-----------------------------------------------------------
A senior manager RRB has been charge sheeted on the said subject and wants a solution so responding him that to read my earlier post which has a solution to your query ----
-----------------------------------------------------------
MY EARLIER POSTING
--------------------------------
A MANAGER IS DISMISSED IN BIHAR (near by Patna ) WHO ALLOWED CROPPING PATTERN & DID NOT MORTGAGE ALL THE LANDS RECORDED IN THE NAME OF BORROWER WHETHER THE ACTION OF BANK IS LEGAL
MY REPLY
नाबार्ड ने स्पष्ट किया है की ऋण राशि के अनुपात में ही भूमि बंधक किये जाएँ न की कृषक की सम्पूर्ण भूमि का इसी प्रकार क्रोपिंग पेटर्न बदलने पर ऋण राशि में वृद्धी करना अनुचित नहीं है ,इस आधार पर बिहार में मैनेजर के ऊपर यह आरोप लगाना ही गलत है की उसने बेंक के हितों के विपरीत कार्य किया जिससे बेंक को आर्थिक नुक्सान की संभावना है ,तदनुसार उसकी बर्खास्तगी अवैधानिक है
My answer is that BANKS ACTION IS ILLEGAL & liable to be quashed in if the same is challenged in court
--------+-----------------------------------------------
WORKING BRANCH MANAGERS note the CHANGES IN KISAN CREDIT CARD IN THE LAST 5 YRS – --------
FRIENDS NEW GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN SENT TO ALL BANKS IN 2016 WITH THE “Title : Study on Implementation of Kisan
Credit Card Scheme Published by : Department of Economic Analysis and Research (DEAR) NABARD, Head Office Mumbai Date of Publishing : December 2016”
(It says only mortgage required quantity of land not all, & on cropping pattern ,if the same is changed you must increase limit also )
------------------------------------------------------------
(I)The farmers’ reluctance to avail higher amount of KCC limits (above Rs. 1.0 lakh) is also on account of bank’s insistence of land mortgage of entire land offered for KCC loan. Banks should mortgage only required quantity of land, sufficient to cover the bank loan.
(II)All the Branch Managers were aware that they had to increase the KCC limit every year by 10 per cent. Although revised guideline had clearly indicated that this 10% increase in KCC limit every year was towards cost escalation/ scale of finance, however, majority of them were not clear whether this 10 per cent increase was to be effected even if there was no upward revision in the scale of finance next year
. (III) Majority of Branch Managers (>70%) were also not aware that the KCC limit fixed for a farmer was on the assumption that the farmer would not change his cropping pattern. In case farmer had changed his cropping pattern, his KCC limit had to be re-worked out. In fact, not even a single instance of enhancement of KCC limit on account of change in cropping pattern was observed in the selected branches during the course of the study
SO NABARD GUIDELINE IS VERY CLEAR WITH REGARD TO MORTGAGE OF LAND & CROPPING PATTERN ,ON THE BASIS NO OFFICER CAN BE PUNISHED FOR DISMISSAL
No comments:
Post a Comment