CMD Bank of Maharashtra Explains His Concocted Story To Support His vindictive Action Against Union Leader

Bank of Maharashtra responds to whistleblower report--Business Line-----My views are given below

The Bank of Maharashtra’s “comments” on The Hindu’s whistleblower story of June 13, 2013 (“To fix whistleblower, bank moves from verse to worse”).

In the first instance, we wish to sincerely clarify that Mr. Tuljapurkar is not a whistle-blower at all.

The complaint made by him to the Governor, Reserve Bank of India, on the issue of the grant of a loan of Rs.150 crore to United Spirits Ltd. was based on information that was available in the bank and [was] not a matter of any discovery, as such being a routine business decision taken at the highest level by the Credit Approval Committee of the bank on merits […] We wish to specifically mention that the said account has been proved to be extremely healthy and remunerative to the bank […].

Scrutiny

We state there is nothing to be blown in the matter […] the bank is a public sector bank and is subject to several statutory and regulatory limitations and that every decision of the bank is subject to scrutiny at various levels […].

As regards the charge sheet issued to Mr. Tuljapurkar, the issue is not restricted only to the allegation that Mr. Tuljapurkar has caused a vulgar and indecent poem to be published in the union’s in-house magazine “Bulletin.” We wish to clarify that in the year 2013, the bank came across a reasoned judgment dated 20/01/2010 of the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay, Aurangabad bench, in criminal application number 2074/2002. It was held that the said poem about Mahatma Gandhi did not amount to a fair criticism and satire of Gandhian thoughts and ideas and that the poem published and circulated by Mr. Tuljapurkar was certainly obscene in nature. The Hon’ble High Court had directed Mr. Tuljapurkar to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, to face the trial launched against him […] the bank also came across the fact that Mr. Tuljapurkar had filed a special leave petition before the hon’ble Supreme Court no. 2871/2010 on the aforesaid judgment and the same [was] admitted and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted an interim stay on the proceedings against Mr. Tuljapurkar […]. The action has been initiated only when the bank came to know that a criminal trial was pending against Mr. Tuljapurkar and that he had concealed the said fact for 19 long years although he was an office bearer of the union, a workman director on the Board of Directors […].

We wish you to note that the performance of the bank for the financial year 2012-13 was held as extremely exemplary […].

The bank therefore requests you to dispel the impression created by Mr. Tuljapurkar […] and publish our clarification accordingly.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/bank-of-maharashtra-responds-to-whistleblower-report/article4830989.ece

My Comments on explanation given by CMD of 

Bank of Maharashtra on his vindictive step

against a whistleblower 

I completely disagree with the explanation given by CMd of Bank of Maharashtra to support his vindictive action taken against Union Leader Mr. Tuljapurkar.

He says that Mr. Tuljapurkar is not a whistle blower because he has presented the information which was based on information that was available in the bank and [was] not a matter of any discovery.

He  CMD should know that policy of whistleblower is framed only for the exposure of misdeeds of top officials by internal officials who is well aware of hidden facts posing threat to bank and not at all for discovery of what is not happening .Whistleblower is that internal staff who only presents those information which are otherwise hidden due to malicious intention of corrupt executive and which is  causing loss to the bank or which may cause loss I future. Whistleblower is that person which informs to competent authority that a particular sanctioning authority is misusing his delegated power for personal gain despite probable threat of causing loss to the organization.

Secondly CMD says that the loan sanctioned to UB group was duly approved by Credit approval Committee (CAC) and it was a routine business decision taken by CAS based on merit. He further mentions that the said account has been proved to be extremely healthy and remunerative to the bank.

 It is worthwhile to mention here that all loans sanctioned by any Branch Manager or any delegated authority or CAC is a routine business decision and remunerative in the beginning and remains so for a few years. The question is of perception and credit worthiness of the borrower , status and market report of the loan seeker at the time proposal is sanctioned ,integrity of borrower and future prospect of the project  when the proposal is submitted before the competent authority for sanction.

If any sister concern or group account is NPA, fresh loan to same group cannot be considered for sanction. Loan cannot be sanctioned for liquidation of existing bad loan of the same group or person. It is immaterial whether the loan account after its sanctioned is standard or non performing asset (NPA) in the books of account of a bank if the same is sanctioned by the competent authority in well prescribed way only and more transparent way.

