My employer,a public sector General Insurance Company abolished my post
held by me for 18 years arbitrarily and transferred me to another post of lower qualification,nature of work and pay start,I was given six increment over and above that post.
I got stay from the High Court,ever since that day they are treating me as
"persona non grata",I have been facing two enquiries on "grave" charge of
leaving headquarters,another "grave" charge in another enquiry pertains to
taking photograph from mobile of office documents.
I complaioned to labour commisioner regarding actual payment of one third of gross wages as all deductions have been made from salary/subsistence aowwance.
In their reply they have inter alia contnded that employment letter is issued
only once to employee,any subsequent change/recategorisation can be made through "circular".
Are they correct legally? they have suspended me to a post in which I was neither issued appointment letter nor have I been promoted,no modification
was ever conveyed individually to my post/designation of appointment and confirmation.
From India, Ajmer
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
9held by me for 18 years arbitrarily and transferred me to another post of lower qualification,nature of work and pay start,I was given six increment over and above that post.
I got stay from the High Court,ever since that day they are treating me as
"persona non grata",I have been facing two enquiries on "grave" charge of
leaving headquarters,another "grave" charge in another enquiry pertains to
taking photograph from mobile of office documents.
I complaioned to labour commisioner regarding actual payment of one third of gross wages as all deductions have been made from salary/subsistence aowwance.
In their reply they have inter alia contnded that employment letter is issued
only once to employee,any subsequent change/recategorisation can be made through "circular".
Are they correct legally? they have suspended me to a post in which I was neither issued appointment letter nor have I been promoted,no modification
was ever conveyed individually to my post/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)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.