The Chennai Region of OUR BANK was upgraded as a Zone and new Regional offices were set up at Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad. The RM was promoted as Zonal Manager and new RMs were posted at Chennai, Hyderabad and Bangalore. Reckless advances started to be released on a wider scale from 1979 onwards. In1980/81 I submitted 18 Memorandums to Head Office giving a clear picture of the nemesis-taking place in the Zone and outlined branch wise the frauds in different accounts. Copies were given to Inspectors of RBI, who came for inspection of the Bank at that time. The new era of charge sheets in my service started consequent to these events.

A newly promoted chairman at Head office, who was appointed with a short tenure of 14 months in 1980 was more interested in the hospitality and friendship of the Zonal Manager, Chennai. He looked down on my complaints with displeasure, as something I had done beyond my scope. Nothing was conveyed to me in writing. But I was transferred to Ranchi in Bihar and my promotion to Scale IV due at that time was not considered. The Zonal Manager was however awarded a promotion form Scale V to Scale VI. No other action or consequences to anyone else involved on account of my extensive reporting.

Surfeit eventually brings in its sick hour. After my transfer to Ranchi, all the borrowal accounts referred by me in my complaints in Southern Zone without exception went totally sticky. A gloom set in the Zone. Development stopped and all technical officers were transferred from the South to Bihar. The Zonal Manager himself was transferred and posted at Head office. The zone was only doing damage control management for the next several years. Managers and officers were demoralized and the era of mass charge sheeting of officers at the Zone became the order and style of management of the day, with total stagnation of business growth and deposit accretion. In this period more than half a dozen managers suffered dismissal/compulsory retirement from service, on charges of making irregular advances.

With charge sheets chasing me one followed by the other, I adjusted myself to face the changed environment. I shifted, since then from studying Finance, Banking, Mercantile law and Economics, to an intensive and deep interest in service laws, functioning of anti-corruption bodies and type of legal remedies available to a besieged officer on eternal trial. Working as branch Manager of the Bank, no threat was perceived by me from Employees or Unions, or difficult customers. But the only threat to me was emanating from my own authorities at the top and I had to be alert and vigilant always to guard myself against this lurking danger.

Why all this? Was I considered corrupt? Was I negligent or inefficient? Did major advances allowed by me as manager in six bigger branches in my career ever go bad? Did the thousands of weaker sector advances made by me in two Metropolitan Branches proved substandard? The harassing authorities would have seized any such opportunities quickly to dismiss me if any one of these actually happened. It was not so. Consequently there was a lot of firing with no ammunition on stock. I was censured six times after serving very lengthy charge sheets. The Bank spent huge amount as the cost of conducting these enquiries for the pleasure of censuring me. This was because my operational area for attending enquiries stretched from Trivandrum, to Bangalore, Hyderabad and then to Ranchi. I had to frequently traverse between these points by air for different stages of formalities connected with each inquiry. These stages comprise of pre-charge sheet (Memo and explanation), Reply to charge sheet, preliminary enquiry, inspection of Bank's evidence, discovery and inspection of defence documents, and thereafter regular enquiry in one or more stretches.

No loss was incurred by the Bank anywhere in my stewardship of branches and no advance granted by me turned NPA. I showed the highest percentage of recovery in small and weaker sector advances.

If I were actually corrupt or had in anyway jeopardized the interests of the Bank, this vexatious exercise of multiple charge sheets would not be needed. The authorities have powers to inflict and punish me, but only after exhausting a quasi-judicial process, and proving misconduct through proper evidence and through a speaking order, which was open for further scrutiny by the judiciary. This needed valid grounds, and none could be found. The tool was employed for harassment and not for the intended purpose of enforcing Discipline.

But what really made the authorities to pick me for delivering the spate of charge sheets and what sort of discipline they expected to inculcate in me through this exertion? I only know that a very small number of executives in the zonal and head office set up of the bank at that time nursed serious misgivings on me. They utilized charge sheets as a forum to address their displeasure over me, diverting huge resources of the bank in this futile exercise. Bank is stated to have spent Rs.5 Lacs over my T.A Bills alone (between 1981 and 1988) not taking into account various other overheads and manpower costs incurred in these enquiries. But they could effectively succeed in this process to defer my promotion to senior management scale IV, due in 1979 but eventually released in 1991, when I became the senior most (top No.1) in seniority in scale III in the whole Bank. When I was promoted in Scale IV, my juniors were already working as DGMs and GMs in Scale VI and VII. In a vitiated environment subjectivity rules and promotion is a prize for proximity and closeness to the bosses. One has to reconcile to realities of the world and accept to live therein, as the world exists. One cannot order a world-order to suit his choice.

