A Rajasthan High Court order in a former State Bank of India officer's bribery complaint has reportedly been followed by an ACB FIR registered on 29 October 2026. The original police record was not independently obtained; the fresh report and the legal background are carefully attributed.
Reported FIR follows Rajasthan High Court direction
The Rajasthan Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) registered a first information report against two former State Bank of India officials on 29 October 2026 in an alleged bribery case, according to a fresh report by The Kanal. The action reportedly followed a Rajasthan High Court order dated 5 October directing registration of a criminal case and a full investigation. The case relates to a former SBI Chief Manager’s complaint about alleged demands for money linked to departmental matters.
The new report identifies the police record as FIR No. 306/2026, registered in the ACB district jurisdiction at Jaipur. The court proceeding was described as S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7343/2024, Vivek Sharma v State of Rajasthan. The reported FIR date is later than the court’s decision and is the substantive new development. This article is about an investigation, not a verdict establishing corruption.
What the High Court decided—and what it did not
Separate legal reporting by LiveLaw and Law4u confirms that the Rajasthan High Court reviewed an ACB preliminary enquiry into a bribery complaint involving SBI officials. The reports say the court set aside findings from the preliminary enquiry and directed the bureau to register an FIR and carry out a proper investigation. The court took issue with the failure to investigate adequately after information indicating a cognizable offence had emerged.
The original certified High Court order was not independently obtained for this article. Accordingly, the description of its operative directions is based on the identified legal reports, not a claim that Branch Wale personally inspected the signed judgment. The reported judicial direction did not convict the accused or determine that the original bribery allegations were proved.
How the dispute developed
The former Chief Manager’s complaint dates to 2022. He alleged that bank officials sought money in connection with disciplinary or service-related proceedings. The original accusations, including a reported demand for ₹40 lakh, were allegations by the complainant. They should not be described as an established payment or a proven bribe.
The ACB conducted an earlier verification and preliminary enquiry. According to the legal reports, the complainant challenged the bureau’s findings and closure-related recommendation. The High Court’s 5 October order then required a criminal investigation. The Kanal subsequently reported that two former officials were named in the FIR filed on 29 October.
Former officer’s separate approach to SBI vigilance
The Kanal also reports that the former Chief Manager has approached SBI’s Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO), seeking a review of his dismissal, scrutiny of additional officials and an opportunity for a personal hearing. These are requests made by the complainant. They do not establish that the bank accepted his version, that his dismissal was reversed, or that additional officials have been made accused in the ACB case.
The complainant’s service dispute and the ACB’s criminal investigation are distinct processes. The latter concerns whether an alleged offence occurred; the former concerns bank employment and service decisions. The High Court order directing investigation must not be stretched into an order reinstating the former officer.
What remains unverified
- The original ACB FIR and a certified copy of the court’s October order were not directly accessible in this research. The reported FIR number, date and persons named therefore remain attributed to The Kanal’s account.
- No charge-sheet, conviction, final adjudication or authenticated SBI response to the latest CVO representation was inspected.
- Assertions about other officers raised in the complainant’s representation are not findings against them. This report does not publish unverified additional names.
Why this matters to SBI staff
The case illustrates why allegations in a service dispute, preliminary enquiries, an FIR and an actual conviction must be reported separately. Bank employees should rely on documented disciplinary orders, authenticated case records and applicable service rules for individual grievances. The reported developments do not create any general change to SBI’s disciplinary policy or employees’ legal rights.
Future material developments would include an authenticated investigation update, a court order, a formal response from the bank or a decision in the separate service proceeding. Until then, the allegations remain contested and the legal process ongoing.
Sources and References
- The Kanal — SBI Bribery Case: ACB Registers FIR Against Two Former Officials; Former Chief Manager Seeks Action Against More Officers, Questions Vigilance Response
- LiveLaw — Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 19 – October 25, 2026 (31 October 2026)
- Law4u — ACB Directed to Register FIR Over ₹40 Lakh Bribery Allegation Against SBI Officials (22 October 2026)
Please consult the cited sources and check the exact applicability of any legal or employment change. Corrections are welcomed.
Join the discussion