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)
9C/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.