See the news items given below
I fully disagree with findings report of the committee
constituted by SBI management to look into the graft charges leveled against
few of top officials of the bank by CBI. The Committee has exonerated the officials
in graft case and since expressed that the proposal was approved in normal way
by Loan Approval Committee after due consideration, no charges can be put
against the top official.
Members of the committee is of the opinion that since the
loan proposal was approved by loan approval committee constituted by five or
six members, the loan sanctioned may be treated as normal sanction. It is
absolutely a fun and ridiculous. Whatsoever may be the constitution of the
Credit or Loan Approval Committee, the fact is that the members of the
committee blindly sign on all proposals which are the likes of the boss of the
committee.
None of the members of the committee has the courage to move or to
say a word against the wishes of the bosses. There may be some exceptions to this conclusion, but the general views is members of almost committees sign blindly. In India all decisions are taken
by the boss and verbal orders percolates down the level and juniors start
dancing the way he or she are advised to dance. None of them or you may say safely majority of
them do not want to keep their adverse opinion on any proposal mooted by the boss because he or she does not want to face the consequences and become like Khemka or Durga Nagpal.
This is in the same way as the board of direction functions
in a bank or in any public sector undertakings. None of the director ever read
the proposals handed over to them by the CMD secretariat but they sign on all
proposals put before the Board of a bank. Many of the directors are nominated
by the government to please unhappy colleagues of their party. Many of
directors do not know banking. They simply say Yes on what Chief of Board
called as CMD proposes. Therefore if a CMD want to earn bribe from a corporate
house , he need not do so in the open, he will say his immediate junior to look
into the matter and arrange for expeditious decision and sanction of the proposal.
That is enough to get a grand success superseding hundreds of other proposal.
Similarly when the Prime Minister or Finance Minister want
to change some laws or frame new laws , the proposal is put forward by office
of PMO or FM before the cabinet and then before the Parliament. As far as I
understand and as far as people of India has seen, almost none of elected
representatives called as cabinet ministers or Members of Parliament go through
the intricacies of the bill or proposed new laws. Many of them do not even
understand the meaning of the proposal and many do not have time to go through lengthy bill. This is known to all that majority of bills placed in Parliament are passed without any debate or discussion thereon.
In India Yesman culture prevails in all offices and in all departments. They think it easy and comfortable to say YES to what the boss
says. Otherwise if he protests , he has to face the torturous consequences in
many forms. Hundreds of honest and straight forward officers in banks are
languishing in remote corners for decades only because they were not perfect
YESMAN.
I therefore completely disagree what the committee has
concluded in graft case of SBI and refute the logic put forward by internal committee of SBI in exoneration of accused SBI officials in graft case lodged by CBI.
It will not be incorrect to say here that CAC concept was introduced with the declared purpose of making sanctioning process more effective and transparent. But in practice hidden purpose of CAC concept was to provide shield to cover the corrupt dealings of top officials of the bank who sanction loans only after accepting gift in cash or in kind.
It is open secret that high command or the chief of an organisation works behind the screen and he is awarded if some good results precipitate but on the contrary when a decison is taken with dirty mind and the outcome goes wrong, the accusing fingers are pointed out towards juniors who processed the proposal and who submitted the same before CAC.
Only IT officials can expose the real devil functioning behind CAC if they dare assess the assets of top officials of bank to find out whether they are in disproportionate to their total income.But do they have so much courage to move against the wishes of their mentor ministers?
Are they not worried of torturous transfers and charge sheet as Mr. Khemka is facing in Harayana?
Rather I would like to suggest Government of India to assess the functioning of Credit Approval Committee (CAC) which were framed in almost all public sector banks two years ago at the instruction of Ministry of Finance.While making honest assessment of CAC, Government of India will have to keep in mind how in the recent past ,at the instance of Rahul Gandhi the ordinance passed by cabinet allowing criminals to contest election against the wishes of Supreme Court was withdrawn by the cabinet.This example is enough to illustrate how Yesman culture taken deep root in the entire system in the country.
I however appreciate the system prevailing in judiciary where a judge can register his conclusive orders against the views of other two colleague judges.In High Court of in Supreme Court , final order in any case is decided by majority view of panel and even opposite views are kept in record. In banks , members of CAC or directors in Board, or ministers in cabinet or MP in Parliament do not have enough scope and do not have courage to register their opposite views and the ultimate rulings in the mind of the High Command invariably prevails .
