DEAR MR. SUDHIR KUMAR
YOU ARE OF THE OPINION THAT REMOVAL OF SERVICE IS A PENALTY AS PER THE SERVICE RULES . THE SERVICE RULES WILL SAY ONE THING BUT THAT HAPPENS IN REALTY IS DIFFERENT . REALLY I AM VERY MUCH UPSET OF THE HAPPENINGS IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES BUT I AM UNABLE TO COME OUT OF THE TRUE FACTS EVEN THROUGH MEDIA . I AM NOT A POLITICIAN OR A MULTI MILLION PERSON TO ABSORB WHAT WILL COME IN RETURN FOR MY EXPOSURE . IF THE FORUM MEMBERS ARE READY TO TAKE UP EVEN ONE MATTER THAT IS HAPPENING IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT'S LARGEST INDUSTRY, CRORES OF RUPEES OF THE TAX PAYERS CAN BE SAVED . BUT I CANNOT PROVIDE THOSE INFORMATION THROUGH THIS FORUM . AS YOU BELIEVE , ONE WAY THE PUNISHMENT WILL BE GIVEN, ON THE OTHER HAND IT WILL BE REVERSED THROUGH THE OTHER WAY . BOTH ( I HOPE YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE MEANING ) ARE HAND IN GLOVE FOR EVERYTHING . NOTHING WILL BE DONE FREE OF COST . FOR CERTAIN MATTERS ( PROMOTIONS ) I AM HAVING THE SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTION BENCH ORDERS COMMUNICATED TO ALL ZONES THROUGH THE HEAD , CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE ZONAL OFFICES TO THE REGIONAL HEADS BUT THAT WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED EVEN BY THE ZONAL OFFICE . I AM GIVING THIS INFORMATION ABOUT ONE ZONAL OFFICE ONLY . THERE ARE 9 ZONAL OFFICES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY . I TOOK UP THIS MATTER IN 1995 THROUGH ONE EMPLOYEE BUT I COULD NOT GO BEYOND A CERTAIN LIMIT AS THE EMPLOYEE HAD BACKED OUT DUE TO PRESSURE . BECAUSE BEFORE GOING TO COURT , ANY EMPLOYEE SHOULD HAVE MADE A REPRESENTATION TO THE MANAGEMENT AND THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EITHER DECLINED OR NOT REPLIED IN SPITE OF REMINDERS .
REGARDING MR. KALAISEVAN'S OPINION , WHY I CAME OUT WITH THE FACT WAS THE FORUM MEMBERS WERE REPLYING TO HIS QUESTION BELIEVING IT IN TOTO . NOW DID HE REPLY TO MY QUESTION ? VOLUNTARY CESSATION OF EMPLOYMENT FROM SERVICE WAS FIRST INCLUDED IN 1985 SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE BANKS AND THE INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THE MANAGEMENT OF BANKS . IF AN EMPLOYEE ABSENTS FROM WORK FOR 90 DAYS WITHOUT SUBMITTING ANY LEAVE APPLICATION , A NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED TO HIM TO REPORT FOR DUTY .IF HE REPORTS FOR DUTY , DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS WILL BE INITIATED AS PER THE SERVICE RULES . IF HE DOES NOT REPORT FOR DUTY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIVING THE NOTICE OR IF HE DOES NOT SUBMIT A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WITHIN THAT PERIOD , IT IS DEEMED THAT HE HAD VOLUNTARILY RETIRED FROM SERVICE . ( I HAVE GIVEN THIS CLAUSE IN BRIEF )
IN REALTY IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET OVER THIS SITUATION . AFTER REPORTING FOR DUTY HE SHOULD NOT ABSENT HIMSELF FOR 30 DAYS . IF HE TAKES LEAVE AGAIN , NOW THERE IS NO 90 DAYS GRACE PERIOD BUT NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY AND HE SHOULD REPORT FOR DUTY IMMEDIATELY . AGAIN HE SHOULD NOT TAKE LEAVE FOR 30 DAYS . IF HE REPEATS IT AGAIN , THEN NO NOTICE WILL BE SERVED BUT IT WILL BE DEEMED THAT HE HAD VOLUNTARILY RETIRED FROM SERVICE AND LETTER TO THAT EFFECT WILL REACH HIM .
AS FAR AS YOU ALL ARE CONCERNED THIS IS IN THE SETTLEMENT . BUT THIS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED ONLY IN SELECTIVE CASES AS A VERY STRICT MEASURE AS IF THE BANK HAD LOST IN CRORES EVEN IF HE HAD GONE ON LOSS OF PAY . BUT AS MR. SUDHIR HAD SAID , EVEN AFTER RECEIVING THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT LETTER , THE EMPLOYEE WILL APPROACH THE UNION AND HE WILL BE ALLOWED TO JOIN DUTY . THERE IS NO APPEAL FOR THIS AS THIS IS NOT A DISCIPLINARY ACTION BUT THE EMPLOYEE HIMSELF HAD DEMITTED OFFICE . THIS CLAUSE WAS REMOVED IN 1995 SETTLEMENT AND THE 30 DAYS UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCE " TREATED AS A GROSS MISCONDUCT " WAS REPLACED FOR WHICH DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS IS APPLIED . BUT IN THE NEXT SETTLEMENT AFTER THE YEAR 2000 THIS WAS AGAIN INCLUDED . TO BE FRANK I DON'T TAKE CLIENTS WHO RAISES QUESTIONS IN THIS FORUM . MANY DON'T DISCLOSE THE ACTUAL FACTS .
BUT WHEN I SEE THAT A PERSON IS MISGUIDING THE FORUM MEMBERS AND THE MEMBERS ARE ALSO BELIEVING HIM AND POSTING THEIR REPLIES I WILL GIVE A CLEAR PICTURE BUT I CANNOT TYPE THE ENTIRE SETTLEMENT AS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PUT EVERYTHING IN THIS THIS -- JOSEPH WILFRED - 26/04/2014 AT 18:50 HRS