The Torn Notes and the Agent at the Gate
At about 12:10 p.m., a man approaches the public counter area of a Reserve Bank of India issue office carrying twelve soiled ₹500 notes and one ₹500 note that looks unusual - the security thread appears printed rather than woven, and the serial number is identical to another note in the bundle. He says a 'note exchange agent' outside the gate told him that the RBI charges a 10 per cent commission for replacing torn notes, that the commission can be avoided if he pays the agent ₹300, and that the odd note can be 'adjusted' if he hands it over quietly rather than showing it at the counter. The guard, posted a few metres away, hears all of this. The man is polite, has queued properly and holds no entry pass beyond the visitor slip issued at the gate. He asks the guard whether he should pay the agent so that his notes are accepted quickly.
1. Which of the man's three beliefs are false, and what is the correct position on each?
Read the worked answer
1. 'The RBI charges a 10 per cent commission for replacing torn notes.' False. Exchange of soiled and torn notes at a bank branch or an RBI issue office is a service, not a paid transaction. Any demand for commission, 'service charge' or 'speed money' from an intermediary is unauthorised, and paying it funds exactly the kind of touting that the office is trying to eliminate. The man should be told to deal only with counter staff.
2. 'Paying the agent ₹300 avoids the commission.' False and self-defeating. He would be paying a private person for a service that is already free at the counter. The agent has no ability to speed up or influence the exchange.
3. 'The odd note can be adjusted quietly.' False and the most serious of the three. A suspected counterfeit must be presented at the counter, where it is examined and impounded under the prescribed procedure and a receipt is given. Nothing is 'adjusted', and agreeing to a quiet handover would make the man a participant in passing a forged note rather than a member of the public seeking a lawful exchange.
2. What should the guard do, and why must he avoid grabbing the man or seizing the notes himself?
Read the worked answer
What he should do:
- Advise the man, briefly, not to pay anyone and not to hand the odd note to the agent.
- Escort or direct him to the counter staff so the notes are examined by the authorised person, and stay within sight until the counter takes over.
- Inform the shift supervisor or the officer in charge immediately, and describe the agent outside the gate - appearance, position, what was demanded.
- Record the time and a short factual note in the duty register.
Why he must not seize the notes or hold the man: the guard is not an authorised examiner and cannot certify a note as genuine or fake. Seizing a note destroys the chain of custody that the counter and, if needed, the police will rely on. Grabbing a member of the public who has queued normally and made no threat converts a routine exchange into an assault allegation and hands the other side the advantage. And publicly calling him a forger before any examination would be defamatory if the note turns out to be genuine but merely damaged.
The correct principle: prevent the loss, preserve the evidence, and hand the decision to the authority empowered to make it. The guard's authority is over access and safety, not over currency.
3. The man says the agent has been outside the gate for a week and 'must be official, otherwise security would have removed him'. How should the guard answer this reasoning?
Read the worked answer
The guard should point out that the argument proves the opposite of what the man thinks. An agent who has positioned himself outside the gate precisely so that he can intercept queuing visitors before they reach the counter is doing the one thing an authorised representative never needs to do. Official business happens at the counter, in the queue, with a receipt.
The guard should also be honest and precise about his own role rather than overstate it: a person standing on the public footpath outside the gate may be outside the immediate jurisdiction of the post, which is exactly why the matter must be reported to the supervisor and, if the demand for money continues, to the local police, instead of being settled by an argument at the gate.
The transferable rule to give the man is this: position and repetition are not authorisation. A person who has been doing something for a week, or who stands where officials stand, has proved only that nobody has yet reported him. Authority is shown by a designated counter, a system-generated receipt and a named office - never by proximity to a gate.