Wilful loan defaulting Government employees

How can an employee of the State or central Government afford not to repay a Bank loan under conditions of a mind-set of ‘eating’it away and continue to be in service without facing an action, is such a situation which perhaps could be condoned under alibis of unacceptable and untenable premises and postulations. That as many as 400 employees of State Government managed to obtain advances facilities amounting to Rs.8.36 crore from Jammu Central Cooperative Bank Limited already with fragile financial health, continue to adopt a brazen intentional and fractious stand of not repaying the principal amount plus up-to-date interest as also penal interest as having defaulted in regular repayment , in ordinary course of business, amounts to nothing less than cheating . Cheating is a cognizable offence fraught with serious legal consequences and their respective departments where they serve and draw their salaries from , must act against them, otherwise a few such cases more could lead to crumbling of the lending banks with average to poor financial health.
A few questions the lending Bank must clarify in the subject matter. We do not dispute the purpose or the nature of requirement of such loans but whether NOCs were obtained from their respective Departmental Heads while calling for their employment status, whether permanent , temporary , casual etc as also the salary particulars? Whether the mode of repayment of mutually agreed repaying instalments were decided in advance while appraising and sanctioning of the loan ? In other words, either cheques signed by the borrower employees for all the instalments had to be obtained in advance which had to be presented on monthly basis or at the periodicity of the terms of repayment or the same had to be deducted from their salaries from their departments and remitted to the lending Bank. In case any of such cheques issued by the borrower would have bounced, he or she would have been liable for prosecution under the relevant clauses of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Moreover, since the individual recipient of the loan amount presumably, on average basis, comes to around or above Rs. 2 lacs, some main realisable security must have been taken at the time of sanctioning of the loan , which in the event of default and after exhausting of all possible avenues and legal ways of repayment, would have been caused to be sold and the loan amount credited , if not fully adjusted, from the proceeds thereof.
Not only the main security like mortgage, lien, assignment etcwas necessarily to be taken while sanctioning loan but to be on the safer side, collateral security too should have been taken like personal guarantee or any other such security which the lending Bank would have thought feasible. The Bank should never feel helpless as it appears in the instant case and , we are afraid, the whole scenario reveals about the quality of appraisal and the manner in which the loans were sanctioned. But the story does not end here. Realising Bank dues which is public property is not that difficult in case of Government employees and it looks prosaic , if not astonishing as to why, if not the individual Departments, in particular the General Administration Department must not realise the entire amount of loan from the employees , even under well set rescheduling arrangement, and arrange to remit the same to the lending Banker. The employees are otherwise liable to face and receive the punishment under service rules for violating conduct and demonstrating intentions and acts of cheating. While we shall be monitoring the developments in the case , at the same time we hope the loans would be adjusted in full at an early date.