How to get stay on ShowCauseNotice SCN for termination

Originally posted by : MileyShah
	He is a Development Officer of LIC of India. While he was on probation (1991), false school leaving certificate of a fake person where submitted to him for approval. Unknown with the bad intention of his agent, he Signed on that document. Although while on probation he had no authority to approve any identity document. Later, When death claim was made, LIC inquired and came to know that it was with the fraud intension of that agent. So, Fraud did not happen. From 1993 to 1996 departmental inquiry happened, where he was given penalty of 5 increment loss, for his signature on that document. And the case was submitted to CBI. Even, his name is not present in FIR. From then till 2014, Trials happened. In Aug 2014, court declared him guilty, and sentenced 2 yr jail and Rs. 5000 as fine. Hence, he appealed high court and got stay on sentence in 2014. Now After 3 years, LIC has sent him SCN with Chargesheet with the intension of terminating him.

That is a due process of disciplinary action by the organization where an employee is convicted by the court of law. They have given an opportunity to defend himself through departmental inquiry to prove his innosence. Otherwise, the organization was well within its right even to dismiss him on the basis of his conviction.

Court will not grant any stay on withholding the SCN.

So, the employee may better take the opportunity to effectively defend his case int eh departmental inquiry.

Originally posted by : MileyShah
	He is a Development Officer of LIC of India. While he was on probation (1991), false school leaving certificate of a fake person where submitted to him for approval. Unknown with the bad intention of his agent, he Signed on that document. Although while on probation he had no authority to approve any identity document. Later, When death claim was made, LIC inquired and came to know that it was with the fraud intension of that agent. So, Fraud did not happen. From 1993 to 1996 departmental inquiry happened, where he was given penalty of 5 increment loss, for his signature on that document. And the case was submitted to CBI. Even, his name is not present in FIR. From then till 2014, Trials happened. In Aug 2014, court declared him guilty, and sentenced 2 yr jail and Rs. 5000 as fine. Hence, he appealed high court and got stay on sentence in 2014. Now After 3 years, LIC has sent him SCN with Chargesheet with the intension of terminating him.

That is a due process of disciplinary action by the organization where an employee is convicted by the court of law. They have given an opportunity to defend himself through departmental inquiry to prove his innosence. Otherwise, the organization was well within its right even to dismiss him on the basis of his conviction.

Court will not grant any stay on withholding the SCN.

So, the employee may better take the opportunity to effectively defend his case int eh departmental inquiry.

Once the Court has sentenced, there is no requirement of conducting any further inquiry. The only question is, whether the offence involved moral truptitude or other wise. The answer is obvious.

However, there is a ray hope in that the emplyee has already been punished for the same act departmentally. he can, in reply to the SCN, that there cannot be two punishment, departmentally, for the same act/omission.

As already suggested;Take help of a local senior very able counsel of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in service matters......and arrange for a seasoned and sharp local defense assistant....   The LIC employees unions can help for both...........   Or examine the old cases and find out the LOCAL counsel that has proven record of success in such matters of LIC.............LIC 

 

Mr. P.Venu has helped many querists.

You can benefit from his counsel.

You may change your present counsel as already pointed out in other threads and decided by you.

He was a probationary Development Officer.  He certified a false School Leaving Certificate as a true one. It is presumed that he certified it in good faith, without knowing that it was a false certificate. Secondly he was not authorized to issue such a certificate as he was only a probationary officer. What are the offenses committed here, negligence, immaturity etc.? These are offences, but not grave offences.

LIC came to know of the offences when the insured, who had obtained the policy submitting, among other documents, the false SSLC also, died and his survivor or nominee made a claim. There could be a connection between a false medical certificate or a false medical report and the early death of the insured. There can be no connection between a false SSLC and the death of the insured. Hence the severity of the offence remains at the level mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Between 1993 and 1996 there was departmental inquiry into the offence of certifying a false school leaving certificate. After examining the evidences available, taking into consideration the severity of the offence and its consequences to the LIC, five increments of the DO were withheld as punishment. One would consider that the matter was closed.

But after everything was over why was there a CBI inquiry? Was it an inquiry into an offence committed by some other person, to which this Development Officer was laterally connected? His name was not there in the FIR. I think some information is missing here. Without knowing what the CBI case was and for what exactly the DO got a jail sentence, it is not possible to say anything. Attach a copy of the show cause notice from LIC.

