesses and the surviving passenger have been obtained by the investigators.


Complete analysis of postmortem reports of the crew and the passengers is being undertaken to corroborate aeromedical findings with the engineering appreciation.


Additional details are being gathered based on the initial leads. At this stage of investigation, there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers.


Investigation is continuing and the investigation team will review and examine additional evidence, records, and information that is being sought from the stakeholders.

Source - MoneyControl

Share:

Bank Employee Warned for Ordering Pizza During Office Hours





Recently, a shocking explanation letter has been issued to a bank employee for ordering Pizza at office. The employee has been asked to reply why he ordered and ate pizza during office hours. The incident happened at Punjab Gramin Bank in Jalandhar Region.


The Letter said:

With reference to captioned subject, it has been observed that today i.e. 26-05-2025 you have ordered Pizza at 12:00 and started eating the same in office hours at your seat.


Not only it has been violation of lunch hours rules but also created indiscipline and not adhering to set rules and practice.


In view of above, you are advised to submit your reply within two days of receiving this letter, than why disciplinary action should not be initiated against you for violating rules as well as set practices of Bank.


What you think of this, do let us know in the comment section below.


Source - Hellobanker

Share:

Public Sector Banks Surpass Private Banks in Loan Disbursals


In India, government banks have recovered significantly. Public sector banks (PSBs) have provided more loans than private banks for the first time in fifteen years. This represents a significant shift in the nation's banking industry. In the personal loan market, where government banks are currently lending more quickly than private banks, the expansion has been particularly robust. This change demonstrates how actively and competitively government banks are responding to consumer demands. For the first time in more than ten years, public sector banks have surpassed private banks in terms of overall loan distribution, making this accomplishment a significant turning point. Customers' increasing faith in government banks and their better performance in recent years are reflected in it.


Reason behind this

According to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other financial reports, one of the main reasons of increase in loan disbursals of government banks is that private banks like HDFC Bank and Axis Bank have slowed down their lending. In recent years, private banks usually led in giving loans, but now they are lending less compared to public sector banks.


The fact that government banks are more active in managing loan programs started by the federal and state governments could be another factor. These include programs that give small workers and merchants financial support, such as the PM Vishwakarma Yojana and the PM Svanidhi Yojana. Public sector banks have supplied the majority of the loans under these schemes, with private banks participating in very little of them. This may be a major factor in the fact that public banks are currently lending more money than private ones.


How Much Have Public Sector Banks Grown?

By December 2024, public sector banks recorded a strong 17% growth in personal loan disbursals, while private banks managed only 10% growth in the same category. This clearly shows that public banks are stepping up and winning borrower trust in the retail loan space. Public sector banks aren’t just leading in personal loans—they’re also ahead in industrial and service sector loans.

  • Industrial loans: Public banks provided 60% of the total ₹37.9 lakh crore
  • Service sector loans: They contributed 56% of ₹49.9 lakh crore
  • Personal loans: Public sector banks disbursed 52% of ₹51.1 lakh crore

This wide lead proves that PSBs are playing a much larger role in supporting India’s economy across sectors.

Credit Growth vs Deposits

Interestingly, for the fourth year in a row, banks have given out more loans than the money they have received through deposits.This kind of trend is very rare and has happened only two times in the last 50 years. Most of the money banks received as deposits came from Fixed Deposits (FDs), which made up 86% of the total increase in deposits. As of December 2024, half of all the money kept in banks is now in the form of term deposits like FDs.

Home Loans

Government banks are also doing very well in giving home loans, especially in smaller cities (Tier-3) and rural areas. In the financial year 2024–25, public sector banks gave out 46.4% of all home loans, up from 45.1% the year before.Meanwhile, private banks saw a small drop in their share of home loans—from 54.9% to 53.6%. During this period, public banks gave out ₹2.1 lakh crore in new home loans, which makes up 56.1% of all home loans given that year.

Non-Resident Indians (NRIs)

Deposits by Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) grew well in the financial year 2024–25. Their total deposits increased by 10%, reaching ₹14.16 lakh crore by March 2025. About half of these deposits are in fixed deposits (FDs), which shows that NRIs still have strong trust in India’s public banks for saving their money for the long term.

Share:

RBI imposed penalty of Rs.63.60 lakh on PSU Bank


Union Bank of India was hit with a ₹63.60 lakh fine by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for not meeting certain regulatory standards. The May 23, 2025, penalty order lists non-compliance with RBI's rules on collateral-free agricultural loans as well as violations of Section 26A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. 


The decision comes after the RBI examined Union Bank's financial situation as of March 31 in 2023 and 2024 as part of its regular inspections under the Statutory Inspections for Supervisory Evaluation (ISE) program. 


Two significant infractions were found during the inspections: 

Delay in Transfer of Depositor Education and Awareness Fund: 

The bank did not make the required timely transfer of eligible unclaimed funds to the Depositor Education and Awareness (DEA) Fund.


Based on these findings, the RBI issued a show-cause notice to the bank, asking it to explain why a penalty should not be imposed. After reviewing the bank’s written response and oral submissions during a hearing, the RBI concluded that the violations were valid and warranted financial penalties.


The RBI emphasized that the penalty is strictly related to regulatory compliance shortcomings and does not question the legality or validity of the bank’s agreements with its customers. It also noted that this action is without prejudice to any further actions that may be taken in the future.


This enforcement reflects RBI’s ongoing commitment to ensuring banks adhere strictly to rules, particularly those aimed at protecting depositors and supporting priority sectors like agriculture.

Share:

  Useful links for Bankers
   * Latest DA Updates
   * How to recover Bad loans/NPA Acs
   * Latest 12th BPS Updates
   * Atal Pension Yojana (APY)
   * Tips while taking charge as Manager
   * Software used by Banks in India
   * Finacle Menus, Shortcuts & Commands
   * Balance Inquiry Number of all Banks
   * PSU & Private Banks Quarterly result
   * Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *