Will Indian Bank's criminal boss TM Bhasin whose questionable activities include alleged cavorting with international terrorist gangster Dawood Ibrahim to ruin India's banking industry escape richly deserved imprisonment for forgery fraud under the garb of Regular Departmental Action [RDA]?
Among other things, Bhasin has been charged with stealing thousands of crores of rupees from clients’ accounts, destroying careers of his subordinates [like suspending a General Manager one B Panda for his car doors not opening], selling/leasing properties belonging to his close relatives to the institutions he worked/works for at highly inflated prices and attempting to destroy India’s international banking poster institution – Bank of Baroda by conniving with gangster Dawood Ibrahim dragging a well-known television channel into the vortex of a criminal conspiracy in the bargain.
On Page 18, the Times of India’s Chennai edition dated August 31 2013 has a news item says:
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has sought action against Indian Bank CMD TM Bhasin and former ED V Ramgopal for “high-handedness, arbitrariness and manipulation” of appraisal reports of Malay Mukherjee, a general manager in the bank, with a view to deny him a promotion.
While the finance ministry has not initiated action against the two executives, the CVC has also sought action against Shreya Guha, a director in the ministry, for lapses in conducting enquiry against Bhasin and Ramgopal. For the finance ministry, this the second embarrassment in less than a month as the watchdog was critical of the role performed by the Appointments Board in recommending M O Rego for the post of IDBI Bank deputy MD, the report further says.
Seeking regular departmental action (RDA) against the two top-raking Indian Bank executives, CVC had told the finance ministry that Mukherjee's performance for 2009 had been reviewed by the then ED A S Bhattacharya and M S Sundarrajan, who was then the CMD of the Chennai-headquartered bank. Bhasin and Ramgopal were not required to appraise Mukherjee for 2009-10 as he had not worked with the two executives, the report adds.
The complaint pertaining to Bhasin’s complicity in forging the appraisal report that ought to have elevated Malai Mukherjee to be a director of the public sector banking – filed by one TSV Hari – the poor old me – has been pending since the past two years plus.
[Emphasis added]
Currently, Malai Mukherjee is a director in Central Bank of India. Sources had told me that several attempts had been made to force Mukherjee to withdraw his complaint.
A director from the Union Finance Ministry Shreya had been evasive when I had questioned her about the enquiry she was to conduct last year on serious charges against senior officials of Indian Bank.
I have strong suspicions that Finance Minister P Chidambaram is shielding TM Bhasin simply because the FM’s businessman son Karti is said to be close to Bhasin.
Bhasin and Karti have been seen together several times.
I had sent an open letter to P Chidambaram several months back.
Excerpts:
I am told you are the stumbling block preventing serious action against TM Bhasin, Chairman and Managing Director – Indian Bank – against whom, I have it on good authority – the Central Vigilance Commission has recommended action
Complaint number 1051/11/3 was registered by the Central Vigilance Commission.
This is what the CVC site says about the above complaint:
Sent to CVO for Investigation/Action Taken Report on date: 13/2/2013
CVO Report Received on date: 19/1/2012
Commission Advised Closure of the Case on: 25/6/2012
So, what was the case filed by me against T.M. Bhasin?
I had alleged that Bhasin had changed and forged a confidential report on the then GM of Indian Bank – one Malay Mukherjee, prepared and signed by former CMD of Indian Bank MS Sundararajan [since retired from service] and AS Bhattacharya [then ED Indian Bank, since retired as CMD Bank of Maharashtra].
To my knowledge, neither Sundararajan, nor Bhattacharya have given any statement – oral or written – to state that Mukherjee’s report had not been criminally tampered with. On the contrary, I understand that they have told investigators from the CVC that their confidential report endorsements to elevate Malay Mukherjee to be a director appointed by Reserve Bank of India was indeed tampered with.
I am even told they had told investigators that Bhasin indeed tampered with the report and forged the same – an act that can be tried under 420 IPC read with 120B.
According to my information, Bhasin has cozied up to your son Karti Chidambaram and since then all action against Bhasin has been dropped and stymied – first when you were in charge of the Home Department and more so now – as the Finance Minister.
I had charged Bhasin with conspiring to acquire the post of CMD Bank of Baroda to stymie the chances of SS Mundra – of all people with Dawood Ibrahim, an act that could ruin India’s finances, lock, stock and barrel.
