Are BoM employee’s union agitations sponsored by the Bank itself?
Yes, there is the reason to believe this statement. Bank of Maharashtra ( BoM) has asked one advertising agency to collect all the news items regarding BoM union’s agitations.
It appears that BoM officials instead of asking bank employees to go to work are keeping watch on the outcome of agitation.
Calling such reports is not normal practice at least in BoM.
If at all it was, then they would have taken cognisance of news item appeared in 2016 in leading daily “loksatta” about DSKDL Fixed deposit schemes and stopped further disbursal of loans.
Then why BoM officials are keeping the close watch on news items of agitations?.
The reason is simple.
They want to see whether some union leaders’ who have assigned with the job of supporting management are doing their job well or not!
There is long past of hand in gloves of BoM top executives and some union leaders.
Some union leaders instead of doing their job of protection of workers interest take more interest in supporting wrongdoing of top executives.
And in lieu of that these top executives avoid action on wrongdoings of such union leaders.
Such two leaders are more vocal in agitations after the arrest of 3 top executives in DSKDL investment fraud.
Banks has given one of these leaders a charge sheet in 2013 and show cause notice to another leader way back in 2004.
However, no further action has been taken for the reasons best known to them only.
One such leader was also director of the bank and charges levelled on him by BoM were very serious and are reproduced here.
Your act of concealment of the facts of aforesaid cases pending against you in the respective Court of Law and knowingly making a false statement in the said forms submitted by you to the Bank pertaining to or in connection with your employment as Director in the Bank is an act of gross misconduct under clause 5 (m) of Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 as amended from time to time.
The above-mentioned acts committed by you. are offences involving moral turpitude for which you are liable to conviction and sentence under the various provisions of law which is misconduct under the provisions of Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 as amended from time to time.
It has been, therefore, decided to conduct the departmental inquiry against you for the above-mentioned acts of gross misconducts alleged to have been committed by you and charges levelled against you
Another union leader was mere a computer operator in Bank. While in service he was engaged in the private job also.
The show cause notice given by the bank to him is reproduced here.
An explanation was sought to vide letter no, xxx dated 16.4.2-004 in respect of payments made to you on various dates from Current. a/c. no. xxx of Ms .xxx systems with our Deccan Gymkhana branch and also in respect of transactions in your SB a/c. no. .xxxx , SB a/c. no. xxx and CC account no. xxx with our Bajirao Road branch. You have submitted your reply dated 23.4.2004. Your explanation is not found satisfactory for the following reasons
The current account no. xx of Ms .xxx was opened with Deccan Gymkhana branch on 9/6/1994. At the time of opening of the account, Mrs.xxx was the proprietor. However, on 17.4.!997 Mr, xxx took over as new proprietor of Ms. Xxx systems. Your claim that you withdrew payments on behalf of Mrs.xxx is not tenable because after 17.4,1997 also you received Payments from the said account, details of which are informed to you In letter dated I6.4.2004 moreover, if at all Mrs.xxxx had sought your services as a staff member there was no reason for transfer of amount through cheques from the account of Ms. Xxx systems to your own account.
As regards transactions in SB a/c no xxx with Bajirao Road you have simply mentioning that both transactions pertain to the investment made by your father. However, you have not given any specific details particularly regarding credit of Rs. 50,000 /- on 1.6.1996 by way of transfer. Regarding transactions in SB a/c no xxxx you have given the explanation about only two entries dated 9/12/2000 and 1.10.2001. you have not given explanation rest of the entries mentioned in letter Dated 16.4.2004.
You have not given any explanation regarding turnover of Rs.12 lakh in S/B a/c no xxx from 17.7.1995 to 9.1.2004. Regarding turnover of Rs 39 lakhs in your SB a/c no xxx from 5/8/1995 o 10.4.2004 and regarding turnover of Rs. 3,79.0000 in your CC account no xx from 24.2.2003. It was expected of you to have submitted your explanation with exact and complete details in respect of each of the major transactions appearing in these accounts.
