My employer, a public sector General Insurance Company, abolished my position held by me for 18 years arbitrarily and transferred me to another role of lower qualification, nature of work, and pay scale. I was given six increments above that new position. I obtained a stay from the High Court, and ever since that day, they have been treating me as a "persona non grata." I am currently facing two investigations on serious charges – one related to leaving headquarters and another concerning taking photographs of office documents with a mobile device.
I lodged a complaint with the labor commissioner regarding the actual payment of one-third of my gross wages, as all deductions have been made from my salary/subsistence allowance. In their response, they argued that an employment letter is issued only once to an employee and any subsequent changes or re-categorizations can be made through a "circular."
Are they legally correct? They have suspended me from a position for which I neither received an appointment letter nor have I been promoted. No modifications were ever communicated individually regarding my position/designation of appointment and confirmation.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
9I lodged a complaint with the labor commissioner regarding the actual payment of one-third of my gross wages, as all deductions have been made from my salary/subsistence allowance. In their response, they argued that an employment letter is issued only once to an employee and any subsequent changes or re-categorizations can be made through a "circular."
Are they legally correct? They have suspended me from a position for which I neither received an appointment letter nor have I been promoted. No modifications were ever communicated individually regarding my position/designation of appointment and confirmation.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As per the Supreme Court directives, in case of major penalty proceedings, sub-rules, that is, Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules have to be strictly followed.
A charge sheet issued against myself was never delivered as per the procedure mentioned in the CDA rules by registered post; instead, two persons from the office handed it over personally to my home.
I have so far not participated in the proposed inquiry, taking the plea that it was never delivered to me as per the procedure. The management has so far issued only two letters for participation in the inquiry since the last 7 months of the issuance of the Memo.
Am I legally right not to participate in such an inquiry, as the only relationship that exists between me and my employer, a public sector insurance company, is the CDA rules since my unjustified suspension.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A charge sheet issued against myself was never delivered as per the procedure mentioned in the CDA rules by registered post; instead, two persons from the office handed it over personally to my home.
I have so far not participated in the proposed inquiry, taking the plea that it was never delivered to me as per the procedure. The management has so far issued only two letters for participation in the inquiry since the last 7 months of the issuance of the Memo.
Am I legally right not to participate in such an inquiry, as the only relationship that exists between me and my employer, a public sector insurance company, is the CDA rules since my unjustified suspension.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The latest update on the matter is that the labor commissioner ruled that since the issue of denial of subsistence allowance was not sponsored by the union (as complained by me individually), he advised me to request the union to file a complaint.
As for the delivery of the chargesheet by messengers, another insurance authority has stated under the RTI Act that sending it to the employee's home by messengers is not appropriate or sufficient.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As for the delivery of the chargesheet by messengers, another insurance authority has stated under the RTI Act that sending it to the employee's home by messengers is not appropriate or sufficient.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have recently been informed that the so called enquiry was over as the P.O. presented the brief,and the so called enquiry officer asked my brief "by post".
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
dear i cfould not understand your query because you are explaining something about yourself if you want to raise some point please be informative than only we can anlyse your case. regards js malik
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sorry, I would try to explain:
Date of Appointment: 24.02.1988
Post: Hindi Translator
Date of First Charge sheet: 13.02.2008
Post was different: "assistant (translator)"
They tried to deliver it personally in the office, upon my refusal that post was different, the same was sent by registered post to my home & the charge sheet was displayed on the office notice board from 21.02.08 to 11.03.08 despite my provisional reply dated 7.03.08 submitted the same day in the office.
Date of Suspension: 10.04.1988
Reason: disciplinary proceedings pending & contemplated
Second charge sheet: dated 02.05.08
Date of Delivery to home by messengers from office: 20.05.08
I signed it "under protest and without prejudice"
Subsequently, I learned that there was no stipulated procedure to deliver the charge sheet by messengers, the rule no. 28 (of C.D.A. Rules) prescribes that "all communications under Rules 25 (entitled major penalty proceedings) & copies of orders thereunder may be delivered personally to the employee if he is attending the office, otherwise, they shall be sent by registered post to the address noted in the service record. Where such communication & copies of order cannot be served on him personally or by registered post, copies thereof shall be affixed on the notice board of the office in which the employee is employed... deemed to have been properly served on him."
Till date, the charge sheet dated 2.05.08 has not been sent to me by registered post.
