In the narration of Bhrasht Parvat (title of my main complaints covering 1 to 6) I explained how I was given my last posting in 1994/95, at BO. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi Branch to work as Chief Manager under direct jurisdiction and control of Mr."A", after submitting in October 1993 on the same Mr."A" a stunning report narrating corruption charges with elaborate documentary evidence in my special investigation report. Such a posting is both unprincipled and unethical and an instance of abuse of power vested for placement and utilization of the services of senior officers at the verge of their retirement in the last phase. It is a craving and the instrumentality to liquidate me bringing me, the investigator subservient and under total control of the accused.
But this is not the first instance for such an abuse of the system was contrived. The posting orders of Mr."PTV" Sr.Inspector given in 1983/84, under the same Mr."A", when he was earlier Regional Manager of Regional Office, Bombay was an identical example. Brief details how Mr."A" dealt with Mr".PTV", Sr.Inspector for daring to investigate and report against him in respect of misdeeds in "S" Group of Accounts (BO NSC Bose Road, Madras) make pertinent and informative reading.
Mr."A" was earlier in 1982, and 1983 regional manager of Regional office, Madras (now Chennai). Mr."RVS" was the zonal manager. (Brief profile already given for both in Bhrasht Parvat.) Mr."PTV" happened to inspect BO. NSC Bose Road, Branch at Madras, where a mega-corruption plagued borrowal account (accounts of "S" Group of companies) was maintained. This borrower is an example of an extremely nauseous cheat, but held in high esteem by Mr."MKM" the Zonal Manager and Shri "SL" the Chairman in 1981/1982. This account will be vividly described by me later in my brief account about corrupt borrowers of the Southern Zone. Modus operandi of "S" Group accounts was covered by me in Memorandum No.7 on Southern Zone submitted in 1980/81 to Head office and RBI.
Mr."PTV" brought the entire records of this account to his camp office (Room in Kanchi Hotel, where he was officially staying). I happened to me at Madras and on his seeking guidance, I helped him to organize a detailed checklist for probe of this account. Mr."PTV" had regards for me, since I helped him in a departmental enquiry by CDE of CVC, which culminated from an investigation by the CBI, Hyderabad, based on 3rd party complaints. As we could explain satisfactorily the conduct of Mr."PTV", the enquiry officer returned a report that charges were not proved and Mr."PTV" was fully exonerated. As I had already dealt with corruption in the group accounts of "S" earlier in 1980, Mr."PTV" sought my service.
The branch manager in connivance with the higher executives had been indulging in unscrupulous accommodation to this party at this phase on daily recurring basis permitting advance withdrawal of clearing cheques (all accommodation cheques)lodged on HCB, local Branch. Started at smaller dimension, this unholy accommodation reached a mammoth level Rs.3 Crores on daily recurring basis. At this stage the kite broke in 1982/83, and it exposed the unsavoury facts and placed all involved on a dead end. Further manipulation could not be practised since Mr"CSR" the Director of the Bank representing employees lodged a complaint with RBI, and this put the Bank authorities in a tight spot. This is the background situation when Mr."PTV" took up his investigation.
The report of Mr."PTV" indicted both Mr"A" and Mr."RVS", as also Mr."Gl" the Branch manager. The fraud was not restricted to the mere Rs.3 Crores involved in the kite flying exercise, but in respect of the total advances to this party exceeding more than Rs.10 Crores (less than Rs.20 Crores). But strange no action was taken on Mr."MKM" or the top executives deeply associated with this party who were the more detestable culprits. Both Mr."A" and Mr."RVS" were charge sheeted and punished. Mr."A" was transferred to Bombay, Regional Office and Mr."RVS" was shifted to Head office, as Incharge of Industrial Rehabilitation cell.
Mr."RVS" took it as a normal misfortune in his life. "I am not responsible for the development and I am innocent. My career would have been totally ruined. But it is my good fortune that Mr."SL", the vindictive Chairman was, in between, himself punished and removed from office in March, 1985. I am saved because he was not there and justice could prevail." This is the statement of Mr"RVS" to me in 1986/87 when I met him at the Inspection & Control Division, where he had taken charge as Asst. General Manager at that time.