In absence of a satisfactory explanation from you, the details of transactions from. .a./c of XXX System and from. ,SB a/c. no.xxx , SB a/c. no. xxxx- and CC a/c no . xx Show that you have income other than salary income from The Bank. As per provisions of B.P. Settlement, the staff member cannot, engage himself in any trade or business without prior permission and also cannot engage in any speculative activities.P lease, therefore, show cause as to why disciplinary' action should not be initiated against you for earring income other than salary income; without the Permission of the Bank as appearing in above referred accounts and from the account of m/s. xxx Systems: You have not obtained the permission of the Bank for engaging in any trade/business. Your-. The reply should be submitted within 7 days from the date of receipt of this letter failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in the matter.
However, no action has been taken on these union leaders and hence they are supporting top management of BoM.
Now one can understand why BoM is keeping watch on their agitations.
There are few questions being asked after the arrest of top 3 executives of the bank of Maharashtra
1. Is Bank of Maharashtra being singled out among a dozen lenders for bad loans of DS Kulkarni Group?
2. Did police overstep of their jurisdiction while arresting top executives of BoM?
3. Are BoM unions’ agitations justifiable?
Now we will deal with these questions one by one.
Is Bank of Maharashtra being singled out among a dozen lenders for bad loans of DS Kulkarni Group?
The answer to this question is ‘certainly not’.
Other banks are also in the queue.
However, BoM was the first bank to provide loans to DSKDL since 1989 and hence biggest responsibility was on BoM’s shoulders to check the credibility of the company.
If you look at the statement made by Rajiv Gupta ( ED BoM) and others in the bail application.
It Clearly says that “It is most respectfully submitted by the applicants the bank has already been declared D.S. Kulkarni i.e. Principle borrower and other 4 directors as a willful defaulter i.e. way back in 2011. Moreover, Bank has also initiated E-Auction with respect properties Mortgaged.”
What does this statement indicate?
When they were aware that the principle borrower DSKDL and 4 other directors were will defaulter in 2011 then why did they provide consortium loan in 2016 and other loans after that?
Wasn’t it all the executives and other official’s responsibility to check the facts?
In the third week of March 2017, Chairman and Chief Managing Director [CMD] of the Maharashtra Bank, Ravindra Marathe along with Mrs Nalini Sriram visited the site of DSK dream city, for which the consortium loan was granted.
Marathe, Chairman and CMD should have noted and assessed the work was completed only 10% to 20% of the funds disbursed.
Normally the authority of the stature of Chairman and CMD do not visit the site financed. As the visiting officer has to take stock of the work done and has to access the work completed out of the loan. This is the job of responsibility.
Isn’t it unusual that the Chairman and Chief Managing Director of the Maharashtra Bank, taking the interest of visiting the site?
Even after noticing that entire funds of the Bank were not used in the project no action was taken.
The money was used from the loan for the purpose other than it was taken.
Here are few examples on which expenses were made from the project loan taken. (Consortium Loan BoM))
Investors Rs . 55,02,366 , Rs 24,85,000, Rs 14,05,550,Rs 4,75,000 ,Rs. 3,17,960 and so on....
Vegetable supplier Rs 75,79,025
Spa Extravagance Rs. 13,26,522
Loan Repayment Tata capital Rs . 1,53,23,653
Loan Repayment SKS Fin cap Rs . 14,58,857
SBI Employees co-op HSG Soc. (Donation?) Rs. 21,12,000
Footwear and shoes Rs 12,91,305 and Rs 39,952 respectively
Garments Rs . 30,00,000
Embroidered Fabrics, Stoles, Skirts, Scarves, Ladies Tops, Ladies Skirt etc Rs. 14,00,000 ,
Hoteling & Entertainment Rs Rs 3,13,311
Cateres Rs. 12,04,293 and Rs 3,00,000 respectively ,
Fashion Designer Rs 63,000
Glass ( automobile Glass) Rs 5,24,30,000 ,
Tailoring Rs. 88,704 ,
Broker Rs. 1,92,090,
Flower Decorators Rs 74,895 and Rs. 28,840
Now one can imagine how the loans were used.
Not only that even after DSKDL disclosing the Fixed Deposits( Taken on group companies without RBI Permission) not paid/outstanding, Bank of Maharashtra sanctioned the new loan of Rs 20 Crores outside the consortium.
The DSKDL gave List of Fixed Deposits Matured and Not Renewed mentioning the names of each depositor is written. In spite of such failure to repay on time and default made, surprisingly the Bank granted the fresh loan.
