Abstract
National Power Limited (NPL) was a public sector undertaking of the Government of India under the Ministry of Power, having a total generating capacity of 4,860 megawatts of coal-based thermal power. NPL had seven power plants in operation across three states in the northern part of the country, with 8,212 employees.
The case describes an appointment of a non-executive post at a power-generating plant of NPL, which is referred to as the Chandanpur unit. This appointment was made to honour an unprincipled demand by the Minister of Forestry and Environment of the concerned state government. The matter got exposed through a complaint received by the Vigilance Department of NPL. The manager of the coal handling department of the Chandanpur unit had lodged the complaint, mentioning the possibility of anomalies in the appointment.
On verification, it was found out that the executive director of the Chandanpur unit had appointed a person in the highest supervisory post of that unit by flouting all rules and guidelines of recruitment in the organization. Anomalies included not taking approval for upgradation of the offer made initially, interviewing directly without holding any written test and changing the minimum eligibility criterion for the post. All this was a major breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which confers the right to equality to a citizen of India as a fundamental right.
Based upon findings of the investigation report, the culpability established in the irregularity and gross violation of the established rules of NPL, major disciplinary proceedings were initiated against all the involved officials and the appointee. Since it was a criminal case, it was also referred to the Federal Investigating Agency for further investigation and prosecution of the offenders. All NPL executives involved, and the appointee was implicated, though no culpability could be established against the Minister or his confidential assistant.
Discussion Questions
What are the anomalies of recruitment and selection covered in this case?
Which principles of ethics have been violated in this case? Has organizational justice been adhered to?
Did the situation become complicated due to its weak handling on the part of Harish Agarwal? Suggest alternate recourses that he could have adopted.
What could be the possible reasons that had guided Harish Agarwal to go ahead with the irregular appointment?
What are the vigilance and criminal angles of this case?
Introduction
It was a scorching afternoon of June with no signs of rainfall; shift work was going on at its usual pace at the Chandanpur unit of National Power Limited (NPL), a power-generating plant of NPL. Mr Harish Agarwal, executive director of the unit, was working on pending files at his office. While signing some documents, he received a phone call from the office of the Minister of Forestry and Environment of the state government. The Minister’s confidential assistant (CA) greeted Agarwal and transferred the call.
Among the other things discussed during the conversation, the Minister told Mr Agarwal about his nephew, Mr Jagat Kumar, who was unemployed. He urged Agarwal to accommodate Mr Kumar at the Chandanpur unit in some non-executive post. Agarwal ended the call rather hurriedly. He could see trouble brewing as the expansion of the Chandanpur unit needed clearance from the same Minister. The proposal for expansion was already forwarded to the ministry, and Agarwal was waiting for the approval. He began to feel restless. If the Minister was not obliged, the clearance might be either delayed inordinately or rejected altogether. What should Agarwal do?
Company Background
NPL was a state-owned public sector undertaking (PSU) under the Ministry of Power of the central government, generating coal-based thermal power. NPL had seven power-generating units (or power plants) in operation across three states in the northern part of the country, with a total strength of 8,212 employees. The financial performance of NPL could be gauged from the fact that the company had registered a net profit of around USD 1.93 million in the last fiscal year, ahead of the other PSUs under the Ministry of Power. Further, NPL had an expansion plan to generate another 1,750 MW in the next five years. NPL’s board consisted of four full-time members, including the chairman of the board, member (technical), member (finance) and member (personnel). The board also had four part-time members, one each from the governments of the states in which NPL was operating and one representing the Ministry of Power of the central government.
NPL also had a vigilance department at its corporate headquarters to ensure enhanced efficiency and transparency. The vigilance department was vested with the authority to check corruption and nepotism. It also handled any complaints regarding department-level irregularities within NPL. Officers of the department were empowered to investigate complaints lodged and were required to submit reports in a time-bound manner.
The Backdrop of the Case
Key Characters
As the executive director of the Chandanpur unit, Harish Agarwal was assisted by staff officers of various departments, such as electrical and mechanical engineering, civil engineering, finance, materials management and stores, human resource (HR) and personnel, and safety and environment. The head of the HR and personnel department was Mr Ashutosh Prasad. He was serving as staff officer (HR) and was a deputy general manager by rank. The HR and personnel department had two more executives: one middle-level executive named Mr Raj Kishore and a young assistant manager, Ms Suparna Seth.