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	He was a probationary Development Officer.  He certified a false School Leaving Certificate as a true one. It is presumed that he certified it in good faith, without knowing that it was a false certificate. Secondly he was not authorized to issue such a certificate as he was only a probationary officer. What are the offenses committed here, negligence, immaturity etc.? These are offences, but not grave offences. LIC came to know of the offences when the insured, who had obtained the policy submitting, among other documents, the false SSLC also, died and his survivor or nominee made a claim. There could be a connection between a false medical certificate or a false medical report and the early death of the insured. There can be no connection between a false SSLC and the death of the insured. Hence the severity of the offence remains at the level mentioned in the previous paragraph. Between 1993 and 1996 there was departmental inquiry into the offence of certifying a false school leaving certificate. After examining the evidences available, taking into consideration the severity of the offence and its consequences to the LIC, five increments of the DO were withheld as punishment. One would consider that the matter was closed. But after everything was over why was there a CBI inquiry? Was it an inquiry into an offence committed by some other person, to which this Development Officer was laterally connected? His name was not there in the FIR. I think some information is missing here. Without knowing what the CBI case was and for what exactly the DO got a jail sentence, it is not possible to say anything. Attach a copy of the show cause notice from LIC.

@ Dr. MPS Ramani,

Probably the querist is not coming with full facts. He seemed to have individualised the case against the Development Officer on probation, while CBI case would not have been made against an individual. That can be against several persons, mainly against the LIC Agent and the issuers of the fake qualification certificates. The Development Officer cannot be supposed to be the main accused in the CBI case.

Probably the querist does not understand that he cannot get appropriate solution to the problem, if the experts continue to respond as per their own perceptions, assumptions and presumptions in the absence of the very basic essential facts, If you go through his initial query, you can find that the same was quite vague in wake of his subsequent clarifications. That is why, initially I raised my doubt, if convicted, why the Development Officers was in service. He could have been dismissed from service merely on the basis of his conviction. Once a court convicts an employee, there remains no option with the departmental authorities to keep a convict in service.

Secondly if he has already been punished departmentally with his 5 increments withheld, his (individual) case did not merit to be referred to the CBI, as he cannot get double punishment for the same offence. Evidently, the case would have been referred to the CBI in view of wider implications of public fraud on account of fraudulent activities by the LIC agent and the hidden person who would have been issuing fake certificates to the students/ public, as well as the persons lured to acquire fake qualification by spending some money without going to school/ colleges and appearing in Board/ University exams.

Now it all depends upon the querist, whether he comes forward with the full real facts of the case for appropriate guidance or does not like to reveal or have the facts.

An act of negligence and/or immaturity, which warranted only withholding of a few increments cannot on its own become serious enough to get a jail sentence. Let the queryist forward a copy of the conviction awarding the jail sentence. That will throw light on the whole story.

Originally posted by : JIGYASU
	Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech] He was a probationary Development Officer.  He certified a false School Leaving Certificate as a true one. It is presumed that he certified it in good faith, without knowing that it was a false certificate. Secondly he was not authorized to issue such a certificate as he was only a probationary officer. What are the offenses committed here, negligence, immaturity etc.? These are offences, but not grave offences. LIC came to know of the offences when the insured, who had obtained the policy submitting, among other documents, the false SSLC also, died and his survivor or nominee made a claim. There could be a connection between a false medical certificate or a false medical report and the early death of the insured. There can be no connection between a false SSLC and the death of the insured. Hence the severity of the offence remains at the level mentioned in the previous paragraph. Between 1993 and 1996 there was departmental inquiry into the offence of certifying a false school leaving certificate. After examining the evidences available, taking into consideration the severity of the offence and its consequences to the LIC, five increments of the DO were withheld as punishment. One would consider that the matter was closed. But after everything was over why was there a CBI inquiry? Was it an inquiry into an offence committed by some other person, to which this Development Officer was laterally connected? His name was not there in the FIR. I think some information is missing here. Without knowing what the CBI case was and for what exactly the DO got a jail sentence, it is not possible to say anything. Attach a copy of the show cause notice from LIC.   @ Dr. MPS Ramani, Probably the querist is not coming with full facts. He seemed to have individualised the case against the Development Officer on probation, while CBI case would not have been made against an individual. That can be against several persons, mainly against the LIC Agent and the issuers of the fake qualification certificates. The Development Officer cannot be supposed to be the main accused in the CBI case. Probably the querist does not understand that he cannot get appropriate solution to the problem, if the experts continue to respond as per their own perceptions, assumptions and presumptions in the absence of the very basic essential facts, If you go through his initial query, you can find that the same was quite vague in wake of his subsequent clarifications. That is why, initially I raised my doubt, if convicted, why the Development Officers was in service. He could have been dismissed from service merely on the basis of his conviction. Once a court convicts an employee, there remains no option with the departmental authorities to keep a convict in service. Secondly if he has already been punished departmentally with his 5 increments withheld, his (individual) case did not merit to be referred to the CBI, as he cannot get double punishment for the same offence. Evidently, the case would have been referred to the CBI in view of wider implications of public fraud on account of fraudulent activities by the LIC agent and the hidden person who would have been issuing fake certificates to the students/ public, as well as the persons lured to acquire fake qualification by spending some money without going to school/ colleges and appearing in Board/ University exams. Now it all depends upon the querist, whether he comes forward with the full real facts of the case for appropriate guidance or does not like to reveal or have the facts.