But Mr."A" is not the person to let grass grow under his feet. He had his earlier roots in the Personnel Department at Head office, where he had worked previously in scale III. How he contrived, it is not known but within a few months Mr.PTV", Sr.Inspector was shifted from Inspection Division and allotted to Bombay Region under jurisdiction and control of Mr."A" the Regional Manager. His exact place of posting was not disclosed and he was to report to Mr."A" and receive his posting orders in the Region. Mr."PTV" was in Scale III (Sr.Inspector of the rank of Sr. Manager). If he was allotted to Bombay Region, no doubt he would work under control and jurisdiction of the Regional Manager, Mr".A", but his postings are to be decided as per rules by the Zonal Manager. The Regional manager is competent to give posting orders only for officers in Scale I and II. But conforming to rules and etiquette does not count in an arbitrary system. Mr."PTV" was relieved from Inspection and asked to report to Mr."A", the Regional Manager, Bombay for his further postings.
It is part of the job of the investigator to investigate, as it is for the soldier to fight. They both know how to do the job, but they do not choose when and where to do the same. Mr."PTV" had little indication or reason to suspect anything unusual. He went and reported to Mr"A". Mr."A" was polished and sweet. "It will take a few days to decide your posting, before that I want to entrust you a critical assignment. I have continuous problems from this Ulhasnagar Branch. Things do not appear to be all right there. Please visit the branch. You are an accomplished inspector. Please give me a first hand report of factual status prevailing in the branch". These are the words of Mr."A" to Mr."PTV". With all enthusiasm Mr."PTV" proceeded and confronted the most contaminated branch of the region and the kind of one, which he had never witnessed earlier. He stayed for a week or two and prepared a lengthy report portraying the awesome affairs of the branch and submitted to Mr."A". Mr."A" took about 30 minutes to calmly peruse the report keeping Mr"PTV" sitting before him. At the end of which he with equal calmness remarked "Now Mr"PTV" please receive this report back, proceed to Ulhasnagar, take charge of this branch and set right all the shortcoming at the branch listed by you. A dramatic methodology to build a suspense and then to spring a surprise.
Posting in such a branch is not a terror in itself. What is given to you is a scrap. It cannot turn worse. You will be never blamed that you have spoiled a good branch. Little efforts will yield some results and concentrated efforts will give due rewards. Officers posted to such branches by way of administrative punishment generally turn up with excellent results. But it needs a lot of resources, energy and determination. But Mr."PTV" was not in a position. His health was shattered in the tenure as inspector and he suffered chronic diabetics. His children (two daughters and one son are still school attending at Hyderabad). His family was residing in Hyderabad. Today he is not in a position to climb this steep hillock, though a decade back it would have been a welcome pastime. Bombay Region has over 90% of its branches within the metropolitan city. Mr."PTV" was confident that he would be given a city posting. In the condition of his prevailing health, the news of the posting at a difficult branch in a suburban point really shocked him. He tried to appeal and seek a change of the orders. But to no effect. With pain and distress he proceeded to that station. But on reaching, while leaving the railway station itself, he slipped and fell down and was injured severely. He was admitted to the hospital in Bombay. Effect of severe diabetics made healing difficult. A few samarten friends attended on Mr."PTV" at the hospital taking turns in shifts of 6 hours each, but "PTV" succumbed to the injuries and expired even before his family members could arrive at Bombay. Mr."PTV" died through an accident on travel at bank's cost and while on bank's duty. His hospitalization is the responsibility of the Bank. It is the duty of the Bank to send his dead body to his place in Andhra. It is also the duty of Mr."A" to offer condolence to the bereaved family and settle his terminal dues. The welfare schemes of the Bank provide for quick appointment of a member of the bereaved family of the employee who dies while in service to provide sustenance of the family. But none of these human considerations prevailed in the mind and value codes of Mr."A". The family members could not get even his provident fund amount settled. The Regional Manager on the contrary extended his animosity and hostility on even the fellow officers, who attended on Mr."PTV" after his injury, when he was admitted in the hospital.
Fellow officers in Hyderabad took up the matter with Head office. All they could do was to get the personnel file of Mr"PTV" belatedly transferred to Regional Office, Hyderabad. Proposal then moved for the settlement of the terminal dues of the deceased officer. His eldest daughter was also provided compassionate appointment in Bank Street, Hyderabad branch. The delay involved in getting routine relief was about a period of one year.
I was in Kerala as Development manager. I issued a circular through the forum of officers' legal cell titled "Sayonara "PTV" and characterized the death of Mr."PTV" in Bombay region as an act of culpable homicide. Cruelty hiding behind technical niceties marked the generalship of Mr."A" revealing his virulent and perverse temperament. Rules can be used and can also be invented to escape and evade, harassing and sensing a sadistic pleasure based on the savage temperament and abominable culture of the bureaucratic in power.
But this had only strengthen my own conviction and to preserve me totally different and be away in complete contrast with the awful profile Mr."A". When you confront baneful forces do not feel the plight, but understand the value of goodness. I feel happy that I do not retaliate to those who harm me. When I confront depraved elements I do expose and uncover their mask, and build a preventive therapy as a shield. But I do not hit back. I leave it to Law in this world and to God in other world to deal with the heinous.