The first charge sheet was served in September 1979, when I was working in Hyderabad Branch. It pertained to my tenure at the much earlier period in 1975 at Bangalore city. That is, this charge sheet was served after a gap of four years, when these advances were fully recovered and adjusted. The branch was inspected more than once after I made these advances and no grounds for a serious reprobation was originally made out. The charge sheet, after it was served, was kept pending for three more years. Extensive investigations were pursued in the post-charge sheet period again to add strength for the charge sheet and finally it was closed with arbitrarily awarding a penalty of 'censure'.

A single charge sheet alleging vigilance angle over a conveyance expenditure of about Rs.3000/- spent by me over a period of six months as Manager of Bangalore city Branch was initiated in the early stage (1980-81). In this one case, the CDI of CVC conducted the Departmental Enquiry and I could easily explain my conduct and could get myself exonerated.

Another charge sheet related to an alleged sale of my car purchased out of interest free loan from the Bank, when the loan was still outstanding. Initially there was demand from the Regional Manager arbitrarily for interest charges of Rs.13000/- and odd for this interest free loan. Charge sheet was issued, as I declined to oblige the demand. Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer gave a finding that the charge was not proved. I continued to own the car and the R.C. was in my name and possession of the car was with me. The Disciplinary authority awarded a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, overruling the finding of the Enquiry Officer and contending though the car was not sold, that my intention was to sell the car and it was proved. This is an instance of punishing one not for his action, but for his alleged and assumed intention. As per IPC one is not punished for his intentions but only for his committed actions. But here it is the fable of the lamb vs. the wolf.

A five-page charge sheet with dozens of allegations pertaining to my tenure in Hyderabad Branch was served, when I was in Ranchi. It was kept pending for a year and thereafter closed awarding me a penalty of censure without conducting Inquiry. All charge sheets except a solitary one out of the 11 served on me were for award of major penalties under Regulation No.6 (3) of the DA Regulation of the Bank.

A single charge sheet was issued under minor penalty procedure in 1984. It did not refer to my functioning as employee of the bank, but to my corresponding with the Inquiry Authority Designate in respect of another charge sheet, questioning his eligibility to function as Inquiry Authority on account of inherent presence of bias in him. My letter to the Inquiry authority was rated as not courteous and a charge sheet was served on me for alleged violation of conduct regulation 3(2) providing an officer to show 'courtesy and attention in all transactions and negotiations"

Is it that if the Zonal Manager were to enter my room and project a pistol before me, I have to courteously submit to him "Forgive me Sir, if I have committed any mistakes, please do not press the trigger and please spare my life." I may as well say "stupid man think twice what you are doing. It will recoil on you, title you as a hardcore criminal and make you to ponder the rest of your career in solitary confinement in a prison". I am eligible to classify the action of the worthy ZM as 'stupid' and point out forcefully the consequences of his action on his future. This is logical and cannot be questioned. But to my surprise the ZM, if were to coolly put his pistol on his pocket and wave to me a charge sheet saying ". You are charge sheeted for showing discourtesy to me. Here is a charge sheet. Receive it."

What happened was not different. Mr. P S Appanna (not real name) was the Chief Manager of the Zonal Office, Chennai. He pooled all his resources and talents and generated a master charge sheet for award of major penalty to me, five to six pages long, covering my tenure between 1975 to 1983, and alleging irregularities in several transactions in my tenure as Sr.Manager in three branches and as Development Manager, in between. Mr. P S Appanna is the pillar of the Zonal Office, after the Zonal Manager and consequently took responsibility for all the actions necessary for the preparation of the charge sheet. I deemed him materially interested in the charge sheet and hence a party to the disciplinary case. He got himself on his own recommendation appointed as the Inquiry Authority (IO, PO are appointed by the Disciplinary Authority as per recommendations of the Zonal Office). I wrote him a letter pointing out the anomaly in his dual role, as Chief Manager and the architect of the charge sheet interested in proving the same and as Inquiry Authority coming forward to inquiry into the truth of the charges. I compared the role conflict in his appointment to a person trying to ride two horses simultaneously. I mentioned to Mr.Appanna that if you try to ride two horses simultaneously, you might fell down and injure yourselves. Immediately sprang the charge sheet for my using discourteous language on Mr.Appanna. No attention was paid to the substantive portion of the letter expressing my objection on the appointment. I filed a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to prevent one-sided vindictive action. After a few weeks the charge sheet for minor penalty was summarily closed with the award of a minor penalty of "censure". When I approached the High Court better counsel prevailed and the Bank retraced its step and withdrew the appointment of Mr.Appanna and replaced the Inquiry Authority with Mr.Subbaraman, Chief Manager, who had recently been posted at Madras from Bombay. The main charge sheet for major penalty persisted for 2 years and oral inquiries were conducted on a stretched manner at Chennai and later at Bombay at a huge cost. I was finally censured and the matter closed in 1988.