Suspension 08/12/2016 handover by hand
nawal
(Querist) 13 July 2017
This query is : Resolved
Dear sir
dear sir
i am working in bank as astt. manager against compliant i am suspeded 8/12/2016 order
received ,after charge sheet received 20/03/2017 by speed post
then inquiry started
7/04/2017/15/04/2017/24/04/2017/27/04/2017/03/05/2017/06/05/2017/common proceeding and
witness and today date 16/05/2017fix when i go inquiry office jalandhar po says your inquiry
again started at gurgaon head office on dt.23/05/2017 fresh
tell me now that justify
thanks and regards
nawal mahajan
now inquiry completed dt 15/06/2017 charge prove by po of mw but in chargesheet name of mw another person po present another , in procedding po given name mw io permitted after procedding sign by us. after po finding i am given reply with attached file supreme court 90days
Respectfully, the written brief on behalf of CO is submitted as under:-
1.That the CO was placed under suspension by the Disciplinary Authority with effect from 08/12/2016 vide order of even date and as per rules, the charge sheet was required to be served within 90 days of the suspension. The present charge sheet has been issued on 10/03/2017 and served upon the CO on 20/03/2017 i.e. beyond the mandatory period of 90 days. Hence the charge sheet itself is not sustainable in the eyes of law.(D1 TO D1A TO Da6) (d2TOD2/D2A1)
The charges framed against the CO are vague and unspecific. Initially a letter dated 30/12/2016 was issued to CO by worthy DGM, Cluster Monitoring Head, OBC, Ludhiana seeking explanation of CO for the alleged irregularities in transactions amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/-. Subsequently, the present charge sheet has been issued for the alleged irregularities in transactions amounting to Rs.12,00,000/-. Such variation in figures and many other variations reflect the vague nature of cooked up charges framed against the CO. (D3) (D4TO D4A1 )
3.In the present case, the management of OBC has acted in a prejudiced and pre-determined manner against the CO. His various letters for release of subsistence allowance, his interim reply dated 25/03/17 to the captioned memorandum, his reply dated 04/01/2017 in response to Bank’s letter dated 30/12/2016,his letter dated 27/04/2017 to the Disciplinary Authority, his letter dated 23/05/2017 Etc and conduct of two enquiries pertaining to the memorandum under reference without allowing CO to submit final reply and without supply of requisite record, amply vouches for the contention and the same may kindly be read as a part of this written brief. To substantiate further in the matter, initially Sh. Ashwani Kumar Nakra , Senior Manager, CMO, HRD, OBC Jalandhar was appointed Inquiring Authority by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 30/03/2017. On the very next day the IA was changed and he was replaced by Chief Manager Sh. Devinder Kumar Laroia, by the DA vide order dated 31/03/2017. When the inquiry proceedings were in progress and it was in the final stage, the same were abruptly discontinued and fresh inquiry was ordered by DA by appointing present IA Sh. Deepak Mehtani despite protest by the CO. (D5 TO D5A1))(D6)(D7 TODA7A1)( D8 TO D8A1 TO D8A5)
4. During the inquiry proceedings before IA Sh. Devinder Kumar Laroia, the testimony of management witness Sh. Balwinder Kumar was completed but his deposition was recorded afresh by the present IA wherein he retracted from his earlier version causing serious prejudice to the CO. The testimony of MW Sh. Balwinder Kumar recorded before the previous IA on 27/04/2017 proved the contention of CO that his confessional declaration of 03/12/2016 was made under coercion and threat from the Sarpanch accompanying the complainant as MW admitted that the confessional declaration was dictated to the CO by the Sarpanch. In the subsequent inquiry proceedings before the present IA, the MW retracted from his earlier testimony causing grave prejudice to the CO.(D9TO D9A1TO D9A3)
5. It may kindly be noted that the alleged irregularities in the transaction s took place on 10/11/2016 & 12/11/2016 and as per complaint made by the complainant, the alleged irregular transaction came in to his knowledge on 15/11/2016 and he submitted his complaint to the Branch Head vide his letter dated 28/11/2016(EX. M5). However as stated by MW during cross examination on 15/06/2017, the complaint was received by the Branch Head on 03/12/2016. Such unexplained period of gaps between the alleged occurrence of transactions , coming in to the notice of the complainant, making of the complainant and coming in to the notice of Branch Head reflect the cooked up and concocted nature of the complaint conspired by the Branch Head Against the CO.
