composite vigilance papers on disciplinary action

8/6/2019 Composite Vigilance papers on disciplinary action

1/6

Hon'ble Assistant Labour Commissioner0/0 Deputy Chief Labour CommissionerHaribhau Upadhyay Nagar,Ajmer (Rajasthan)

21.03.2011

Sir,Re: Raising Industrial Disputes with The authorit ies of New India Assurance Co Ltd (NIACL)With reference to your letter dated 17.03.2011 (Aj-ID/ComlMisc/2011-ALC) my complaints dated24.02.2011,4.03.2011 the applicant workaman would like to clarify the following facts for yourkind consideration:

That the following authorities have violated the Industrial Disputes Act to cause victimizationof the applicant workman:Defendant No. (I)Manager 0/0 Chief Regional Manager

The New India Assurance Company Limited (NIACL)Nehru Place,II Floor,Tonk Road,Jaipur-302015.

(2) Chairman-cum-Managing DirectorThe New India Assurance Company Limited(NIACL)87,M.G.Road,Mumbai-40000 1

That last salary slip was issued in the account of applicant workman was in the month ofFebruary 2010,the original has not been delivered to him till date,however,as per the photo copysupplied under RTI act , Basic pay of applicant was negative 17815 and a negative gross salaryRs.31,154.77 was issued in his Salary Roll NO.24001 by respondent No.1 which has beendeducted without notice or consent from the Provident Fund account of the applicant.The applicant workman has been appointed to the post of Hindi Translator with the New IndiaAssurance Co Ltd (NIACL)w.e.f.24.02.1988 and worked on the same post until he was forcedunder suspension w.e.f. l 0.04.2008 (annexure 1) By way of victimization he has been singled outfor being subjected to major penalty disciplinary proceedings infl icted with orders dated10.04.1988 , 5.11.2009 and 16.11.2009 imposing suspension,two different Major Penalties ofpermanent removal of six increments and dismissal from his services respectively, without anymaterial which is evident from the fact that none ofthe charges on the basis of which (supra)ordershad been issued are described as "grave" except that of leaving Headquarters.Relevant extract from Charge Memo (without any preliminary enquiry)41 ' > ' f r " ' l T ' I ' 1 C'f ;;ffi


2/6

The applicant quotes from Central Vigilance Commission observation: This is quote from thehtml version of the file http://cvc.nic.in/annualreport98/chapter5.pdf.The administrative authorities are required to complete investigation into a complaint normallywithin a period of three months. (annexure 2)However, the intention to victimize the applicant workman is evident from the fact that theauthorities of NIACL are til l date dragging the" appeal" process against the applicantworkman so as to compell himto financial bankruptcy without either salary / pension/ wagerevision benefits.

Ever since the applicant workman,who served without any stigma for about 20 years,protested that despite his seniori ty and previous experience,he was discriminatedly denied thefunction of cashier w.eJ. 16.11.2009 {carrying financial benefits of about Rs.500 per month landdemanded the information in the matter under the Right to Information Act, official(s) ofNIACL decided to kick himout of employment on fictitious charges/rules, accordingly theyhave invoked two different rules / two different enquiries.

Aforesaid Orders dated 5.11.2009 & 16.11.2009 inter alia,suspension order dated10.04.2008 had been issued by a "Manager" who was two stages below the rank of ChiefRegional Manager; an authority who has had no jurisdiction to issue the said orders. (annexure3)The appeal called "memorial" inter alia against the aforesaid orders has been pending with theCMD ofNlACL far beyond a reasonable period of six months,though it has clearly beenmentioned in both the GlCDA rules of 1975 and NlACL CDA rules of2003 that{Rule 37 sub rule(3)} "All appeals should be disposed of as expeditiously aspossible and in any event not later than 6 months from the date of receipt of theappeal by the appellate authority."

