Appeal & Facts of the Case English Version

download Appeal & Facts of the Case English Version

of 21

  • date post

    14-Sep-2014
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    30
  • download

    2

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Appeal & Facts of the Case English Version

Page No. 1

AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER NONPCIL/Disc.ce11/2(09)/201O/M/285. Dated 28Julv. 2010 ISSUED BY HON'ble CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOWDISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY OF NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,To, The Appellate Authority i.e. Boards of Directors, awl". Nuclear Power C o r p o r a t ~ o n f India Limited, o Nabhikiya Urja Bhavan, 3rd floor, Murnbai.

Subiect:No.NPCIL/ Dis~.ce11/21091/2010/M/285. Dated 28July, 2010 and reinstate into NPCIL service. Respected sir, I would like t o draw your kind attention towards the following b c t s as my humble appeal. Kumar, Scientific Officer, (SO/D)Employee no1810570,CC no-511/528, NPClL R&D Centre, TMS Site Tarapur, was1 . I Manoj

compulsory retired from service with immediate effect with the order No.NPCIL/Disc.ce11/2(09)/2010/M/285, Dated July, 28, 2010 issued by HON'ble CHAIRMAN AND M.D.1 DISCIPLINARY

AUTHORITY OF NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,2. The alleged charges framed against me are as follows(a)The habit o f remaining on unauthorized absence from duties without intimation to/permission of the competent authority. (ARTICLE-I) (b)Torning the official latter dated 12-02-2007. (ARTICLE-II)

Page No.2(c)The Habit of quarrelling, behaving rudely and violently, abusing, shouting using unparliamentary language, indecent behavior and indulging in misconducts and misbehavior with superiors, fellow colleagues/ employees on duties. (ARTICLE-Ill) ARTICLE-IAs mentioned the alleged charges in article-1 about remaining on unauthorized absence from dutieqJpr a period of 35 days as mentioned below.

a) b)C)

10.02.2006 to 28.02.2006. (19 days) 06.03.2006 to 18.03.2006. (13 days) 01.06.2006. ( 1 day) 21.06.2006. ( 1 day) 16.12.2006. ( 1 day)

d) e)

Alleged charges are as followsi)Without intimation to/prior permission of the competent

authority. ii) Not applied for leave for the above period of his absence in spite of repeated adviceldirection by TMS authorities. iii) Habit o f remaining on unauthorized absence from duties without intimation t o /permission of the competent authority in spite of advice and instructions given t o him by TMS authorities in this regard time t o time. Herewith I am submitting the explanation for considerations & the support in favour t o me. your

Ex~lanations art= aiven below for the absence and leave status of those ~ e r i o d s -

Page No. 3It is false allegation. As I am senior Engineer of this organization and

served this department DAEINPCIL from my joining date i.e. 07/01/1986 and leading the team of more than 10 subordinates from last 18+ years. I am aware of leave rules and guide line. I have never officially communicated about unauthorized absence in 18 +years service period a t NAPS and KAPS.

- No advice / instruction and official communication given t o me in thisregard time t o time by my section.(lged and TMS authorities. Please verify the official record for official communications as it is alleged charge. It is in my general practice that before going t o leave, I always taking permission t o my section head and applied the leave before leaving the head quarter. As per my section head.Sh P.M.Deshpande,SO/F R&D Centre TMS Site, Whom Iwas reporting during that period, Ifollowed all the instruction issued by him and applied this period of absence 2 times (with the note-Duplicate leave application) and this matter is already settled by appropriate authority at TMS site in l t h Januarv 2008. vide 8 letter neTAPS-3&4/DGM/HW257. Hence the alleaed c h a m shown above are not adicable t o me. Respected sir,PO/IA punching detail could not show t h e magnetic I-card

/

muster record, and (HR) record, When I asked

during hearing please show t h e evidence o n record f o r t h e period of absence f r o m my joining t o R&D centre TMS Site i.e. 27/06/2005 t o

till t h e date f o r proving habitual nature of absence charge. PO/IA could n o t show t h e record which is mentioned i n DOS (Daily orderSheet).Hence I have n o t violated the provisions of t h e NPClL Conduct

rules-1994 7.2(f), (g),(p),7.1.9,8.land

8.2. Therefore this article of

charges could not be proved so they are false charges.

