S C KHOSLA
16 February 2012 at 12:29
Dear Sir,
How much is the limit of human memory to recall an event or chain of events (that how exactly it happened) as per act. If any limitation fixed, than under which act of India.
Anonymous
23 December 2011 at 14:49
I am working in a organization of Central Govt Ministry of Govt of India.
The organization held Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPC) meeting for interview for promotion of scientific cadre officers to various scientific posts like Sc` E` to Sc`F`and Sc`F` to Sc`G`on the basis of their ACRs under old FCS(Flexible complementing scheme) of DOPT.
The regulations of the organization states as follows :
``The Departmental Peer Review Committee shall consist of the following:-
(a) Secretary, A (host organization) - Chairman
(b) Secretary, B (X 1 departt of GOI) - Member
(c) Secretary, C (X 2 departt of GOI) - Member
(d) Director, D (X 3 departt of GOI) - Member
(e) Director, E (X 4 departt of GOI) - Member
(f) Secretary, F) (X 5 departt of GOI) - Member``
Now on the day of interview, 2 members (say B & C) did not come for interviewing for some reasons. The interviews were held by chairman + 3 remaining members. There is no definition of quorum given in above clause.
1. Are the interviews held can be called legally correct for promotions
2. Or in the absence of 2 members, court can be appealed for quashing the above interview exercise as null and void
Anonymous
20 December 2011 at 22:30
I am working in a statutory body which is working under the administrative control of Central Govt Ministry of Govt of India.
The office intends to hold Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting for interview for promotion of scientific cadre officers to various scientific posts like Sc` E` to Sc`F`and Sc`F` to Sc`G`on the basis of their ACRs for the period 2005 to 2009 under old FCS(Flexible complementing scheme) of DOPT/VI pay commission.
The office informed me in June 2011 that my grades from ACRs are below bench mark and can appeal for upgrading the ACRs for considering my name for promotion. Accordingly, I submitted my representation for upgrading my ACRs. The office did not give me any reply in writing but when I asked verbally, I was told that my ACRs are not being upgraded.
Now office is going ahead with interviews in Delhi on 22nd Dec 2011.
Incidentally, the present interviews are being held under old FCS though the new FCS had come in force wef 01 Jan 2011 as per DOPT circulars. Therefore if I miss present chance of interview, the next chance will come when, is not known especially when new FCS is not being liked.
Can I go to court in Delhi tomorrow ie 21 Dec 2011 that as officially my representation for upgradation has not been replied and therefore I also should be allowed to appear in interview on 22 Dec 2011.
Or simply the court may not entertain my pray that since your marks are less than qualifying marks for appearing in interview, you have no locus standi.
Any definite help given is welcome from a Delhi High Court advocate.
Anonymous
20 December 2011 at 12:34
Under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965, the office (a central govt statutory body) have issued memo(by CEO) to Mr X in Dec 2011 on ground of imputation of misconduct. Intent to charge with minor penalty had been indicated for which explanation had been sought. The misconduct (favouring a firm in official work) had been indicated as committed around 5 years back.
2 advises of CVC recvd by office in March 2008 and Feb 2011 but never communicated to `X`by office.
Suddenly the office asked (by CEO) in Dec 2011 and asked explanation.
In 2010, office (Mr `S`) appointed `X` as Inquiry Officer (IO) in a case on Mr `A` under Rule 14 (major penalty) of CCS(CCA) Rules. The case has moved further with 3-4 hearings under the IO ship of `X`.
On receipt of above memo, `X` replied to all the facts of the case, apprehending conspiracy by some office colleagues after 6 years, requesting clean chit and also drew their attention that he was appointed IO by them(Mr `S`) a year back (irrespective of CVC advises), meaning that all is clear from vigilance side for Mr `X`. Vigilance department being custodian of all cases, knows explanation memo given to Mr `X` as well as case on `A`.
Reply submitted few days back by `X` to CEO.
After few days, in the case pertaining to Mr `A`, office reconfirmed appointment (by Mr `S`) of Mr `X` as IO in above case for moving ahead with hearings.
Now what is the position of `X`
i) Is the official explanation earlier asked (by CEO) is just an explanation sought or is it a charge sheet, though he is IO in another case.
ii) Can `X` move ahead with hearings on `A`. The official Presenting officer(PO) in `A` case knows nothing about memo given to Mr`X ` and is requesting for starting the hearings in the `A` case.
iii) or Mr`X should wait in case on `A`, till he gets clean chit from office(CEO) for his own memo.
S C KHOSLA
16 December 2011 at 15:24
In a case under CCS (CCA Rules)1965, a charged official (CO), desired change in Inquiry Officer (IO) on ground of bias in its very first Regular Hearing (RH)through a formal letter.
The IO gave stay to RH and sent the CO`s request for change in IO ship to the consideration of Disciplinary Authority (DA)as per rules.
