EMPLOYEES SUFFER IN RICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK CASE
4 employees were wrongfully penalised Nu. 8,532,773 each, for 12 loans that were defaulted by Ugyen Wangchuk and Tshering Pem
4 employees were wrongfully penalised Nu. 8,532,773 each, for 12 loans that were defaulted by Ugyen Wangchuk and Tshering Pem
Defaulting on numerous loans and bank guarantees extended to Ugyen Wangchuk by RICBL, the case has taken a complex path, involving legal proceedings, court decisions, internal investigations by RICBL, and a significant public interest. The case has resulted in RICBL unjustly singling out four of its employees and penalizing them 8.5 million each.
Uncover the intricate elements of the Ugyen Wangchuk vs. RICBL case – a central legal dispute that has garnered substantial attention due to loan-related irregularities, legal battles, and internal actions taken by RICBL.
Total :- Nu. 34,131,093.37
དེ་ལས་བརྟེན་སྐབས་སུ་འབབ་པའི་རྩོད་བཤེར་ནང་ རྩོད་རྩ་དང་ རྩོད་ཟླ་ ལས་བྱེདཔ་ཡོངས་ཀྱི་ཆེད་དམིགས་ཀྱི་ནོར་འཁྲུལ་ཤོར་བཞིན་བསམ་བཞིན་གྱི་བྱ་བ་སོགས་འབག་ཡོདཔ་ལས་ དེ་ལྟར་གྱི་འགན་འཁྲི་བསྐལ་དགོཔ་འདུག།།
Therefore, in the current case, the plaintiff, respondent, and all officials have committed acts of intentional faults and mistakes; due to this, accountability must be fixed.
RICBL translates as:
Further, although no loan agreement was executed between the Corporation and the defendant, since the Corporation has sanctioned the new loan, no proper diligence was exercised, and therefore, the plaintiff, the defendant and all employees must be held accountable for the fault.
RICBL, during the enforcement, made the relevant employees share of Nu. 34.13 Million liable to only 4 employees, based solely on the Case Summary (བཤེར་བཅུད) of the HC Judgement.
However, the closing statement of the Case Summary (བཤེར་བཅུད) states, "therefore, in the current case, the plaintiff, respondent, and all officials have committed acts of intentional faults and mistakes; due to this, accountability must be fixed."
Thus, the Case Summary (བཤེར་བཅུད) concludes that all employees must be held accountable for the fault. Additionally, the Judgement (འཁྲུན་ཆོད) and Kaja (བཀའ་རྒྱ) of the High Court refer to the "Relevant Employees of the Bank".
The RICBL version of the Translation on this short closing remarks gets it completely wrong, was it a genuine mistake or intended otherwise to target only four individuals?
The question we would like to ask you now is:
Is it only the 4 employees or all relevant officials involved in the 12 loans and be made accountable for being at fault?
Do you adhere to the Judgement (འཁྲུན་ཆོད) and Kaja (བཀའ་རྒྱ), or, like RICBL, to the Case Summary (བཤེར་བཅུད) during the enforcement of the Judgement?
The Bench II of the High Court issues clarification on who are the relevant employees of the bank.
...ཟེར་ འཁོད་ཡོདཔ་ལས་འབྲེལ་གཏོགས་ཡོད་མི་དངུལ་ཁང་གྱི་ལས་བྱེདཔ་ གོང་འཁོད་མི་ངོམ་བཞི་གི་མིང་ གསལ་ཏོག་ཏོ་འབད་འཁོད་ཡོདཔ་ལས་དང་པ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་ལག་འཁྱེར་ཨང་༡༠༧༡༠༠༠༢༢༢༩ ཅན་མ་ འཆང་མི་ངོམ་བཀྲིས་དཔལ་འབྱོར་དང་ གཉིས་སུ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་ ལག་འཁྱེར་ཨང་༡༠༧༡༦༠༠༢༠༥༦ ཅན་མ་འཆང་མི་ངོམ་འཇིགས་མེད་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་དང་ གསུམ་པ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་ལག་འཁྱེར་ཨང་༡༠༩༠༣༠༠༡༢༥༣ ཅན་མ་འཆང་ མི་ངོམ་ ཨྱོན་ལྷ་མོ་ དེ་བཞིན་བཞི་པ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་ལག་འཁྱེར་ཨང་༡༠༦༠༣༠༠༠༩༡༠ ཅན་མ་འཆང་མི་ངོམ་འགྱུར་མེད་ཆོས་ཚོགས་ཁོང་བཞི་གིས་ སྟེང་ཁར་ འཁྲི་བ་བཀལ་བ་ཅིན་ འཁྲུན་ཆོད་དང་འཁྲིལ་ཏེ་ནོར་འཁྲུལ་མེདཔ་ལས་ ...
...the bank's relevant employees mentioned are firstly, Tashi Penjor with CID No. 10710002229; secondly, Jigme Namgyal with CID No. 10716002056; thirdly, Ugyen Lhamo with CID No. 10903001253 and fourthly, Jurme Chetsho with CID No. 10603000910. These four employees must be held accountable. Regarding this, there shall be no discrepancies which is in line with the judgement...
We trust and respect the Judiciary of Bhutan, so what's this story all about? Hear our side of the story.
Thimphu, Bhutan
This webpage is created with the sole purpose of shedding light on the experiences of four unfortunate employees named by RICBL.
It is not intended to undermine or challenge the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts but rather aims to explore how the institution they served for 16 years may have shifted responsibility in the context of a Loan Default Case from 40+ employees to only 4 employees.
Update: The Hon'ble High Court names four employees after the clarification issued on October 2, 2023.