As per the Appointment Orders of the applicant workman to the post of Hindi Translator,apost requiring minimum qualification of graduate with second class,the then Regional Manager(subsequently called as the Chief Regional Manager) was the Appointing Authority as also theDisciplinary Authority; he alone could have issued .inter alia the orders dated 10.04.2008,5.1l.2009,16.1l.2009The entire disciplinary proceedings had been conducted with a malafide intention,well provedfrom the fact that neither any opportunity of Charge Memo in the language preferred by theapplicant workman was given to him to enable him understand the charges nor any opportunity ofcross examination of witnesses which included those who were not declared "witness" in thecharge memo was accorded ,yet,orders dated 5.11.2009 and 16.11.2009 had been issued based onsuch enquiries that had been void ab initio (based on deemed repealed rules of 1975 which do notapply to applicant workman) and needlessly dragged on beyond the stipulated reasonable period ofholding enquiries.(annexure 2)Applicant workman was forced under suspension vide suspension order .This order was passed bydefendant no. 1 who had no jurisdiction to do so. Both of Enquiries mentioned in orders dated5.11.2009,16.11.2009 had been conducted without following the stipulated procedure asdisclosed to the applicant by the LIC under the RTI Act,informed by Managing Director,A.K.Dasgupta dated 25.04.2009Stage (i) Detection ofrnisconduct,followed by preliminary enquiry and suspension oftheemployee,if necessaryStage (ii) Framing of charge sheet and delivery of charge sheetStage (iii) Appointment of and Enquiry Officer and conduct of enquiry proceedingsStage (iv) Consideration of Enquiry Report and decision taken on whether further/fresh enquiryneeds to be conducted
http://cvc.nic.in/annualreport98/chapter5.pdf.http://cvc.nic.in/annualreport98/chapter5.pdf.


3/6

Stage (v) Issuance of Show Cause NoticeStage (vi) Imposition of penalty commensurate with the gravity of misconduct followed by theright of the aggrieved employee to prefer and Appeal and Memorial under appropriate Regulation.The aforesaid authority has also clarified "as per guidelines, the maximum time limit forcompletion of enquiry proceedings is ninety days from the issuance of the Order in respect of thecharge sheet.The aforesaid authority has also stated "If the Enquiry Officer decides to accept the documentduring the course of enquiry, the author of such documents is generally summoned by the EnquiryOfficer for examination -in-chief by the party who presents the document and cross-examinationby the other party,in order to meet the principles of natural justice.However,both orders dated 5.11.2009 and 16.11.2009 have been issued in gross violation of theaforesaid mandatory procedure ,it has nowhere been recorded in the orders that any opportunityof cross examination was accorded to the applicant workman.

It is pointed out that both the charge memo on the basis of orders dated 5.11.2009 and16.11.2009 pronounced without any consideration of human circumstances had been issued inHindi only ,therefore it follows that the authority who issued the charge memo relied on rulesavailable in Hindi. The Hindi Rules as supplied to the applicant by NIACL ,clearely stipulate thatschedule (annexure 3) attached to Sadharan Beema,Aacharan Anushasan Appeal Niyam 1975, didnot permit the "Manager" to issue charge sheet or to order the applicant under suspension. Thishas vitiated the entire proceedings.It is submitted that in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1999-(003)-SCC-0422-SC Babu Verghese & Ors. Vs. Bar Council of Kerala & Ors., the Supremecourt had clearly held that the basic principle of law has long been settled that when a particularact is prescribed under any statute, that act must be done in that manner or not at all. In thisinstant case the Saadharan Beema Aaacharan,Anushansan Appeal Rule-l 975 ,the rules onthe basis of which enquiries had been initiated, have not been adhered to.You are requested to consider that The New India Assurance Company Limited cannot change theservice conditions ofthe applicant workman to put him to a loss.

(a) The applicant workman who has been appointed on the post of Hindi Translator cannot belegally subjected to suspension and/or initiation of major penalty proceedings by anauthority who is not the competent authority to appoint a Hindi Translator requiringminimum Qualification of Graduate with second class.

(b) That the New India Assurance Co Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules have not,tilldate,been communicated with any written Circular to any office of the NIACL,the saidrules ,being non-communcated cannot be invoked to inflict major penalties against theapplicant workman.Yours Sincerely,Shri Gopal Soni, (tel.OI45-2644106)C231,Panch Shee1Nagar,Ajmer-305004.

