Dear Mr. Soni,
Your posts are read with interest.
You have and you are fighting a long and protracted legal battle.
In your proposed reply, you may persist on the points raised by you e.g. :-
That the reply of respondent no.2 is void ab initio as it has not been issued by a
competent authority empowered to take disciplinary action against the post of Hindi
Translator
The said rules, provided under the Right to Information Act with
forwarding letter dated 10.11.2010 (ref. HO/CPI Cell/ 2010/ 083& 84 ) by Dy General
Manager, C.K.Gola, Head Office of NIACL, clearly spell out that manager rank HAS NOT
BEEN a competent authority
The said rules, provided under the Right to Information Act with
forwarding letter dated 10.11.2010 (ref. HO/CPI Cell/ 2010/ 083& 84 ) by Dy General
Manager, C.K.Gola, Head Office of NIACL, clearly spell out that manager rank HAS NOT
BEEN a competent authority
Mr. Kundra,who opted to
dismiss the applicant upon only “grave “ allegation of leaving Headquarters, without
any specific date or place of leaving HQ, on the basis of report of an “investigator” who
was never produced, was habitually leaving Headquarters regularly .
(Written admission of Pushkar Upadhyay,NIACL shall be presented as and when desired
That there is ho time limit for a decision on the “Memorial” and/or that memorial is not part
of the appeal process.
Fact: A brief look at the schedule of authorities would make it clear that “memorial” authority
has been always higher to (First) Appeal Authority. It is indeed in the nature of a second/
final appeal so as to prevent unnecessary litigation. The Printed “Book of Do’s
and Don’t’s” (one original copy has been available with the applicant workman) circulated
several years ago to every public servant of General Insurance Companies clearly spells out “
“Promptly attend to complaints and grievances of clients and employees.This will build up
confidence of people in management ..” under (A) entitled, Good cponduct prevents
vigilance. A brief look at the charge memo would make it clear that the authorities
failed to sanction leave to the applicant instead issued charge memo after more than 6
months
(4) That in the absence any reply of respondent no.2,that is, from Chairman of the NIACL, the
seven pages reply dated 13.04.2011 is liable to be rejected; particularly in consideration of the
fact that Mr. Pushkar Upadhyay has nowhere stated in the said statement that he has been
given any authority on behalf of his superiors,including that of CMD, nor he has produced
any specific evidence to that effect in any annexure(s).
The only one authority empowered to take a decision in the matter of final departmental appeal
,before going to a court of law, has been the chairman of NIACL. It is pertinent that
reference of the applicant going to court of law(page 7) has been without any relevance.Many
officers,including management representative Mr.N.K.Gupta have gone to court of law.
That the orders dated 5.11.2009 & 16.11.2009 imposing punishment of permanent
removal of 6 increments and dismissal respectively, have been arbitrary orders issued in
the most irregular manner as respondent’s seven pages reply dated 13.04.2011 nowhere
mentions that permission of a superior authority was granted or a “note sheet” was
prepared before issuance of the aforesaid orders.
Both the “orders” seem to have been printed on the same day that is corroborated by the fact
that only orders dated 5.11.2009 have been dated & printed, however, “date” in the blank
dated order of dismissal 16.11.2009 has been inserted later by some unidentified person with
his/her handwriting. The intention ,apparently,seem to complicate the victimization.
It is submitted that the service conditions,of applicant workman,as admitted under
written letter dated 7.07.2008 of the Chief Regional Manager,NIACL Jaipur addressed to
you, cannot be altered, without prescribed “notice of change” ,as stipulated in the ID
Act-1947,a mandatory provision, with the arbitrary change of rules from GICDA rules of 1975
to NIACL CDA rules of 2003, the entire proceedings have been vitiated.
You have generated information and records thru series of RTI applications. Your company has no other option than to defend their action and prove you wrong.
During the training and development programmes, recruitment, the traners/recruiters stressed upon, IQ, then EQ ( Emotional Qutient), then PQ ( Persistency Quotient) and all along stressed upon Situational management. Persist and manage the situation.
Kindly keep the forum posted on proceedings.
Wish you all the very best.