given by Mr. Beg. However, it has also been noted that the loan stand closed without any loss to the Bank. ix) In view of the above, it is observed that No loans are given to the relatives or friends of the director as per RBI directions. x) In view of the above, it cannot be said that Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain, Mr. Parmod Kumar Jain, Mr. Pardeep. Kumar Jain & Priyanka Jain are friends of Mr. M.Q.H. Beg, another director (now Chairman) of the Bank, which is also not prohibited by the RBI. But it is evident from the record that the end use of the original loan was never verified. The Bank has not properly assessed the original requirement as well as the repayment capacity of the borrowers. However, it is also noted that the account is in order at present without any default and the Bank has not suffered any loss on this account. xi) In view of the above, It can be said that Mr. Mirza Ziauddin Beg is not a relative of any of the Directors of the Bank as per circular issued by RBI. So far as filling the loan application by the staff member, it has already been concluded that it is a part of the Bank service. It could not be verified that the same was filled up at Mr. Beg’s residence. xii) The allegation that more than 50% appointments were directly made by Mr. Beg is generalised in nature. The specific references mentioned in the complaint are dealt in detail at succeeding paras. xiii) In view of the above, it can be said that Anam Khan was taken to Pune by Mr. M.F.H. Beg as an attendant in official capacity and all the expenses were duly approved in the Board Meeting. However., it is not correct that soon thereafter she or any other person was given the appointment in the Bank by Mr. Beg.. xiv) In view of the above, it can be said that Mr. M.M. Zaman, who retired as CEO of the Bank at the age of 65 years was re-appointed as Senior Officer on Special Duty in the Bank is correct. The Board never defined
