My employer,a public sector General Insurance Company abolished my post
held by me for 18 years arbitrarily and transferred me to another post of lower qualification,nature of work and pay start,I was given six increment over and above that post.
I got stay from the High Court,ever since that day they are treating me as
"persona non grata",I have been facing two enquiries on "grave" charge of
leaving headquarters,another "grave" charge in another enquiry pertains to
taking photograph from mobile of office documents.
I complaioned to labour commisioner regarding actual payment of one third of gross wages as all deductions have been made from salary/subsistence aowwance.
In their reply they have inter alia contnded that employment letter is issued
only once to employee,any subsequent change/recategorisation can be made through "circular".
Are they correct legally? they have suspended me to a post in which I was neither issued appointment letter nor have I been promoted,no modification
was ever conveyed individually to my post/designation of appointment and confirmation.
From India, Ajmer
8held by me for 18 years arbitrarily and transferred me to another post of lower qualification,nature of work and pay start,I was given six increment over and above that post.
I got stay from the High Court,ever since that day they are treating me as
"persona non grata",I have been facing two enquiries on "grave" charge of
leaving headquarters,another "grave" charge in another enquiry pertains to
taking photograph from mobile of office documents.
I complaioned to labour commisioner regarding actual payment of one third of gross wages as all deductions have been made from salary/subsistence aowwance.
In their reply they have inter alia contnded that employment letter is issued
only once to employee,any subsequent change/recategorisation can be made through "circular".
Are they correct legally? they have suspended me to a post in which I was neither issued appointment letter nor have I been promoted,no modification
was ever conveyed individually to my post/designation of appointment and confirmation.
From India, Ajmer
As per the supreme court directives,in case of major penalty proceedings sub-rules,that is ,Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules have to be strictly followed.
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.
From India, Ajmer
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.
From India, Ajmer
The latest in the matter is that the labour commissioner rules that since the matter of denial to subsistnec aloowance was not sponsered by union (complained by me individually) he advised me to ask the union to complain.
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.
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.
From India, Ajmer
I have recently been informed that the so called enquiry was over as the P.O. presented the brief,and the so called enquiry officer asked my brief "by post".
From India, Ajmer
From India, Ajmer
dear i cfould not understand your query because you are explaining something about yourself if you want to raise some point please be informative than only we can anlyse your case. regards js malik
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Sorry,I would try to explain:
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.
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.
From India, Ajmer
dear
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.
regards
j s malik
From India, Delhi
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.
regards
j s malik
From India, Delhi
I am sticking to my view that the charge sheet has not sent to me by registered post as stipulated in the C.D.A.Rule no.28.LIC have also informed me under RTI that chage sheet is not considered properly delivered by messengers alone.Secondly,the messengers were sent without courtesy of telephone, it was violation of privacy as my child was alone at the time the messengers came & they waited inside my home.
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?
From India, Ajmer
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?
From India, Ajmer
Ministry of Finance has issued a clear circular to all insurance companies regarding charge sheet to be issued in the language demanded by an employee as per Official Language Rules 1976 base on Act of Official Language.
From India, Ajmer
From India, Ajmer
My employer Public Sector Insurance Company issued suspension order,charge sheet & held Inquiries (major penalty) under GIC CDA Rules 1975,now they have issued order of punishment (of taking away permanently my six increments )under the NIACL CDA Rules 2003.
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
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
From India, Ajmer
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.
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment) Rules, 2018.pdf
Draft Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Punjab (Haryana Amendment) Rules 2018.docx