There is an atmosphere of unemployment all around in India. A large number of unemployed people preparing for jobs in the banking sector are roaming aimlessly on the roads here. You will find coaching institutes preparing for banking at every crossroads but there are no jobs in the banking sector.

One of the biggest reasons for this is that relatives of politicians are recruited in the cooperative banks. Whereas, in the cooperative banks of other states, the state governments make these appointments but in the case of Delhi, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board does not even know who has the right to make appointments in the cooperative banks of Delhi?

Delhi State Cooperative Bank is the state cooperative bank of the national capital which was declared as an apex cooperative bank in 1956-57 under section 2 of the Reserve Bank. But this co-operative bank Chairman Bijendra Singh for the last two decades. Also, the officials of the Registrar Cooperative Society office have also helped this scamster chairman and the officials of the RCS office are also equally involved in the scams in this state cooperative bank.

You will be surprised to know that Chairman Bijendra Singh has committed many scams in this cooperative bank. For example, in the year 2009-10, the chairman made illegal appointments of 113 people in this bank. Most of them are blood relatives of the chairman and other board of directors. Then in the year 2016, he made illegal appointment of the managing director. Then this fake managing director also recruited nine of his other relatives in the bank. In this recruitment scam alone, the bank has suffered a loss of more than 50 crores so far, which the bank has paid as salary to these illegal employees.

Along with this, on the instructions of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, a fact-finding inquiry has also been conducted into the Delhi State Cooperative Bank scam in which many other scams have also been revealed.

For example :

A) According to charge number 01 of Fact Finding Inquiry, the bank is accused that the chairman deliberately reduced the shares of Delhi Government.

In this, the Directorate of Vigilance had advised the Finance Department to increase the share ratio and investigate the allegations of deliberate dilution of shares by the Chairman.

But RCS only wrote a letter to the Finance Department to increase the share percentage and did not investigate the allegation of the Chairman deliberately reducing the share of Delhi Government.

Whereas, in this case, the Directorate of Vigilance has recommended to investigate whether the bank can issue a loan to the member society for purchasing its own shares or not.

It is also worth mentioning here that this is not the only case of purchasing shares by taking loans. CBI and Economic Offenses Wing of Delhi Police are also investigating some other cases of the same bank.

Therefore, this matter should also be investigated by an independent investigating agency so that the collusion of the officers of RCS in this case can also be exposed.

B) According to charge number 02, there is a serious allegation of evasion of GST by tampering with computer software. For which RCS had claimed to conduct a special audit. Whose status is still unknown.

Besides, it is also recorded in the fact finding report that the bank had made changes in the computer entries when it was pointed out during the investigation in this matter. This has been specifically recorded in the fact finding report whereas no such alteration should have been allowed during the investigation.

It is also worth noting here that RCS had also received a confidential audit report from NABARD and the irregularities mentioned in report clearly shows that the software used by the bank for used in daily transactions, manual manipulation is possible.

In such cases also, action has been provided in sub-section 5 of section 118 of the DCS Act 2003. According to which, The committee of a co-operative society or any of its officers or employees who falsify or tamper with the record of the co-operative society, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

C) According to charge number 03, Managing Director Mrs. Anita Rawat is accused of transferring 715 square yard land of the bank to Delhi State Cooperative Marketing and Supply Federation of Nangloi without receiving any consideration.

The complainant has expressed apprehension that Mandeep Singh, the bank director and son of the bank chairman, will benefit from this alleged illegal transaction.

In this case the Economic Offenses Wing of Delhi Police has already registered a complaint and started investigation.

In the fact finding report it has also been said that this matter should be investigated by an independent agency.

Also, there is a provision to take action against such irregularities in sub-section 6 of section 118 of the DCS Act 2003. But, RCS has stated to initiate investigation under section 61 in the matter.

That is, in the name of taking action on the Fact Finding Inquiry Report, re-investigation of the case afresh; What kind of action took place?

D) According to charge number 04, Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited has directly encroached on the rights of the officers posted in the Cooperative Department. There is also a violation of Section 111 of the DCS Act 2003. 

In this case also, as per the recommendations of the Directorate of Vigilance, the government is continuously incurring a loss of five per cent on the recovery collected by the bank from the defaulting borrowers. But there is complete silence in the action taken report on what steps RCS is going in this direction.

Whereas, in this case also the Board of Directors is directly guilty. Because this is a case of deliberate misuse of government official powers.

E) According to charge number 05, in Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited during the year 2009-10 i.e. 13 years ago, the present Chairman Bijender Singh appointed his own relatives along with the Managing Director and other Board of Directors.

The Directorate of Vigilance has recommended investigation into the appointment of 110 people as per the action taken report. Yet it is being investigated under Section 61 rather than the relevant provisions of Section 118.

Whereas as per the two recommendations made in Page No. 35/N Para No. 96 and 97 of the Fact Finding Report, additional investigation on this issue can be conducted by the appropriate investigating agency having jurisdiction over the subject.

And secondly, in cooperative banks in which the government is a shareholder, recruitment should be done through government agencies.