The list of Fixed Deposits was not certified by the chartered accountant of the DSKD. It is shocking that the Bank did not insist the certification of the auditor chartered accountant.
From the information sought and submitted to Police it was clear that the loan was granted for repayment of Matured Fixed deposits, which the entities failed to pay and honour its commitment.
It appears that the Loan was granted to the DS Kulkarni and Developers Limited to repay deposits accepted by its group partnership firms without RBI permission.
Top executives who are responsible for the loss of national wealth due to bad loans or frauds in Public sector banks are suddenly feeling betrayed after the arrest of top executives of BoM.
All these top executives want all the authority without any responsibility.
When they claimed bonus on performance parameter they are happy, but these persons do not want to share national loss. They are unprepared for hardships arising out of their own decisions.
Accountability Policies approved by the Board favour the powerful only.
In the instant case one should not forget that Ravindra Marathe was not the only CEO of BoM, he was also a member and chief of a committee to monitor serious fraud cases in BoM.
Other banks also have also defaulted in giving the loan to DSKDL and it’s so-called group companies.
But as the BoM was the major and old banker to DSKDL and as arresting all the people at the same time was not possible to police may have arrested BoM officials First.
Now did the police overstep of their jurisdiction while arresting top executives of BoM?
The answer to this question is also “no!”
Whether Marathe and others arrest was right or wrong that will be decided in the court of law.
However supreme court of India in a civil writ petition 38 of 1997 (Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs Director, Cbi & Anr) and other cases on 14 may 2014 held that
“Section 6- A(1), which requires approval of the Central Government to conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the PC Act, 1988 where such allegation relates to (a) the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above and (b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Government, is invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As a necessary corollary, the provision contained in Section 26 (c) of the Act 45 of 2003 to that extent is also declared invalid.”
Thus it is clear that police didn’t require any prior approval before arresting of the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above.
Now we will see whether the BoM unions’ agitations justifiable or not?
The basic object of any workers or trade union is to protect the interest and improve the conditions of workers.
To achieve these objects normally such unions lock horns with management or top executives.
But here some union leaders of BoM always supported management.
Before supporting top executives these union leaders should first self-analyse the problems that persist in the functioning of BoM.
In 2016 Electronic Clearance Service (ECS) service for DSKDL was withdrawn.
Then Cheques given by DSKDL and their associate companies started bouncing.
Bank worker instead of putting remark “Insufficient Funds “on cheque use to put remark as “refer to drawer”.
That caused the legal problem to cheque holder to lodge a complaint under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act.
Sometimes bank workers use to return the cheques without any remark and ask depositor to go to DSKDL or its other associated companies.
Despite knowing such situation, BoM used to provide thousands of cheques to DSKDL and associate companies.
Weren’t union leaders aware of these situations?
Had they raised any objection about this to anybody?
Isn’t this a help or direct involvement of bank workers and top management in DSKDL’s fraud?
It had been rumoured that CCTV connection at the residence of then executive director had been disconnected. Being whole time director his residence is a very sensitive location. Many visitors like persons involved in Siddhi Vinayak logistic scam may have tried to meet him.
In this case why the use of CCVT was discontinued?
Has any union leader raised any concern about this thing? Isn’t it related to Banks reputation?
These leaders should also find out why some staff especially ladies staff is happy with the arrest of one of the top executives?
In the year 2016 – 2017 around 440 crore rupees provision was made on account of frauds In BoM. There are several big frauds in this 440 crore rupee list.
However, one provision was made for fraud of Unified Payments Interface (UPI).
UPI is an instant payment system developed by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), an RBI regulated entity. UPI is built over the IMPS infrastructure and allows you to instantly transfer money between any two parties' bank accounts.
However, instead of using this BoM introduced own UPI app and allowed it to use.
Due to the lack of sufficient security features bank lost around 30 crores.
Provision of the amount was made by the bank on account of fraud for this loss.
But who was responsible for this loss? Have any of BoM union leaders raised any question about this?
Then what kind of loyalty towards bank these union leaders are talking about?
In the nutshell, these union leaders are nothing to do with bank’s image.
They are supporting top executives for their personal interest and fear of action against cases on them only.
They should now stop agitating and allow the law to take its own course.
Related Stories
Subscribe for Free
RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.
RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199
