In a recent decision, the High Court has ordered a new investigation into the case of financial mismanagement involving Rupee Cooperative Bank. The court found that the previous investigation was not detailed enough and lacked clear findings.
The case is about claims of financial mismanagement by former managers of Rupee Cooperative Bank. The bank's Board of Directors was replaced in 2002 due to problems found during an inspection by the Reserve Bank of India.
A person was appointed to look into the bank's losses. In 2016, this person's report blamed several employees and directors for financial losses because of their roles in managing the bank. However, the people accused challenged these findings, leading to a series of appeals.
"The findings are written in general terms and treat all persons alike, without distinguishing between the decision-making powers of the Managing Committee and the limited administrative roles of the officers."
The court, led by Judge Amit Borkar, found that the investigation did not properly differentiate between the responsibilities of the bank's managers and its decision-makers. The decision pointed out the lack of specific charges and evidence against each person.
The court stressed the importance of a thorough investigation that clearly identifies each person's role in the alleged financial mismanagement. It noted that the earlier findings were too vague and did not meet the standards needed to hold individuals personally responsible.
The court has canceled previous orders and directed the person in charge to conduct a new investigation. This time, the process must strictly follow the rules, ensuring that each charge is backed by solid evidence.
"The Authorized Officer shall, while conducting the fresh inquiry, strictly follow the procedure laid down in Rule 72."
The court has ordered that the new investigation be completed within six months. This decision aims to ensure a fair and just resolution, giving everyone involved a proper chance to present their cases.
The court did not include a conclusion about the verdict, focusing instead on the need for a clearer and more precise investigation.