Not able to fully agree with the view that "if he has already been punished departmentally with his 5 increments withheld, his (individual) case did not merit to be referred to the CBI, as he cannot get double punishment for the same offence.

There is no double jeoparady.  departmental penalty is one process and criminal FIR is another process.  Given facts do not indicate the case in totality so no useful further comments can be offered

Originally posted by : Sudhir Kumar
	Originally posted by : JIGYASU Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech] He was a probationary Development Officer.  He certified a false School Leaving Certificate as a true one. It is presumed that he certified it in good faith, without knowing that it was a false certificate. Secondly he was not authorized to issue such a certificate as he was only a probationary officer. What are the offenses committed here, negligence, immaturity etc.? These are offences, but not grave offences. LIC came to know of the offences when the insured, who had obtained the policy submitting, among other documents, the false SSLC also, died and his survivor or nominee made a claim. There could be a connection between a false medical certificate or a false medical report and the early death of the insured. There can be no connection between a false SSLC and the death of the insured. Hence the severity of the offence remains at the level mentioned in the previous paragraph. Between 1993 and 1996 there was departmental inquiry into the offence of certifying a false school leaving certificate. After examining the evidences available, taking into consideration the severity of the offence and its consequences to the LIC, five increments of the DO were withheld as punishment. One would consider that the matter was closed. But after everything was over why was there a CBI inquiry? Was it an inquiry into an offence committed by some other person, to which this Development Officer was laterally connected? His name was not there in the FIR. I think some information is missing here. Without knowing what the CBI case was and for what exactly the DO got a jail sentence, it is not possible to say anything. Attach a copy of the show cause notice from LIC.   @ Dr. MPS Ramani, Probably the querist is not coming with full facts. He seemed to have individualised the case against the Development Officer on probation, while CBI case would not have been made against an individual. That can be against several persons, mainly against the LIC Agent and the issuers of the fake qualification certificates. The Development Officer cannot be supposed to be the main accused in the CBI case. Probably the querist does not understand that he cannot get appropriate solution to the problem, if the experts continue to respond as per their own perceptions, assumptions and presumptions in the absence of the very basic essential facts, If you go through his initial query, you can find that the same was quite vague in wake of his subsequent clarifications. That is why, initially I raised my doubt, if convicted, why the Development Officers was in service. He could have been dismissed from service merely on the basis of his conviction. Once a court convicts an employee, there remains no option with the departmental authorities to keep a convict in service. Secondly if he has already been punished departmentally with his 5 increments withheld, his (individual) case did not merit to be referred to the CBI, as he cannot get double punishment for the same offence. Evidently, the case would have been referred to the CBI in view of wider implications of public fraud on account of fraudulent activities by the LIC agent and the hidden person who would have been issuing fake certificates to the students/ public, as well as the persons lured to acquire fake qualification by spending some money without going to school/ colleges and appearing in Board/ University exams. Now it all depends upon the querist, whether he comes forward with the full real facts of the case for appropriate guidance or does not like to reveal or have the facts.     Not able to fully agree with the view that "if he has already been punished departmentally with his 5 increments withheld, his (individual) case did not merit to be referred to the CBI, as he cannot get double punishment for the same offence. There is no double jeoparady.  departmental penalty is one process and criminal FIR is another process.  Given facts do not indicate the case in totality so no useful further comments can be offered

@ Sudhir Kumar,

It is immaterial if you or anybody else agrees with my opinion or not till the author of the problem comes forward with the total facts. The facts can come to light, only if the querist opens his mind and tells about the present status of the case.