Charge V-2-Housing Loan A/c No.NC 12 Smt.Gurdev Kaur The above borrower was sanctioned housing loan of Rs.4.50 lac on 30-03-2006 for construction of house. As per the extant guidelines of the bank, the loan was to be disbursed in stage looking into the progress of construction of house but he has allowed entire disbursement of Rs.4.50 lac on 30-03-2006 in one stroke in violation to bank’s guidelines. He has also failed to verify the end use of funds released and did not obtain completion certificate from bank’s approved Architect. Present o/s as on 07-09-2009in the account is Rs.5.28,212/- and the account is running irregular. Findings of Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The Inquiry Officer has proved the charge and the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the same. Case of the defence That there is no substance in the allegation except projecting a colourful exercise in order to give vigilance overtone and to enhance the quantum of punishment because for one minor and trivial observation, unwarranted highly projected statement of imputation has been prepared and to quote as under:- a) That on 30-03-2006 it was annual closing and thus the loan proceeds were parked in the SF account of the borrower with a lien for disbursement of loan into stages. However, the borrower was not allowed to withdraw the amount like withdrawals from SF accounts as it is in other SF accounts. He was advised to withdraw the amount only after showing progress in construction of the house and submit afresh application for withdrawal to be allowed by the competent authority. Thus, practically and virtually. No amount was paid to the borrower on 30-03-2006 and it was only parked in his SF account with the same o/s. b) That thereafter the borrower has shown progress in the construction duly verified by the bank officials and submitted fresh application on 03-05-2006 after lapse of 33 days for withdrawal of one instalment as it is evident from the Exbt D20 (a). c) That thereafter, after lapse of further 22 days the party has submitted further application for withdrawal of another instalment on 25-05-2006 as it is evident from the Exbt D20 (b). d) That thereafter, the borrower has further submitted the application on 05-06-2006 for withdrawal of next instalment as it is evident from the Exbt D20 (c ) and thus the funds were allowed to be withdrawn after lapse of 67 days against a meager amount of Rs.4.50 lac. It was not such a big amount say Rs.20 lac or Rs.30 or Rs.100 laclac that a huge building was to be constructed. To invest a sum of Rs.4.50 lac during a period of 67 to 100 days is quite sufficient. But the fact remains that the loan was not disbursed in one go but in various controlled and regulated instalments upto 05-06-2006 vide Exbt D20 ( a to c ). Thus, it was nothing but preparing a colourful exercise in the name of imputation. AT the most it could have been alleged that I have regulated the disbursement through the SF account instead of T/L and even if it was so, even then, no malafide is proved on my part because neither I have been a beneficiary nor I have gained anything out of it except foolishness that I have allowed the bank to earn higher rate of interest in the term loan account by paying no interest in SF account thereby further increasing the figures of advances and deposit to the benefit of the bank and that too without any window dressing and false manipulation of the figures. e) That it is not the case of the bank that the amount was misutilized and the house has not been constructed and after being so, there is no merit in the allegation except to increase a number of statement of imputations based on hyper technical observations by using the same as a tool. When the house has already been constructed and when the bank authorities are satisfied that the house has been constructed and no case of misutilization of bank funds is made out then what is the significance to prepare such a lengthy statement of imputation. It is also added that there is a difference in foolishness and acting with as ill motivated for personal gains and a monetary benefit. It is surprising that bank has earned profits out of these foolish transactions whereas I have been thrown out of bank for the same act. f) That to obtain completion certificate only from bank’s approved Architect is nothing but inclusion of technical aspects in the statement of imputation. The relevant fact is that the house has been constructed and the funds of the bank have been properly utilized and the disbursement in instalments were duly regulated in various stages. That to raise the observation after lapse of four years period is nothing but a case of my discrimination and also serious violation of the instructions of the bank as contained in the vigilance manual while para 22 and also a flashed message of the worthy CMD of the bank dated 