Here is the link:
http://
http://
I had written an open letter to you Chidambaram way back in September 2012. The link:
http://tsvhari.com/
In that I had made serious allegations against Bhasin.
Some operative portions:
Bhasin is in possession of a corporate credit card worth Rs. 1 crore – something not in your possession or that of the boss of the World Bank and Mr Bhasin insists on saying “it is as per procedure”! But then you know he does not need a credit card at all because the bank meets all his expenses and all institutions accept the signature of the CMD of a public sector bank.
I had demanded explanations from TM Bhasin under the Right to Information Act.
I am reproducing the reply verbatim with short notes to explain the situation:
Ref:HO:CSC:RTI:1788:2011-12-23
Were you ever in possession of corporate credit card issued by your organisation with a limit of Rs 1 crore, was such an issuance sanctioned by the Board of the Bank and if yes, on what basis since the bank passes all your incidental expenses?
Reply:
Corporate Credit Card was issued to the CMD by the Bank as per norms prescribed the Board. Official expenses of CMD are passed as per guidelines.
My notes Bhasin is saying:
Indian Bank indeed issued a credit card with a limit of Rs.1 crore.
It was sanctioned by the Board as per norms prescribed by the Board.
[Emphasis added]
DOES ANY CHAIRMAN OF ANY BANK IN INDIA – OF THE PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE SECTOR VARIETY EVER HOLD A CARD WITH THAT KIND LIMIT?
WHEN WAS SUCH A LIMIT SANCTIONED?
WHAT DID THE BOARD NOTE SAY?
DID ANY CMD OF INDIAN BANK EVER HOLD SUCH A CARD WITH SUCH A LIMIT?
DOES INDIA’S FINANCE MINISTER – SUPPOSEDLY THE BOSS OF THE BANK CMDs OR THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA – SUPPOSEDLY THE PERSON APPOINTING THE CMDs OF BANKS AND/OR INDIA’S PRIME MINISTER – THE CEO OF INDIA THAT IS BHARAT – AND/OR THE GOVERNOR OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HOLD SUCH A CARD WITH SUCH A LIMIT?
HAS BHASIN EVER PAID ANY BILL WHEREIN HE HAD ENTERTAINED EITHER YOU CHIDAMBARAM OR ANY OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS USING AN INDIAN BANK ISSUED CREDIT CARD?
IF THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES, CAN YOU BE ACCUSED OF HAVING ACCEPTED GRATIFICATION – LEGAL, ILLEGAL OR OTHERWISE FROM A PERSON – LITERALLY AN ACCUSED AS PER LAW?
Mr Bhasin ordered the suspension of another GM – Mr B Panda for a car door not opening in Mumbai, physically assaulted him when the latter came to plead for mercy. Panda was reinstated only after a public outcry – and after all attempts to intimidate Panda into submission to write false letters to newspapers failed.
I am reproducing the reply to the above verbatim with short notes to explain the situation:
Ref:HO:CSC:RTI:1788:2011-12-23
Was General Manager B Panda suspended on the basis of the doors of your car not opening, upon the orders of one of your Executive Directors as a disciplinary action, if such a suspension order was issued, was it withdrawn and if yes, by whom and upon what disciplinary action taken and on what basis?
Reply:
General Manager Shri B Panda was placed under suspension on administrative grounds and later he was reinstated. No disciplinary action was initiated against him.
My notes:
So, Bhasin admits Panda was placed under suspension.
Bhasin does not deny that it was due to the failure of a car door opening.
Here is the suspension order – almost verbatim dated May 20 2011 signed by executive director Rama Gopal – something the ED was never authorised to do.
You were advised of our Chairman and Managing Director’s programme to visit Mumbai from Chennai on 19-5-2011 – Thursday, by Jet Airways Flight No. Jet 9W470 scheduled to leave Chennai at 1910 hours and arrive at Mumbai at 2105 hours to enable the arrangements for usual and basic courtesies to be made.
On arrival of the aircraft at Mumbai around 2142 hours and Chairman and Managing Director having been received by Shri BP Singh, Chief Manager at Zonal Office, Mumbai, CMD proceeded to the car.
The baggage was kept by Shri B P Singh into the dickey and thereafter the rear door of the car was attempted to be opened for CMD to get seated.
The doors of the car were found locked and our CMD could not enter the vehicle to proceed to the guest house.
