Business Development, Employee Relations,
Entire Organisational Matters
Raj Kumar Hansdah
Shrm, Od, Hrd, Pms
Udupa K S
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 office handed over personally to my home.
I have so far not participated in the porposed inquiry taking the plea that it was never delivered to me as per the procedure.The mangement have so far issued only two letters for participation of inquiry since last 7 months of issuance of Memo.
Am I legally right not to participate in such inquiry,as the only relation that exists between me and my employer public sector insurance Company is the CDA rules since my unjustified suspension.
23rd December 2008 From India, Ajmer
AS far as chargesheet delivery by messengers,another insurance authority has informed under the RTI Act that
sending the same to the home of employee by messengers is not proper/enough.
31st January 2009 From India, Ajmer
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 office,upon my refusal that post was different,the same was sent by registered post to my home & the charge sheet was displayed on office notice board from 21.02.08 to 11.03.08 despite my provisional reply dt.7.03.08submitted the same day in the office.
Date of Suspension:10.04.1988 reason:disciplinary proceedings pending & contemplated
Second charge sheet: dt.02.05.08
Dt. of Delivery to home by messnegers from office:20.05.08 I signed it"under protest and without prejudice"
Subsequently I learned that there was no stipulated procedure to deliver charge sheet by messnegers,the rule no.28 (of C.D.A.Rules) prescribes "all communications under Rules ..25..(entitled major penalty proceedings)& copies of orders therunder 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 therof 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 dt.2.05.08 is not sent to me by registered post.
My employer conducted enquiry dt.7.08.08;5.12.08 & 15.05.09 without any ex-parte notice to me.I regularly replied that charge sheet was not served upon me.They took witnesse’s deposition dt.15.05.09 & the same day EO asked PO for his brief. P.O.Brief alongwith copy of proceedings dispatched to me dt.20.05.09.
15th June 2009 From India, Ajmer
i feel in your case principle of natural justice has not been followed and you were not informed about the enquiry,so you have not attended the enquiry.basically all information to be send by registered post or to be handed over personnaly.if still details are not communicated it should be given in two local news papers.
now you tell whether this practice was followed or not.
j s malik
16th June 2009 From India, Delhi
As for enquiry date,they have called me.however,each time I replied that charge sheet is not properly delivered.Further,enquiry dt.7.08.08 & 5.12.08,they were holding another enquiry against me,I represented that it was unjustified to hold two different eqnuiries the same day.They never issued any warning that in my absence they shall hold ex parte eqnuiry.
I have not received copy for proceedings dt.7.08.08;5.12.08(held in absentia).
In the charge sheet there was one declared witness only,they added 6 more all belonging to class 1 only without specifically informing me.
Can they legally punish me?
17th June 2009 From India, Ajmer
Is the act legally sustainable? I have got both rules under the RTI Act.
GIC CDA Rules nowhere provide for continuity of the Rules as NIACL Rules 2003.Further it is nowhere written in the NIACL Rules that they are amendments of GIC CDA Rules.
However,they are stating their presumptions under the RTI Act.They also declare about their Company board resolution of 2003 that henceforth GIC CDA Rules shall be called NIACL CDA Rules.However the charge sheets are dated 2.05.08 & 13.02.08.They have issued punishment for 2.05.08 however they declare untill they decide about 13.02.08 I shall remain under suspension.
I reply upon a supreme court judgement that "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
14th November 2009 From India, Ajmer
i donot know much about public sector rules but i would like to know one thing that why you did not participate in enqiry.whether you had got information and dates of enquiry.we want to know this thing to know the crediblity of enquiry,whether principle of natural justice followed
14th November 2009 From India, Delhi
“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 .
15th November 2009 From India, Ajmer
On the other hand,only "grave violation of rules"as on my date of suspension dt.10.04.08 was as per charge sheet dt.13.02.08 against me is that I left headquarters.The only declared witness of charge sheet dt.2.05.08 used derisive language against my working wife in his official statement on the company letter head to his superior dt.26.03.08 that "it is surprising fact,that the wife of Mr. Soni has left children with her sick husband and she is doing comfortably her job away from her home".
16th November 2009 From India, Ajmer
Your case appears to be a pure 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.
18th November 2009 From India, Bangalore
19th November 2009 From India, Ajmer
2nd December 2009 From India, Ajmer
They have failed to suspend the official who was trapped by cbi dated 10.02.2009 with bribe red handed, despite the cbi filing charge sheet under clauses of corruption. Under 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 new corrupt india whose list has been given to me by such authorities as police or CBI and in turn given by me to the public sector insurance company owned by Govt of India have been doing fearlessly duties of public servants because nobody dare take any serious action.
The memorial against unjustified orders has been pending with the authority for disposal,they state under 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 Human Rights Commission of India which seems the most inhuman organization.
20th November 2010 From India, Ajmer
C/O Chairman- cum- Managing Direcor,
The New India Assurance Co Ltd,
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.
20th November 2010 From India, Ajmer
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 subsistence allowance (which may reach upto two-thirds of salary); without doing any productive work.
As you are aware; CBI cases or other criminal cases. may continue till 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. withot having to put in any work.
Therefore, now there is a tendency not to suspend (unless circumstances so warrant) till the time of 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.
21st November 2010 From India, Delhi
But i was put to suspension for about one and half year on the basis of a charge memo the only violation of company rules against me that i left headquarters.
They do no follow the rule of subsistence allowance increase after 3 or 6 motnhs,they state they have discretion to decrease the allowance from 50 to 25 percent.
They dismissed me without considering the fact that no opportunity of cross examination of witnesses was allowed to me.
In effect the corrupt employees become more privileged than the whisle-blowers
21st November 2010 From India, Ajmer
28th January 2017 From India, Bengaluru
I shall try to answer both your queries here.
Q1. In such cases, the Enquiry is proceeded with, in due course.
- The Chargesheet is "deemed" to have been delivered.
- The proceedings are conducted in-absentia of the Charge-sheeted-employee, or as is also known as "Ex-Parte".
Q2. In case of the sad demise of the charge-sheeted-employee, no further proceedings are held. In view of the Principle of Natural Justice, that a deceased employee can not DEFEND himself, the matter is set aside, at that stage itself. "Status Quo" is maintained.
I hope the above suffices, and gives clarity on the issues raised.
If any of my professional friends here, have any contrary opinion, or would like to furnish additional or supplementary information, they are welcome!!!
With warm regards to all.
29th January 2017 From India, Delhi