My employer conducted inquiries on 7.08.08, 5.12.08 & 15.05.09 without any ex-parte notice to me. I regularly replied that the charge sheet was not served upon me. They took witnesses' deposition on 15.05.09 & the same day, EO asked PO for his brief. P.O. Brief along with a copy of proceedings dispatched to me on 20.05.09.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Date of Appointment: 24.02.1988
Post: Hindi Translator
Date of First Charge sheet: 13.02.2008
Post was different: "assistant (translator)"
They tried to deliver it personally in the office, upon my refusal that post was different, the same was sent by registered post to my home & the charge sheet was displayed on the office notice board from 21.02.08 to 11.03.08 despite my provisional reply dated 7.03.08 submitted the same day in the office.
Date of Suspension: 10.04.1988
Reason: disciplinary proceedings pending & contemplated
Second charge sheet: dated 02.05.08
Date of Delivery to home by messengers from office: 20.05.08
I signed it "under protest and without prejudice"
Subsequently, I learned that there was no stipulated procedure to deliver the charge sheet by messengers, the rule no. 28 (of C.D.A. Rules) prescribes that "all communications under Rules 25 (entitled major penalty proceedings) & copies of orders thereunder may be delivered personally to the employee if he is attending the office, otherwise, they shall be sent by registered post to the address noted in the service record. Where such communication & copies of order cannot be served on him personally or by registered post, copies thereof shall be affixed on the notice board of the office in which the employee is employed... deemed to have been properly served on him."
Till date, the charge sheet dated 2.05.08 has not been sent to me by registered post.
My employer conducted inquiries on 7.08.08, 5.12.08 & 15.05.09 without any ex-parte notice to me. I regularly replied that the charge sheet was not served upon me. They took witnesses' deposition on 15.05.09 & the same day, EO asked PO for his brief. P.O. Brief along with a copy of proceedings dispatched to me on 20.05.09.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear,
I feel that in your case, the principle of natural justice has not been followed as you were not informed about the inquiry, hence you did not attend it. Basically, all information should be sent by registered post or handed over personally. If details are still not communicated, they should be published in two local newspapers.
Now, you can confirm whether this practice was followed or not.
Regards,
J. S. Malik
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I feel that in your case, the principle of natural justice has not been followed as you were not informed about the inquiry, hence you did not attend it. Basically, all information should be sent by registered post or handed over personally. If details are still not communicated, they should be published in two local newspapers.
Now, you can confirm whether this practice was followed or not.
Regards,
J. S. Malik
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am sticking to my view that the charge sheet has not been sent to me by registered post as stipulated in the C.D.A. Rule no. 28. LIC has also informed me under RTI that the charge sheet is not considered properly delivered by messengers alone. Secondly, the messengers were sent without the courtesy of a telephone call; it was a violation of privacy as my child was alone at the time the messengers arrived, and they waited inside my home.
As for the enquiry date, they have called me. However, each time I replied that the charge sheet was not properly delivered. Further, on the enquiry dates of 7.08.08 and 5.12.08, they were conducting another enquiry against me. I argued that it was unjustified to hold two different inquiries on the same day. They never issued any warning that they would conduct an ex parte inquiry in my absence.
I have not received a copy of the proceedings from the dates 7.08.08 and 5.12.08 (held in absentia). In the charge sheet, there was one declared witness only; they added six more, all belonging to class 1, without specifically informing me.
Can they legally punish me?
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As for the enquiry date, they have called me. However, each time I replied that the charge sheet was not properly delivered. Further, on the enquiry dates of 7.08.08 and 5.12.08, they were conducting another enquiry against me. I argued that it was unjustified to hold two different inquiries on the same day. They never issued any warning that they would conduct an ex parte inquiry in my absence.
I have not received a copy of the proceedings from the dates 7.08.08 and 5.12.08 (held in absentia). In the charge sheet, there was one declared witness only; they added six more, all belonging to class 1, without specifically informing me.
Can they legally punish me?
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Ministry of Finance has issued a clear circular to all insurance companies regarding the charge sheet to be issued in the language demanded by an employee as per the Official Language Rules of 1976 based on the Act of Official Language.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My employer, Public Sector Insurance Company, issued a suspension order, charge sheet, and held inquiries (major penalty) under GIC CDA Rules 1975. Now, they have issued an order of punishment (taking away permanently my six increments) under the NIACL CDA Rules 2003.