Agarwal had joined NPL as a graduate engineer trainee thirty-two years back. He was a mechanical engineer by qualification and had graduated from a premier national-level institute. Agarwal was recently posted as the executive director of the Chandanpur unit after serving mostly in the corporate headquarters. This new assignment towards the end of his professional career with little experience running a power plant made him more dependent on the departmental executives in his staff.
Ashutosh Prasad had already worked in NPL for thirty years, serving in several units of the company in various capacities. He had started his career as a stenographer and was promoted to an executive post through the departmental promotion scheme of NPL. Prasad had earned the senior management’s trust for his discreet nature while dealing with confidential matters. In short, Ashutosh Prasad was the blue-eyed boy of the administration.
Raj Kishore, the second man in the HR and personnel department, was an experienced HR manager. He had sound knowledge of the rules and regulations of NPL and was rigid about norms. Ms Suparna Seth had joined NPL as a management trainee a year and a half ago. An MBA by qualification, she had recently completed her probation on the job and was now designated as assistant manager. Another executive who had a role to play in this case was Mr Ashok Ghosh, manager (finance) of the Chandanpur unit. With a total experience of around twenty years in the company, Mr Ghosh was often invited to represent the finance department in various committees constituted for recruitment.
Jagat Kumar, the nephew of the Minister of Forestry and Environment of the state government, was the beneficiary who was extended a job offer in the Chandanpur unit. His role in this case, however, is passive.
A summary of the key characters in the case has been provided in Annexure I.
Recruitment Procedure of National Power
As per the NPL recruitment rules, non-executives were appointed at the unit level, for which the respective unit head in the rank of executive director was the appointing authority. Guidelines laid down for recruitment had to be followed strictly. Annual assessment of manpower was done ritually by the HR and personnel department, and manpower budget was placed before the unit head for approval. After this, recruitments were made to fill the required manpower and, if needed, with a separate proposal following the standard operating norms for such matters. A flowchart of these norms is provided in Annexure II.
Planning for the Appointment
For Harish Agarwal, this was the first time he had received an undue demand for appointing a person at the unit. He tried to evaluate both the positive and negative outcomes of the situation. His performance, in which the expansion project played a significant role, seemed to be in jeopardy if the Minister was not obliged. Mr Agarwal could not afford to displease the Minister. On the other hand, there was every possibility that the matter could be highlighted and reported if this hiring was done.
Out of his team members, Agarwal singled out Ashutosh Prasad and called him to his office for discussion. Prasad was in favour of going ahead with the selection process. However, confusion persisted in Agarwal’s mind, and he asked Prasad to put the matter on hold.
Discussion with the Director
After thinking a lot about this issue, Mr Agarwal finally decided to take up the matter with his director at the corporate office. The director listened to him patiently but, in the end, advised him to resolve it at his level. Agarwal was left with no support from his superior. After two days, he called Ashutosh Prasad and asked him to prepare a proposal for the recruitment. He instructed Prasad to maintain confidentiality and to process the proposal personally.
The Precursor to the Appointment
Ashutosh Prasad knitted a story justifying the requirement of an assistant to maintain contacts with the company supplying coal to the Chandanpur unit. He thoughtfully decided the post to be of coordinating assistant in the coal handling department of the unit. Prasad mentioned urgency as a lot of complaints were received about the quality of coal supplied. Appointing an assistant could enable better monitoring of the quality of coal both at loading and unloading points, he justified. The note in the proposal was brief. Prasad also proposed the constitution of an interview committee comprising himself, Raj Kishore from his department, and Ashok Ghosh as member, finance. The proposal was placed before Mr Agarwal. He gave his comments on the proposal document: ‘Call the candidate on the 16th of this month’ and approved the interview committee. An interview call letter was subsequently sent to the sole candidate, Jagat Kumar, asking him to report on the designated date at the office of Prasad to appear for an interview.
On being informed about his name on the interview committee, Raj Kishore met Ashutosh Prasad and expressed his inability to be a member. Perhaps he had an intuition about something mala fide behind the immediate requirement of a coordinating assistant. Moreover, he did not want to be a party to this! Prasad, however, insisted that Raj Kishore had to be on the interview committee. A day before the interview, Kishore informed that he was not planning to attend office on health grounds, enclosing medical advice for bedrest for seven days. Prasad decided not to postpone the interview until Raj Kishore resumed duty and proposed Ms Seth as the substitute approved by Harish Agarwal.
