Imphal, January 13: Setting the record straight on the claims and counter-claims about irregularities in the Imphal Urban Cooperative Bank, chairman of its (IUCB) Board of Directors I Chandrasekhar observed that the truth is known to the people.

The facts cannot be covered up nor the truths blurred by uncorroborated statements of some individuals.

Recounting his personal experiences and referring to bank documents, Chandrasekhar while briefing media persons at a place in Churachandpur district last evening, informed that he became a member of the Board of Directors in June 2006.Soon after he became a member of the Board, Chandrasekhar made all possible efforts to rectify the irregularities plaguing the bank then.

The Board of Directors then made him chairman of Vigilance.

Subsequently, he launched investigation into different activities of the bank.

But everything turned out something else other than the righteous and lawful one.

Following rampant illegal activities undertaken by the General Manager in collusion with the then Board president, he tendered his resignation letter to the president.

On many other cases, he stood firm against attempts to undertake illegal and anomalous activities in the bank, said the Chairman.

Sometime later, the Board of Directors constituted a sub-committee to investigate into incorrect and controversial age (date of birth) of some employees.

During the investigation date of birth of 12 employees including that of the General Manager were found incorrect.

As per the report submitted by the subcommittee, three employees including the General Manager should retire on February 28, 2006 .

A meeting of the Board of Directors held on this matter was also attended by representative of Employees' Association L Suranjoy and GM Lukhoi himself.

The retirement of K Lukhoi on March 1, 2006 was strictly according to law and relevant documents, asserted Chandrasekhar.

Ahead of issuing the retirement order, the Board president served him a show cause notice to which the GM replied that it was 'slip of pen' only to cover up his faults.

Clarifying that Lukhoi was not given retirement on any personal motive but by the inevitability to follow rules and regulations in running an office, Chandrasekhar noted that had the rules were compromised for Lukhoi, other employees would have certainly asked for similar compromise on service rules.

In such a situation, would it be possible to run the bank, asked the Chairman.

Chandrasekhar further highlighted the circumstances and events before Lukhoi was given retirement.

Lukhoi joined the IUCB as an Accountant in 1973 through the Manipur State Cooperative Bank.

In his application, Lukhoi gave his date of birth as March 1, 1948 .

Accordingly, in the seniority list published by the then General Manager RK Mani in 1993, Lukhoi's date of birth was given as March 1, 1948.The notification about the seniority list clearly mentioned that if there was any mistake in date of birth, the same should be rectified within September 30 of the same year.

The notification also declared that if the necessary corrections were not made within the deadline set, the date of birth as recorded then in the seniority list would be taken as genuine, conveyed Chandrasekhar.

At that time, K Lukhoi neither made any complaint nor corrected his date of birth.

It was only in 2001 when he became AGM (A) that Lukhoi changed his date of birth to March 1, 1949 by simply using a white fluid in total disregard of all official formalities.

By that time, all service books were in his hands by virtue of his position in the IUCB, disclosed Chandrasekhar.

According to service rule (FR/SR 56 note 6), if any employee thinks that his/her date of birth has been wrongly entered, the same should be corrected within five years of joining service, pointed out the Chairman.

Moreover, K Lukhoi in his application for a loan from GPF account also accepted his retirement date as February 28, 2006 .

After a gap of sometime, Lukhoi's wife submitted a complaint to the then Corporation Minister W Leima alleging that her husband was given 'forced retirement' before the expiry of his service period.

Subsequent upon the complaint, the Registrar of Cooperative Society (RCS) sent a letter to the Board asking to reinstate the retired GM to his post against all established rules and regulations.

The Board then referred the case to the Gauhati High Court which rejected the appeal for reinstatement of the GM, recounted Chandrasekhar.

This was followed by another complaint case filed in the High Court by Lukhoi himself.

While the case was pending in the Court, Lukhoi with the help of a UG group rounded up eight Board members excluding the president and held a sitting with the vice-president in the chair.

In the meeting, the board members were forced to take a resolution declaring reinstatement of K Lukhoi to his former post on June 14, 2006, asserted Chandrasekhar while asking if it was not violation of the bank's bye-laws to adopt such a resolution with the vice-president in the chair when the president was occupying his post.

It would be more explicit for K Lukhoi to explain himself the manner in which he was reinstated to his post on June 14, 2006, noted the Board Chairman. There was no one to listen to the complaint of the Board that such a forceful step was uncalled for.

Everybody turned a deaf ear to the appeal of the Board to revoke the initiative taken up to re-instate Lukhoi to his post, recalled Chandrasekhar.

What was more disheartening in the case was the act of violating all the established rules and regulations of the bank just to benefit a few people, he remarked while questioning if service periods of other employees would be extended too just as Lukhoi's when they reach their retirement age.

After K Lukhoi was reinstated to his post, Lukhoi in connivance with the then Corporation Minister W Leima suspended the Board of Directors for 12 months under several unfounded charges.

Moreover, an enquiry was also ordered over the suspended Board.

As the enquiry report was filed by Lukhoi, he wrote whatever he wished and impeached the Board.

The enquiry officers were never given a chance to take statements of the Board members.

In fact, the whole enquiry was based on the reports furnished by only K Lukhoi.

He together with some members of the employees' association filed the report in his office room according to their wish and submitted the same to the Govt.Considering the circumstances under which the enquiry was conducted, the enquiry officers cannot be just condoned.

Some incumbent office bearers of the employees' association are involved in forgery cases.

These individuals are being used by Lukhoi in many activities beyond their privileges.

Obviously, the employees' association is a body constituted for the welfare of the employees.

They do not have any right to interfere in matters related to management of the bank, observed Chandrasekhar.

Nevertheless, if any initiative/action of the management affects the interest of employees, they may make complaints to the management.

Still then, they don't have any right to interfere in the management affairs, asserted the Board Chairman.

He further observed that the employees' association maintained a conspicuous silence when Lukhoi changed his date of birth illegally.

Just as in the case of Lukhoi, the association made no objection when another lady employee was also reinstated to her post.

Comment