23-05-2011 in the name of Staff Accountability vis-à-vis New paradigm wherein the reference of Insp.and audit Divn., (IAD) Circ.No.25/10 dt.31-03-2010 has been made by giving 100% assurance and guarantee that no officer would be penalized in the name of disciplinary action proceedings relating to their those actions which were taken four years back. However, for the purpose of brevity, the para 22 of Vigilance Manual being substantive and statutory is nature is also introduced hereunder:- 22 TIME LIMIT FOR INITIATION OF DISC. PROCEEDINGS “Every Bank has evolved a system of Credit audit/inspection for non-borrowal/ borrower accounts under which they are subjected to close scrutiny. This audit/inspection would scrutinize pre-sanction appraisal, documentation and disbursement of loans/advances and post sanction follow up. If any irregularity is missed out by auditors/inspectors in the first audit/inspection, it is reasonable to expect that the remaining undetected irregularities will be detected in the second audit/ inspection and necessary disciplinary proceeding initialed against the concerned officials in the follow up action. Normally the second audit / inspection would be completed within 3-4 years, The Commission has accordingly approved the proposal that no disciplinary proceeding will ordinarily lie against any official for any lapse not detected within two successive internal regular audits/inspections of the same account or 4 years from the date of event, whichever is later. In case any irregularity is detected subsequent to the second audit/inspection, the auditors/inspectors concerned will be held accountable and be liable for disciplinary proceedings. This time limit will not apply to cases of I) frauds, ii) other criminal offences or iii) cases where mafafides are inferable.” 3. 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 (2) Allegation- In all the above account ( housing loan account number NC-102 and NC-12) he did not prepare RBL score sheet to assess the eligibility of the borrowers. Sh.Mahi has also not obtained the valuation certificate of IP. Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The Inquiry Officer has proved the charge and the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the findings. Case of the defence 1. That neither any evidence was adduced nor any witness was examined on this issue except exhibiting M130 (f) which is investigation report without any Annexure as original evidence and without examination of its author and thus it was an un-ratified and a redundant document. Thus, the allegation is without an evidence. 2. That the CRs were duly prepared wherein the valuation of each IP has been certified and confirmed by the Officers of the bank which has not been disputed. 3. That there are no instructions of the bank that the valuation report is to be obtained invariably and in all the cases from the panel Architect only whereas the instructions are otherwise as are contained in the chapter 11 para 10 (d-I to v) of Book of Instructions on Loans issued by Policy Section Credit Administration Divn., Head Office New Delhi and for the purpose of brevity to reproduce as under:- Para 10 (d-I to v) – of Book of Instructions on Loans – relating to valuation “An estimate of the value of property may be arrived at by one or more of the following methods. i) Taking Architect’s or Valuer’s/Engineer’s certificate if the property consists of a building. Incase of machinery embedded to the earth, the services of special Surveyor may be requisitioned. ii) Personally inspecting the property. iii) Scrutinising the valuation certificate issued by local authority for taxation purchases. iv) Making enquiries through brokers, neighbours etc., v) Net filled methods (by way of rent) From the aforesaid books of Instructions it is evident that the branch officials are also empowered to evaluate the property by personally inspecting and secondly it is not mandatory that the report of Architect should also be obtained invariably because any one method out of five methods has to be adopted. It is different if more than one methods is also adopted but it is not appropriate to say that as to why only one method was adopted or as to why any particular method was not adopted when the choice has been vested with the branch officials to adopt any one or more methods to evaluate the value of the property. Thus, it is evident that I have been wrongly implicated and punished in contravention of Head Office instructions. - 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 VI – Car Loans 1. A/c No. NG5185 Amarjit Singh Allegation – Registration certificate held on record is not in the joint name i.e. in the name of the borrower/our bank. 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 it is a case of no evidence because copy of the registration which has been alleged not in the joint name has not been adduced on the record of enquiry. 