Is the act legally sustainable? I have obtained both rules under the RTI Act. GIC CDA Rules do not provide for the continuity of the Rules as NIACL Rules 2003. Furthermore, it is not mentioned in the NIACL Rules that they are amendments of the GIC CDA Rules. However, they are basing their presumptions on the RTI Act. They also mention their Company board resolution of 2003, stating that henceforth GIC CDA Rules shall be referred to as NIACL CDA Rules.
The charge sheets are dated 2.05.08 and 13.02.08. They have issued punishment for 2.05.08; however, they declare that until they decide about 13.02.08, I shall remain under suspension. I rely on a Supreme Court judgment that states, "The procedures laid down under the sub-Rules are required to be strictly followed" (Civil appeal no. 4634 of 2006) - Mathura Prasad Appellant Vs. Union of India & others Respondents decided on 11.01.2006.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Is the act legally sustainable? I have obtained both rules under the RTI Act. GIC CDA Rules do not provide for the continuity of the Rules as NIACL Rules 2003. Furthermore, it is not mentioned in the NIACL Rules that they are amendments of the GIC CDA Rules. However, they are basing their presumptions on the RTI Act. They also mention their Company board resolution of 2003, stating that henceforth GIC CDA Rules shall be referred to as NIACL CDA Rules.
The charge sheets are dated 2.05.08 and 13.02.08. They have issued punishment for 2.05.08; however, they declare that until they decide about 13.02.08, I shall remain under suspension. I rely on a Supreme Court judgment that states, "The procedures laid down under the sub-Rules are required to be strictly followed" (Civil appeal no. 4634 of 2006) - Mathura Prasad Appellant Vs. Union of India & others Respondents decided on 11.01.2006.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear,
I do not know much about public sector rules, but I would like to know one thing: why did you not participate in the inquiry? Did you receive information and dates of the inquiry? We want to know this to assess the credibility of the inquiry and whether the principles of natural justice were followed.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I do not know much about public sector rules, but I would like to know one thing: why did you not participate in the inquiry? Did you receive information and dates of the inquiry? We want to know this to assess the credibility of the inquiry and whether the principles of natural justice were followed.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The procedure of delivery of the charge sheet as stipulated in the Regulation No.28 of the CDA rules (quote):(this regulation is common in both the rules quoted in the Inquiry & the rule quoted in the punishment order)
“All communications under Rules 23,24,25,26 & 27 and copies of orders passed thereunder may be delivered personally to the employee if he is attending the office:otherwise they shall be sent by registered post to the address noted in the service record.”
They sent two persons from office to my home dt.20.05.08 I quoted in their copy of charge sheet as "under protest & without prejudice".
I protested in writing against their act of harassing my child in my absence despite no provision of sending messanger to home of employee.They did not reply to my protest.
Though I sent them my explanation dt.2.06.08 in writing by which I demanded certain documents on the basis of which the charge sheet was issued,they did not reply to my representation,however,they initiated the enquiry arguing that I did not reply anything to the charge sheet. I have received proof under RTI Act that my reply to charge sheet was attended by the authority dt. 9.06.08.(certified by the same Mr.Kundra who has issued order of punishment).
Since no charge sheet was delivered by the legal procedure as mentioned in the CDA Rules and since my reply was deliberately not considered I chose not to participate in the Inquiry. Further the Inquiry officer did not send me copy of proceedings for first two hearings.
He held the first two enquiries the same date he was holding enquiry with reference to earlier charge sheet dt.13.02.08 to which I participated as the charge sheet 13.02.08 was pasted on the office notice board for three weeks and sent to my home address by registered post .
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
“All communications under Rules 23,24,25,26 & 27 and copies of orders passed thereunder may be delivered personally to the employee if he is attending the office:otherwise they shall be sent by registered post to the address noted in the service record.”
They sent two persons from office to my home dt.20.05.08 I quoted in their copy of charge sheet as "under protest & without prejudice".
I protested in writing against their act of harassing my child in my absence despite no provision of sending messanger to home of employee.They did not reply to my protest.
Though I sent them my explanation dt.2.06.08 in writing by which I demanded certain documents on the basis of which the charge sheet was issued,they did not reply to my representation,however,they initiated the enquiry arguing that I did not reply anything to the charge sheet. I have received proof under RTI Act that my reply to charge sheet was attended by the authority dt. 9.06.08.(certified by the same Mr.Kundra who has issued order of punishment).
