Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The Inquiry Officer has proved the charge whereas the Disciplinary Authority has concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Case of the defence The allegation is outside the purview and jurisdiction of Article of Charge I and II because there is no allegation against me that I had sanctioned C/c limit beyond my vested loaning powers. Thus, the charge is not proved on this short ground. That the Inquiry Officer has based investigation report vide Exbt M130 (a to e) but its author was not examined to prove the charge by way of not affording me an opportunity of his cross examination. The said report was un-ratified as its author was not examined before Inquiry Officer for providing me an opportunity of his cross examination. That the third person may confirm the signatures and the contents in a report but he cannot prove the truth in the contents of a report, as it has been in due course. That there are bank instructions as contained in Chapter 8 of Vigilance Manual that either the investigation report should not be adduced on the record of enquiry or its author should be examined before the Inquiry Officer to prove the truth in the contents of a report. That this report was also not containing any Annexures thereby representing the original facts on the basis of which, the report was prepared. Thus, Exbt M130 is a redundant document. That the gravity of the charge is not so serious that it may warrant the punishment of my ‘compulsory retirement’ Charge III (1b) Allegation–Sh.Mahi has allowed overdrawings to the mentioned parties beyond his vested loaning powers. The fact regarding allowing such over accommodation to the mentioned parties was never reported by him to the competent authority and confirmation of his action in having allowed such over accommodation was not sought within the prescribed time schedule as per existing guidelines of the bank. Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The Inquiry Officer has proved the charge and the Disciplinary Authority has concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Case of the defence The allegation is not covered under Article of charge which provides that I have issued fake overdraft limits whereas the imputation provides that I had exceeded my vested loaning powers. That the Presenting Officer has not adduced any document to prove that I had allowed the said overdraft amount to the party. That it was a procedural lapse on account of poor exposure in loans wherein there has been no ill motive for committing procedural lapse, if any. That the proposal was not handled single handedly but the same was prepared by the second man who has not been charge sheeted. Thus, it is a case of discrimination whereas the law provides parity and that too with positive concept and as such, I should have also been exonerated. That the gravity of the charge is not so serious that it may warrant the punishment of my ‘compulsory retirement’ Charge III (1-c) Allegation-Both the firms are allied concerns as Smt.Kamaljit Kaur is common in both these firms and the fact has not been disclosed in sanctioned note. Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority The Inquiry Officer has proved the charge whereas the Disciplinary Authority has endorsed the views of the Inquiry Officer. Case of the defence That there is no evidence that Smt.Kamaljt Kaur has been a common partner in both the firms whereas in terms of M/s Dasondhi Ram Pawan Kumar, the partners have been Kamaljit Kaur and Mehanga Ram and with regard to M/s Sanjay Kumar Sachin Kumar, the partners have been Sanjeev Kumar and Tara Singh. Thus, the allegation has been proved without referring any evidence and also without existence of any evidence. That I have been a victim of wrong findings wherein Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority both have proved the charge without any evidence, rather evidence contrary to the allegation has not been considered and for this purpose, exhibited documents M42 and 43 may be referred for disproving the charge. That the allegation has been proved on the basis of M130 (a to e) which is an investigation report for which, its author was not examined before the Inquiry Officer and so much so, it does not contain an Annexure as evidence. That neither any ill motives have been mentioned nor inferred for the alleged false allegation. Thus, the punishment has been without any cause, since I have been a weak party being an officer employee. Charge-III (2) (a) Allegation – That I had sanctioned C/c (BD) limit without conducting detailed pre-sanction appraisal and have disbursed the same without taking any post sanction safeguards relating to the accounts C/c 3, C/C 4 and C/c 5 wherein the following lapses have been observed. (a) Out of above three C/c accounts, two accounts mentioned as C/c 3 and C/c 4 are of the same parties which were closed on 05-11-2007. All the above three firms are allied firms/family concerns to each other with Smt.Kamaljit Kaur as a common partner in account No.C/c 3 and C/c 4 and Sh.Tara Singh as common partner in account No.C/c 3 and C/c 5. Sh.Mahi has sanctioned the limits beyond his vested loaning powrs. He also gave false information in the limit sanctioned statement for Nov, 2007 by incorporating the above limits sanctioned under Super Trade category instead of actual sanctioned as C/c (BD) limits. Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority. The charge has been proved by the Inquiry Officer and the findings of the Inquiry Officer have been endorsed by the Disciplinary Authority. Case of the defence That the allegation is without violation of any bank instructions by mentioning that C/c 3 and C/c 4 are of the same parties whereas these are separate firms with separate constitution and partners. As already mentioned in C/c 3, the partners are Kamaljit Kaur and Mehanga Ram and in C/c 4, the partners are Sanjeev Kumar and Tara Singh. It is also without any evidence that all the said three firms have been allied firms or family concerns because there is no description made by the bank for the term and nomenclature of ‘family concern’whereas only allied firms have been described relating to common partners or directors. It is also incorrect to allege that in C/c 3 and C/c 4, Kamaljit Kaur is a common partner because in C/c 3, Kamaljit Kaur and Mehangra Ram were the partners whereas in C/c 4, Sanjeev Kumar and Tara Singh were the partners. That it is also incorrect to allege that Tara Singh has been common partner in C/c 3 and C/c 5 because in C/c 3, Kamaljit Kaur and Mehanga Ram have been the partners whereas in C/c 5, no evidence was adduced to show that who have been the partners. That the attributed error relates to Sh.M.L.Ahuja, who has prepared wrong LSS in his hand and also signed it vide Exbt M37 (a) whereas it was not signed by me. But the allegation has been leveled against me that wrong information of Super Trade sanction was made. Thus, it amounts to discrimination and victimization that for the lapse on the part of Sh.M.L.Ahuja, 2nd man, I have been punished and that too with a harsh punishment That the charge has been proved on the basis of M130 (a to c) which has been un-ratified document because its author was not examined before the Inquiry Officer for his cross-examination. Charge-III (2) (b) Allegation-He failed to obtain requisite financial data, income tax returns, VAT return etc., and has also not conducted credit risk rating. He failed in preparing of CRs on borrowers/guarantors before sanction of credit facilities. Also, no board note was prepared. 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 the Inquiry Officer has proved the charge on the basis of hearsay evidence vide Exbt M130 (b) which is investigation report and that too without any Annexures on which, the alleged investigator was not examined. Thus, it has been an un-ratified document and redundant document.
Posted on: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 06:03:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015