The fact finding report also suggested the name of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board.

It is also surprising that the respondent Delhi State Co-operative Bank itself has disclosed in response to an RTI that the Bank had received a letter dated 07.04.1999 from the Anil Kumar, Superintendent, Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, Govt. of NCT Delhi regarding the selection of employees made by the Bank. After getting legal advice, a reply was sent from the bank in which it was said that Delhi State Cooperative Bank is not a government department. 

But, according to the Annual Administration Report of the Delhi Administration for the year 1956-57, "The Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd., which has been declared as the Apex. Bank of the State under Section 2 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, is financing the affiliated societies in this State.

Similarly, the Directorate of Vigilance has stated the need to investigate the case of four flats purchased by the bank in open bid at a price of Rs 25 crore as per the guidelines of the government and RBI.

In this context, NABARD, while giving clarification on 30 August 2020, has admitted that there has been a violation of Section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act 1949 in the purchase of these flats.

The NABARD replied as under: "The inspection report had commented on the bank violations section 9 of BR Act, 1949 and the same was forwarded to the bank and RCS for information and necessary action at their end."

Here the question also arises that when Nabard had informed RCS regarding this irregularity in the year 2020 itself, then was this clarification of NABARD deliberately not included in the fact finding inquiry?

F) According to charge numbers 06 and 07, orders for recovery of Rs 16.023 crore are pending against Board Chairman Bijendra Singh. Similarly, recovery orders amounting to Rs 16.023 crore are also pending against director RS June.

According to the Act, any member against whom recovery is pending cannot contest the elections of the bank. Despite this, Bijendra Singh became the chairman of this bank and RS June was also elected in the 2014 elections.

In this case, the Directorate of Vigilance suggested confirmation of the order dated 02 June 2014 and respondent no. 04 has also confirmed that the recovery order had given clean chit to Bijendra Singh and RS June on 02 June 2014.

But, RCS very clearly hid the fact that in the year 2014, Delhi State Cooperative Bank elections had ended in April itself, that is, as per the allegation, in reality, Bijendra Singh and RS June had won the elections while the recovery was pending, which was against the rules.

G) According to charge number 08, a representative of NABARD is appointed to the post of Managing Director in Delhi State Cooperative Bank. Whereas the Chairman and other Board of Directors violated the rules and appointed Anita Rawat as the Managing Director of the bank.

In the context of this irregularity, the Directorate of Vigilance, citing Rule No. 58 of the DCS Rules, has clarified that the Managing Director of the bank will be appointed by a committee in consultation with the government. Apparently this was not done in the case of appointment of Smt. Anita Rawat as MD of Delhi State Cooperative Bank.

DoV further stated that, because no prior consultation with the Government was proposed before his appointment and no such approval was given. Therefore, his appointment as MD is irregular and appears to be in violation of the Act and Rules.

H) As per charge no. 09, the present Board of Directors/Members have been elected unopposed since 2003, hence all the member committees of the Bank should be investigated. There is a fear that these committees may be running only on paper or may not exist at all.

In this context, DOV has said in its recommendation that, as per the report of RCS, there has been a huge decline in the number of members of the society i.e. from 1477 members in the year 2018 to 374 members in the year 2019.

Since member societies have voting rights linked to their membership, RCS should inquire about the status of the remaining 1103 societies and take appropriate action under the provisions of law as to whether any verifiable practices have been observed by the co-operative bank.

While submitting the action taken report regarding this irregularity, RCS has admitted that the bank has not followed the provisions given in provision no. 41 of the DCS Act 2003.

It is also worth noting in this case that the cooperative bank could not provide the original membership register. Which directly becomes a matter of action under section 118.

Despite these serious allegations, RCS once again allowed Bijendra Singh to contest the bank elections and even today this fraudster is the chairman of the bank with the connivance of RCS officials.  

As an aware journalist, I worked continuously on the Delhi State Cooperative Bank scam case. I sent complaints of this corruption to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Cooperative Minister Rajendra Pal Gautam, Registrar Cooperative Society Office, Reserve Bank of India, NABARD, NAFED and Public Grievances Commission of Delhi Government. But no one took any action. On the contrary, the entire government machinery kept passing the buck to each other.

Then in this case, in April 2021, I also filed a PIL WP(c) 6767 of 2021 in the Delhi High Court in which RCS has also accepted the truth of all the allegations. But, action is being postponed for years. Because the accused bank has expensive Supreme Court lawyers, in front of whose legal tricks my small lawyers are unable to stand.

Apart from this, the accused bank has also filed a false and fabricated defamation case against me for Rs 2 crore 10 lakh.

To take this scam to its conclusion, I need good lawyers as well as funds. All of you are requested to register your support in this matter because this fight is to get jobs for your children. It is to save your hard-earned money deposited in cooperative banks.

If you want to cooperate in this legal battle, then you can send me the donation amount through Phone Pay on mobile number 8130558859 (UPI ID: delhinews24live@ybl). Also, if you have any questions, you can also contact me through mail on delhinews24live@gmail.com