Since no charge sheet was delivered by the legal procedure as mentioned in the CDA Rules and since my reply was deliberately not considered I chose not to participate in the Inquiry. Further the Inquiry officer did not send me copy of proceedings for first two hearings.
He held the first two enquiries the same date he was holding enquiry with reference to earlier charge sheet dt.13.02.08 to which I participated as the charge sheet 13.02.08 was pasted on the office notice board for three weeks and sent to my home address by registered post .
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Revribhav,
My suggestion. Hire a local Solicitor or advocate. You seem to have done you own good study and seems you just need a good advocate/solicitor. Be ready for a long fight.
Regards,
ukmitra.
From Saudi Arabia, Riyadh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My suggestion. Hire a local Solicitor or advocate. You seem to have done you own good study and seems you just need a good advocate/solicitor. Be ready for a long fight.
Regards,
ukmitra.
From Saudi Arabia, Riyadh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I give my consent to mr. mitra’s advise as there are many points where u can win the case. On this platform it is difficult to guide u through the whole process. God bless
From India, Secunderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Secunderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, I am aware of the fact. In fact, it was a senior advocate who advised me that the definition of an employee as mentioned in GIC CDA Rules did not apply to me. Kindly advise me if I can file a complaint against fundamental rights violation to the Supreme Court as they have not, till date, issued a charge sheet against a public servant caught red-handed in their Jaipur office on February 10, 2009, despite the CBI filing a charge sheet against him in the CBI court and advising my employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. My employer is silent on the matter since the public servant who issued me the two charge sheets has been named as the ultimate beneficiary of a bribe in the incident, as per a news report. Instead of taking action, my employer merely transferred him to his home place (Delhi) from Jaipur. They state under RTI that they do not take action based on news reports. I have also received a list from the CBI which shows that despite CBI recommendations for taking disciplinary action, at least two branch managers who were occupying the rank of office in charge continue to occupy the post of in charge of the public office.
On the other hand, the only "grave violation of rules" as of my date of suspension on April 10, 2008, as per the charge sheet dated February 13, 2008, against me is that I left headquarters. The only declared witness of the charge sheet dated May 2, 2008, used derisive language against my working wife in his official statement on the company letterhead to his superior dated March 26, 2008, stating, "it is a surprising fact that the wife of Mr. Soni has left children with her sick husband and she is comfortably doing her job away from her home."
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
On the other hand, the only "grave violation of rules" as of my date of suspension on April 10, 2008, as per the charge sheet dated February 13, 2008, against me is that I left headquarters. The only declared witness of the charge sheet dated May 2, 2008, used derisive language against my working wife in his official statement on the company letterhead to his superior dated March 26, 2008, stating, "it is a surprising fact that the wife of Mr. Soni has left children with her sick husband and she is comfortably doing her job away from her home."
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear [Recipient],
Your case appears to be a purely legalistic matter and can be solved by direct legal help in the place where the litigation is required. Once a punishment is awarded, that order is appealable. Have you filed an appeal as per your company rules? If you merely think you have a good case without following the procedure provided under the rules, even courts of law cannot help you as all your efforts will be barred by delay.
Email: vsrlaw@gmail.com
Best regards,
[Your Name]
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your case appears to be a purely legalistic matter and can be solved by direct legal help in the place where the litigation is required. Once a punishment is awarded, that order is appealable. Have you filed an appeal as per your company rules? If you merely think you have a good case without following the procedure provided under the rules, even courts of law cannot help you as all your efforts will be barred by delay.
Email: vsrlaw@gmail.com
Best regards,
[Your Name]
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks, I plan to go to Jaipur within a few days to consult a senior advocate who advised me that the definition of an employee is not applicable to me under the CDA rules. This is the basis on which my employer initiated the proceedings. I would seek his advice on whether to appeal in the department or file a petition to the court of law/tribunal.
Please let me know if you need further assistance.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please let me know if you need further assistance.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have filed an appeal in the department against two decisions - one to deprive me of 6 increments and the other to dismiss me from services. Ironically, the only "grave" violation of the rule in the charge sheet worth dismissal from services was that, as per the disciplinary authority, I left headquarters. They kept me under suspension on half pay for one and a half years, which they justified in the order.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have filed departmental appeal in the matter and requested the authority to decide the matter within 10 days.How many days should I reasonably allow them to deemed rejection of my appeal?
