When we accept an assignment and accept the remuneration, we must also be willing to be accountable for the job that we are assigned to do. At every designation, there is a set of duties to be discharged. Hence, it is absolutely essential that the designated person remains accountable for his duties.
It is also essential that the person must be held responsible for the decisions made. A performer takes pride in his job and would prefer being addressed by his name, but a non-performer generally avoids the same, which is damaging our system.
Arun Khetrapal was awarded with Paramveer Chakra and not the “Second lieutenant of a Regiment”. Our Prime Minister is Narendra Modi, and surely he shall not object letters being addressed to him by his name.
When a judge passes an order in the court, the order is printed in his name. With the present economic condition of our country and our State, unless we take up our responsibilities boldly and discharge them willingly, the scenario shall continue to remain dismal.
The heat is felt tremendously in the MSME (micro, small and medium) sector when no decisions are made in a time-bound manner in most departments and especially with the Government-owned banks where the borrower has to face all repayments and other compliances in a time-bound manner. This is unfair and needs to be reviewed even in the interest of the banks.
Most public-sector banks have formed committees for sanctioning a loan proposal. A committee is generally formed to exchange views on a particular subject so that proper justice is rendered. Committees are never formed to shirk accountability.
The SARFAESI Act, 2002 empowers the Authorised Officer of a bank to act on behalf of the bank for recovery of the bank’s dues from a borrower. The Authorised Officer issues notices in the name of the company, its guarantors and directors. The notices are addressed by names, which may be in compliance with the law.
Why then, the reply cannot be addressed to the Authorised Officer by nameIJ In case of the Provident Fund, ESI (Employees’ State Insurance), etc., the Recovery Officer addresses the promoters of the company by name along with his name and signature. Similarly, most Government departments’ letters are also issued with names and signatures of the issuing authority; in some cases, even the telephone numbers of the issuing authority are provided.
Whereas it is surprising to note that in most cases, bank officials, especially in the public sector, do not wish to be addressed by names. A senior officer of the SBI replied to a customer, “If you continue addressing such letters in personal name, the addressee, since he is responding to the communications in his official capacity, could well be barred by statute from responding to such letters.”
It is not quite understood what statute he is referring to, but in case one such statute exists, it needs to be reviewed and amended. The reasons are as under:
1. Even when the officer is responding in his official capacity, it is the person who is responding and not his designation. Hence, addressing by name should be proper.
2. Penalty or reward is always awarded in favour of the person, and not his designation.
3. For discharging duties assigned to his designation, the person concerned draws remuneration and, hence, he must be personally accountable for proper discharge of his assigned duty.
4. When the designated person is on leave, it is assumed that a substitute shall discharge his duties. The substitute then shall be accountable in lieu of the designated person.
5. Addressing by name cuts down red-tapism, expedites execution/implementation and promotes transparency.
6. It is for such reasons that even the bank issues notices by name and not by the designation.
Fixing accountability is highly essential. The MSME sector, which is the growth engine of any nation, is today ailing due mostly to under-financing and delayed financing. Such issues can be resolved mostly through fixing of accountability. The performers must be rewarded and the nonperformers penalised.
Such accountability, when fixed, will drive the MSME sector, which can turn around the present economic scenario of the country.
The number of poor people in Odisha is 1.7 crore, at least 32 lakh more than the figure arrived at by the Tendulkar Committee, according to the latest report on poverty submitted to the Union Government by the Rangarajan Committee. Based on the revised criteria, the percentage of poor in the total population of the country has jumped from 21.92 to 29.5 in the latest period.
This scenario can be best addressed through development of MSMEs since it is the link between agriculture and large-scale industries.
The Government of India and the State Governments are constantly working for development of MSMEs. But the sector is still underperforming, one of the main reasons being lack of fixing proper accountability.
Most schemes do not deliver the desired targets. For example, banks continue to insist on collaterals from MSMEs despite clear provisions for providing collateral free loans to MSMEs up to `1 crore, as reported by industry associations and knowledge and news networks.
The Government of Odisha has announced incentives to boost exports from the State. But without fixing proper accountability, the scheme may not yield the expected results. Similarly, the plan of the State fordeveloping 7,700 new MSMEs with an investment of `770 crore can only be implemented effectively with fixing of proper accountability.
Fixing stringent norms for loan defaulters is proper for the actual willful defaulters but not for the MSMEs which have defaulted due to under-financing, delayed financing or through reasons beyond their control. Many such cases could have been avoided through proper fixing of accountability.
Reportedly, out of the 3,066 MSMEs which are sick in Odisha as per the 4th MSME census, 2,891 are micro, 171 small and five medium. Most of these industries have failed due to issues relating to improper financing.
Many of these units can be revived and brought into the production stream through proper financing/ rehabilitation, which is again possible through fixing of accountability.
The Union Minister of MSME while framing the new MSME policy must focus on accountability to ensure proper implementation of the policy guidelines.
There are several examples of the premier bank flouting the guidelines of the RBI and even their own guidelines which can be checked through fixing of accountability.
When this is so fixed by name, not only the flouting shall reduce but proper compliances can resolve the issue of bad loans, shrinking factory output, soaring inflation, which is now a challenge for the new Government.
(The writer is Working Chairperson of the Entrepreneurs and Finance Customers Association of India- EFCAI, can be contacted at efcai12@gmail.com )