Model Representation - 8 Draft against Rule 16 charges for submission of memorandum on behalf of JCA

 One divisional Secretary was charge sheeted under Rule 16 for submission of memorandum in the name of JCA which contains allegations against the divisional administration. There are many flaws in the citation of the rules in the charge sheet. Before giving reply, one must see that the rules cited therein are correct. This was challenged in the following reply . This is just for information of the blog readers.

Sub: Submission of representation against the Charge Sheet issued under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) rules 1965.

Ref: SPOs memo no.Union/………/………../2021-22 dtd ……..

 With reference to the SPOS, ……… Division memo of charge dated ………. in file Union/………../……………/2021-22 received by me on ……….., I submit the following as my representation for consideration. 

At the outset, I refute the charges and allegations which are fabricated and far from truth with the ulterior motive to scuttle the genuine trade union activities in the division and the charge is nothing but an act of vendetta for my genuine trade union activities so far. 

First of all, there is no sustentative in framing the charges under Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) and even under Rule 3(1) (iii), the genuine trade union action cannot be termed under the violation of conduct rules. Moreover Rule3(C) deals with the sexual harassment in which there is no charges against me in this charge sheet. There is no sub rule 21 under 3(c)in the CCS Conduct Rules 1964.

Similarly, the rule mentioned as 23 sub rule 8 below is also for the interpretation of the Conduct rules in which there is no sub rules which will not apply in my case. The rule 153 deals with the leaving of stations without permission which does not suit to the charges in this case. 

As per rule 201 of the Postal Manual Volume III, no employee may publish, without the previous sanction of superior authority, any documents, papers, or information, of which he may have become possessed in his official capacity. In this case the letter addressed to the divisional head is in the form of correspondence and nothing was spelt out from the document possessed in the personal custody and this itself prove that the disciplinary authority is biased and framed the fabricated charges without support of any rules in my case. 

I am holding the post of Divisional Secretary, ........¹ Division. I submitted the joint application dated ………. with other union office bearers in the capacity of chief executive of the divisional union and not in individual capacity and this is a part of communications as allowed as per the trade union facilities granted to the recognized trade unions under RSA Rules 1993. Being the chief executive of the union, we used to mention as mantri that is in no way connected with the charges and the literal meaning is nothing by the head of the divisional union. This cannot be taken a ruse to fix me under charges which is against to the natural justice.

It is submitted that no rule prevents the Trade Unions and Associations to form postal Joint council of Action for redressal of employees grievances and put forth before the administration for their mitigation. 

The charges levelled in the charge sheet such as noticed insubordination to senior being secretary of the union, left the place of duty without permission are vague and are based on the surmises, imagination and presumption. Neither there is material nor statement of imputations adduced to charges in the memo to substantiate the charges mentioned in the charge sheet.

Many times in the past, letter correspondence had been taken in this letter pad to divisional head. Even I got acknowledged for the same during the past. This charge sheet is nothing but an act of vendetta in order to settle score for my genuine trade union activities. This issue of charge sheet is nothing but an attempt to blemish my record only due to my union activities as the divisional secretary of the AIPEU Group C Union and create terror against the membership of my union. It shows nexus between this attempt to take disciplinary action and my activities as office bearer of an association.

I am fortified by the DG Posts letter no. SR 39-52/92-SR dated 06.10.1995 which interalia states that

“xxxx that legitimate union activity that does not violate CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964, and P&T ED Agents (Conduct & Services) Rules 1964 or other rules or instructions governing the concerned employee should not lead to disciplinary action against the employee”

It is crystal clear that, this charge sheet is issued deliberately to victimize me for my activities as the chief executive of the union. Ergo, the charges may be dropped considering the facts and materials submitted.