The scope of the review includes a detailed examination of board meeting video recordings, minutes and agendas over the past two years, to ascertain whether any concerns relating to unethical practices or governance issues were raised by the former chairman during his tenure, they said.
It will also cover all whistle-blower letters received and escalated to the board during this period, to assess whether they raised substantive concerns and whether adequate action was taken in response, the people said.Also Read |HDFC Bank a “screaming buy” amid market uncertainty: Sameer Dalal
The law firms may interview current board members and senior management to determine whether anyone has information pertaining to unethical practices or governance issues at the bank, the people said.
HDFC Bank, Wadia Ghandy and Trilegal did not respond to ET’s emails seeking comment.
The bank in a stock exchange filing on Tuesday said it appointed domestic and international law firms to review Chakraborty’s resignation. Without naming the law firms, the bank said it has asked them to submit their reports within a reasonable timeframe.
HDFC Bank in a separate statement also said the appointment was a proactive measure to ensure an objective and fact-based assessment of the aspects raised in the resignation letter.
“This step is in keeping with the bank’s commitment to constantly benchmark with the highest governance standards it has practised over decades,” the lender said.
Also Read | HDFC Bank crisis, war fears, and market chaos: What should investors do right now? Gurmeet Chadha answers
The review was prompted by the March 18 resignation of Chakraborty, a retired IAS officer and former secretary of the Department of Economic Affairs. In his letter, he cited practices not in line with his personal values and ethics as the reason for stepping down – a statement that sent shockwaves through India’s banking establishment.
In an interview with ET published on Monday, HDFC Bank managing director and chief executive Sashidhar Jagdishan said the bank would hold multiple board meetings over the coming months to review decisions made in recent years.
“We are not infallible. If there are areas where we need to improve, we will improve. We will address all issues,” he said.
Jagdishan acknowledged that the bank had yet to fully understand what prompted the exit after Chakraborty’s five-and-a-half years on the board. “This is like fighting a ghost. We had never anticipated this,” he told ET. When asked whether the bank would pursue legal remedies for reputational damage, Jagdishan said: “We are engaged with a legal firm to examine all possibilities.”
Recounting the events that preceded the resignation, Jagdishan said the bank had urged Chakraborty to raise his concerns through the bank’s established internal processes.
“When we saw those two contentious lines, we said we have a well-established process that you have personally helped institute. If you have concerns, put them there and we will address them collectively. He said: ‘I don’t have any to share.’ We then said, ‘If you don’t have any to share, please remove the lines.’ He was steadfast and refused to budge. That’s where it stands, so we went to the regulator,” Jagdishan said.