Page No. 4ARTICLE-II The alleged charges given in ARTICLE I & ARTICLE II are interrelated with each other. Respected sir, the leave matter was already closed by Appropriate Authority at TMS Site. I had never refused, nor not accepted any official communication on evidence on record. (Proof is enclosed on my defense statement as well as in my Presentation dated 15/07/2009.) Letter no-TAPP.3&4/HR/-66/1/2007/E/489/ dt 12/2/07 was never given to me. The charges framed against me are fabricated and misleading. The complainant (Sh P.M. ~ e s h ~ a n d e : ? ~R&D) was so confused that once /~ he was stating that letter was given back t o me after tear off into pieces, after ward then he states it was in envelope again in another cross examination he says it was thrown in dustbin.(He is distorting his statement many times refer his respective daily order sheets dated 13/03/b9 by Sh PM DOS-8 dated05/03/09 and DOSDeshpande SOIF). I have always accepted the official communication a d never refused t o accept any official was not received to me, how it can communication. be torn into pieces it does not proved by any evidence, witnesses. TAPP-3&4/HR/66/1/2007/E/480, that was not shown to me respected sir in front of IA on which charge is labeled against me. So this charge is falsie, fabricated made under conspiracy against me and liable to be rejected.

letter

ARTICLE-Ill Para fi)I was never officially communicated the alleged charges a t the time of

incidence mentioned in the memorandum, and Complaint letters. Complaint letters were given to me a t the time of Inspection of documents during preliminary disciplinary proceeding only on dated 11/12/2008 and 19/12/2008.PO has given Xerox copy but he did not provided the inspection of documents with original copy. In this charge it is said that the incident occurred on dated 164208 but Complaint letter is of dated 06/03/2008, from Sh SK Mahajan SO/F R&D. Complainant should report this serious incident in writing without

Page No. 5any delay t o superior officer he has added his impression or guesses but not narrated the actual facts. I never misbehaved with respected Sh S. K. Mahajan SO/F R&D. I always have given respect t o him. I was unknown about his anger upon me, due to which he made such type of complaint against me. It was also concluded in his witness during examination and cross examination statements on 18/3/2009 DOS on page no-2 & 3. Witness Sh K.P.Sharma SO/E, R&D DOS-dated 20/03/2009 . Witness Sh Manish.J.Chauhan, SO/D DOS -dated 25/03/2009. Witness Sh A.K.Shit

.

:r

SO/G R&D, DOS -dated 25/03/2009 15.00 hrs proceeding: During cross examination it was observed that their statements are contradictory t o each other. It is concluded that statements were delivered under the S pressure of authority i.e. C (R&D). Respected IA has not given reasonable Opportunity due consideration to ask more - questions during cross y examination and remarks mentioned on respective R 0 ~ ' bme. Out of 1 witnesses 09 witnesses were produced by the PO for 1 examination, cross examination and re examination i n which 06 witnesses are superior subordinate of CS(R&D) i.e. Sh P.M. Deshpande, SO/F R&D, Sh S.K. mahajan, SO/F R&D, Sh A.K. Shit, SO/G R&D, Sh K.P. Sharma, SO/E, R&D, Sh Manish. J.Chauhan, SO/D R&D, and Sh M. Vijayan, Manager (HR) TMS. one who can not dare t o speak truth they will see their benefit only and they are awarded different mode of benefit also.

Sh D.K.Sisodia,CS(R&D) and Sh S.K.Mahajan, SO/F Is Main complainant and main witnesses in this charge in charge sheet. The witness - Based on his statements the alleged charge is not proved. (Out of 09 witness 06 witness are working under CS(R&D).They have given witness against me under pressure and benefits, Respected sir During disciplinary preceding (2008 to 2010) the witnesses above said officer enjoyed the benefits like early promotion, Tours, and Trainings etc ,this can be verified from official records also, how above said officer /witness could go against CS(R&D) ,hence Respected sir these witness

Page No. 6shall not be considered as a proof of alleged charges. At present Sh S.K.Mahajan, SO/F is promoted as SO/G in 2008. Respected sir, Therefore these above said letters i n article of alleged charges are Vague, Fabricated and untrue incidents, and filed with a calculated mala fide intention for harassing me and my family.

Para (ii)Iwas never officially commu;n'icated the alleged charges a t the time of incidences mentioned in the memorandum, and Complaint letters. Complaint letters were given to me a t the time of Inspection of documents during preliminary disciplinary proceeding only on dated 11/12/2008 and 19/12/2008.PO has given Xerox copy but he did not provided the inspection of documents with original copy. Date of incident 05/08/2007, and report dated 8/08/2007 from TAPS Hospital Dr Vidarshana wankhede MO/D.I was not visited hospital On 05/08/2007 on this day it is Sunday. My son alone was visited hospital I was not along with him. It is a matter of confusion only she wrongly understood a gentle man standing near sister ward office as father of patient .Please see the DOS-17 dated 28/03/2009.( No Eye Witness was

called for cross examination hence no reasonable opportunity was given ,To cross examine the eye witness mentioned on said complaint letter) Respected IA has mentioned his impression or guesses on the basis of probability of doubt even that not considering defense witness statement