CMD was made to wait for more than of hour [sic] at the airport and could leave in alternative taxi arranged without luggage.
The foregoing indicates that you as the controller and dutifully expected to provide the minimum usual basic courtesies on arrival of our CMD failed in the discharge of your duty in view of the fact that you have not handled properly but casually assuming things to happen tantamounting [sic] to unbecoming behaviour of official in the Top Management cadre of the Bank, you are placed under suspension with immediate effect until further orders and investigation.
As a lawyer, Chidambaram, if you were to represent Panda, would you say, this was not [repeat not] a disciplinary action?
Kindly remember the following:
Two months before the suspension, Panda had lost his wife.
I am in possession of evidence to show Panda had been manhandled by Bhasin.
Panda, as the GM had cleared files pertaining to an overdraft facility to a company called Prashant Projects Ltd in Mumbai worth roughly Rs.35 crores – long after the firm had submitted all necessary documents. The wait was due to Panda’s predecessor looking for a fat bribe to get it passed. When Panda reportedly refused to cooperate in getting the bribe out, in a fit of anger, Bhasin got Panda suspended on flimsy grounds.
I had questioned Bhasin on the issue concerning the enquiry against him by the Central Vigilance commission.
I am reproducing the reply to the above verbatim with short notes to explain the situation:
Ref:HO:CSC:RTI:1788:2011-12-23
Has any enquiry been instituted against you [Bhasin] in the Central Vigilance Commission? If yes, have you been enquired into?
Reply
No enquiry has been instituted against CMD in CVC.
Query
Has the Chief Vigilance Officer working in Indian Bank functioning under the Central Vigilance Commission questioned you with regard to issues raised by the CVC?
Reply
A complaint was referred to the Bank, which was duly replied by CVO.
My notes
To my knowledge of basic English, Indian Bank CMD contradicts himself while replying to the two questions that were, incidentally, asked consecutively, one after another.
The number of the CVC case has been given above. Does that not constitute an enquiry?
So, in my opinion, Indian Bank is liable for prosecution for lying while answering questions under Right To Information Act.
The Central Vigilance Commission is aware that Bhasin lied.
Should Bhasin not be prosecuted for this?
So can CVC close the case against Bhasin?
Well, Chidambaram, you can answer that one.
And there is this bad one, Chidambaram, sir. It affects you.
I had questioned Bhasin over Indian Bank’s role in the 2G spectrum allocation scandal.
I am reproducing the reply to the above verbatim with short notes to explain the situation:
Ref:HO:CSC:RTI:1788:2011-12-23
Query
Has Indian Bank ever lent money to Kalaignar TV? If yes, did the bank obtain any security to cover the risk? And to what extent [was the risk covered] in primary and collateral terms? Counsels appearing for accused in the 2G Spectrum scandal have claimed in the Patiala Courts and in the Supreme Court [and] have referred to this in clear terms saying that the bank had a spread of Rs.100 crores when the paid up capital of Kalaignar TV was not even Rs.5 crores. Is such an averment true?
Reply
The information sought is relating to our customer account which is exempted under Sec 8 (1) of Right to Information Act. We are therefore unable to furnish the information sought.
My notes:
Bhasin has not denied that Indian Bank had had a spread in Kalaignar TV. He only has said he will not give out information about it.
Bhasin purports to say that the bank cannot divulge information about a client.
The funny thing is that Jaya TV put out a story in October 2011 citing the above perfidy. Bhasin sent a letter denying that allegation whose operative portion endeavours to say “Some advance was made and that the money has since been returned.” In other words, Indian Bank lied again under RTI – by refusing to comment on a specific question.
The international fugitive called Dawood Ibrahim tried triggering a run against Indian economy with the help of an Indian Banker – TM Bhasin. Why did you not take any effective action against Dawood when you were HM or when you are FM, Chidambaram?
The banker concerned – TM Bhasin has been charged with serious misdemeanours. He ought to have been placed under suspension and prosecuted.
On the contrary, your relatives are seen cavorting with Bhasin.
Why are you allowing this happen Chidambaram?
Is someone illegally gratifying you legally or illegally, Chidambaram?
Readers may also download and read the following links:
http://
http://tsvhari.com/
http://
http://
https://www.facebook.com/groups/264856766943819/permalink/489396907823136/
No comments:
Post a Comment