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 1. 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for withdrawal of next instalment as it is evident from the Exbt D20 (c ) and thus the funds were allowed to be withdrawn after lapse of 67 days against a meager amount of Rs.4.50 lac.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. 2. 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.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:56:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015