Discipline In Banks And Vigilance

Contributed By Sri Himadri and Sri Pannvelan

True, ‘DISCIPLINE AND ENTERNAL VIGILANCE’ constituent the edifice on which an organizational structure stand and thrive, as has been said,

“There is no magic wand that can resolve our problems. The solution rests with our work and discipline.The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Don't store unnecessary data, keep an eye on what's happening, and don't take unnecessary risks.”

So, it is undeniable, that, ‘DISCIPLINE’ and ‘CONSTANT VIGILANCE’ are two prominent mainstays, which ensures that, productive resources at the command of an organization are always deployed alongside desirable paths and undesirable deviations, both deliberate and inadvertent are tackled at an early stage and managed to be kept at bay, while the organization marches towards achieving organizational goals and objectives. But, these should not be ways to provide more ‘elbow room’ to victimize and implicate honest employees. 

See, what the CVC contemplates about vigilance management(http://cvc.gov.in/spchpsb.pdf),

“As in all organizations, vigilance activity in financial institutions is an integral part of the managerial function. The raison d'être of such activity is not to reduce but to enhance the level of managerial efficiency and effectiveness in the organization. In banking institutions risk-taking forms an integral part of business. Therefore, every loss caused to the organization, either in pecuniary 

or non-pecuniary terms, need not necessarily become the subject matter of vigilance inquiry. It would be quite unfair to use the benefit of hind-sight to question the technical merits of managerial decisions from the vigilance point of view.”

But, very often, in PS banks, this  seldom is adhered to and vigilance management departments function not to ensure sticking to desired guidelines while taking genuine commercial decisions but, to unleash a reign of terror by serving charge sheets, suspending officials at will  and handing disproportionate punishments after some  enquiry process which are nothing short of being “postiche” and utter mockery of CVC guidelines.In most of these banks :

1. Charge sheets are served after 2 to 3 years.
2. In enquiries hearsay evidences are put forth to implicate the charged employee by hook and crook without giving the charged employee the opportunity of ‘cross examination’, in stark violation of evidence act and CVC guidelines.
3. Time limits imposed by CVC on completion of different stages in the enquiry process are seldom adhered to.
4. When charges are held as ‘not proved’ disciplinary authorities step in to prove them by ‘hook and crook’ by giving dissent notes.
5. Last but not the least disproportionate punishments are awarded to break the last iota of self esteem remaining in the hapless employee after cooked and unduly prolonged disciplinary proceedings.

END RESULT OF EXCESSIVE STRESS ON ‘VIGILANCE’ IS ‘MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING’

Many public sector bank officials are now working under continued tension and fear of something going awry and vigilance people pouncing  upon them and putting  their long and cherished career on the brink of extinction. So, in many public sector banks, effective decision making  and taking bold steps in ensuring proper customer service, have become a far cry and officials are sighing away from taking bold decisions and hiding behind ‘fine print’ and becoming ‘bookish’ thus, adversely effecting bold decision making mechanism and customer service in these banks, resulting in their score cards getting mired in ‘red’ and corporate performances going downhill on a regular and continuous basis.

So, clamour for easing or removal of PS Banks from the vicious concepts of ‘vigilance management’ which, be better described as ‘easiest mode of fault finding  and implicating honest employees.’This excellent write up in ‘Hindu Business Line’ further emphasis this view point:

‘Perform or Perish’ used to be the mantra for businessmen, especially exporters. But for the officers in public sector banks (PSBs), it appears to be ‘perform and perish’.

In this respect, Mr Pannvalan, an eminnent reader and member of this blog and a senior funcionary of a PSU bank, has sent an excellent compendium of points to be considered in conducting ‘Disciplinary Proceedings’ which is being shared with our readers, in following lines.This is a brief compendium on the subject and hopefully,it will serve as a valuable guide for the management, trade unions and the staff.:

Disciplinary Proceedings – Important Points to be considered

S No	Question	Answer
		Yes	No	Can’t say
A	Investigation
1	Was the investigation absolutely fair, objective and impartial, free from any bias and prejudice?
2	Was the investigation complete in respects, analysing the issue from all perspectives?
3	Were some people deliberately left out from the purview of the probe?
4	Whether all the specific conditions prevailing ‘at the time of occurrence of the event under scrutiny’ were studied in depth by the investigating official, before reaching his/her conclusion?
5	Whether the investigating Officer and the charge-sheeted official were known to each other, before the alleged irregularity/offence came to light?
B	Framing of Charges
1	Has the accountability at various levels and places been taken into cognizance, before framing the charges against the charge-sheeted official?
2	Are the charges leveled related to the role assigned to the charge-sheeted official by the management?
3	Does any of the charges leveled pertain to the period during which the alleged irregularity took place?
4	Was the charge-sheeted official physically present at the scene of occurrence of the offence?
5	Does the charges leveled entirely depend on the investigation report?
6	Did the Disciplinary Authority call for additional inputs from various sources/departments, to ascertain the facts himself, before framing the charges?
7	Is there abnormal delay, say more than 5 years, for framing of charges, after the date of the alleged misconduct, unless the said misconduct is of criminal nature?
8	Was the charge-sheeted official having total control over all the dimensions of the case?
9	Where some more people – insiders or outsiders – were involved, has action been taken against all of them simultaneously?
C	Nature of Allegations and Charges
1	Do any of the charges pertain to the charge-sheeted official hatching a conspiracy to cause deliberate loss to the bank?
2	Do any of the charges point to the charge-sheeted official receiving some favours or monetary benefits from the real culprits on ‘quid pro quo’ basis?
3	Do any of the charges point to the collusion, connivance and direct complicity of the charge-sheeted official with the real culprits/beneficiaries?
4	Do any of the allegations point to the charge-sheeted official creating falsified documentary proof to swindle bank’s money?
5	Do any of the allegations point to submission of fictitious and inflated monetary claims by the charge-sheeted official, to unduly enrich himself/herself?
6	Did the charge-sheeted official indulge in misrepresentation of facts and suppression of material information?
7	Has the action/negligence of the charge-sheeted official caused loss or injury to any customer?

 

 Disciplinary Proceedings – Important Points to be considered…contd.

S No	Question	Answer
		Yes	No	Can’t say
D	Conducting of the Disciplinary Proceedings
1	Were adequate opportunities given to the charge-sheeted official to reasonably and adequately defend himself/herself?
2	Was the charge-sheeted official provided with all information and documents that he deemed necessary and wanted, to defend himself/herself?
3	Was the charge-sheeted official provided access to important files, records and registers relevant to the case?
4	Were the principles of natural justice followed?
5	Did the charge-sheeted official offer full co-operation for the timely completion of the disciplinary proceedings?
6	Did the charge-sheeted official exert any undue influence on the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority with a view to change the course of the proceedings?
7	Was the charge-sheeted official threatened by anybody and prevented from telling the whole truth?
E	Ultimate findings and Conclusions reached
1	Has the Disciplinary Authority carefully gone through each and every ‘Defence Exhibit’ before he/she moved on to the next step?
2	Has the Disciplinary Authority taken into account the detailed deposition made by the Defence Witness/es, before reaching any conclusion?
3	Did the Disciplinary Authority grant personal hearing to the charge-sheeted official, when asked for?
4	Does the probe point to any general weaknesses and deficiencies in the system itself?
5	Is the particular lapse/violation of bank’s guidelines continuing in many other branches even now?
F	Others
1	Was any of the persons who acted as Investigating Officer, Presenting Officer, Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority influenced by the factors that are extraneous to the case?
2	Was a broad-based committee formed to consider all the relevant facts and materials, before deciding the nature and extent of penalty?
3	Does the final award contain provisions for appeal, especially when some penalty is sought to be imposed on the charge-sheeted official?
4	Is there any larger legal issue involved in this case?
5	Has the bank taken immediate steps to prevent such irregularities/aberrations/malpractices in future?

Note:  The answer ‘Can’t say’ includes ‘Not Applicable’ too, wherever found more appropriate.

Key Guidelines to be followed for awarding penalty

1.    One shall not be punished for certain things and events which were never under one’s control.

2.    Where the charges could not be convincingly proved/established, ‘benefit of doubt’ is to be given to the accused and he/she must be acquitted.

3.    Before deciding upon the penalty, the positive contributions made by the charge-sheeted official in the past must be taken cognizance of.

4.    Where only a part of the charge is proved, major penalty shall not be awarded.

5.    Where only a few minor allegations/charges could be proved, only minor penalty is to be imposed.

6.    Where there is no monetary loss, some penalty which is symbolic in nature may be imposed.

7.    Except in the case of financial impropriety of the charge-sheeted employee,where the loss has been recovered in full or as per the terms of OTS sanctioned, the penalty may be a minor one.

8.    The record of proceedings of the decision making committee must be given to the charge-sheeted employee, without his/her asking for them.

9.    Genuine ‘Errors of commercial judgment’ shall not be treated on the same footing with a brazen irregularity, fraud or scam of alarming magnitude.

10. Procedural lapses shall not be dealt with sternly and penalty if any must be a token one and the period of rigour shall not extend beyond 1 Year.

Mr. PANNVELAN