2. That the allegation has been proved on the basis of hearsay evidence. 3. That it is not the case of the bank that the amount of loan has been misutilized or the principal security is not owned and in possession of the borrower or the principal security has been sold or the account is irregular or the account is NPA or the car is not hypothecated to the bank.and whatsoever it may be. 4. That the irregularity if any, for the sake of arguments, could have been removed through administrative orders by getting the name of the bank added in the copy of registration which is not a difficult or impossible task. 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 VI A/c NG 5194 Sushil Kumar Allegation – He failed to obtain copy of joint registration certificate of the vehicle. 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 It is also a case of no evidence because no document has been adduced to prove the charge. That the allegation has been proved on the basis of hearsay evidence vide Exbt M130 (j) which is not a ratified document as its author was not examined before the Inquiry Officer and no Annexure was enclosed with the report. That it was not such a charge which could be included in the charge sheet and which could not be cured through administrative order by advising the branch to obtain the copy of the registration at the time of periodical inspection of the vehicle which is an on going task at the branch level. That it is not the case of the bank that the loan was misutilized or the car was not purchased or it was not duly registered in joint name of the bank and the borrower and the account is NPA. That the account has since been closed on 23-08-2010 and the Incumbent Incharge has signed the certificate for expunging the name of the bank from the registration under higher purchase scheme. That the copy of the joint registration was prevented from the record of the enquiry because the present Incumbent Incharge himself became interested party by becoming a witness in the case as MW2 for the success of the charge sheet under the influence of the Presenting Officer and of the Disciplinary Authority. That the account has always been regular and it was never transferred to NPA. 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 VII A. He allowed clean OD in SF account No.016031308 on different dates beyond his vested powers in contravention to Head Office guidelines. 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 That no document has been adduced which may provide that I had allowed clean OD in the account on the mentioned dates. That the Exbt M45 (a) provides that on 01-10-2008, the overdrawing of Rs.1,20,000/- was allowed by some other officer but not by me. That as per Exbt M46 (a) it provides that the overdrawing for Rs.9.50 lac was not allowed by me but by some other official. That the system generated vouchers were not provided to depict that who has entered the transaction in the system and who has passed and verified it. That the said overdrawings were recovered during the relevant time and period. That the charge has been proved on the basis of M130 which is not a ratified document. 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 VII (B) – FD Account No.776 dated 14-08-2008 for Rs.50,000/- fvg.Nirmal Singh and Smt.Gurdial Kaur Allegation – He issued fake FD receipt No.SVQ949142 (A/c No.PR-776) dated 14-08-2008 for Rs.50,000/- but FD a/c was opened with zero balance since instructions in the system which is in contravention to Head Office guidelines. Findings of the EO/Disciplinary Authority The charge has been proved by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the same. Case of the defence 1. That the party was maintaining SF account 3500000106025024 with the branch and on 14-08-2008 requested to debit the SF account and to issue FDR for Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, the account opening form was filled in by Sh.Dalwinder Singh, CTO, consideration vouchers were prepared by Sh.Singh, CTO and the transaction was initiated by Sh.Singh. He also prepared the FDR in question and thereafter, it was signed by me. But the said SF account of the party was not debited on account of unknown error in the system whereas on the other hand, I was also untrained or layman in the matter of operational aspects of the computer. But the intension of the party or the CTO has not been malafide and thus the balance of Rs.55,000/- remained intact in the said SF account and the bank has never been short of funds. 2. That the said foolish inadvertent bonafide error was detected on 13-04-09 and the same was rectified on 13-04-09 by debiting SF account for Rs.50,000/- by issuing afresh FDR and by cancelling the previous FDR. It is pertinent to mention that the amount Rs.55,000/- in SF remained intact throughout and the bank never remained short of funds. 