Khammam: Selective filing of cases against those who obtained loans from various branches of the District Central Cooperative Bank (DCCB), by producing fake documents on invisible properties have exposed the rivalry among the leaders in the ruling TRS party.
The discrepancies in the FIRs filed by cops against those who took loans on false documents are also glaring.
Bank officials lodged complaints as per the diktat of influential persons and without any serious concern to get back the lost amounts from those who took away huge sums. As per the details, the DCCB found there were 14 cases of loans being taken on the basis of fake documents citing non-existent properties.
The DCCB announced it would file criminal charges against the guilty. Following this, only one of the 14, Rani, paid back the loan amount to the bank.
In a normal way, the entire team of officials, who granted the loans on fake properties, should be booked, but this has not happened. Based on complaints from bank officials, the police filed FIRs in five cases of fraudulent loan-taking. No complaint was filed against the rest of those who swindled the bank.
The dragging of DCCB’s former chairman Vijay Babu in one of the cases exposed the rivalry in the ruling party. Babu, who was close to former MP Srinivas Reddy, was made accused-2 in the loan fraud case of G Saikumar and Ramyasri, on the ground that he wrote on the loan application, ‘examine and consider’.
The NST branch of Khammam gave loans to these persons. Later, a case was filed on a complaint from branch manager Venkateswarlu. The issue was brought to the notice of TRS high command, which enquired into it. It turned out that the manager was forced to give such a complaint.
The case became a hot topic of discussion in the TRS circles, mainly on the question whether one should face a case just because he referred a loan application to the bank. And questions are asked as to why the DCCB hesitated in giving complaints to the police in other cases of fraudulent loan-taking even after the complaints sprang up.
It also became public that some of the bank officials who were at the helm of the affairs while sanctioning these loans were not mentioned in the complaints. For instance, two officials close to a trade union were not touched by the DCCB.