The issues connected with the charge sheet pertained to the years 1989, 1990 and early part of the year 1991 at the Mysore Branch, where I worked in those years. The Charge sheet was submitted in the 3rd quarter of the year 1995, i.e. four and a half years after occurrence of the transactions questioned by the charge sheet, and about 9 months before my retirement
There was no investigation or no new source that erupted about the transactions-in-issue in the year 1995 or even in earlier years 1994, 1993 or 1992, to provoke the issue of a belated charge sheet. But there was a wide difference in the ground situation between the period from 1988 to 1991, and from 1993 to my date of retirement. These are explained in detail in my chapter on My Encounters with Corporate Corruption in my Service.
In 1988 after a period 10 years of acrimonious relations, there was a thaw. All pending charge sheets were closed with token award of "censure". On my part I withdrew all pending litigation against the Bank in 1990. I was posted at Mysore Branch on 08.08.1988. And promoted to Scale IV in 1991.
But fresh controversies broke out in 1992/93 after my inspection of "M" Branch as Chief Inspector and exposing a series frauds in which the Zonal Office, Delhi was deeply involved. In retaliation I was first prevented from inspection of Chief Managers' offices (VLBs/ELBs) and later totally removed from Inspection. I was posted under the very zonal manager, on whom I investigated corruption charges and indicted him in my reports. It is in this background the near-5-year old issue of Mysore Branch was raked up.
The concurrence of the Zonal Manager, Chennai was hastily asked for and obtained. The issues pertained to the Banglore Region, the Senior Regional Manager, Bangalore was reluctant to recommend charge sheeting and he recommended dropping the issues. But the Zonal Manager, over-ruled("No this should not be done, Mr.Kannan has raised Pune Matters in a complaint. He has complained on our Mr."Narain"). So this is the real reason for the charge sheet, a complaint I preferred after detailed private investigation about sordid affairs in Pune Branch. The Zonal Manager, Chennai is now a General Manager, waiting to step into shoes of a still higher position. But he also knows that the Pune Branch is now the Leader in the Western Zone in the list of NPA advances topping with a record 70%. So what the chief about whom I complained "Mr.Narain", with correct connections and support was more important than the Branch.
The branch (MYSORE, where I worked) was inspected in the years 1989, 1991 and 1992. The last inspection referred was after my transfer. Whatever was commented in these reports and marked as items for my explanation were attended and explained by me, then and there. The reply for the observations of the report of the year 1992 were submitted by me in 1993 and it was advised that the report was closed.
I was at that time in Scale III, (since 1977). I was not promoted to Scale IV and having lost faith in the promotion system I refused to submit performance appraisal since the year 1996.
But in the year 1991 at the unilateral instance of the Bank authorities, the Senior Regional Manager, Bangalore my controlling authority, was asked and himself compiled my appraisal sheets and forwarded to Head office. He also informed that I got a "good" rating for my performance. It was placed before the Department Promotion Committee. I was called for interview in the middle of the year 1991 and was thereafter promoted to Scale IV with effect from October 1991. I got the first rank of the batch of Scale IV promotee-officers (more than 30 or 40, exactly I do not remember). This I state from the ranking as per the Seniority List published by the Bank.
The point is why was I promoted, if my conduct/performance at the branch deserved that I should be charge sheeted subsequently. One is not being simultaneously approbated and reprobated for the same performance. But the fact is that approbation was given at the concurrent period (1991), while reprobation was 5 years later, as an after-thought. I changed the profile of Mysore branch, made it an approved branch for conducting foreign exchange business, converted the branch showing Rs.4 Lac loss when I took over to Rs.60 Lacs annual profit and the approbation was based on these hard facts. Promotion was effected after considering overall factors, including handling of advances.
The reprobation was in 1996 (i.e. after inquiry on the penultimate day of my retirement from the services of the Bank. I was to retire on 30.06.1996, which was a Sunday. My branch was working on Sundays. The order of punishment (reduction in my existing Scale by one increment) was served on 29.06.1996 morning when the branch opened. This is because Head Office/Zonal office were closed on Sunday and they could not enjoy themselves the "pleasure" of serving me the punishment as their parting gift on the last day of my service. They had therefore to reconcile for a lessor option. Institutions give farewell to the officers on their retirement, when they lay office after four decades of service. But this was the kind of farewell my bosses considered that I deserved. Or more appropriately this is the stuff they are made-up of.
As I have already drawn my salary up the date of my retirement, the punishment of reduction of my scale by one increment was symbolic. It is like stopping "the next increment" to an officer, who is at the ceiling of the scale and due to get no more increments. The punishment could be enforced only by extending my services beyond June, 1996 i.e. beyond my age 60, which the CMD has no powers.
