Return of “SAIL Mein Khel” – Double Standards in Compulsory Retirement and Promotions?
Whistle Blower Rajeev Bhatia’s premature retirement, Vishal Kumar Bansal’s exit and T.N. Natarajan’s elevation raise uncomfortable questions
The latest developments at Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) have brought an old controversy back into focus: Is the same rulebook being applied to every officer?
While SAIL is reportedly examining officers for poor performance, adverse service records, conduct and alleged irregularities, T.N. Natarajan has been elevated as Director (Commercial) despite questions surrounding his earlier tenure in SAIL’s marketing organisation.
READ ALSO: SAIL Mein KHEL: How a ‘Tainted’ CGM Leapfrogged to Director Post!
The contrast becomes sharper when viewed against the cases of Rajeev Bhatia and Vishal Kumar Bansal.
Bhatia: The Whistleblower Who Was Forced into Compulsory Retirement
Rajeev Bhatia had raised serious allegations concerning irregularities in SAIL’s steel sales. His complaint eventually resulted in action against several officials and attracted the attention of the Lokpal and CBI.
Yet, according to reports published by Indian PSU, Bhatia was subsequently subjected to adverse performance assessments and ultimately forced into premature retirement.
This raises a troubling question:
What protection does a whistleblower receive if the person who raises the alarm ends up losing his job while the controversy continues?
The ₹800 Crore SAIL Steel Controversy
Bhatia’s allegations were linked to what has been described in complaints and reports as an alleged ₹800-crore SAIL steel scam.
The matter involved alleged irregularities in steel supplies to private entities and subsequently attracted scrutiny from investigative and oversight agencies.
The allegations remain subject to investigation and should not be treated as established guilt.
But the treatment of the whistleblower raises a larger institutional question: Was the person who raised the alarm adequately protected?
29 Officials Suspended, Then the Story Moved On
The controversy intensified in January 2024 when 29 SAIL officials were suspended in connection with alleged irregularities. The matter subsequently involved the Lokpal and CBI.
The suspensions were later revoked, while Bhatia’s own service trajectory took a very different turn.
That contrast has continued to fuel questions about accountability within the Maharatna PSU.
CBI Probe Adds to the Questions
The controversy has not remained confined to internal SAIL proceedings. The CBI investigation has reportedly expanded, bringing greater scrutiny to the alleged steel transactions.
READ ALSO: SAIL Steel Scam: CBI’s Expanding Probe Rattles Steel Majors and Management
Against this backdrop, the question of how SAIL evaluates officers facing allegations becomes even more important.
Bansal: From GM to DGM and Then Compulsory Retirement
The case of Vishal Kumar Bansal, former General Manager of Bokaro Steel Plant, provides another example.
Bansal was earlier demoted from GM to DGM following disciplinary proceedings relating to a complaint concerning a contractor transaction. He was subsequently transferred and has now reportedly been granted compulsory retirement.
SAIL’s current approach reportedly involves examining officers’ performance, CCR ratings, conduct and complaints before deciding on compulsory retirement.
The question is not whether Bansal’s case and Natarajan’s case are legally identical. They may not be.
The question is whether SAIL has a clearly defined and consistently applied standard for deciding who should face compulsory retirement and who should be elevated to the Board.
And Then Comes Natarajan
Against this backdrop, the elevation of T.N. Natarajan as Director (Commercial) has raised eyebrows.
According to complaint documents and reports cited by Indian PSU, nearly 1 lakh tonnes of steel were allegedly supplied to dubious or “fake project” entities during his tenure as Regional Manager–Western Region. It has further been alleged that around 40,000 tonnes were supplied even after a Lokpal order dated January 10, 2024, had flagged irregularities.
A CBI questionnaire has reportedly also been issued seeking clarification.
These are allegations, not proof of guilt.
But the obvious question remains:
If allegations, service records and complaints can be considered while deciding compulsory retirement, why should investigative scrutiny carry no weight when an officer is being elevated to the Board?
READ ALSO: SAIL Under Fire: Steel Ministry Elevates Officer Amid Scam Shadow
One Rulebook or Two?
The three cases present an uncomfortable comparison:
- Rajeev Bhatia: raised allegations → adverse action → premature retirement.
- Vishal Kumar Bansal: disciplinary proceedings → demotion → compulsory retirement.
- T.N. Natarajan: allegations and investigative scrutiny → elevation as Director (Commercial).
The cases may have different facts and legal circumstances. But SAIL owes its employees and stakeholders an explanation of the standards being applied.
The issue is not whether Natarajan is guilty. Nor does an allegation automatically establish guilt.
The issue is consistency.
Accountability Cannot Be Selective
If SAIL believes that poor performance, adverse service records, complaints and conduct issues justify compulsory retirement, employees have a right to know how similar considerations are evaluated when an officer is being considered for a Board-level appointment.
A Maharatna PSU cannot afford even the perception that those who raise questions are punished while those facing questions are promoted.
The “SAIL Mein Khel” controversy is therefore not merely about one officer, one whistleblower or one appointment.
It is about whether SAIL has one standard of accountability or different standards for different officers.
The rulebook must be the same for everyone.
