Imphal, January 14: While appreciating stance and endeavour of the proscribed UNLF to replenish objective of the Imphal Urban Cooperative Bank IUCB) as an enviable financial entity, the RPF highlighted certain irregularities that had been dogging the IUCB.

Speaking to reporters somewhere in Churachandpur district yesterday, a spokesman of the outlawed RPF described as outrageous the UNLF's indecision on reconstitution of the IUCB's board of directors for which election was held on June 10, 2004 only to be disbanded later.

However, the fact that UNLF was bold enough to concede that certain anomaly preceded the said election deserves appreciation for its spirit, said the spokesman who also clarified that RPF had no intention to get involved in the IUCB imbroglio but was constrained following complaints by members of the bank's board of directors who were unceremoniously dissociated from the Board.

With the initial probe of the RPF stumbling upon the then General Manager (IUCB) kangjam Lukhoi doctoring document to prolong his service tenure at the fag end of his service career thereby plunging the IUCB setup into disarray it was inevitable for the RPF to keep the house (IUCB) in order, he maintained.

Insistence of K Lukhoi that his date of birth was erroneously entered in the record book and confession while he was nearing service superannuation in no way justify or reflect an individual perched at such an esteemedpost, the spokesman countered and pointed out that Lukhoi's date of birth is March 1, 1948 with his retirement supposed to be on February 28, 2006 .

As per existing rule, rectification of service document with regard to age should have been notified and effected within the first five year of service and a General manager not aware of such regulation is certainly debatable, remarked the spokesman who also justified that under such circumstance K Lukhoi asked to pay back the salary amount he withdrew during the dubiously extended service period is just and appropriate.

Besides reminding that Lukhoi had expressed willingness to reimburse the said amount, the spokesman construed that the General manager's intention was to mislead the general public and revolutionary groups to sustain his own personal interest.

Regarding the UNLF exposing fraudulent withdrawal from the IUCB, the spokesman conveyed RPF's appreciation to initiative of the former but posed whether the UNLF reinstating Lukhoi on June 14, 2006 could be assumed as revolutionary justice.

Insisting that the Lukhoi episode was enacted by one Brojen of Khongman at the behest of UNLF's Samson alias Umakanta, the RPF spokesman identifying Brojen as Umakanta's assistant further cautioned that Brojen may have many other pseudonyms.

On the purchase of ATM machines, the RPF functionary cited annual report of the bank (2004-05), subsequent Board meeting transactions and communication to the RBI (Oct 28, 2006) to snub Lukhoi's contention he had no knowledge on the purchases and slammed the General manager of trying to cover up the shoddy deal and putting his subordinates on the firing line.

Turning the tirade to top rung officials of the IUCB and functionaries of the employees' association of the Bank, the spokesman fumed how could they remain muted when it was clear Lukhoi extending his service would jumble the line of promotion and service interest of more than 100 employees.

Contending that president of the employees' association Suranjoy, secretary RK Tikensana, advisor Priyogopal and assistant secretary Gambhir are equally guilty for not raising their voices to manipulation of Lukhoi but siding with the General manager and compromising interest of the employees and shareholders, the RPF had initially resolved to rusticate them from service but retracted from such stringent action taking into account hardships the effected families might endure.

At no point of time had the RPF prescribed resignation/suspension of the association's office bearers, he insisted while adding that the outfit has no comment in case individuals owe moral responsibility and stepped down from their respective post/position.

He, nevertheless, asserted that RPF had recommended withdrawal of the case initiated by some of the Association's office bearers on ground that the Association has no right to intervene in the affairs of the Board.

Reminding that the IUCB has to accommodate and honour interest of the shareholders and that the bank's employees' association need not stray from its bounden duty of upholding interest of the employees, the spokesman reiterated what compulsion held back the office bearers from raising objection of Lukhoi's service extension.

Taking strong note of Suranjoy remaining indifferent to the impending crisis within the IUCB set-up in the wake of the General manager twisting his service document (age), the spokesman opined that Suranjoy cannot skip responsibility as he represented the employees in the Board and should be well aware of Lukhoi's service superannuation date (March 1, 2006) as decided in the February 23, 2006 meeting of the Board to which Lukhoi had also personally stamped approval.

Highlighting achievement of the IUCB under the then Board of Directors during the 2004-06 period, the spokesman recounted the deposit amount spiralling to Rs 102 crore (approx.) from the deposited amount of Rs 60 crore (approx.) at the rate of Rs 21 crore per annum which ironically depleted to the annual growth of only Rs 3 crore after the Government appointed Board of Administrators was at the helm of affairs last year.

Such wide disparity in deposit accumulation clearly reflects commitment and efficiency of the two entities, he added.

Tracing establishment of the IUCB to 1965-66 with 77 promoters and a humble sum of Rs 1 lakh under Ex-MP (L) Sinam Krishnamohan, the RPF spokesman suggested that reviving Board of Directors is essential to sustain development of the bank apart from guaranteeing benefit to the shareholders.

Strongly advocating that sincere individuals need to be included as functionaries of the employees' association, the spokesman also conveyed RPF's keen desire to spur growth of the people's bank.

Comment