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My employer, an insurance company, has dismissed me from services apparently because they have been "harassed" by applications under the RTI act seeking information on corruption in public life. They have failed to suspend the official who was caught by the CBI on 10.02.2009 with bribe money, despite the CBI filing a charge sheet for corruption. Under the RTI act, I have been informed that it is my personal opinion that the act of bribery was a shameful act.
All the public servants of NIACL representing the new corrupt India, whose list has been provided to me by authorities such as the police or CBI and then passed on by me to the public sector insurance company owned by the Government of India, have been fearlessly performing their duties as public servants because no one dares to take any serious action.
The memorial against unjustified orders has been pending with the authority for disposal. They state under the RTI act that they have no specific time limit for disposal of the same. They seem to have become more aggressive after my complaint to the Human Rights Commission of India, which appears to be the most inhuman organization.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
All the public servants of NIACL representing the new corrupt India, whose list has been provided to me by authorities such as the police or CBI and then passed on by me to the public sector insurance company owned by the Government of India, have been fearlessly performing their duties as public servants because no one dares to take any serious action.
The memorial against unjustified orders has been pending with the authority for disposal. They state under the RTI act that they have no specific time limit for disposal of the same. They seem to have become more aggressive after my complaint to the Human Rights Commission of India, which appears to be the most inhuman organization.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
First Appellate Authority (RTI) 18.11.2010
C/O Chairman- cum- Managing Direcor,
The New India Assurance Co Ltd,
87,M.G.Road,Fort,Mumbai-400001.
Madam/Sir,
Re: Appeal under the Right to Information Act-2005 application Dt. 4.09.2010
addressed to the Ministry of Finance
Appeal filed against CPIO letter Ref:HO/CPI Cell/2010/247** issued by C.K.Gola
Desired information:1 Informtion of the specific date and place of several undeclared witnesses (not decalred as witnesses in the charge memo)consented to depose against the applicant.
2.Name,salary number,Rank.Office address of the public servants who persuaded the undeclared witnesses (not decalred as witnesses in the charge memo)to depose against the applicant.(b) specific date and place of persuation.
3.Information of the letter,if any,issued by any authority of NIACL that undeclared witnesses (not decalred as witnesses in the charge memo)shall depose against him.
Appeal: The information sought has been denied and the denial of information has not
been addressed to CPIO,NIACL who enclosed the same or the applicat.
In effect no information has been supplied despite violation of Section 167 IPC - Public servant framing incorrect document with intend to cause injury . The information pertains to gross abuse of powers by public servant(s) serving “The New India Assurance Co Ltd”,head office87, M.G.Road, Fort,Mumbai-400001.
4. Name of all the Unions/welfare associations to which the Inquiry Officer belonged.
(as on date of Inquiries/filing Inquiry Report)
5. Name of all the Unions/welfare associations to which each of the winess belonged.
(as on date of deposition)
6. Name of all the Unions/welfare associations to which Manager NIACL pronouncing the enclosed decision belonged. (as on date of decision/order)
7. Name of all the Unions/welfare associations to which Manager NIACL pronouncing the decision to suspend the applicant from services of NIACLbelonged. (as on date of order)
8. Name of all the Unions/welfare associations to which Chief Regional Manager (s)NIACL belonged. (as on date of order(s) including name and salary number of the concerned public servants.
Appeal: The information sought has been denied under false presumption that the same is personal information further the denial of information has not been addressed to CPIO,NIACL who enclosed the same or the applicant.
In effect no information has been supplied it is not only violation of Section 167 IPC - Public servant framing incorrect document with intend to cause injury but also that of section 4(1) RTI Act which empowers an affected applicant to seek reasons from the public authority.
9. A list of documents conveying amended service conditions of Hindi Translators since arbitrary abolition of their post euphemistically called “recategorization” as “assistant” from 2006.
10. Information of the specific date and specific circular with which the rules of 2003 affecting the service conditions of each and evey one of about 600 employees of NIACL,Jaipur RO are displayed on notice board of the public authority/conveyed in writing to employees.
Appeal: The information has not only been denied but also the document of denial has not been addressed either to the applicant or the CPIO.
In view of the aforesaid, you are requested to direct the CPIO to disclose all the information sought by the applicant & ensure compliance since the disclosure pertains to the Right to Life of the applicant ( the applicant has been denied regular salary since 10th April 2008 because he failed to grease the palm of corrupt).
Yours Sincerely, 18.11.2010
(ShriGopal Soni) C231,PanchSheel Nagar,Ajmer-305004 **enclosed
Relevant quote: “Employee charged for bribery not put under suspension during 2009.