Ms Seth had not conducted any interviews before in her career. So, she visited Prasad’s office to seek his guidance regarding the procedures and techniques of interviewing. Prasad, instead of discussing the interview, handed over a file to her. The file contained bills submitted by contractors who supplied contract labour to the Chandanpur unit. Prasad asked Ms Seth for disposal of the file urgently, latest by the next evening. He also assured Seth not to bother about the interview as he would handle it and bring the papers for her signature once the report of the interview committee was prepared. Ms Seth trusted his words. She could never have imagined that Prasad had cleverly kept her away from the interview. After all, he was the blue-eyed boy of the management. Ms Seth left Prasad’s office and got busy with the file.
Ashutosh Prasad visited the office of Ashok Ghosh that very evening and offered him to handle the interview for the coordinating assistant’s position with him. Assuming that Prasad would be steering the interview, Mr Ghosh was not much worried, as he had several reports to submit to the corporate headquarters within a deadline.
The interview was held on the decided date. On the same day, Ashutosh Prasad himself took the report of the interview committee to Ghosh’s office for his signature. Clueless about the conspiracy, Ghosh signed on the committee report. Ms Seth was called into the office of Prasad and was asked to sign the report. She signed, trusting Prasad. Soon after, Prasad visited Harish Agarwal’s office. He confirmed that all the committee members had signed, and the offer letter was dispatched.
The Change in the Appointment
Mr Agarwal called the Minister’s CA and conveyed the good news. Within half an hour, Agarwal received a call from the CA, who informed that the Minister had called Agarwal to his office urgently. In another half an hour, he was in the Minister’s office.
Agarwal called Prasad to his office immediately after he returned to the unit. He looked flustered and puzzled. Prasad could sense the seriousness the moment he entered. Agarwal spoke in a meek and frazzled manner, ‘The Minister is not happy’. Now it was Prasad’s turn to be baffled. He gently inquired about the conversation with the minister.
Agarwal started narrating:
He could feel the Minister’s annoyance the moment he entered the latter’s office. The CA was also in the room. After a moment of uncomfortable silence, the Minister spoke up. ‘I am not happy with your actions Mr Agarwal. Your organization is going to suffer for your unresponsive behaviour’, the Minister said. Then the CA took over the conversation. ‘Look, Mr Agarwal, we never asked for charity. But your attitude shows as if we are beggars and we will accept anything you offer.’ Still perplexed, Agarwal asked, ‘Why, Sir, what is wrong?’ To this, the CA finally made his point clear. An Assistant’s job is too lowly for Jagat Kumar; something close to the post of an officer should be offered. Knowing his limitations, the Minister is ready to settle for at least the highest position in the non-executive cadre of NPL. That was it.
Prasad thought for a while, and in his usual style, he asked Agarwal not to worry and left the room. An appointment letter was subsequently issued to Jagat Kumar for the highest supervisory post (grade A) in the coal handling department of the Chandanpur unit.
The Aftermath
Within a year of the said appointment, a complaint was lodged with the vigilance department of NPL. The manager of the coal handling department of the Chandanpur unit had written a detailed complaint, mentioning the possibility of anomalies in the appointment of Jagat Kumar. The matter was duly investigated, and the culpability of the executives involved was established. The findings of the investigation were quite revealing.
The vigilance department charged that there had been a gross violation of recruitment rules in this selection. None of the criteria for recruitment, as per the standard operating norms (see Annexure II) of NPL, was fulfilled. There was no wide publicity for the vacancy. Neither was it notified through the local employment exchange. The interview was taken for the post of coordinating assistant, whereas the offer was finally given for a supervisory position. More interestingly, there was no approved vacancy of that post as per the manpower budget.
There was no provision in the recruitment rules for direct selection or lateral entry in the offered post of supervisor (grade A). Any vacancy against this post could only be filled through promotion. It was further revealed that the minimum eligibility criterion for a supervisor in the coal handling department was a bachelor’s degree in chemistry with honours. In contrast, the appointed person was a postgraduate in Hindi with experience in the marketing department of a cola factory.
Epilogue
Based upon the findings of the investigation, culpability established in the irregularity and gross violation of established rules of NPL, major disciplinary proceedings were initiated against all the involved officials and the beneficiary. Since it was a criminal case, it was also referred to the Federal Investigating Agency for further investigation and prosecution of the offenders. Harish Agarwal, Ashutosh Prasad, Ashok Ghosh, Ms Suparna Seth and the appointee, Jagat Kumar, were all implicated. However, no culpability could be established against the Minister or his CA in the case.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.