6. As per procedure and instructions in vogue, it is incumbent upon the Branch Head to sign all the vouchers and verify all the transactions at day end on day to day basis. Sh. Balwinder Kumar, Branch Head intentionally and deliberately skipped his bounden duty with the sole motive to implicate the CO in a false and concocted case in connivance with the complainant and Sarpanch.
7. Sir, there is serious lacunae in the inquiry proceedings held before your good self as far as the adducing the evidence of MW Sh. Balwinder Kumar is concerned. It may kindly be noted that as per Annexure IV of the charge sheet, only one witness namely Sh. Ashwani Kumar Nakra has been cited as management witness. Name of Sh. Balwinder Kumar is nowhere appearing in the list of witnesses. Sh. Ashwani Kumar Nakra has not been produced as a MW by the PO during the inquiry proceedings before your good self, but Sh. Balwinder Kumar appeared as a MW without any modification/ addendum to the charge sheet. Such unexplained replacement of MW by the PO at his own level vitiates the entire inquiry proceedings. It is a well settled law that departmental inquiry is vitiated on the grounds that such witness is produced whose name was not disclosed in the charge sheet. This ruling has been pronounced in the judgment dated 04/04/2005 delivered by Allahabad High Court in case titled as JG PURI verses PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK and others reported as 2005(4) ESC 2435.(D10 TO D10A1 TO D10A17)
8. Besides producing the unlisted witness as MW, The learned PO has also wrongly produced extraneous documents as management exhibits during the inquiry proceedings before your good self. It may kindly be noted that as per annexure III of charge sheet , a total number of 12 documents are cited as relevant documents, but the learned PO has produced 21 documents marked as EX.M1 To EX.M-21 during the inquiry proceedings. Sir, The production of unlisted documents during the inquiry proceedings is not permissible in law and it vitiates the inquiry proceedings.
9. It will not be out of place to reiterate that on the dates of alleged occurrences, there was heavy and unmanageable rush of work due to demonetization and the CO was working on cash counter as per instruction of the Branch Head. Alleged transfer entry of 10/11/2016 was created and verified by other staff. Similarly alleged entries of 12/11/16 were created by other staff AND all entries are required to be verified and checked by the Branch Head on daily basis.
In view of the foregoing submissions, it is humbly prayed that the charges framed against CO may kindly be quashed and a verdict in favor of CO may kindly be delivered.
note d1 to 12 document attached
please suggest that is correct po present mw without name in charge sheet
with regards
nawal mahajan
P. Venu
(Expert) 14 July 2017
Additional witness/documents is permissible only to take care of inherent lacunae, not to lead fresh evidence. In such a context, the charged officer also needs to be given opportunity to seek additional documents.
Also, please try to post simple but concise facts.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 14 July 2017
The departmental inquiry strictly is not a judicial process.
Most of the points raised by you are technical, your main focus should have been on your proofs in your favor , steps / action taken / followed by you as per procedure and instruction of the Bank, and also the reason due to which the findings of PO are not believable.
It seems huge amount is involved and Bank may suffer due to negligence on your part. From your letter it does not show that you have followed system and procedure and to avoid the mistake ordinary intelligence was not enough..
It seems you may not get required relief from Disciplinary Authority, after receiving the decision file first appeal.
Heavy work load does not permit to dilute the laid down system and procedure.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 17 July 2017
I agree to the opinions expressed by expert Mr. Rajendra K Goyal, nothing to add to his proper views on the subject
