JAYANTA DAS
15 July 2017 at 14:42
Dear sir
I m a govt. Salaried person.I have the ability to run a firm like stock broking.So i wish to take sub brokership from a broker firm.Would it be possible to me as i am a govt. Salaried person ? Is indian law permit me it to do so.?
With Regards
Mr. J Das
sandeep kumar
15 July 2017 at 07:53
hi guys we have filed writ petition in bombay high court our main issue is that we have qualified bank po exam we 1200 candidstes are keep in waiting list now many unfilled vacancies are their due to non joining approx 2000 vancanies but banks operate the waiting list upto 1000 candidates in qaiting list now they did not give appointment but still their are 1000 unfilled vacancies are their due to non joining we have many supreme court judgements that are in our favour acc to supreme court if unfilled vacancies due to non joining are their its goes to waiting list now sir plz tell me our chances of win
Kiran kapoor
15 July 2017 at 00:22
Hi, My notice period when I resigned was 3 months. However, I had asked for an early relieving of 1 month after resignation date. My employer agreed to reduce notice period by 1 month only and issued a letter to me that my contractual end date and last working day would be 2 months after my resignation date. However, during my conversation with management, my director had also given me threats of dismissal. I was very much concerned and since I did not have much responsibilities at work, I approached the MD for early reliving. He agreed to cut my notice period to 1 month after resignation date. In accordance with this, HR issued another letter to me stating my last day of working and last day of employment both to be 1 month after resignation date. I served till this date, completed all exit formalities and left. Now, the employer has sent me FNF in which they are asking me to pay 2 months notice pay , have withheld my final salary and not giving releiving letter after repeated reminders
Anonymous
13 July 2017 at 22:15
Can an Employer Retire an Employee with Retrospectively?
nawal
13 July 2017 at 21:07
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
sandeep kumar
12 July 2017 at 22:04
dear lawyers we filed writ petition against public sector banks and against ibps which is exam conducting agency becoz we are in reserve list we qualified ibps po exam their are many unfilled seats due to non joining of candidates but banks and ibps did not give us job now we filed writ in bombay high court on 12 april on 13 april first hearing held from this date judges are giving them time to file affdavits but still some of banks did not file affidavit judges give them 3 chances to file affidavit but now judges coram is changed new judge came and gave them time 2 weeks but still they did not file now again judge gave them 2 weeks time and hamdast allowed i want to ask how much tym will judges give to them after if they did not file affidavit
Anonymous
12 July 2017 at 17:29
An officer of a state Govt. PSU from Assam was removed from service on 26th February 2009. He was placed under
suspension on 29th March 2005 levelling a few false charges. An advocate from the legal advisers firm of the PSU was appointed as enquiry officer on 15/10/2007 i.e. after lapse of 2 rears and 7 months from the date of suspension.
The enquiry officer completed the enquiry in March 2008 and submitted his report in May 2008.. The management
had kept the report pending for about 10 months and issued a notice to the official that he has been found guilty in the enquiry and it was decided to removed him from the service. The officer had served the organization since 16th October 1973 and was due to be retired on 31th March 2009.. The notice for inflicting the punishment was served on 21st February 2009 and allowed the official 4 days time i.e. till 25th February 2009 for filling an appeal if he wish.As per the service rule of the PSU an employee is entitled for 15 days time to submit his appeal on such notice. The officer requested the management to allow him 15 days time as envisaged in the service regulation, but the management denied the time. Management also denied the copies of vital documents which are the parts of the enquiry report and vital document prepare his appeal and served final order of removal from service with effect from 26th February 2009.
During the suspension period from 29/03/2005 to 26/02/2009 the officer was also denied the due subsistance allowance and was paid a lumpsum advance. The service rule of the PSU was silent about the terminal dues of an removed employee. The removal order also did not mentioned about forfeiture of the terminal dues. Repeated letter from the officer for release of his terminal dues has not been responded. The officer got only the CPF settlement from the EPF authority. Following dues are still pending- (1.). Arrear salary dues m 2001, (2). Leave encashment, (3 ). Gratuity dues , (4 ). Pay difference for suspension period , (5 ) Arrear pay dues for pay revision since 2006.- - Kindly advise about the legal remedies if any .
Anonymous
12 July 2017 at 17:20
My origin state is uttar pradesh. I got married in delhi before 16 year and I am permanent resident from 2001 in delhi state. My caste in obc both states. (Uttar pradesh and delhi also). My in law's family resident in delhi since 1965.now I selected for delhi govt job in obc category. but delhi subordinate service selection board during document verification not accept me as a delhi's permanent candidate. My obc certificate issued me in 2007 after verification including my origin state by SDM Rampura delhi.but present tahsildar said me by a notice to submit my resident prof from 1993.but my marriage held 2001. Tahsildar worn me that I am a migrant cadidate. He told me that he file a FIR against me. But my every document is true that I submitted at time of issueing my Obc certificate.i am permanent resident in delhi from 16 year and my family not migrant hear (delhi).I become a member of delhi 's resident family by marriage. What a do now sir.
Anonymous
12 July 2017 at 16:50
My origin state is uttar pradesh. I got married in delhi before 16 year and I am permanent resident from 2001 in delhi state. My caste in obc both states. (Uttar pradesh and delhi also). My in law's family resident in delhi since 1965.now I selected for delhi govt job in obc category. but delhi subordinate service selection board during document verification not accept me as a delhi's permanent candidate. My obc certificate issued me in 2007 after verification including my origin state by SDM Rampura delhi.but present tahsildar said me by a notice to submit my resident prof from 1993.but my marriage held 2001. Tahsildar worn me that I am a migrant cadidate. He told me that he file a FIR against me. But my every document is true that I submitted at time of issueing my Obc certificate.i am permanent resident in delhi from 16 year and my family not migrant hear (delhi).I become a member of delhi 's resident family by marriage. What a do now sir.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Staff complaints
My mother is working on Tamilnadu government aided school in 7 year . Her get the salary 3000.Rs per month for 7 years . Now they are toucher to work they gave a experience letter also wrongly typed her name .they doesn't interest to give a experience letter.if I file a case without salary increment without posting she worked 7 yrs in government school how to file a complaint.