7. That in the light of aforesaid evidences, punishment of my ‘compulsory retirement’ at the age when I was young and having more than 10 years remaining service with large liabilities of three daughters without a son and without wife, alongwith a cancerous disease of Flaria in my right leg which is un-cureable and medical science has no cure whatsoever of it. Charge IV (2) – Account No.KCC 86 – 1349 Baljit Kaur W/o Harwinder Singh & Others for Rs.5 lac DOA 30-06-2007 He sanctioned KCC limit of Rs.5 lac on 30-06-2007 in favour of Baljit Kaur, R/o village Hussainpura and Pawan Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Sachin Kumar Ss/o Dev Raj, R/o village Shahpur Patti and committed the following irregularties. a) Revenue record (fard jamabandi and fard hakiat) showing the ownership of agr.land msg 75K 10M of Smt.Baljit Kaur and 6K 8M of Sanjeev Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Sachin Kumar. As per certificate given by Halka Patwari, the land holding of Smt.Baljit Kaur W/o Sh.Harwinder Singh is bogus/fake. Total land holding of the other co-borrowers as stated above is only 6K 8M. Thus, he sanctioned KCC limit of Rs.5 lac against the land holding 6K 8M in violation of bank’s guidelines. Thus, he unauthorisedly accommodated the parties. Present outstanding in the account is Rs.5,90,897/- and the account is running irregular. Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The Inquiry Officer has proved the charge and the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the same. Case of the defence 1. That the allegation is itself inconsistent and vague and also colourful exercise because on the one hand, it has been lmentioned that I had sanctioned the limits against the land msg 75K 10M for Rs.5 lac but on the other hand, it has been simultaneously mentioned that I had sanctioned the limit of Rs.5 lac against the landholding of 6K 8M. 2. That while considering the land msg 75K 10M of Smt.Baljit Kaur on the basis of certified copies of statement of holding, legal report from the panel Advocate was also obtained who has confirmed that the land was existing as well as free from all encumbrances and on the basis of the same, the sanction of limit was considered. Thus, whatever it was done, the same has been as per procedure of the bank, in due course and in good faith. Thus, whatever it is attributed on the basis of allegation, the same is to the Advocate concerned. 3. That while framing the charges, a colourful exercise has been done by manipulating in such a manner that I was aware of that the statement of land holding was false and I have knowingly considered higher limits which is not the case as is also evident from the statement of imputation. 4. That the land msg 6K 8M is also mortgaged in favour of the bank valuing Rs.40 lac approx. to secure the loan amount of Rs.5 lac. Thus, the interest of the bank is fully secured. 5. That the loan application was processed and appraised by the other officer and as such the allegation is not remotely attributable to me in terms of internal circular No.45/2000, 44/2004 of Insp. and Control Divn., with regard to staff accountability wherein it has been envisaged that the proposal would be examined by the appraising officer at its micro level whereas it would be examined by the sanctioning authority at its macro level i.e. to tick mark the check list for the various documents and reports required in the loan account for sanction if the same are in order. 6. That from the conduct of the imputation, no ill motives or malafides are inferred against me and whatever it has been, the same is in due course and in good faith and it may happen with any of the sanctioning authorities, despite all safeguards. 7. But the error is not so grave that it has warranted punishment of my ‘compulsory retirement’ at the age when I was young and having more than 10 years remaining service with large liabilities of three daughters without a son and without wife, alongwith a cancerous disease of Flaria in my right leg which is un-cureable and medical science has no cure whatsoever of it. Charge IV (2) (b) He did not adhere to the KYC norms of Smt.Baljit Kaur as no photograph, photo, ID proof, proof of residence address etc., are held on record. Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The Inquiry Officer has proved the charge and the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the same. Case of the defence 1. That in order to ascertain KYC norms, the SF account was opened vide Exbt M65, account No.630130 Pawan Kumar etc., wherein all the documents relating to KYC norms have been obtained. 2. That no documents were adduced to prove that KYC norms were not adhered to except Exbt M130 which is investigation report but the same is not a ratified document but redundant. 3. That it is not the case of the bank that there has been impersonation in the account. 4. That the lapse, if any, could have been ratified through administrative orders. 5. That the error is not so grave that it has warranted punishment of my ‘compulsory retirement’ at the age when I was young and having more than 10 years remaining service with large liabilities of three daughters without a son and without wife, alongwith a cancerous disease of Flaria in my right leg which is un-cureable and medical science has no cure whatsoever of it. Charge IV (2) ( c ) Allegation – Most of the vital columns of loan application PNB762 are incomplete and photographs of the borrowers not affixed on the loan applications. Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The Inquiry Officer has proved the charge but the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the same. Case of the defence 1. The photographs of the borrowers have already been embossed/affixed on the mortgage deed alongwith their identification and verification by the Nambardar in terms of Exbt M71 (a-h). Thus, the allegation has been proved on the basis of trivial or hypertechnical observations in a deliberate manner that as to why the photos are not affixed only and only on the loan application itself, by ignoring the merit that the borrowers are identifiable from the photographs available on the mortgaged deed. 2. That the error is not so grave that it has warranted punishment of my ‘compulsory retirement’ at the age when I was young and having more than 10 years remaining service with large liabilities of three daughters without a son and without wife, alongwith a cancerous disease of Flaria in my right leg which is un-cureable and medical science has no cure whatsoever of it. Charge V – Housing Loans 1. Account NC 102 Sh.Vipan Sony & Anjali Soni a) Allegation – He sanctioned housing loan of Rs.3 lac on 29-12-2006 for carrying out repair and renovation of existing house situated behind Shitla Mandir Banga. The charge on property has not been created. Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The Inquiry Officer has proved the charge and the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the same. Case of the defence 1. That the loan was sanctioned for purchase of plot and not for repairs or renovation of the existing house. Moreover, neither there has been any existing house nor it was considered for sanction. This fact is evident that there is no estimate, no approved map or plan of the house, valuation of the existing house etc., which are the basis ingredients for such sanctions. 2. That the allegation is nothing but a colourful exercise only to flash and project artificial serious irregularities because I was a weak party being an Officer employee. 3. That the plot for which, loan was sanctioned was duly got mortgaged at BO Nawanshahar (Main) which was designated for the purpose. 4. That despite my demand, the report from BO Nawanshahar (Main) was not provided. 5. That the Appellate Authority is specifically, honestly and respectfully requested to summon the record from BO Nawanshahar (main) and to get it verified if the plot is mortgaged with the branch or not. 6. That I have been knowingly implicated in the case for the annoyance of the investigating officer and the Regional Head for the reasons best known to them. 7. That it is not known to the charge that as to why it was a sanction for repair and renovation of house and not for purchase of plot. 8. The account has since been closed on 01-09-2011. Charge V-1(b) The loan mentioned at (a) above has not been utilized for the purpose for which, it was sanctioned. He disbursed the loan for purchase of plot instead of carrying out repair and renovation of the house for which, the loan was sanctioned. Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The Inquiry Officer has proved the charge and the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the same. Case of the defence 1. That as already submitted in the preceding charge, the loan was sanctioned for purchase of plot and neither there has been a house nor the documents relating to a house or for renovation & repair. 2. That the charge is nothing but a deliberate colourful exercise for the annoyance of the investigating officer etc., 3. That in terms of Exbt M100 and 101 dated 20-03-2007, the loan was disbursed by the 2nd man Sh.M.L.Ahuja for the same purpose, for which it was sanctioned. 4. That the cost of the plot has been Rs.7.50 lac whereas the loan was sanctioned Rs.3 lac, but disbursed Rs.2.40 lac. 5. That it is not understood that as to how it has been construed to be a housing loan when there is no estimate, there is no map and plan, there is no architect’s report for valuation of house etc., and also no allegation for want of these documents required incase of repair and renovation of house. 6. That when the allegation has been leveled for misutilisation of the loan then, it would have also been verified if there was a house or not owned by the borrower. But the statement of imputation is silent on this issue not inadvertently but knowingly because it was in their knowledge that neither there was a house owned by the borrower nor any repair for the same was required. Thus, there is nothing in the allegation except a fictitious/colourful exercise by the authority who has drafted the charge sheet so that a strong case of vigilance is made out and I am thrown out of window of the bank. 7. That it is not known to the charge that as to why it was a sanction for repair and renovation of house and not for purchase of plot. 8. That the Appellate Authority is requested to summon the records and to verify it. Charge V-1 ( c ) Out of above loan of Rs.3 lac sanctioned for repair and renovation of house, he disbursed Rs.2.40 lac on 20-03-2007 and has given a draft of Rs.3.60 lac including borrower’s margin of Rs.1.20 lac to Sh.Vikas Kumar S/o Sh.Gulab Mal on 20-03-2007 for purchase of plot from Sh.Surjit Singh through his general power of attorney holder Sh.Vikas Kumar. However, the charge on property has not been created. Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The Inquiry Officer has proved the charge and the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the same. Case of the defence 1. That as per Exbt M100 being consideration vouchers for Rs.2.40 lac, these were prepared and signed by Sh.M.L.Ahuja, 2nd man and he has thus disbursed the loan also. 2. That there is no deficiency in disbursement because the loan was sanctioned for purchase of plot instead of repair and renovation of the house as alleged. 3. That the charge on the property was created at BO Nawanshahr (Main) for which, the Appellate Authority may summon the records which was not adduced on the record of enquiry. Charge V-1 (d) The borrower is resident of Banga Town which is about 30 Kms from BO Usmanpur, thus, he has violated bank’s norms/guidelines with regard to financing within command area. Present balance o/s as on 07-09-09 in the account is Rs.1,12,997/- Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The Inquiry Officer has proved the charge and the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the same. Case of the defence 1. That in financing housing loans, no distance criteria has been fixed by the bank in view of the neck to neck competition with other banks for any other reason, best known to the Head Office. 2. That no circular has been adduced thereby stipulating any distance area relating to housing loan scheme. 3. That there is no command area concept in the banks which was dispensed with long back when the service area approach concept was done away. 4. That the present outstanding shows fast recovery and before schedule of repayment. 5. The account is not NPA. 6. That there is no charge except a colourful deliberate exercise to flash as a huge bungling so that I may be thrown out of bank. 7. That the allegation has been proved merely on the basis of investigation report M130 which is an un-ratified and redundant document. 8. That as to why the amount has not been recalled and transferred to NPA, when it is a case of wrong sanction/wrong disbursement/misutilisation of loan proceeds/being a fraud case/being no principal or collateral security/all possible and unforeseen defaults/all bad characters in the loan account/being borrower fraudulent etc., and all possible bad characters in the borrower and the loan account?
Posted on: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:55:00 +0000