1 min read
Latest News
राष्ट्र बैंकको ‘सचेत गराउने’ कारबाहीले पनि बैंक सञ्चालकलाई अयोग्य बनाउन सक्नेNepal Rastra Bank's 'Warning' Can Also Make Bank Operators Ineligible
सर्वोच्च अदालतले नेपाल राष्ट्र बैंकबाट बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाका सञ्चालक वा पदाधिकारीलाई दिइने ‘सचेत गराउने’ वा ‘नसिहत दिने’ कारबाहीले पनि कानुनी रूपमा अयोग्यता सिर्जना गर्न सक्ने महत्वपूर्ण व्याख्या गरेको छ।
अधिवक्ता मधुकुमार चौलागाईंले नेपाल राष्ट्र बैंक तथा प्रभु बैंक, ग्लोबल आईएमई बैंक, नबिल बैंकलगायतका बैंकहरूविरुद्ध दायर गरेको रिट निवेदनमाथिको सुनुवाइका क्रममा यो व्याख्या गरिएको हो।
रिटमा राष्ट्र बैंकले नियमन उल्लंघनको विषयमा सचेत गराइएका सञ्चालक तथा कार्यकारी प्रमुखहरू बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्था सम्बन्धी ऐन (बाफिया), २०७३ अनुसार पदमा रहन अयोग्य हुने भएकाले उनीहरूलाई पदमुक्त गर्न माग गरिएको थियो।
संयुक्त इजलासले नेपाल राष्ट्र बैंक ऐन, २०५८ को दफा १००(२) अन्तर्गत दिइने जुनसुकै प्रकारको सजाय—सामान्य सचेत गराउने वा नसिहत दिने कारबाही समेत—बाफियाको दफा १८(१)(ङ) अनुसार कानुनी अयोग्यताको आधार बन्ने स्पष्ट गरेको छ। अदालतले कानुनमा सजायलाई सामान्य र विशेष भनी छुट्याइएको नभएकाले सबै प्रकारका सजायको समान कानुनी प्रभाव हुने उल्लेख गरेको छ।
यद्यपि, अदालतले राष्ट्र बैंकले दफा १००(२)(ङ) बमोजिम स्पष्ट रूपमा पदबाट हटाउने निर्णय नगरेसम्म सम्बन्धित सञ्चालक वा पदाधिकारी स्वतः पदमुक्त नहुने पनि स्पष्ट पारेको छ।
सर्वोच्चले तत्काल सम्बन्धित व्यक्तिहरूलाई पदमुक्त गर्न माग गरिएको रिट निवेदन भने खारेज गरेको छ। तर, बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाका सञ्चालक तथा पदाधिकारीको अयोग्यता सम्बन्धी कानुनी व्यवस्थाको अनिवार्य कार्यान्वयन तथा प्रभावकारी अनुगमन गर्न नेपाल राष्ट्र बैंकका नाममा निर्देशनात्मक आदेश जारी गरेको छ।
उक्त फैसला न्यायाधीश डा. नहकुल सुवेदी र नृपध्वज निरौलाको संयुक्त इजलासबाट २०८१ मंसिर १९ गते भएको हो। सर्वोच्च अदालतमा भएको आगलागीका कारण केही मिसिल कागजात नष्ट भएकाले फैसला संक्षिप्त रूपमा तयार पारिएको उल्लेख गरिएको छ। फैसलाको पूर्णपाठ हालै सार्वजनिक भएको हो
The Supreme Court has made an important interpretation that the 'warning' or 'advice' given by the Nepal Rastra Bank to the operators or executives of banks and financial institutions can also create legal ineligibility. This interpretation was made during the hearing of a writ petition filed by advocate Madhukumar Chaulagain against Nepal Rastra Bank and several banks, including Prabhu Bank, Global IME Bank, and Nabil Bank.
The writ petition had demanded that the operators and executives who were warned by the Nepal Rastra Bank for violating regulations be removed from their positions, as they were ineligible to hold office according to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act (BAFIA), 2016.
The joint bench of the Supreme Court has clarified that any type of punishment, including a general warning or advice, given under Section 100(2) of the Nepal Rastra Bank Act, 2001, can be a basis for legal ineligibility under Section 18(1)(ka) of the BAFIA. The court has stated that since the law does not distinguish between general and special punishments, all types of punishments have the same legal effect.
However, the court has also clarified that the concerned operators or executives will not be automatically removed from their positions until the Nepal Rastra Bank makes a clear decision to remove them under Section 100(2)(ka).
The Supreme Court has dismissed the writ petition that demanded the immediate removal of the concerned individuals from their positions. However, the court has issued a directive order in the name of the Nepal Rastra Bank to ensure the mandatory implementation and effective compliance of the legal provisions related to the ineligibility of operators and executives of banks and financial institutions.
The decision was made by a joint bench of Justices Dr. Nahakul Subedi and Nripdhwoj Niraula on 19th Mangsir, 2081. The court has stated that the decision was prepared in a concise form due to the destruction of some case files caused by a fire at the Supreme Court. The full text of the decision has been recently made public.