3. That the said FDR was neither misused nor it was used or encashed prior to maturity and thus the customer was not benefited twice or once of the amount of Rs.55,000/-. Thus, instead of credit balance in the FDR, a balance of Rs.55,000/.- remained intact in the SF account without any loss to the bank or without detrimental to the interest of the bank. 4. That the foolish inadvertent error without any motive has not earned any benefits to any of the parties and prior to maturity of the FDR, the amount was debited to SF account with credit to FD account. 5. That the bank has not suffered any loss out of this foolish inadvertent and bonafide error. 6. 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 VII (C) (1) – Account No.KCC-86-12782 Jeevan Kumar & Naseeb Kaur Allegation – Sh.Mahi issued no dues certificate for release of mutuated land mortgaged in the a/c even though debit balance is outstanding. Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The charge has been proved by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the findings. Case of the defence 1. That on 08-01-2009, the account has shown debit balance of Rs.5,23,753/- and thus borrower deposited a sum of Rs.5,23,753/-. Thereafter, the account has shown zero outstanding balance. Therefore, it was construed that the borrower has nothing to pay as a reliance on the computer with a comprehension in the mind that the computer does not commit any mistake. I was also not well conversant with the operational systems of the computer. Thus, the no dues certificate perhaps would have been issued. But later on when the computerized system was pressed for levying of interest in all such accounts, then, the computer has disclosed further interest of Rs.31,799/- and thus, this error has taken place. 2. That for the aforesaid foolish inadvertent bonafide error, there have been no ill motives that I have gained something out of it. 3. That thereafter my successor has not made any efforts to recover the amount and so much so, the recovery suit was also not filed and a legal notice was not issued, thereby showing all these facts in the legal notice only for the success of allegation in the charge sheet. 4. It is also added that where the amount is clean but a court degree has been obtained as a payable debt of the bank then, for the execution of the decree, the person concerned has to be arrested by the Police being a criminal offence and as such, clean advances are more secured for the recovery point of view as compared to other dues duly covered with collateral security/ies. It is a human tendency that he is always ready to enter into litigations which are civil in nature but nobody wants to face the criminal trial where the punishment is imprisonment. Infact, nobody wants to be behind the bar come what may. Accordingly, this amount is recoverable provided a decree is obtained for the amount, may be at my cost. 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 VII ( C ) ( 2 ) – A/c KCC 86 – 12560 Santokh Singh Allegation – Sh.Mahi issued no dues certificate for release of mutuated land mortgaged in the a/c even though debit balance is outstanding. Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The charge has been proved by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the findings. Case of the defence 1. That on 29-03-2010, a sum of Rs.40,235/- was outstanding in the account which the borrower has deposited. Thereafter, the computer has shown zero balance instead of making demand of payable interest. However, after observing zero balance, no dues certificate would have been issued. But thereafter, when the command of levying of interest was applied for relating to all such accounts, then, computer came into action and shown further interest of Rs.2,867/-. Immediately, the party was approached and on 24-08-2010, the borrower has deposited a sum of Rs.2,867/- and thus, entire amount has since been recovered from the borrower. Thus, no loss to the bank. 2. That the foolish inadvertent bonafide error has been on account of lack of knowledge and not being fully conversant with the system of working on computers. But, there have been no ill motives on my part whereas this error should have been noticed by the CTO who was fully conversant with the operational system of computer working. 3. 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. Other extenuating grounds 1. It is submitted that there may be some foolish inadvertent bonafide errors as a deviation from the procedure on account of lack of knowledge, not fully conversant with the computer technology and working thereof etc., but there has been no ill motives to commit a fraud in any of the cases. 2. That there is also no fraud in any of the cases except alleged deviation from the procedures. 