Anonymous
20 October 2010 at 08:11
Sir,
In a case where the Director of an autonomous body was suspended and charge sheeted in retaliation the High Court after three years of pendency of the case gave Judgement that Director's Suspension and Charge Memo issued to her are quashed having been vitiated with mala fides. But Court states in order to meet equities one more opportunity is provided to the respondents to objectively examine the allegations of misconduct and may embark upon a full fledged disciplinary proceedings.
The Director joins back her office but in her place there is her Deputy Director who had been holding the additional charge of Member Secretary. He though junior to her issues an order that she will mark her daily attendance and rout all applications to the President of the Society through him.
Later the said Deputy Director proposes to hold an Inquiry against her with the approval of the President while serving the same verbatim 15 out 20 charges to her. She is kept without any work and no one reports to her in hierarchy.
Finally the President of the Society appoints a retired High Court Judge who manages an ex parte Inquiry the Director refuses to attend the proceedings at the Law office of the retired Judge after once lodging her protest.
The Inquiry Report of the retired Judge holds her guilty in 10 out of 15 charges based upon the sworn Affidavits of an Assistant working in the Administration of the society and on the sworn Affidavits of a complainant employee who had retired but holds on to take his revenge.
The Director is given the copy of the Inquiry Report and she replies that the charge sheet to her issued by a person having no statutory powers as he was holding additional charge and moreover she was served the same verbatim charges as had been quashed by the Court.
Though the Society is under the jurisdiction of the CVC but CVC First Stage advice is not taken and she is proceeded under major penalty under CCS CCA Rules 1965. The retired High Court gets Rs 7,55,000/- as fees for his sitting at his own Law Office. Is the role of CVC only advisory in even this case when the Court had found mala fides and referred the case again back to the Society President who could issue charge sheet if reuired and if advised.
The Director no charged Officer is asked why the major penalty of removal from service be imposed on her. She replies to the Memo and approaches the Court. In the Court it is informed by the Respondents that she had been removed from service. The Court allows the amendment of the Petition and by the time the next date comes the roaster is changed. In the next date the Hon'ble Judge does not agree to the amended Petition and gives liberty file fresh Petition against her removal.
Are there any hopes of her Order of removal getting quashed as the mala fides proved were carried forward resulting in her removal from service?
Is there any case Law dealing with the personal mala fides turning in to Institutional or organisational mala fides?
Kindly send email if possible to me.
Roshni.justin@yahoo.com
Anonymous
20 October 2010 at 08:10
Sir,
In a case where the Director of an autonomous body was suspended and charge sheeted in retaliation the High Court after three years of pendency of the case gave Judgement that Director's Suspension and Charge Memo issued to him are quashed having been vitiated with mala fides. But Court states in order to meet equities one more opportunity is provided to the respondents to objectively examine the allegations of misconduct and may embark upon a full fledged disciplinary proceedings.
The Director joins back her office but in her place there is her Deputy Director who had been holding the additional charge of Member Secretary. He though junior to her issues an order that she will mark her daily attendance and rout all applications to the President of the Society through him.
Later the said Deputy Director proposes to hold an Inquiry against her with the approval of the President while serving the same verbatim 15 out 20 charges to her. She is kept without any work and no one reports to her in hierarchy.
Finally the President of the Society appoints a retired High Court Judge who manages an ex parte Inquiry the Director refuses to attend the proceedings at the Law office of the retired Judge after once lodging her protest.
The Inquiry Report of the retired Judge holds her guilty in 10 out of 15 charges based upon the sworn Affidavits of an Assistant working in the Administration of the society and on the sworn Affidavits of a complainant employee who had retired but holds on to take his revenge.
The Director is given the copy of the Inquiry Report and she replies that the charge sheet to her issued by a person having no statutory powers as he was holding additional charge and moreover she was served the same verbatim charges as had been quashed by the Court.
Though the Society is under the jurisdiction of the CVC but CVC First Stage advice is not taken and she is proceeded under major penalty under CCS CCA Rules 1965. The retired High Court gets Rs 7,55,000/- as fees for his sitting at his own Law Office. Is the role of CVC only advisory in even this case when the Court had found mala fides and referred the case again back to the Society President who could issue charge sheet if reuired and if advised.
The Director no charged Officer is asked why the major penalty of removal from service be imposed on her. She replies to the Memo and approaches the Court. In the Court it is informed by the Respondents that she had been removed from service. The Court allows the amendment of the Petition and by the time the next date comes the roaster is changed. In the next date the Hon'ble Judge does not agree to the amended Petition and gives liberty file fresh Petition against her removal.
Are there any hopes of her Order of removal getting quashed as the mala fides proved were carried forward resulting in her removal from service?
Is there any case Law dealing with the personal mala fides turning in to Institutional or organisational mala fides?
Kindly send email if possible to me.
Roshni.justin@yahoo.com
keshavnandodi
19 October 2010 at 20:56
3-52006 an employee resigned to his post with management to be effective from 2-6-2006 which is one month's advance notie as per service rules of company. Later he came to know that his resignation letter was not accepted, he was not releived from service, and no communication regarding his resignation letter. So he withdraw resignation letter as per his letter dated 5-8-2006. after receipt of withdrwal of resignation letter on 9-8-2006 management informed by thier letter dated 24-8-2006 that his resignation letter was accepted on 21-7-2006 meeting itself and he cannto withdraw it now. my question is When can resignation will be effective when he was not communicated regarding acceptance. As per ruling of Suprement Court reported in 2003, II, LLJ page 839 supreme court held resignation effective from the day of acceptance and its non communication did not render it inoperative.
My doubt is now, is communication is not must with regard to acceptance or status of resignation letter and reliveing order is must and it is to be communicated to employee. is there any case law after 2003 supreme court.
Anonymous
19 October 2010 at 20:55
Dear Sir,
I worked for a company from 2003-2009... i am unable to get the relieving letter and experience letter also i have the employee id. When contacted the hr they replied in the start but suddenly stopped replying.. Can you pls tell me how can i take the docs legally??
Anonymous
19 October 2010 at 20:36
Dear experts,
Please refer to a case law of RIL versus IPCL Employees association (see pdf file attached)specially point no. 38 to 44.
My question is am I right to come on a conclusion that with effect from merging date and further, all employees of transferor company are eligible to get all those benefits that are declared on or after date of merger for employees of transferee company.
If you have more case laws like this one please give their references also.
rgds
skg
skg
19 October 2010 at 20:15
Dear experts,
In an ongoing labour case a company admits in its ws that they have not terminated an employee due to any misconduct but terminated him because of surplusage.
In this situation can they hold the experience certificate of the employee who is facing problem in trying a new job in its absence.
Also if the PO of labour court has verbally instructed ( on two hearings) them to give it then whether they have still right to hold it.
please give your advice and remedies with supporting case laws.
skg
Anonymous
19 October 2010 at 13:37
Dear Experts,
Kindly let me know any procedure / formality to be done under Provident Fund Act in respect of those employees whoes joing basic salary is more than rs 6500/= for getting exemption.
Thanks a lot
Anonymous
19 October 2010 at 12:11
Hi,
I would like to know for a software company to registered under the ESIC Maharashtra Act what is limit of employees drawing salary less than 15000/-
Is it 20 or 10 no of employees?
can i get any circular on that.
Rajani Kumari
19 October 2010 at 00:41
since 18 yrs iam working for private law college now terminated without show cause where to file case or writ?
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Limit of coverage of employee under EPF scheme
Sir,
I would like to know that what is the Limit of coverage of any employee under EPF scheme like ESI scheme.
Regards