My resignation a call of conscience, not an allegation requiring legal review: HDF​C’s Atanu Chakraborty

Former Atanu Chakraborty has rejected the bank’s assertion that he failed to cooperate with the external legal review commissioned after his resignation, saying he repeatedly sought the terms of reference and the legal framework governing the inquiry but was never provided either. In an interview with Saloni Shukla, Chakraborty said his resignation was a “call of conscience” and intended as an appeal for the board to introspect, rather than an allegation requiring a legal investigation. He also questioned the rationale for appointing external law firms to examine his , describing the exercise as “superfluous” and “an exercise in futility.” Edited excerpt:

HDFC Bank has said the external law firms and the bank repeatedly requested you to join the legal review, but it did not happen. Did you decline to speak with them?
I had repeatedly asked, after they approached me for a discussion on this, that they share the terms of reference for these two or three lawyers, including one from a territory outside India. So, I asked for the terms of reference and the relevant section of the law under which this inquiry was being undertaken. Time and again, in every roundabout fashion, I was rebuffed.

They kept saying, “Keep meeting them, keep meeting them.” I have disconnected from the bank. I have nothing to do with them anymore. They have been economical with the truth when they say that I did not cooperate or did not provide information. That is unfair and not gentlemanly.

Did you express your concerns to the board?
Had they even shared the terms of reference, I would have asked what more the board itself wanted that it did not already have that required outside lawyers.

There was no material concern beyond what I had already written. I had very specifically stated, after writing those two lines, that there were no other material concerns. Now, on this, it was for the board to introspect. A lawyer can only do a compliance check. It cannot go beyond that.

How do you view this report from the law firms?
The lawyer can only determine whether there was compliance or not. If the board meetings and everything were very robust, and they limited themselves to examining only the board proceedings, then it only speaks to the manner in which I had structured the board, and all the board members had cooperated with me in doing so. It only shows that the board was run appropriately. But if there was still any concern, it was for the board to introspect. If any of them wanted to have a discussion, I would never have objected to that.

But the board and the management said you never disclosed any issue.
This was basically a call for the board to introspect because my resignation specifically referred to those two lines. First, this is a very unprecedented step. Second, you referred the chairman’s resignation letter for an external review without even understanding what it meant. Then you issued a statement saying you did not find any material evidence. What was the material fact that you were trying to ascertain? I didn’t understand. What evidence were they looking for? To me, that makes it a roving inquiry. The entire exercise seems to me to be an exercise in futility. My resignation was also a call of conscience. I have very clearly stated that it did not include any insinuation of the kind they were apparently looking into. It was simply a call for the board to introspect.

Did you raise issues relating to the matters that surfaced in Dubai?
The bank has claimed that during the , I did not say anything. That inquiry led to the expulsion of very senior people plus a disciplinary action. After that, naturally, my question would have been: What are the mitigation steps?

There was a full mitigation plan, which the board reviewed. If I found the mitigation measures and the punishments satisfactory, then that was the end of it.

I don’t know what they were trying to prove. I think this exercise is superfluous.