Mr. Bal Kishan Gupta,S.R.No.28470,RC Posted at Dharma Heights,Jaipur RO”
Issued by Dr. A.B.Srivastava,Chief Manager under VIG/RTI/110 dated 05.10.2009
The situation is still the same the bribe taker caught red-handed by CBI has been one of the corrupt people protected by those who encourage corruption in public life.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
C/O Chairman- cum- Managing Direcor,
The New India Assurance Co Ltd,
87,M.G.Road,Fort,Mumbai-400001.
Madam/Sir,
Re: Appeal under the Right to Information Act-2005 application Dt. 4.09.2010
addressed to the Ministry of Finance
Appeal filed against CPIO letter Ref:HO/CPI Cell/2010/247** issued by C.K.Gola
Desired information:1 Informtion of the specific date and place of several undeclared witnesses (not decalred as witnesses in the charge memo)consented to depose against the applicant.
2.Name,salary number,Rank.Office address of the public servants who persuaded the undeclared witnesses (not decalred as witnesses in the charge memo)to depose against the applicant.(b) specific date and place of persuation.
3.Information of the letter,if any,issued by any authority of NIACL that undeclared witnesses (not decalred as witnesses in the charge memo)shall depose against him.
Appeal: The information sought has been denied and the denial of information has not
been addressed to CPIO,NIACL who enclosed the same or the applicat.
In effect no information has been supplied despite violation of Section 167 IPC - Public servant framing incorrect document with intend to cause injury . The information pertains to gross abuse of powers by public servant(s) serving “The New India Assurance Co Ltd”,head office87, M.G.Road, Fort,Mumbai-400001.
4. Name of all the Unions/welfare associations to which the Inquiry Officer belonged.
(as on date of Inquiries/filing Inquiry Report)
5. Name of all the Unions/welfare associations to which each of the winess belonged.
(as on date of deposition)
6. Name of all the Unions/welfare associations to which Manager NIACL pronouncing the enclosed decision belonged. (as on date of decision/order)
7. Name of all the Unions/welfare associations to which Manager NIACL pronouncing the decision to suspend the applicant from services of NIACLbelonged. (as on date of order)
8. Name of all the Unions/welfare associations to which Chief Regional Manager (s)NIACL belonged. (as on date of order(s) including name and salary number of the concerned public servants.
Appeal: The information sought has been denied under false presumption that the same is personal information further the denial of information has not been addressed to CPIO,NIACL who enclosed the same or the applicant.
In effect no information has been supplied it is not only violation of Section 167 IPC - Public servant framing incorrect document with intend to cause injury but also that of section 4(1) RTI Act which empowers an affected applicant to seek reasons from the public authority.
9. A list of documents conveying amended service conditions of Hindi Translators since arbitrary abolition of their post euphemistically called “recategorization” as “assistant” from 2006.
10. Information of the specific date and specific circular with which the rules of 2003 affecting the service conditions of each and evey one of about 600 employees of NIACL,Jaipur RO are displayed on notice board of the public authority/conveyed in writing to employees.
Appeal: The information has not only been denied but also the document of denial has not been addressed either to the applicant or the CPIO.
In view of the aforesaid, you are requested to direct the CPIO to disclose all the information sought by the applicant & ensure compliance since the disclosure pertains to the Right to Life of the applicant ( the applicant has been denied regular salary since 10th April 2008 because he failed to grease the palm of corrupt).
Yours Sincerely, 18.11.2010
(ShriGopal Soni) C231,PanchSheel Nagar,Ajmer-305004 **enclosed
Relevant quote: “Employee charged for bribery not put under suspension during 2009.
Mr. Bal Kishan Gupta,S.R.No.28470,RC Posted at Dharma Heights,Jaipur RO”
Issued by Dr. A.B.Srivastava,Chief Manager under VIG/RTI/110 dated 05.10.2009
The situation is still the same the bribe taker caught red-handed by CBI has been one of the corrupt people protected by those who encourage corruption in public life.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My Dear Friend,
With reference to illegal gratification - acceptance or being caught in the process of accepting - and subsequent "suspension pending enquiry" by the company/department concerned; I would like to inform you that there has been a change in the way such "allegations" (till proved) are being dealt with.
Now, such accused employees are no longer put under suspension (in general). The reason is, during suspension they become eligible for a subsistence allowance (which may reach up to two-thirds of salary) without doing any productive work.
