New India Assurance Co. Ltd (NIACL)
by Name: Shri G. Srinivasan
Re: Complaint against unabated culture of impunity in the PSU headed by you.
<firstname.lastname@example.org> Sun, Dec 21, 2014 To: Cc: 1. The CPIO,NIACL , 2. The FAA,NIACL , 3. Transperency Officer,NIACL
21st December 2014 From India, Ajmer
With the information provided by you I couldn't make out any reasonable guess work of the whole matter. If you have really enough evidence of embezzlement of public money in NIACO you can write to Chief Vigilance Commissioner or CBI, New Delhi with documents for suitable action by them. The RTI authorities may provide only information in their possession and they have no role to play any vigilance action on erring officials.
23rd December 2014 From India, Bangalore
Representation for recalling orders consequent to directions of non harassment the CVC Please treat this e-mail valid communication
Mr. G. Srinivasan (CMD by name) 7 January 2015
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, (NIACL) 87, M.G. Road,Fort, Mumbai-400001.
I am an honest citizen of India ,with no history of ever facing a court summon in any criminal case, the only civil litigations throughout my life are forced by the NIACL/GIPSA (General Insurers Public Sector Association) chaired by you. I served the insurance company with highest qualifications,appointed as Hindi Translator (annexure no. 1)on the qualifications higher than that required for a class 1 officer of insurance company (graduate second class with bilingual proficiency) until April 2008 (serving with qualifications of a fellow of insurance instt. of India the highest insurance qualification) when my services were abruptly placed under suspension (though no one facing corruption charges was ordered a single day suspension in the Regional Office Jaipur of NIACL during the entire period of my suspension) and November 2009 when a whimsical order of dismissal was issued, who consistently uses Citizen of India’s Right to Information in the matter of extreme non transparency (e.g. I filed RTI 18.8.14 for memorandum & article of association,it is neither on the NIACL website nor information supplied) ; abuse amounting to embezzlement of public money by a non accountable coterie of bureaucracy, (annexure no. 2) and the prolonged denial of fundamental rights, including Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in matter of public employment) of the constitution of India.
That you are the chairman of a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) Insurance company of a service sector ,as per the General Insurance Nationalisation Act,1972 required to follow the directions of the Central Government; His excellency the President of India is your appointing authority; however a coterie of bureaucracy colludes to ensure that every direction/ guidelines/ regulation of the Union of India is distorted / circumvented in such a manner that systematic protection to employees of doubtful integrity is continued taking advantage of the overburdned system. ..P1
A sample list of association leaders enjoying protection at the (NIACL) /GIPSA (General Insurers Public Sector Association (GIPSA) with whom NIACL letter 27.02.2007 is pending (Annexure 7).
Name of NIACL employee
Action taken by NIACL bureaucracy
Ranjan Kumar Saxena ( then cashier,Jaipur )
CBI Case No. RC26(A)/1991
3times Promoted despite CBI RDA Major
Kalyan Sahai Barolia alias K.S.Regar,Jaipur
Trapped red-handed bribe by ACB 2/2003
Name altered;Fully eligible for promotion
K. Singhal (the then chief executive,GIPSA)
A cheque of approx. Rs. 35 lakh issued on behalf of GIPSA; amount embezzled
NIACL Recommended for promotion,promoted by Dept. of Financial Services as GM, National Insurance Co.
at the same time harassment,e.g. litigations on the basis of false arguments are heaped upon to an honest and qualified complainant who served continuously for two decades without any stigma,except that of a “grave” accusation of leaving headquarters, in a so called “gyapan” of February 2008 (translated from vernacular ) . .. ……….The act of Mr. Sliri Gopal Soni leaving headquarters repeatedly without
permission of competent authority amounts to his grave violation of
company rules not expected from a public servant (company personnel)."
"It is clear from the aforesaid tliat Mr. Soni did not observe honesty and integrity to
his duties & he acted against the image of a public servant & under prejudice to the
interests of the Company and thus violated rules 3(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) & committed
misconduct under Rules 4(1),(5),(6),(7),(8),(9),(16),(17),(20) & Rule 18(1) & Rule 19
of General Insurance Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules,1975,as amended.
That Law Commission of India,in the concluding para of 145th report in respect of PSU’s recommends the following:-Before we conclude,we may consider it relevant to refer to the Law Commission’s 126th Report which emphasized that the Government and public sector undertakings must have their own litigation policy and strategy and they must be devised with a view to encouraging avoidance of litigation and settlement of disputes by alternative methods. Litigation is an unproductive investment both in time and money. Public sector undertaking and the Govt. have to conserve their resources and determine priorities of expenditure by a judicious approach so that unproductive litigation does not eat away large chunk of the scarce resources... “At any rate it (PSU) cannot afford to develop a litigious culture.” P2
That it is pertinent to mention here that the Central Vigilance Commission,directed the Chief Vigilance Officer(CVO) of the NIACL vide communication dated 29.4.2008 (annexure no.3 ) “to ensure that no harassment is caused to complainant in any manner”.
As our judiciary is already overburdened, a sitting judge of Hon’ble High court has reportedly admitted that 300 cases are to be heard within 300 minutes, therefore it is humanly requested to recall all such orders/ litigations that are initiated on behalf of NIACL consequent to 29.4.2008 so that prolonged legacy of Hindi Translator’s victimization ends . Please note that I do not belong to Scheduled caste community (as claimed by bureaucracy in a writ petition filed against me in the Bombay High Court,(annexure no. 4) nor was I ever reinstated (stay order of Jaipur High Court was procured on false assumption, annexure no.5) ; as complainant a Hindi Translator was 3 times mentioned (An. 6 )to the Central Vigilance Commisison by CVO of NIACL as on 19th Jan. 2009. SHRIGOPAL SONI, C231,Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer-305004 annexure(s):1 to 7 as above.
10th January 2015 From India, Ajmer
Re: Citizen’s complaint: loopholes in the working of the Central Information Commission to unfair advanate of GIPSA Co.s
With reference to above I beg to lay before your most exalted honour :- That corruption in a cancer for our democracy and the applicant fights systematic corruption in public life since 2007. As an honest citizen of India he writes consistent RTI’s in genuine attempt to shake the status quo in the most secretive working of GIPSA (General Insurers Public Sector Association) which,according to information provided by Ministry of Finance directly addressed to complainant,is, regulator of the following Public Sector Companies:-
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd, Head Office Kolkata (NICL)
2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Head Office Delhi (OICL)
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Head Office Mumbai (NIACL)
4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Head Office Chennai (UIICL)
It is to complain that GIPSA in collusion with its member companies (called GIPSA companies) deliberately abuse the dominant position (unfair means beyond paying bribe,euphemistically called as “gift”);presently, influencing the CIC to issue biased “notice of hearing through video conferencing” to the unfair advantage of aforesaid GIPSA Co.s
That the loophole created in the CIC notice is that the person seeking information under the RTI act is not able to read the “comments” invited from GIPSA by the Central Information Commission,a public authority in terms of the RTI act .Thus the hearings of the Central Information Commission (CIC), are devoid of the basic principles of natural justice,in respect of GIPSA co.s biased to favour GIPSA and to take away “right to fair hearing” of an applicant/appellant citizen of india....
7th June 2015 From India, Ajmer