Obviously there is no alternative to flattery and Yesman culture .Anyone who has the idea to combat and break this yesman culture can only win the heart of the masses and can help India in growing in real sense.
It will not be incorrect to say here that CAC concept was introduced with the declared purpose of making sanctioning process more effective and transparent. But in practice hidden purpose of CAC concept was to provide shield to cover the corrupt dealings of top officials of the bank who sanction loans only after accepting gift in cash or in kind.
It is open secret that high command or the chief of an organisation works behind the screen and he is awarded if some good results precipitate but on the contrary when a decison is taken with dirty mind and the outcome goes wrong, the accusing fingers are pointed out towards juniors who processed the proposal and who submitted the same before CAC.
Only IT officials can expose the real devil functioning behind CAC if they dare assess the assets of top officials of bank to find out whether they are in disproportionate to their total income.But do they have so much courage to move against the wishes of their mentor ministers?
Are they not worried of torturous transfers and charge sheet as Mr. Khemka is facing in Harayana?
Rather I would like to suggest Government of India to assess the functioning of Credit Approval Committee (CAC) which were framed in almost all public sector banks two years ago at the instruction of Ministry of Finance.While making honest assessment of CAC, Government of India will have to keep in mind how in the recent past ,at the instance of Rahul Gandhi the ordinance passed by cabinet allowing criminals to contest election against the wishes of Supreme Court was withdrawn by the cabinet.This example is enough to illustrate how Yesman culture taken deep root in the entire system in the country.
I however appreciate the system prevailing in judiciary where a judge can register his conclusive orders against the views of other two colleague judges.In High Court of in Supreme Court , final order in any case is decided by majority view of panel and even opposite views are kept in record. In banks , members of CAC or directors in Board, or ministers in cabinet or MP in Parliament do not have enough scope and do not have courage to register their opposite views and the ultimate rulings in the mind of the High Command invariably prevails .
Obviously there is no alternative to flattery and Yesman culture .Anyone who has the idea to combat and break this yesman culture can only win the heart of the masses and can help India in growing in real sense.
SBI graft case: Loan given in ‘ordinary course of business’, says internal report
MUMBAI, DEC. 6:
State Bank of India’s two-member internal enquiry committee seems to have exonerated Deputy Managing Director Shyamal Acharya of the allegations of wrongdoing in the sanction of a Rs 75-crore loan to a Delhi-based company.
The internal enquiry committee, comprising Managing Directors Hemant Contractor and A. Krishna Kumar, concluded that sanction for the loan by the credit committee headed by Acharya “appears to have been given in the ordinary course of business”.
The bank has submitted the internal enquiry report to the Department of Financial Services, said a bank spokesperson.
The committee was set up immediately after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on November 25 registered a case of alleged graft against SBI Deputy Managing Director, Mid-Corporate Group, Shyamal Acharya, Chairman of a New Delhi-based private company and others.
CBI, in its press release last month said the DMD allegedly influenced his office to process the loan application of the private company and got the loan of Rs 75 crore sanctioned.
CBI’s allegations
“After sanction of the said loan, the Chairman of the said private company allegedly paid Rs 25 lakh to his Advisor (a former SBI official) as reward and also paid Rs 15 lakh to him for further giving it to the DMD as reward.
“After sanction of the said loan, the Chairman of the said private company allegedly paid Rs 25 lakh to his Advisor (a former SBI official) as reward and also paid Rs 15 lakh to him for further giving it to the DMD as reward.
“After receipt of the said amount of Rs 15 lakh, Advisor (former AGM, SBI) allegedly purchased one Rolex and one Omega wrist watch worth Rs 7.75 lakh (approximately) and visited the office of the SBI DMD at Mumbai and delivered the said two wrist watches to him,” said the CBI.
According to the Bureau, upon delivery of the wrist watches, the Advisor (former SBI official) was apprehended by the CBI.
The two wrist watches were recovered from the DMD’s office cabin.
CBI said searches at residential and office premises of the accused were conducted.
No comments:
Post a Comment