The Tools of Vengence - Action against Non-Conformists
Frequent transfers, cross-country postings, charge sheets, denials of recognition of merit and achievement, and rejection of promotions - these are the tools in the kit to be applied against me by the arbitrary and unprincipled exercise of authority. In the tenure of 39 years, I underwent 17 transfers. I have already mentioned that that I was served 11 charge sheets. In my good days with the Bank I secured continuously prizes on six terms for best performance in the first two branches, i.e. Tiruvarur (1973-74) and Bangalore City (1975-76). But the climate changed after 1977. Though I am eligible for similar prize at Hyderabad branch, where I developed deposits from 170 Lacs to 600 Lacs, advances from l50 Lacs to 900 Lacs and profit from Rs.4 Lacs to Rs.50 Lacs, and was unrivalled in performance in the Southern Zone, no prizes were given. My promotion to Scale IV was denied.(Reason -charge sheets were pending against me)
My promotion from Scale III to Scale IV was kept in abeyance for 12 years from 1979 to 1991. After 1973 the authorities stopped even calling me for interview for such promotions. A posting in distant Bihar (Ranchi) from my place of Hyderabad. From Ranchi within 2 years back to Kerala at the other corner. And here for a period of 5 years (from May 1983 to August 1988) I was kept without any real work entrusted. I was promoted as Chief Inspector in 1991, but in 1993 again my job was restricted. I should not inspect VLBs. I was eager to do work and willing to work and whenever opportunities were allowed, I did work diligently. My inherent suitability to hold top positions were recognised on several occasions, but there was total failure to avail the best from me. It was only due to the policy of the top brass of the Bank. For example my first placement as officer Incharge (manager of small office in Scale I) was at Tiruvarur. The business of this office after my posting there in 1972 swelled from Rs.5.3 Lacs deposits to Rs.43 Lacs and a branch permanently on loss from inception in 1963(Loss around Rs.10 to Rs.12 thousand per annum), it turned to profit of Rs.43,000/- and then Rs.86,000 and followed by Rs.125000/- in three half-years, thus wiping out the entire loss registered since inception of the branch. 1974 this office was upgraded as a regular Branch and I was promoted in Scale II as Branch Manager. At this stage overlooking the seniority of about 25 persons, I was given posting in the 2nd biggest metropolitan Branch in the Southern Region at Bangalore City, normally held by very senior managers (though as Branch Manager I had just completed one year service). Again after joining Bangalore City in 1975, within one year and half, I was selected as Development Manager of the Bank for branches in the whole State of Karnataka. Normally the post was held by Scale III Managers, while I was still in Scale II. In 1979 I was selected to undergo training for the prestigious course of Senior Executives Program at the Administrative Staff College at Bella Vista, Hyderabad, normally allowed for the top executives of the Bank.
Contradictions in Charge Sheeting - The 10th Charge Sheet (BO. Mysore)
An example to show how frivolous and arbitrary the system is, I will narrate (repeat) how my Review Petition in respect of charge sheet No.10 (last but one) against orders of punishment was disposed of, after the appeal was rejected by the chairman, who simply ignored my request for a personal hearing without either allowing it or officially rejecting. The Board of Directors of the Bank is the competent Review Authority for me. The Enquiry officer was Mr."G", the AGM (Personnel). He was however Chief Manager, of Branch at Bangalore Commercial Street, when he was appointed as Inquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority in December 1995. The Disciplinary Authority Mr."J" (also General Manager (Personnel)) got Mr."G" shifted as the Chief (Personal) after the enquiry was completed, but before submission of the report by the inquiry officer. He was promoted shortly thereafter as AGM (Personnel). Presently he is DGM (Personnel).
I requested for review of the entire handling of the enquiry mentioning all the anomalies. I prepared a detailed review note and submitted to the Board. I requested for a personal hearing by the Board of Directors.
My review note was, however, processed by Mr".G", Chief (Personnel), who got prepared a note (reported 52 pages). It was approved by GM - Personnel. After three months a draft resolution embodying the recommended decision of the GM-Personnel (disciplinary authority) and the CMD (the appellate authority) and rejecting my request for review was circulated to the Directors a few days in advance. But the 52-page note was not released at this stage. In the board meeting when discussion on this resolution came Mr."G" who attended the Board meeting as executive assistant to explain this item, handed over the 52-page note to the directors. It all was over in just 5 minutes. The note and resolution were the Chairman's point of view and the directors choose to support the Chairman without any discussion. The lone officer Director was a mute spectator. After the resolution was voted in favour of the Chairman's point of view, the copy of note given to the directors was collected back from all directors, including the officer director. The Board this rejected my Review Petition.
