RS 48 L WENT TO CONGMAN & LAWYER SINGHVI

The lengths to which a government body could go to harass a whistleblower is evident from an RTI reply disclosing that over 18 months it had paid Rs 69.24 lakh as fees to lawyers, the bulk of which went to Congress spokesperson and renowned counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

Responding to whistleblower Abhijit Ghosh, Central Bank of India disclosed on July 1 that it had spent that amount as lawyers’ fees from October 2008 to April 2010 to defend itself against a writ petition filed by him before the Delhi high court.

Out of the Rs 69.24 lakh it spent on lawyers for about 20 hearings that took place during those 18 months, Central Bank paid Rs 48.50 lakh to Singhvi, Rs 7.92 lakh to Ashok Bhasin and Rs 9.64 lakh to Vinay Sharma.

Cash Lash

Feb 2008 | Central Bank GM Abhijit Ghosh files whistleblower complaint with CVC  against CMD H A Daruwalla 

July/Aug | CVC closes complaint. Bank issues first  chargesheet to Ghosh 

September | Ghosh files petition before Delhi HC, which stays departmental proceedings

October | Bank suspends Ghosh. HC issues contempt notice to it

Nov/Dec | Bank issues two more chargesheets. HC issues another contempt notice. Daruwalla retires with all benefits

Aug 2009 | CVC launches inquiry against Daruwalla 

March 2010 | Ghosh’s suspension is revoked two days before his retirement but he is denied terminal benefits

July | Central Bank discloses under RTI that it spent Rs 69 lakh on fees for lawyers

Whistleblower’s ID was compromised 

Central Bank has disclosed in reply to an RTI plea that the engagement of lawyers in the case against a whistleblower and the fees payable to them was “approved’’ at the beginning of the proceedings by the then chairman and managing director, H A Daruwalla, the very officer against whom Abhijit Ghosh, then a general manager, had blown the whistle.

Contrary to rules, Daruwalla is alleged to have, among other things, pressured borrowers to make huge donations to the school she had studied in, empanelled a travel agency in which her sister was employed and diverted a bulk of the bank’s work to it, and entered into negotiations with the lowest bidders on tenders related to publication of diaries and calendars.

As general manager of Central Bank, Ghosh filed the writ petition against his own organization in September 2008, a month after it had issued a chargesheet against him. The petition also followed the decision of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in July 2008 to close the complaint filed by him under the whistleblower regime alleging serious misconduct by Daruwalla.

Besides challenging the CVC’s rejection of his complaint, Ghosh asked the HC to quash the bank’s chargesheet and direct the CVC to protect him from being victimized by Daruwalla.

The prayer for protection is particularly significant because, contrary to the 2004 cabinet resolution on safeguards for whistleblowers, the then vigilance commissioner, Ranjana Kumar, is alleged to have compromised Ghosh’s identity in the course of her meetings with Daruwalla.

After the high court stayed the chargesheet in the very first hearing of Ghosh’s writ petition, Central Bank retaliated by placing him under suspension in October 2008 and issuing two more chargesheets. This prompted the high court to slap two contempt notices on the bank, leading to a bonanza for the lawyers engaged by it.

 
The saving grace is that two days before his retirement in March 2010, Central Bank was forced to revoke Ghosh’s suspension, thanks to an intervention by the Department of Personnel and Training and the banking division of the finance ministry on the basis of his representation.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rupees-69L-to-muzzle-whistleblower/articleshow/6182326.cms