My employer is Textiles Committee, which is a Body Corporate, functioning under the administrative control of the Government of India, Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi. Its Head Quarter is in Mumbai. I had been working as Field Officer at its Kolkata Regional Office and was dismissed. I want urgent guidance on the following points and guide me on whether they are correct.
1. The Competent Authority i.e., the Secretary, from its Head Office at Mumbai, has signed and issued a Suspension Order against me on Saturday, 04-11-1995, which was officially a closed holiday, for being the Saturday, on that day all the offices of the Textiles Committee's Head Office and all the Regional Offices, including the Kolkata Regional Office were closed. Hence, it is not possible to sign and issue the said Suspension Order on Saturday, 04-11-1995, with an immediate effect. It is stated therein the said Suspension Order, a disciplinary proceeding has been 'contemplated', as per the Textiles Committee's Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1986. However, no domestic inquiry was either contemplated or concluded with 09 months of suspension.
2. The said Suspension has not reached me directly by post, but it was given by my Kolkata RO Head. I doubt that the said Kolkata RO Head might have forged the signature of the Secretary, as the said Secretary could not have signed it at Mumbai, because the day of the suspension order was Saturday, which was a closed holiday.
3. There was no Preliminary Investigation before or after the said suspension. No specific reason for the suspension was provided to me for around 14 months, to exercise my right to appeal, as the suspension is appealable.
4. After around 14 months of Suspension, it was revoked on 08-01-1997 with a major penalty Charge Sheet Memorandum dated 08-01-1997 i.e., on the same day of suspension revocation order dated 08-01-1997, in which one of the Relied Upon Document was issued and authored by the said Secretary and he has no jurisdiction to issue a major charge sheet to me, as per the said rules.
5. In domestic inquiry, they have shielded all the authors of the Relied Upon Documents from being inquired. Kindly guide me.
From India, Mumbai
1. The Competent Authority i.e., the Secretary, from its Head Office at Mumbai, has signed and issued a Suspension Order against me on Saturday, 04-11-1995, which was officially a closed holiday, for being the Saturday, on that day all the offices of the Textiles Committee's Head Office and all the Regional Offices, including the Kolkata Regional Office were closed. Hence, it is not possible to sign and issue the said Suspension Order on Saturday, 04-11-1995, with an immediate effect. It is stated therein the said Suspension Order, a disciplinary proceeding has been 'contemplated', as per the Textiles Committee's Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1986. However, no domestic inquiry was either contemplated or concluded with 09 months of suspension.
2. The said Suspension has not reached me directly by post, but it was given by my Kolkata RO Head. I doubt that the said Kolkata RO Head might have forged the signature of the Secretary, as the said Secretary could not have signed it at Mumbai, because the day of the suspension order was Saturday, which was a closed holiday.
3. There was no Preliminary Investigation before or after the said suspension. No specific reason for the suspension was provided to me for around 14 months, to exercise my right to appeal, as the suspension is appealable.
4. After around 14 months of Suspension, it was revoked on 08-01-1997 with a major penalty Charge Sheet Memorandum dated 08-01-1997 i.e., on the same day of suspension revocation order dated 08-01-1997, in which one of the Relied Upon Document was issued and authored by the said Secretary and he has no jurisdiction to issue a major charge sheet to me, as per the said rules.
5. In domestic inquiry, they have shielded all the authors of the Relied Upon Documents from being inquired. Kindly guide me.
From India, Mumbai
From the narration of facts, it appears a queer case and some more facts are needed. Yet certain clarifications are made.
1. Merely because the suspension order was issued on a closed holiday, does not invalidate it in any manner. There is no limit laid down anywhere that a suspension order cannot be issued on a non-working day. Circumstances have to indicate why there was such a tearing hurry to immediately issue it otherwise it is indicative of malafides and bias.
2. Suspension order was handed over by the Calcutta RO Head is not improper as you would have been administratively under his control. So instead of sending the suspension by post it was routed through the Calcutta RO Head, there is nothing wrong in it.
3. A Preliminary Investigation is not a must before and after the suspension. Where the facts are complicated and to collect the material particulars required for drafting the charge sheet the preliminary enquiry is held. It is not necessary to involve the delinquent employee at this stage.
4. You say the Secretary is not empowered to issue the Chargesheet for major penalty though he has the power to suspend you. This is a basic point which goes to the root of the case although there are some judgements which say that even if the charge sheet is issued by a subordinate authority but if the punishment is issued by the competent authority then there is no defect in the process. It is said that a document which is being relied against you is issued on the date of issue of charge sheet, that shows that the whole process is an abuse of the rules against you. This is a substantial ground for the courts to interefere.
5. This point is not clear. If the authors of the documents are not produced in the enquiry then there is no primary evidence led to prove the documents. A secondary evidence cannot have the same weightage and the evidence is highly circumspect, particularly when such authors are available but are being shielded from the cross examination process. You should lead evidence and bring these facts on record.
. The very fact that the matter is pending for nearly 25 years puts a serious question mark on the genuineness of the disciplinary action. As a general principle, this definitely looks like a weak case from the organisation side and you may seek legal remedy by way of writ petition before the concerned High Court.
From India, Mumbai
15301. Merely because the suspension order was issued on a closed holiday, does not invalidate it in any manner. There is no limit laid down anywhere that a suspension order cannot be issued on a non-working day. Circumstances have to indicate why there was such a tearing hurry to immediately issue it otherwise it is indicative of malafides and bias.
2. Suspension order was handed over by the Calcutta RO Head is not improper as you would have been administratively under his control. So instead of sending the suspension by post it was routed through the Calcutta RO Head, there is nothing wrong in it.
3. A Preliminary Investigation is not a must before and after the suspension. Where the facts are complicated and to collect the material particulars required for drafting the charge sheet the preliminary enquiry is held. It is not necessary to involve the delinquent employee at this stage.
4. You say the Secretary is not empowered to issue the Chargesheet for major penalty though he has the power to suspend you. This is a basic point which goes to the root of the case although there are some judgements which say that even if the charge sheet is issued by a subordinate authority but if the punishment is issued by the competent authority then there is no defect in the process. It is said that a document which is being relied against you is issued on the date of issue of charge sheet, that shows that the whole process is an abuse of the rules against you. This is a substantial ground for the courts to interefere.
5. This point is not clear. If the authors of the documents are not produced in the enquiry then there is no primary evidence led to prove the documents. A secondary evidence cannot have the same weightage and the evidence is highly circumspect, particularly when such authors are available but are being shielded from the cross examination process. You should lead evidence and bring these facts on record.
. The very fact that the matter is pending for nearly 25 years puts a serious question mark on the genuineness of the disciplinary action. As a general principle, this definitely looks like a weak case from the organisation side and you may seek legal remedy by way of writ petition before the concerned High Court.
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
1.12.09 dismissal 13.02.08 appeal.doc
Increment during suspension period.PDF