It is a fact I should have got my gratuity a little more, that the punishment got reduced. Perhaps my total loss is approximately Rs.30000 to 50000 (made up of the 2 punishments, i.e. charge sheets 10 and 11) But my pension was not affected. I compensated the loss by investing the amount of gratuity received at that time at the prevailing high interest rate for deposits of above-3-years at 14% with MYBANK. As against convention to deposit the amount for a period between 1 to 3 years, I choose a long-term of 10 years.(The ruling rate in October 96 was 13% p.a. for deposits for more than 3 years and I am eligible as a "honourably retired employee" for 1% additional interest) Today the ruling rates are 8.5% for staff members and 7.5% for others, but I continue to get 14% on my investment in MYBANK. I will get it up to the 3rd quarter of the year 2006. I lost part of the principal (representing my gratuity), but I have gained by way of additional interest. This is what I did instead of going to Court and fighting with the Bank after retirement. Is it that whom people harm, circumstances favour?
But how much did the Bank spent for conducting the inquiry. From Delhi I had to go by air 3 times to Bangalore and Mysore and stay there in all for about 20 days. Each trip cost the bank by way of Travel expenses alone Rs.20,000/-. My modest estimate is that the cost of the hasty punishment on me involved the Bank an hefty expenditure of Rs.l Lakh. This is how administration is carried on in Public Sector Banks, sans Commonsense and sans Responsibility.
What is that the Bank had achieved, except bringing out deep hatred and malice? This happens when public spirit turns to private ends. I have brought out this phenomenon in a provoking article titled "A Chronicle of Sardonic Animosity and Mordant Vengence - A Servile Reprisal and Frenzied Pursuit". There is no response from the Bank to my submission, not even the usual reply("We considered your letter and we do not find any merit in the same")
The inquiry officer appointed for this Inquiry was an out-and-out personal Officer, who had after nearly 20 years service, was for the first time in his career placed in a Bank Branch to smell the air of a branch (Commercial St, Bangalore) for a brief span to qualify him for further promotions. He is the close associate of the of then GM (Personal). After the inquiry, he was called to Head office, Personnel Division, on permanent transfer, from where he submitted his inquiry report about 5 months later.
Second stage reference was made to me sometime in May-end or June, 1996. That is the inquiry officer has submitted his report only in May 1996 (last week), despite completing the inquiry in January, 1996 itself.
Detailed submissions made by me pointing out the material discrepancies of Inquiry Officer's report were not considered, no recognition made by the disciplinary authority. There was no trace or sign of having considered them at all in the order of the disciplinary authority, who had blind-fold accepted the report of the inquiry officer.
Thereafter I submitted my Appeal with elaborate grounds. It was rejected after holding with the Appellate Authority (CMD of the Bank) for 6 months. But the CMD had not even read the appeal, and the papers were handled by the "Section" (the section boss is the same Mr."G", who functioned as the "Inquiry Officer" now shifted to Head Office.)
The grounds mentioned by me were not considered or discussed by the CMD in his order. My request for personal hearing was ignored and not dealt with either by acceptance or rejection with reasons.
Thereupon I prepared a detailed Review Petition, got the print-out of it from my computer a number of copies and submitted the same to the Board of Directors of the Bank with individual copies to each director.
The Review petition reached Head office. There is a provision in the DA regulations of the Bank for the disciplinary Authority to receive the Appeal Petitions and then place to the Appellate authority with his comments and records of the inquiry. But there is no such provision for handling Review Petitions. The main copy of my Petition was in fact submitted by me to the Board & General Department and I also requested for personal hearing from the Board of Directors
But initially nothing of it was placed before the Board, and no committee was formed to study my Review Petition, which is the normal way, when the Board is entrusted with a original appellate/review job.
The papers were with Mr."G" (the erstwhile Inquiry Officer, now AGM personnel department. He under guidance of the CMD (the Appellate Authority) prepared a 52-page note rejecting the Review Petition. As the 6-month deadline was nearing (6 months is the self-chosen time limit for concluding appeals and Review Petitions in MYBANK. But there is no provision in the DA Regulations. Government of India has provided one month time limit for disposal of Appeals).
When the dead-line was at end, the 52-page note was prepared for the information of board meeting. It was not included in the Agenda papers of the Board Meeting that were circulated to the Directors in advance. It was placed directly in the Board Meeting.
The CMD the presiding officer at the Board Meeting (He was also the Appellate Authority) advised the taking up of my Review Petition. Mr."G" who was there to assist the CMD then circulated the 52-page note to the directors. CMD then asked the Board members for the assent for approving the agenda as per the Note and everyone sided with the CMD. The whole show at the Board Meeting was over just in five minutes duration.
Mr."G" was alert. He collected back the 52-page note from the members, stating that it was needed back. The Directors silently gave back the papers.
It would have been possible to bring about whole "fraud" and resort to litigation. But I did not do and I have explained thereason in the chapters on My Encounters with Corporate Corruption
Mr.G for the skill and expertise he has developed is now the beneficiary of one more promotion. He is promoted as the Deputy general Manager in charge of Personnel.
In the next chapter I will discuss about the 11th charge sheet.
