Background and Initial Inquiry
I have been working in APTransco and was suspended pending a departmental inquiry for misappropriation of funds in 1994. A parallel criminal case was also registered. An inquiry officer was appointed, but he did not reach a conclusion against me, stating that we should await the outcome of the criminal case. Subsequently, the department ordered a de novo inquiry, which I challenged, and it was quashed by the High Court. The department then appointed another inquiry officer to continue the initial inquiry, and in 2007, the officer reported that the charges were not proven. Despite this, the department asked the same officer to examine two departmental officers as witnesses and continue the inquiry.
Further Developments and Conviction
The inquiry officer examined the witnesses suggested by the department and, in 2009, concluded that the charge against me was not proven. However, the department issued a show cause notice, disagreeing with the inquiry reports of 2007 and 2009, citing the prosecution's written arguments as the reason for the disagreement. By the end of 2009, I was convicted in the criminal case, but the conviction was immediately suspended by the sessions court. Nonetheless, the department dismissed me in January 2010. In 2016, the sessions court allowed my appeal, acquitting me honorably.
Reinstatement and Subsequent Actions
I filed a case in the High Court for reinstatement, and it was granted in 2019. I was reinstated as per the High Court order, with the dismissal period treated as suspension. However, I was issued another show cause notice citing the differing inquiry reports and the prosecutor's written arguments in the lower court. I replied, but the department was unsatisfied and imposed a punishment of "withholding of 2 increments with cumulative effect." Notably, there was no mention of the treatment of the 25-year suspension period, pay fixation, or promotions.
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
I have been working in APTransco and was suspended pending a departmental inquiry for misappropriation of funds in 1994. A parallel criminal case was also registered. An inquiry officer was appointed, but he did not reach a conclusion against me, stating that we should await the outcome of the criminal case. Subsequently, the department ordered a de novo inquiry, which I challenged, and it was quashed by the High Court. The department then appointed another inquiry officer to continue the initial inquiry, and in 2007, the officer reported that the charges were not proven. Despite this, the department asked the same officer to examine two departmental officers as witnesses and continue the inquiry.
Further Developments and Conviction
The inquiry officer examined the witnesses suggested by the department and, in 2009, concluded that the charge against me was not proven. However, the department issued a show cause notice, disagreeing with the inquiry reports of 2007 and 2009, citing the prosecution's written arguments as the reason for the disagreement. By the end of 2009, I was convicted in the criminal case, but the conviction was immediately suspended by the sessions court. Nonetheless, the department dismissed me in January 2010. In 2016, the sessions court allowed my appeal, acquitting me honorably.
Reinstatement and Subsequent Actions
I filed a case in the High Court for reinstatement, and it was granted in 2019. I was reinstated as per the High Court order, with the dismissal period treated as suspension. However, I was issued another show cause notice citing the differing inquiry reports and the prosecutor's written arguments in the lower court. I replied, but the department was unsatisfied and imposed a punishment of "withholding of 2 increments with cumulative effect." Notably, there was no mention of the treatment of the 25-year suspension period, pay fixation, or promotions.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Errors in Handling Your Case
It appears there is a series of errors that were committed in your case. First of all, there was no need to defer the first inquiry until the conclusion of the criminal trial. Secondly, when the dismissal was based on the conviction in the criminal court and as the sessions court honorably acquitted you, the whole dismissal action also becomes non-est in the eyes of the law. However, to issue a show cause notice based on the arguments adduced in the criminal court is patently illegal and improper. The prosecution arguments are based on evidence adduced in the criminal trial and cannot be relied upon in the departmental inquiry as they are not part of its record. So, the punishment order is defective and is opposed to the principles of natural justice.
Punishment and Conduct Rules
Now, as regards the punishment imposed on you, in the Conduct Rules of many government organizations, it is provided that where there is a punishment imposed, the period of suspension is not treated as on-duty, and the employee is not entitled to anything more than the subsistence allowance already paid. So naturally, there is no question of any promotion or leave entitlement for this period. However, there is a strong case for the revision of Subsistence Allowance as per pay revision since the original pay scale no longer exists after the pay revision. This can be analyzed further only if the Rules are seen. In case you are interested, more details can be forwarded, and the issue could be analyzed more in-depth.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1593It appears there is a series of errors that were committed in your case. First of all, there was no need to defer the first inquiry until the conclusion of the criminal trial. Secondly, when the dismissal was based on the conviction in the criminal court and as the sessions court honorably acquitted you, the whole dismissal action also becomes non-est in the eyes of the law. However, to issue a show cause notice based on the arguments adduced in the criminal court is patently illegal and improper. The prosecution arguments are based on evidence adduced in the criminal trial and cannot be relied upon in the departmental inquiry as they are not part of its record. So, the punishment order is defective and is opposed to the principles of natural justice.
Punishment and Conduct Rules
Now, as regards the punishment imposed on you, in the Conduct Rules of many government organizations, it is provided that where there is a punishment imposed, the period of suspension is not treated as on-duty, and the employee is not entitled to anything more than the subsistence allowance already paid. So naturally, there is no question of any promotion or leave entitlement for this period. However, there is a strong case for the revision of Subsistence Allowance as per pay revision since the original pay scale no longer exists after the pay revision. This can be analyzed further only if the Rules are seen. In case you are interested, more details can be forwarded, and the issue could be analyzed more in-depth.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
CTC_SALARY_SLIP _FORM_(legal)(1 ).xls
Nominee vs legal heir.pdf
HR-LEGAL FORMS.zip