As you are aware, CBI cases or other criminal cases may continue for years together. So, the accused employee keeps on getting substantial subsistence allowance. If by any chance, he is exonerated, he gets all the pending salaries, benefits, promotion, etc., without having to put in any work.
Therefore, now there is a tendency not to suspend (unless circumstances so warrant) till the time of the final decision by Courts.
Also, I would like to inform you that it is not judicious to have a Departmental Enquiry or impose punishment by the Department. This is because many accused have taken the plea in the court that they have already been punished for this act and further punishment would amount to double punishment for the same misdeed.
I hope I am able to make you understand what I intend to convey without hurting your feelings on some action on the accused who are caught red-handed.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With reference to illegal gratification - acceptance or being caught in the process of accepting - and subsequent "suspension pending enquiry" by the company/department concerned; I would like to inform you that there has been a change in the way such "allegations" (till proved) are being dealt with.
Now, such accused employees are no longer put under suspension (in general). The reason is, during suspension they become eligible for a subsistence allowance (which may reach up to two-thirds of salary) without doing any productive work.
As you are aware, CBI cases or other criminal cases may continue for years together. So, the accused employee keeps on getting substantial subsistence allowance. If by any chance, he is exonerated, he gets all the pending salaries, benefits, promotion, etc., without having to put in any work.
Therefore, now there is a tendency not to suspend (unless circumstances so warrant) till the time of the final decision by Courts.
Also, I would like to inform you that it is not judicious to have a Departmental Enquiry or impose punishment by the Department. This is because many accused have taken the plea in the court that they have already been punished for this act and further punishment would amount to double punishment for the same misdeed.
I hope I am able to make you understand what I intend to convey without hurting your feelings on some action on the accused who are caught red-handed.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks.
But I was put on suspension for about one and a half years on the basis of a charge memo. The only violation of company rules against me was that I left headquarters. They do not follow the rule of subsistence allowance increase after 3 or 6 months; they state they have the discretion to decrease the allowance from 50 to 25 percent. They dismissed me without considering the fact that no opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses was allowed to me.
In effect, the corrupt employees become more privileged than the whistleblowers.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
But I was put on suspension for about one and a half years on the basis of a charge memo. The only violation of company rules against me was that I left headquarters. They do not follow the rule of subsistence allowance increase after 3 or 6 months; they state they have the discretion to decrease the allowance from 50 to 25 percent. They dismissed me without considering the fact that no opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses was allowed to me.
In effect, the corrupt employees become more privileged than the whistleblowers.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If a charge sheet is issued by a registered AD to the office or residential address of an employee (who has been remaining unauthorizedly absent from the office for a long time) and it returns without delivery with the reason "Addressee left the place" or "Addressee not available," what are the further courses of action that the employer should take in order to proceed?
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If the charge-sheeted employee, who had been issued a second show-cause notice proposing a punishment of deduction of 4 increments, dies after complying with the said notice, what further course of action should be taken regarding the disciplinary matter?
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Udupa,
I shall try to answer both of your queries here.
Q1: In such cases, the inquiry proceeds in due course.
- The Chargesheet is deemed to have been delivered.
- The proceedings are conducted in absentia of the Charge-sheeted employee, also known as "Ex-Parte."
Q2: In the sad demise of the charge-sheeted employee, no further proceedings are held. In view of the Principle of Natural Justice, a deceased employee cannot defend himself; thus, the matter is set aside at that stage itself. "Status Quo" is maintained.
I hope the above suffices and provides clarity on the issues raised. If any of my professional friends here have a contrary opinion or would like to provide additional or supplementary information, they are welcome!
With warm regards to all.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I shall try to answer both of your queries here.
Q1: In such cases, the inquiry proceeds in due course.
- The Chargesheet is deemed to have been delivered.
- The proceedings are conducted in absentia of the Charge-sheeted employee, also known as "Ex-Parte."
Q2: In the sad demise of the charge-sheeted employee, no further proceedings are held. In view of the Principle of Natural Justice, a deceased employee cannot defend himself; thus, the matter is set aside at that stage itself. "Status Quo" is maintained.
I hope the above suffices and provides clarity on the issues raised. If any of my professional friends here have a contrary opinion or would like to provide additional or supplementary information, they are welcome!
With warm regards to all.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment) Rules, 2018.pdf
Draft Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Punjab (Haryana Amendment) Rules 2018.docx