At the Punjab National Bank Currency Chest in Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, a cash discrepancy of Rs. 1 crore has been recorded. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has received a plea from the officer assigned to the currency chest. An independent probe of a purported ₹1 crore cash disparity in the bank's currency chest in Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, has been requested by the officer.
The petitioner has claimed that attempts were made to place the blame for the disparity on him, that official records were manipulated, and that the true cash position was concealed.
According to the petition, the bank officer joined the Punjab National Bank, Mandsaur branch, as the Branch Manager and took charge of the currency chest on May 6, 2025. The charge of the currency chest was formally handed over to him by O.P. Sharma, who continued to work at the same branch until June 2, 2025. The petition has been filed by Bank Officer Anuj Sharma, who is currently under suspension.
The petition states that he was placed under suspension despite being the officer who first detected and reported the discrepancy. He has approached the Court claiming protection as a whistleblower and alleging apprehension of retaliatory action.
After taking charge, the petitioner examined the currency chest records and allegedly found serious differences between the actual cash records maintained in Bin Cards and the figures shown in the daily currency chest reports that were sent to the bank’s higher authorities.
According to the petition, the disparities were part of an ongoing pattern of official record falsification rather than being coincidental. The petitioner claims that by creating false daily reports, the true cash position in the currency chest was hidden. He has claimed that the true cash shortage was concealed by these reports.
According to the petitioner, discrepancies in Bin Cards, Bin Registers, and Daily Currency Chest Reports kept for the chest were discovered. According to the plea, irregularities in the data persisted for several months and were connected to a bin containing ₹500 denomination notes. The timeline presented before the Court states that the abnormalities started to appear in records in January 2025 and persisted after that.
After discovering the alleged shortage, the petitioner informed the Circle Head of Punjab National Bank, Ujjain, through a detailed communication dated May 13, 2025. In his report, he disclosed an alleged cash discrepancy of ₹1 crore. The matter was also brought to the notice of other concerned bank officials, including O.P. Sharma.
The petition further alleges that before the scheduled audit on September 22, 2025, the petitioner was repeatedly told that the issue would be managed.
Later, he allegedly discovered that ₹1 crore was temporarily arranged from Smriti Nagrik Sahakari Bank, a local cooperative bank, only for the purpose of the audit. According to the petition, the money was returned after the audit was completed.
The petitioner has claimed that these allegations require a detailed investigation by examining bank records, cash transactions, and statements of the officials involved. He also informed another branch employee who was serving as the Joint Custodian of the currency chest.
The petitioner stated that on May 19, 2025, he received an email from the PNB Zonal Audit Office, Bhopal, asking him to explain certain issues. A second email was sent on May 26, 2025, referring to a supplementary investigation. According to the petition, these communications raised issues such as the non-maintenance of the takeover register for temporary joint custodians and the storage of duplicate vault keys.
The petitioner has claimed that despite reporting the ₹1 crore discrepancy to senior officials, the bank later attempted to hold him responsible for the alleged manipulation of records. He argued that instead of investigating the reported shortage, the focus shifted towards questioning his conduct.
The petition states that the officer submitted a representation to the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on June 8, 2026, requesting an independent inquiry into the alleged cash discrepancy. He also filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, but according to the petition, no effective action was taken.
Following the hearing, the Madhya Pradesh High Court sent out a notice on the writ petition and asked the parties involved to respond. The High Court is currently considering the matter for additional proceedings.
The respondents were given time to submit their responses by Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, who heard the case at the Indore Bench. The Central Bureau of Investigation's attorney requested time to react, and the Punjab National Bank authorities' attorney wanted time to record their vakalatnama, according to the court. The Court listed the case right away after instructing the respondents to submit their responses within three weeks.
