The powerful broker lobby on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) has won again. The governing board of BSE on Friday decided to terminate the services of A.A. Tirodkar, director (surveillance) of the exchange. Tirodkar was the whistle-blower who tipped off Sebi on the then BSE president Anand Rathi seeking price sensitive information from the surveillance department headed by him during the March 3, 2001 stock market crash. The board also decided to pay Tirodkar terminal benefits, all dues and six months pay in lieu of reasonable notice. Tirodkar has been on leave since March 13, 2001, ten days after he had taped his conversation with Rathi. The board considered the report of former Justice B.V. Chavan, a retired judge of Mumbai High Court, and Tirodkar’s reply before giving him the marching orders. The sacking has come even as Chavan, who conducted an inquiry into the affair, exonerated Tirodkar of all the most serious charges and said that they certainly do not invite either dismissal or loss of confidence leading to Termination Simpliciter. The BSE board apparently resolved to accept the alternate recommendations of Justice Chavan, who stated that ‘if the board still thinks that Tirodkar’s services are no more useful to the organisation it would be open to it to terminate him with a reasonable notice of six months along with all terminal benefits, which would accrue to him in normal course’. Justice Chavan had also stated that ‘the manner in which Tirodkar was dealt with as if he had committed a fraud which called for quick action by keeping him away from his office to prevent tampering of evidence was certainly not called for’. Despite this, the BSE board went ahead and sacked Tirodkar. On Tirodkar’s alleged attempt to damage the BSE’s reputation, Justice Chavan had said, ‘first and foremost question to be asked is, who damaged, if at all, the image of the institution? Is it Tirodkar who tried to protect the evidence of malpractice or the perpetrator of the malpractice. In my opinion, the answer is obvious and needs no elaboration’. According to a senior BSE official, Additional Chief Secretary S. Habeebullah, a nominee of the Democratic Front State government on the BSE, had taken strong objection over the manner in which the BSE was handling the Tirodkar episode in the last meeting of the BSE. Apparently, Habeebullah has sought information from the BSE on the provisions of law under which the BSE was initiating disciplinary proceedings against Tirodkar. Secondly, the contention of Habeebullah was that the BSE should not initiate any action against him without ascertaining all the facts of the case. ‘Habeebullah’s basic objection was that the BSE was initiating stringent action against Tirodkar without giving him an opportunity to present his case before the inquiry officer. It was against the principles of natural justice,’ the BSE official added. The independent inquiry headed by Justice Chavan was forced on the BSE by Sebi, which had in one of its board meeting recommended action against BSE officials in the wake of the stock market crash last year. Tirodkar handed over the recorded tapes of his conversation with Rathi to the Sebi, which led to the regulator seizing the data and subsequently sacking all broker directors of BSE after an inquiry.