3. That actual position has not been shown in the respective statement of imputation and so much so, the statement of imputation has been so designed in a colourful manner that bare reading of the same appears to be a fraud case, which is not a fact. 4. That investigating officer Sh.S.R.Garg, internal Sr.Auditor, the writer of Exbt M130 became more and more enthusiastic and impracticable in drafting the lapses in such a manner that the projected observations may appear to be a fraud case and for this reason, he would have got laurels from the Circle Office concerned. 5. That the charge sheet is nothing but a true copy of replica or the Exbt M130 which is alleged investigation report written by Sh.S.R.Garg. But he was not examined on this report and as such, it remained as not ratified but redundant document. To the contrary, the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority both have relied upon this redundant document and therefore, both have proved the charges based on wrong premises, suffering from the voices of official biasness. That I was on sanctioned leaves in Abroad during the period 13-09-2007 to 29-10-2007 and the loans disbursed by the 2nd man during this period have also been misconstrued as sanctioned and disbursed by me. That the order of the Disciplinary Authority is illegal and liable to be quashed because he has shown disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, as a ‘dissent note’, in his final order thereby inflicting the punishment, but no opportunity was given to invite my representation on his ‘dissent note’ as such, the entire order of punishment has become vitiated being illegal. That it is a settled law that whenever the Disciplinary Authority has to show disagreement with the findings of the EO under Regulation 7(2) of D & A Regulations, then, he has to issue a show cause notice to the CO for his representation because the disagreement with the Inquiry Officer is only provisional and not final till the CO is heard either in person or through his representation. Thus, on this short ground, I have to be exonerated. That most of the statement of imputations are not covered under given Article of charges. That I have been discriminated in the matter when the concerned CTO and the 2nd man and the other officer in the branch have been exonerated by not initiating disciplinary action proceedings against them since they have also prepared the consideration vouchers, FDRs, execution of documents etc., whereas I alone have been charge sheeted and punished whereas the other officials S/Sh.Dalwinder Singh, CTO, Sh.Harpal Singh, officer and Sh.M.L.Ahuja, Dy.Manager have been exonerated. That on the behind of my back lot of correspondence was made with the CVO to convince him that it was a vigilance case and thereafter first stage and second stage advice was obtained whereas copy of first stage and second stage advice was not provided to me. That I have been a victim of annoyance of the Disciplinary Authority and Sh.S.R.Garg, investigating officer wherein the Disciplinary Authority got the matter himself investigated against me under hia authority and supervision whereas Sh.S.R.Garg has prepared his report by giving a colourful exercise in it and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority became preconceived in the matter of leveled charges. This fact is evident that the charge sheet is nothing but a replica of the investigation report. That most of the charges have been leveled after lapse of four years period against the instructions of the bank. That serious violations have been made of D & A Regulations, 1977 i.e. 6/3, 6/4, 6/5, 6/10, 6/11, 6/13 etc., That before serving the charge sheet, neither any explanation was called nor any tabular proforma was served upon me as a procedure. That the Presenting Officer adduced the documents in piece meal on 12-02-2010 vide Exbt M2 to 124 and again on 22-02-10 from M125 to M132 due to which, the interest of the defence has been prejudiced. That the Disciplinary Authority has not provided any list of witnesses thereby making it a case of no evidence whereas the Presenting Officer has submitted his own list of witnesses on 13-04-2010 from M1 to MW6 without any authority and without any power. No Regulation provides that the Presenting Officer may also prepare the list of witnesses or list of documents and so much so there is no provision that the Disciplinary Authority may also deligate this power to the Presenting Officer. Thus, the proceedings are also vitiated. That the Presenting Officer submitted the list of witnesses on 13-04-2010 and on the same day, the witness MW1 was also examined which is against the principle of natural justice and also against D & A Regulations, 1977 and also against Evidence Act where it is provided that minimum three days clear notice is required to examine a witness. 