Annexure 1:The new India Assurance Co LtdRegional Office: 330000Nehru Place.Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015.Tel. 2743367 Fax 0141-2743405


4/6

Office OrderWhereas a disciplionary proceedings against Mr. Shrigopal soni, Assistant(Translator),S.R.No.2400l,posted at Ajmer DO (331400)is under progress and alsofurther disciplinary proceedings are contemplated.Now,therefore,the undersigned, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-Rule l(a) ofRule-20 of General Insurance (Conducts.Discipline &Appeal) Rules,1975,as amendedtill date,hereby places the said Mr. Shrigopal soni,Assistant (Translator),S.R.No.2400lunder suspension with immediate effect,pending further action as provided in the saidC.D.A Rules.Itis further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force.Mr.Shrigopal Soni, S.R.No.2400l shall not leave the said headquarter without obtaining thepermission of the undersigned.Itis further ordered that the said Mr. Shrigopal Soni, S.R.No.2400l,wpuld be enti tled toSubsistence Allowance as prescribed In Rule 21 ofthe above referred C.D.A.Rules.Date: 10.04.2008 (B.P.Yadav)Place: Jaipur Manager

Disciplinary Authority

Annexure 2:No.000/VGL/18Government of IndiaCentral Vigilance Commission

Satarkata Bhawan,Block "A" ,GPO Complex,INA,New Delhi-110 023.Dated the 23,d May 2000To,The CVOs of Ministries/Departments,autonomous organizations and Societies etc.Subject: Schedule of time limits in conducting investigations and departmentalinquiriesSir,

Delays in disposal of disciplinary cases are a matter of serious concern to theCommission. Such delays also affect the morale ofthe suspected/ charged employeesand others in the organization. The commission has issued instructions.vide itscommunication No. 8(1)(g)/99(3) dated 03.03.1999,that departmental inquiriesshould be completed within a period of six months from the date of appointment ofInquiry Officers. Regarding other stages ofinvestigation/inquiry,the time-schedule.as under.has been laid down in the Special Chapters on VigilanceManagement in Public Sector Banks/Enterprises.which are applicable to theemployees of Public Sector Banks/Enterprises. The Commission desired that thesetime limits should be adhered by the Ministry/Departments of Government ofIndia.autonomous organizations and other Cooperative Societies,in respect of theiremplo ees.so as to ensure that the discip . cases are disposed of quick!

Time Limit


5/6

1. Decision as to whether the complaint involves a One month from receipt ofvigilance angle. the complaint.

2. Decision of complaint,whether to be filed or to beentrusted to CBI or to be taken up for -do-investigation by departmental agency or to besent to concerned administrative authority fornecessary action

3. Conducting investigation and submission of Three months.report.

4. Department's comments on the CBI reports in One month from the date ofcases requiring Commission's advice. receipt of CBI's report by the

CVO/DA.5. Referring departmental investigation report to the One month from the date of

Commission for advice. receipt of investigationreport.

6. Reconsideration of the Commission's advice,if One month from date ofrequired. receipt of Commission's

advice.7. Issue of charge -sheet, if required. (i)One month from date of

receipt of Commission'sadvice(ii) Two month from thedate of receipt ofinvestigation report.

8. Time for submission of defence statement. Ordinarily ten days or asspecified in CDA Rules.

9. Consideration of defence statement. 15 ( fifteen) days.10. Issue of Final orders in minor penalty cases. Two months from the

receipt of defence statement.11. Appointment of 10/PO in major penalty cases. Immediately after receipt

and consideration of defencestatement.

12. Conducting departmental inquiry and submission Six months from the date ofof report. appointment of 10/PO.

13. Sending a copy of the 10' s report to the Charged i)Within 15 days of receiptOfficeer for his representation. of 10' s report if any of the

Article of charge has beenheld as provedii)15 days if all charges asnot proved. Reasons fordisagreement with 10' sfindings to becommunicated.

14. Consideration of CO's representation and One month from the date offorwarding 10' s report to the Commission for receipt of representation.second stage of advice.

15. Issuance of the orders on the inquiry report. i)One month from the dateof Commission's adviceii) Two months from thedate of receipt of 10' s reportif Commission's advice wasnot required.

Yours faithfully, Sd/ -(K.L.Ahuja) Officer on Special Duty


6/6

A3 x f r ~ ~ IrIllJilqC'1"11. c r r g ~ . ~ 3 lR ~:-(1 ) ~ ~ q 1 ) ~ ~ ( ~ . ~ 3 lR ~ ) f.'I< F l1 97 5 . ~ X i i 1 1~ RT \ill x=r

composite vigilance papers on disciplinary action

Documents