By Nalini Ranjan Mohanty
On January 30, the ICICI Bank came out with a statement that Chanda Kochhar was “in violation of the Bank’s code of conduct, its framework for dealing with conflict of interest and fiduciary duties” and, therefore, her resignation would be treated as her termination and her bonuses over the last decade would be clawed back.
Chanda Kochhar put out a strong rebuttal against the bank’s decision. She said: “None of the credit decisions at the bank are unilateral. ICICI Bank is an institution with established robust processes and systems which involve committee-based collective decision-making with several professionals of high caliber participating in the decision-making.”
She is virtually telling the world, though not so explicitly, that if anyone now finds fault with her actions and decisions, then she alone should not be held accountable; all the members of the credit committee and the board that approved the credit decisions should be equally held responsible for the so-called mala fide decisions.
Kochhar is right; she should not be singled out for punitive action while others are allowed to roam free. It was the job of the likes of K.V. Kamaths, Zarin Daruwalas, Sandeep Bakshis, Rajiv Sabharwals, N.S. Kannans, K Ramkumars, Sonjoy Chatterjees, Homi Khusrokhans et al – virtual who’s who of the Indian banking industry who had been party to all the sanctions that have come under a cloud – to oversee that the bank’s code of conduct was not breached while approving any credit decisions. If any disingenuous credit decisions have been made, then all should face the music, why Chanda Kochhar alone?
The CBI SP who signed the FIR in the ICICI Bank fraud case was clearly in sync with the logic of Chanda Kochhar. That is why while the primary charge was levied against Kochhar, the FIR stated categorically that the role of the other credit committee and board members must be investigated to ascertain the extent of their culpability.
That was an absolutely fair, logical and legally enforceable decision. But what did our government, which gives us a daily dose of its probity index, do? It overnight transferred the CBI officer in charge of investigating the case to a remote location. That was not all. One can find such shady government actions against the upright officers dime a dozen.
What was astonishing was the strong rebuke issued by the country’s finance minister against the CBI’s action, describing it as “adventurism and megalomania”. The minister came out in defence of these bankers who have come under a cloud, desperately seeking to preclude any investigation against them. He asked: “If we include the entire who’s who of the Banking industry – with or without evidence – what cause are we serving or actually hurting?”
Look at the wordings of the minister: “With or without evidence.” One could understand if the honourable minister had said that the investigative agency should not name anyone without evidence. But this minister has a different red flag: You cannot proceed against the “who’s who of the banking industry, even if there is enough evidence. Because doing so, by the minister’s reckoning, would hurt the banking industry.
What is the minister’s sermon? The FIR ought to have confined itself to the acts of omission and commission of Chanda Kochhar , as strong evidence linking her husband’s business with the Videocon group, a major defaulter of ICICI Bank loans, had been publicised by the Indian Express and the minister was not in a position to save her.
He could do the next best thing – to seek to contain the damage to the cosy nexus between the Minister’s party, the big business houses and the big corporate banks, But that particular CBI officer, Sudhanshu Mishra, went by the rule book. If all loan advances were collective decisions of the top bosses of the bank, then they must all be prosecuted.
The minister was so desperate to protect the interests of these top corrupt bankers – and through them, the interests of swindling corporate houses – that he had to scream against the CBI from a hospital bed in the US, even if it caused huge embarrassment to the investigative agency and to himself.
The concerned officer cannot retort while he is in job; otherwise he would have given a basic lesson to the minister about the rules and propriety while conducting investigation involving big names.
But Chanda Kochhar has no such constraints; she has been sacked. That is why, she has chosen to call the bluff of the minister: She rejects outright the contention that other big names – integral part of the decision-making process – have no accountability whatsoever for all the so-called dubious decisions. She makes her point: If she is guilty, others are equally guilty as well.
Chanda Kochhar’s assertion is a virtual slap on the face of Arun Jaitley.
(Mohanty is a veteran journalist based in New Delhi)