The DA replied to CO rejecting his request for change in IO ship and marked copy of communication to IO and Presenting officer (PO) in the case.
Now on receipt of this letter in IOs office, whether IO`s stay to RH is automatically gets vaccated or IO should wait for Presenting officer (PO) formal comunication of pray for vacating the above stay in RH.
Anonymous
05 December 2011 at 12:52
Under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965, the office (a central govt statutory body) have issued memo to Mr X & Mr Y in Oct 2011 on ground of imputation of misconduct. A minor penalty had been declared for which explanation had been sought. The misconduct (favouring a firm in official work) had been indicated as committed in Jan 2006. In between this period, no charge sheet was ever given to Mr X. As many official were involved, an enquiry was presumably going on for Mr Z, who took final decision on the case. Mr X was never called as witness or otherwise or asked during inquiry process running for Mr Z. The recommendations or report of Inquiry are not known to Mr X. Now in above penalty order, Mr Z, who took final decision has been left with mere warning(after retirement) while Mr X & others are being panelized with Minor penalty.
Is this process correct and with in rules, when –
1. The charge sheet issued (presumably) was for Mr Z or not known against whom. Who was IO, PO or CO in above case was not known to Mr X or others
2. Mr X have never been issued any formal charge sheet, never called for enquiry running for Mr Z , transparency has not been adhered for Mr X or others (refer Principles of natural justice )
3. Decision to penalize was taken in March 2011 and being communicated in Oct 2011. Is it not time barred for communication as per CVC manual
4. why entire case can not be considered as time barred, as it is being communicated now after 5 years. Had it started in 2006, the case with penalty or not would had been over long time back, Starting now would effect future career prospects of Mr X or even retirement plans
Kindly comment/advise
Anonymous
22 November 2011 at 17:28
Dear Sir,
Under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, whether a Disciplnary Authority (DA) have powers to appoint a Inquiry Officer (IO) who is senior to him by scale ie DA is on Sc`E scale while IO is on Sc`F` scale. Incidentally DA is in Administrative cadre and functioning as DDG, while IO is in scientific cadre and working as Head of Department.
Can this be treated as right appointment or anamoly under above rules
Whether on the above basis the charged official can appeal for quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings or report submitted by the IO at any stage of enquiry, praying that appointment of IO by DA is not proper
Please clarify
Anonymous
22 November 2011 at 16:52
Dear Sir,
I am working in a statutory body which is working under the administrative control of Central Govt Ministry of Govt of India.
The office intends to hold DPC meeting for interview for promotion of scientific cadre officers to various scientific posts like Sc` E` to Sc`F`and Sc`F` to Sc`G`on the basis of their ACRs for the period 2005 to 2009 under old FCS(Flexible complementing scheme) of DOPT/VI pay commission. The office held interviews in Dec 2010 (cut off date taken as June 2010) for above posts, but could not complete the interview process for all scientific officers falling due, for certain reasons. Now after 11 months, the process of interview is being completed for remaining officers adding some new names in 2011 after up gradation of old ACRs for some officers and conversion of leave for completion of residency period for some officers (for period 2005 to 2009). Thus the interviews for above posts are being held in Nov 2011 with old FCS, with cut off date as June 2010 and considering ACRs up to 31 March 2009. Some officers are not being called for interview saying their ACRs are below bench mark (as per DOPT OM No 21011/1/2010 dt 13 April 2010 ) when considered up to 31 March 2009.
Is this action of office legally correct -
i) when ACR/APAR of 2010 and 2011 are already available with office
ii) new FCS has come in to force from 01 Jan 2011 as per DOPT circulars
iii) The DPC is supposed to start this process every 6 months time to give fair chance to all employees becoming due for promotion as per FCS, but DPC has failed to complete the process in 6 months time schedule
iv) Same process when initiated in Dec 2009, the cut off date taken was 31 Dec 2009, but when they started in Dec 2010, the cut off date taken was 30 June 2010 instead of 31 Dec 2010. This has deprived a section of officers because ACRs of 2010 has been kept out of consideration.
iv) This type of promotion process being followed impedes the carrier progression of some officers who may get a chance, if APARs of 2010 and 2011 are added to their ACRs of 2005 to 2009. (see DOPT No 22011/1/2011-Estt D dt 11.03.2011)
Incidentally, DOPT is also on the panel of DPC.
Please advice.
Member Strength 9,47,953 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Call option in nse
A small query on exercise of call options in Stock exchange :
Suppose a buyer of call option for a particular listed company purchase the call with certain premium at certain strike price. Now till the end of expiry period, he does not square off the deal. And if at the end of expiry, the market price of that company is higher than the strike price of buyer.
Will he get the difference between strike price and market price as profit or not .
Or he may not get any thing as he has not squared off the call option/deal.
Kindly answer at the earliest