MR Peter Robinson last night accused Woolwich Building Society of an "orchestrated smear campaign" against him after forcing his resignation as group chief executive on Tuesday.

Woolwich, meanwhile, indicated that the audit which led to his removal was prompted by a "whistleblowing" complaint by an employee who claimed internal rules had been broken. It was also investigating whether "collusion" was involved in Mr Robinson's alleged misuse of company services, including decorating and gardening at his home.

Mr Robinson, speaking for the first time since being ousted by Britain's third largest building society, said leaks had been initiated containing "very specific" information.

Mr David Blake, head of corporate affairs, said last night: "The Woolwich has made no comment at all apart from that press release (announcing Mr Robinson's resignation) and answering journalists' questions. We are not orchestrating anything."

Mr Robinson would not discuss allegations against him, which he has denied through his lawyers, but said Woolwich was urging employees to supply information against him, telling them "please come forward, your job is safe".

In preparing Woolwich for a stock market flotation, circumstances had arisen in which "the fainthearted were going to have to struggle a bit".

Describing his approach as "authoritative but hopefully friendly", Mr Robinson added: "We're not a bunch of wimps, are we?"

Mr Donald Kirkham, Woolwich's acting chief executive said employees of the society were being questioned but none had been removed or suspended.

"If the allegations are proved, they will be proved on the basis there was collusion," he said. "The odd third party might be involved," Mr Kirkham added.

Although Mr Robinson became chief executive on January 1st, "these allegations go back a few years", Mr Kirkham said.

But he said directors learned that management had lost confidence in Mr Robinson only when it received the audit.

"Until that report was on the table, the directors had no idea what the position was, Mr Kirkham said.

Mr Robinson, who had worked for Woolwich for 33 years, said: "I haven't changed in three months. I was appointed because of performance and a certain management style."

Mr Kirkham said: "If the allegations are untrue, then we clearly will be liable to compensate Mr Robinson for unfair dismissal.

"If they are proved, there will be a question whether any compensation should be paid." Mr Robinson was on an annual salary of £300,000 sterling and had a 12 month service contract.

D.J. Freeman the solicitors representing Mr Robinson said: "We still haven't had a copy of the audit report. We still haven't had any evidence to support the allegations.

Wool which confirmed it might be two to three weeks before they would be made available.

The board based its action against Mr Robinson on evidence they believed suggested employees had been persuaded to agree to breaches of protocol.

The amount of money allegedly involved was a secondary factor.

"The sum total is likely to be immaterial," he said.

But Mr Kirkham said Woolwich did not give any employee, at whatever position, a second chance if misappropriation was proved. "If it's a fiver or £5,000, it really doesn't make a difference. You don't stay," he said.

The circumstances of Mr Robinson's departure inevitably raise questions about the evolution of building societies such as Woolwich as they move towards flotation.

Certainly, Mr Kirkham's acknowledgment that Mr Robinson had been allowed to claim his own expenses without any counter signature suggests that internal controls will have to be tightened before Woolwich comes to market.

But it would be invidious to draw broader conclusions from this coincidence of personal friction, old grudges and what his accusers say was an opportunistic view of the perks of the job.

"He had a very large personality," says one Woolwich insider of Mr Robinson. "Inevitably, when one has a large personality, toes do get squashed." This week, the shoe was on the other foot.