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. It is also submitted that the position of the account had not been so grave that it has warranted the punishment of my ‘compulsory retirement’ and to quote as under:- Sr.No. Charge No. Name of the borrower Account No. Status of the account 1 I (A) & (F) Suresh Madaan, Vishal Madaan JB64 Standard and regular account 2 I (E) & (F) Taranjit Pabla & Neelam JB28 A/c closed on 28-10-2009 3 I (F) Jyotsna, Jatinder JB37 Standard and Regular account 4 I (F) Ashok Kaushal, Ravi Kaushal JB55 A/c closed 5 II (A) Rakesh Kumar 3500009300001562 A/c closed on 18-08-2009 6 II (B) Gurmeet Singh 3500009300001359 A/c closed on 24-10-2009 7 Ii ( c ) Santokh Singh 3500009300001517 A/c closed on 14-05-09 8 III (1) M/s Dasondhi Ram Pawan Kr C/c 1 A/c closed on 05-11-2007 9 III I 1) Sanjeev Kumar Sachin Kumar C/c 2 A/c closed on 05-11-2007 10 III ( 2) M/s Dasondhi Ram Pawan Kr C/c 3 A/c closed on 24-12-2007 11 III ( 2 ) Sanjeev Kumar Sachin Kumar C/c 4 A/c closed on 24-12-2007 12 III ( 2 ) Punjab Trading Company C/c 5 A/c closed on 24-12-2007 13 III-2 (g) M/s Dasondhi Ram Pawan Kr C/c 6 Standard and regular operative account 14 III 2 (g) Sanjeev Kumar Sachin Kumar C/c 7 -do- 15 III-2 (g) M/s Punjab Trading Co C/c 8 -do- 16 III (3) Harbhajan Singh 603496 -do- 17 III ( 3 ) Jaswinder Kaur 603492 18 IV (1) Balbir Singh KCC 86-1262 Standard and regular operative account 19 IV (2) Baljit Kaur etc., KCC 86-1349 Standard and regular account 20 V (1) Vipin Soni NC-102 -do- 21 V (2) Gurdev Kaur NC-12 Irregular a/c 22 VI (1) Amarjit Singh NFG5185 Standard and regular account 23 VI (2) Sushil Kumar NG 5194 A/c closed on 23-08-2010 24 VII (A) Sachin Kr & Others SB-01-6031308 Full amount recovered with interest. No loss to bank 25 VII (B) Nirmal Singh & Gurdev Kaur FD No.776 dt.14-08-08 Adjusted on 03-04-08 by debit to SF account 26 VIII © (1) Jiwan Kaur KCC 86-12782 Irregular with Rs.29,975/- 27 VIII © (2) Santokh Singh KCC 86-12560 Adjusted on 24-08-2010 That during my Incumbency at BO Usmanpur, my work and conduct was highly appreciated and various letters of appreciations were issued in my name and to quote as under:- a) Vide DO letter of Sh.M.S.Nijjar, the then Sr.Regional Manager vide No.RMJ/DEV/BUG/2941 dt.17-07-2007 with regard to achievement of budgets for the period 30-06-2007 thereby mentioning that the budget for the quarter ending 30-06-07 in respect of advances has not been achieved but in view of the growth over March, 2007 shown by my office, it was decided to consider me as ‘Achiever’ in advances budget for the quarter ended June, 2007. Photocopy of it duly attested by me is enclosed as ‘Annexure A’ b) Vide DO letter of Sh.M.S.Nijjar, the then SRM, vide No.RMJ:I:DOIR:3805 dt.14-12-2007 with regard to annual inspection report of the branch as at 11-10-2007 wherein it has been mentioned that he was extremely pleased to note that under the new risk based internal audit system, my branch was placed under low risk category by the Zonal Audit office, Jalandhar. It was, thus, further observed that my branch had done well under all parameters and rightly deserves this distinction. For this unique job, I was congratulated alongwith my all staff members for this unprecedented achievement. Photocopy of it is also enclosed as ‘Annexure B’, duly attested by me. c) Vide DO letter of Sh.M.S.Nijjar, the then SRM, vide No.CO:DEV:BUD dt.20-05-2008 in my name with regard to achievement of budgets as on 31-03-2008 wherein he has mentioned that he was under immense pleasure to record that my branch has achieved the budgets relating to deposits, advances and profit. Photocopy of it is enclosed as ‘Annexure C’ duly attested by me. Prayer 1. Than an opportunity of personal hearing may kindly be accorded under the principles of natural justice, even if the same is not provided under any of the Regulations, so that I may be heard properly, patiently and sympathetically. 2. That a lenient view may kindly be taken in the matter because at this age of about 50 years, I am unable to get employment anywhere whereas my wife has already expired, I have three daughters who are school and college going requiring financial assistance for their education and marriage whereas I am already suffering from Flaria in my leg which is un-cureble in the medical science. I have no other source of income whatsoever it may be and at the same time, I do not have any deposits or saved earnings in the past because lot of expenditure was incurred on the treatment of my wife etc., 3. That the order of ‘compulsory retirement’ is extremely disproportionate, unreasoned, harsh, shocking to the conscious of a reasonable man keeping in view that I have not been a beneficiary, there is no fraud case and the bank has not suffered any financial loss . Thus, the punishment is liable to be modified as reduced. Yours faithfully, (B.R.Mahi) Encl: as above
Posted on: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 05:57:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015