Saturday, November 3, 2012

OA no 151 / 2010 on ????????/-2011



TODAY, THIS THE           DAY OF ................. , 2011


D.C. Jayanath,
S/o D. Chinnappa,
Aged 42 years,
Working as Skilled Worker Gr.II,
MSME Development Institute,
Rajajinagar Industrial Estate,
Bangalore – 560 010.                                  ....                                Applicant

(By Advocate Shri A.R. Holla)


1. Union of India,
   By Secretary,
   Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises,
   Nirman Bhavan,
   New Delhi – 110 108.

2. The Development Commissioner,
   Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises,
   7th Floor, Nirman Bhavan,
   New Delhi – 110 108.

3. The Director,
   MSME – Development Institute,
   Opp: Konkan Railway Station,
   Quepem Road, Margao,
   Goa – 403 601.

4. The Director,
   MSME – Development Institute,
   Rajajinagar Industrial Estate,
   Bangalore – 560 010.                               ...                                 Respondents

(By Advocate Shri M. V. Rao, Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel)

- 2 -


Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :

            This OA is filed on 22.3.2010 on the ground that a major pealty has been imposed for alleged misconduct without giving an opportunity of being heard as required under Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

2.         The applicant is working as a Skilled Worker Gr.II in the MSME Development Institute, Bangalore, under the Ministry of MSME.  The facts as stated in the OA is that in the year 2000, when he was working in Goa under the Respondent No.3, he was issed a memo dated 29.6.2000 for the reasons of non performance of work in the assigned time.  The applicant submitted his explanation which was held as unsatisfactory and another memo dated 18.7.2000 was issued for which once again,  a detailed explanation was submitted on 1.8.2000.  Thereafter, a 3rd memo was issued for which also an explanation was submitted on 11.10.2000 and he was once again that the reply was not found acceptable.  After all this, the Respondent No.3 issued order dated 22.11.2000 imposing a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.  The applicant claims to have preferred an appeal on 1.1.2001, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A/10.  This is addressed to the Development Commissioner, SISI, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi, i.e., Respondent No.2 and it bears a remark stating "received/signature/31.1.2001" and the name of the signatory is clearly written as Mrs. P. Chimulkar, Steno.  The copy suggest that it was submitted through the Director, SISI, Magao, Goa.  However, it does not suggest that any copy was given to the Director, SISI, Goa.
- 3 -

3.         The respondents, in their reply statement have denied receipt of any appeal

4.         The applicant further submits that he did not pursue his appeal for being scared of possible adverse consequences.  He was transferred to Bangalore on 21.5.2001 and got his present grade of Skilled Worker Gr.II with effect from 11.10.2006.  Thereafter, he started making representations from 4.1.2007 onwards raising the question of his pending appeal and requested for restoration of his increment. 

5.         It is seen from Annexure-A/18 that between January, 2007 to March, 2008, the applicant had made 8 such representations which the Bangalore office has forwarded to the Delhi office.  However, from all these and also from Annexure-A/12, specifically it can be seen that between 21.5.2001 to 2007, he has himself remained quiet and not pursued the appeal if at all it is to be understood as having been properly given.

6.         In view of this delay of more than 6 years, we see no merit in the OA.  Accordingly, dismissed.  No order as to costs.

                  (V. AJAY KUMAR)                                       (LEENA MEHENDALE)
                       MEMBER (J)                                     MEMBER (A)


No comments:

Post a Comment