Board deliberations are deemed confidential. How can I get these facts? The fact is that deliberations are confidential, but then there was no real deliberations touching the merits of the case. What was done in the Personnel Division is not totally confidential. The 52-page note was prepared in the Personnel Division, and not by a Committee of Directors of the Board. Secretarial systems, procedures, code of ethics are always to be transparent. What the Board deliberates is confidential. How the Board functions is not. As a delinquent officer I am eligible to know and satisfy that due process of system and procedure were followed. To my dismay the Board acted as a dummy body and a mere rubber stamp. The contents of the 52-page note are indeed cannot be deemed confidential. They represent at best the prosecutor's view of the case. I have a right to reply and rebut the arguments therein. I was not afforded an opportunity. I do not have a copy of the same. In my view it is ex-party decision.
My review note should have been placed initially to a smaller committee of the Directors, which should not include the CMD, who was an interested party as the appellant authority. They should have called the entire records of the enquiry including the records of the appeal and independently assessed the merits of the case. If they are bonafide and honest persons Mr."G" (the enquiry officer) Mr.J" (the Disciplinary Authority, and, the CMD, the appellate authority should not participate in any deliberations dealing with the Review petition, unless I was also permitted to be present. When there was a request by me for personal hearing, it had to be discussed by this committee and they should objectively take a decision on this matter in either way. The sub-committee of the Board must have prepared a brief tabulated note putting the grounds for review with my arguments and its own recommendations on each ground with reasons. Only this note should have been put up to the regular meeting of the Board, where the CMD, GM (Personnel) and Chief (Personnel) cannot participate unilaterally without my presence. Even if he participates the CMD cannot exercise his voting rights. This note should be circulated in advance to the Directors, who were not members of the sub-committee.
Nothing like that was followed and the review was decided by logic developed by Mr."G", dittoed by all further above in an ex-party procedure. What can this be called? Can we call it 'captive justice'? or 'Justice in a cage!'
This is how the systems and safeguards in favour of officers are inflicted a fatal blow. I do not at this stage seek or fight for justice for me, but against continuance of this arbitrary malfeasance at the corporate level of the bank. This is corporate fraud and corporate corruption. It is my point that rampant corruption like a virus has set into the boot sector of the corporate system and none except sycophants and bootlicks who choose to toe the official line has a career in the bank. Those who seek to sail independent, conforming to the rules of the Institution were sure to be persecuted if they come across the path of these desperadoes.
Other Anomalies in Charge Sheet No.10
The subject matter of the charge sheet pertains to the year 1989 and 1990, but the charge sheet was issued in 1995-end. It is a vile attempt to dig out buried hatchets and rake up old moth-eaten non-issues. After the branch was inspected in 1989 and again in 1990, I submitted my detailed replies. If there was a case I should have been charge sheeted at that time. But instead I was assessed as a good performer in 1991-end and I was approbated with a promotion to Scale IV in the same year. The branch was adjudged in all inspections to possess a satisfactory routine both with reference to general management and credit management. I showed considerable progress at the branch. The branch was showing loss in 1997-98 (Rs.4 Lacs). I converted it into profit in the very first year and in the year 1991-92 I returned a record profit of Rs.60 Lacs. But when relations became strained after 1993/94 due to my submitting corruption charges on powerful executives of the zonal office, Delhi, the sordid animosity impelled the authorities to use whatever sticks they could lay hands to beat with. It is called projecting unguided missile, with the belief some or other of the lot may hit.
In fact an inspection took place at the branch in 1992, after my handing over charge. Listed items in the report marked for staff side explanation were referred to me and replied by me, whereupon the matter was closed and also communicated to me.
Mr."G" the enquiry officer was an old timer in the personnel department, having handled as Incharge of the DAC several of my previous disciplinary cases between 1982-87. He can never be deemed to serve as an objective Enquiry officer and will only conduct a stage-managed enquiry, similar to the review petition described above has shown. The lends credence on his being reinducted into the same Personnel Division during the pendancy of the enquiry.
Mr."J" the disciplinary authority was prejudiced against me due to the complaint I preferred on his ally and disciple Mr."Narain" (when he was Chief Manager, BO. Poona City). He advised Mr."PR", the zonal manager, Madras to resubmit recommendations for charge sheeting me. The regional manager, Bangalore Mr."HSS" recommending for dropping the case, but Mr."PR" under pressure from Mr."J" overruled and recommended charge sheeting. All these indicate the subjectiveness.
