Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The charges which were framed against the delinquent officer are:

"Charge-I: Shri V.Arul Kumar while working as Regional Chief, HUDCO Regional Officer, Chennai, had accepted the Bank Guarantee issued by Global Trust Bank on behalf of M/s.Premier Housing & Industrial Enterprises Ltd. as security for the working capital loan of Rs.700 lacs sanctioned by HUDCO in March 1998 with the limiting liability Clause introduced by Global Trust Bank as per RBI guidelines on the recommendations of Law Officer without actually verifying the contents of the Bank Guarantee. The acceptability of the qualified Bank Guarantee resulted in non-realisation of interest at the time of revocation of Bank Guarantee.
Shri V.Arul Kumar, Regional Chief by the above acts has thus exhibited lack of devotion to duty, negligence in the performance of duty and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of HUDCO thereby violated Rules 4(1)(ii), 4(2) and 5(5) of HUDCO Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976.
Charge-V: Shri V.Arul Kumar while working as Regional Chief, HUDCO Regional Office, Chennai, had not complied with the decision taken by the COD in its 87th Meeting held on 24.2.1998 wherein it was decided that in case of default by the agency, the Bank Guarantee should be invoked promptly in the next following month. The agency went in default in June, 1998 but the proposal for revocation of Bank Guarantee was initiated only on 27th October, 1998, in violation of the directions of the COD that in the case of default by the agency, the Bank Guarantee should be revoked promptly in the next following month. HUDCO had to suffer substantial interest loss because of this.
Shri V.Arul Kumar, Regional Chief by the above acts has thus exhibited lack of devotion to duty, negligence in the performance of duty and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of HUDCO thereby violated Rules 4(1)(ii), 4(2) and 5(5) of HUDCO Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976."

The above said charges relate to grant of loan recommended by the petitioner/appellant in March, 1998.

10.1. The imputation regarding charge No.1 makes it clear that the Law Officer has prepared the Bank Guarantee as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines and that was recommended by the delinquent officer without verifying the contents, which resulted in the inability of realisation of interest at the time of revocation of Bank Guarantee.