All assets which are now stressed assets or NPA in books of various banks are definitely sanctioned by CAC or Branch head in way which is normally expected by bank management. It is further observed that process notes of bad borrowers are normally prepared in better and descent way compared to that of good borrowers by sanctioning authority. When the intention is bad , the competent authority preparers all necessary documents and taken all precautions that deviation of policy is not visible .When a thief decides to commit the act of stealing he invariably takes all precautions to avoid his arrest and to avoid all legal action. In bank too, a bad borrowers prepares all necessary documents in beautiful way, submits all required papers even though falsely and fraudulent prepared and the person who sanctions the loan also takes all preventive steps so that he is not caught by auditors or higher bosses. Still some lacunas are left and the thif or a bad manager is caught at later stage.

 Problems arises only when account goes bad and then reason is falsely ascribed to Global recession or interest rate or natural calamity even when the real culprit is sanctioning authority or the bad borrower. It is seen in many cases that a particular borrower who is bad in one bank manages officials of other bank for sanction of bigger loan,

Loan proposals of unscrupulous and bad borrowers or that of good borrowers, all cases are necessarily approved by competent credit officials or CAC in well defined manner and sanctioned apparently in compliance of existing norms only. Still there use to be violation of rules and deviation of policy while sanctioning a loan proposal which comes to light when a whistleblower points out or when auditors submit a report on the account.  

Point to be stressed here that when the loan seeker has the capacity and managerial skill to motivate sanctioning authority or members of CAC, he can manage his loan proposal sanctioned by hook or by crook. It is bitter truth that majority of existing bad assets in all banks are caused by unscrupulous credit officials and sanctioning officials only.  And only in few cases, the reason for asset going bad is found to be  natural calamity or global recession or due to reasons beyond the control of loanee.

More particularly I wish to point out here that when head of CAC  ( constituted of departmental head and few other senior members ) , say a CMD proposes verbally that a particular loan proposal should be sanctioned, other members of CAC blindly put their signature on loan proposals. It is undeniably bitter truth of CAC that proposals are seldom seen and assessed by all  members of CAC.In majority of meeting of CAC the proposals are simply okayed by members to honour the views of top bosses.

 When CMD is the head of CAC or when Some RBI officials are interested in sanction of a loan presented to Management committee for loan approval, none of members has courage to object it. Besides most of members of CAC or MAC are not well versed with intricacies of loan proposals and they do not understand the merit and demerits of the proposal and hence they blindly sign on the proposal just as President of India sign on bill approved by Parliament and where bill is passed by voice vote and none of Member of Parliament goes through seriously to understand the merit and demerit of any bill introduced in Parliament. Similar is the practice in all committee oriented decisions. Members of a tender committee or loan waiver committee are not well skilled in the job which is associated with other departmental heads. Quorum of members in a Committee is completed by including any Tom Dick and Herry so that in future none can raise fingers against any individual when the action is treated a bad.

CMD of the bank further asserts that there is nothing to be blown in the matter […] the bank is a public sector bank and is subject to several statutory and regulatory limitations and that every decision of the bank is subject to scrutiny at various levels.

Here I may say that all decisions especially financial decisions and lending decisions  normally taken by any authority are always  checked by auditors and inspecting officials. They are certified as good too. Even after that many accounts turn bad at a later stage in the bank and it is established by bankers only that the action of sanction by delegated authority or monitoring part of branch officials or legal scrutiny of documents made by panel  lawyers was defective and erroneous and departmental inquiry is initiated to know the truth and in many cases junior officers have been punished , suspended and dismissed . Question here is whether seniors and top executives like CMD are taken to task when their mistake and malicious intention is proved.

So far as case pending in court of law is concerned, I am not making any comment and the same will be decided by Supreme court in due course of time.

Lastly CMD has completely failed to convince why he has taken a punitive action after 19 years. I need not enlighten because it is crystal clear to all educated persons that an action taken against an officer after 19 years for a poem written 19 years ago in nothing but retaliatory step taken by a person who is in power.

Here the main question is whether the action taken by RBI officials on a complaint lodged by a bank senior official against CMD was right and beyond doubt. 

When the complains relates to serious lapses on the part of CMD of a bank is concerned , it was the duty of RBI officials to get the same checked by a person or committee which is having higher power and position than CMD , which is having greater knowledge and skill on process of sanctioning of a loan proposal and which is unbiased against CMD and  Borrower and which has the track record of honesty and devotion. 

Forwarding the complain copy for investigation to the person who himself is alleged to be guilty and involved in loot cannot be justified by any responsible person or by any judicial body. 

It happens in our country only that a case of loot or scam by a senior minister or senior officials of the department is referred to same team of officials and ministers for investigation whether there was any act of omission or commission. Thief police is assigned the duty to inquire whether the act of stealing took place or not.

It is the tradition of Indian administration and financial system that complains of irregularities committed by an individual or a group is handed over to totally incompetent but blind flatterer  to look into the gravity of complain so that the real culprit can manage the report in his or her favour and get the case of complain closed for ever. Top bosses are more interested in closure of cases related to complain than to take action against erring officials and take remedial steps for stopping recurrence of such mistakes in future.

This is the root cause that one after other high value scams come into light and goes into dark in a few days and months.None of ministers get punished when he or she is found to be indulged in scam. At most the minister is advised to resign or dismissed.In banks also when a top ranked official is found to be guilty , he is advised to voluntarily retire from bank . But if the case of irregularities are against any junior level officer and he has got no God Father to save him , full fledged inquiry is initiated and severest punishment is awarded.

There are hundreds and thousands of cases where staff accountability is not fixed against any official only because he is an executive holding top post. If the sanctioning authority is a branch manager upto scale III, the action taken may be a little bit faster if the sanctioning person has got no Godfather at higher offices. 

If a culprit bank officer has good relation with higher bosses, no power on earth can punish him, even vigilance officer or inquiry officer is persuaded by different clever persons. And this is why quantum of bad asset is increasing in every bank and there is no doubt that it will continue to go up and up even if Finance Secretary issues threatening letters to CMDs to keep Net NPA confined to 1% of total advances.

On the contrary there are several such instances available in all banks where officers on flimsy ground are served charge sheet when when they are on the verge of retirement.

Junior officers are penalized  on petty issues , inquiry is set up on non-serious lapses, memos are served for ridiculous reasons and the most perturbing is that in most of the cases explanation submitted by such accused person are declared unacceptable and unconvincing by clever officials of the management sitting at higher offices. 

There are many cases where a person is served charge sheet for serious  lapses, intentional and ill-motivated decisions on credit proposals  and grave mistakes and deficiencies found in credit monitoring, pre-sanction inspection, documentation and post disbursement formalities , officers are exonerated even before investigation if the accused person has linkages with Ministers and top officials including CMD.

Even vigilance officers think it better to close the chapter of inquiry without loss of time if the connections of accused are important and powerful officials also delay the investigation for decades in such cases. 

Lastly I would like to suggest that officers and ministers in power should stop the culture of punishing whistleblower and on the contrary make all possible efforts to find out the gravity of all types of allegation and try to punish the real culprit in proper way.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Read And Share With All How Looter CMD of Bank Likely To Dismiss Whistleblower Who Informed Entire Story of Loot To RBI

Union leader Devidas Tuljapurkar faces victimisation and possible dismissal by the Bank of Maharashtra, as it suspects him of being the whistleblower behind a story in “The Hindu” on July 7, 2012.

For one unfortunate whistleblower, things have gone from verse to worse. Embarrassed by revelations about its curious dealings with corporate clients, the Bank of Maharashtra has declared war on whistleblowers. And since it can’t pinpoint them, the bank has gone after internal critics on novel grounds. It has chargesheeted a Union leader and ex-Director of the BoM for acts “prejudicial to the interests of the Bank.” That is, for publishing 19 years ago, a poem it calls ‘vulgar and obscene,’ in the Union’s in-house magazine, ‘Bulletin.’ That poem is the basis of the Bank’s charge sheet against a worker with an impeccable service record.

Click on following link  to read entire story 

http://importantbankingnews.blogspot.in/2013/06/read-share-with-all-how-looter-cmd-of.html