61. Model Representation - One charge sheet was issued against one divisional secretary on fabricated charges. The following was the fitting reply given at that time.
Sub: Representation Against Charge Sheet Issued Under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965
Ref: SPOs memo ……………. dtd 12.4.2023
With due respect, I am writing to submit my detailed representation concerning the charge sheet dated 12.04.23 issued by the SPOS, Ghazipur Division, which I received on …………... I strongly deny all the charges and allegations against me, as I believe they are baseless and fabricated, designed to suppress legitimate trade union activities within the division. In my view, this disciplinary action is a form of retaliation for my active participation in these activities.
Furthermore, I contend that framing charges under Rule 3 (1) (i) and (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 is incorrect, as legitimate trade union actions should not be considered a violation of these rules. Additionally, Rule 3(C) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 deals with sexual harassment, which is not relevant to the charges in this case. I also want to emphasize that there is no sub-rule 21 under Rule 3(c) of the CCS Conduct Rules 1964. The reference to "rule 23 sub rule 8 below" is also inappropriate, as Rule 23 concerns the interpretation of the Conduct Rules and lacks sub-rules applicable to my situation. Rule 153, related to leaving stations without permission, is similarly inapplicable to the charges I am facing.
Moreover, Rule 201 of the Postal Manual Volume III states that "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." However, the letter in question was addressed to the divisional head as official correspondence and did not involve disclosing any information from my personal custody. This demonstrates the disciplinary authority's bias in creating unsupported charges.
As the Divisional Secretary, ……….. Division, my joint application dated …….. with other union office bearers was submitted in my capacity as the chief executive of the divisional union, consistent with trade union facilities under RSA Rules 1993. The term "Mantri," used to identify my role as the union's chief executive, has been misinterpreted and should not be used to unjustly accuse me, as this goes against natural justice principles.
It is important to emphasize that no rule prevents Trade Unions and Associations from forming Postal Joint Councils of Action to address employee grievances and present them to the administration. The charges of insubordination and leaving the place of duty without permission are vague and based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence. The charge memo lacks the necessary supporting material or statements to substantiate these charges.
In the past, letter correspondence on this letterhead has been accepted by the divisional head, with acknowledgments provided. This charge sheet appears to be a retaliatory measure against my legitimate trade union activities, intended to damage my record as the Divisional Secretary of the AIPEU Group C Union and intimidate union members. This disciplinary action seems directly linked to my activities as a union office bearer.
I rely on the Director General (Posts) letter no. SR 39-52/92-SR dated 06.10.1995, which clearly states 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."
Given these points, it is evident that this charge sheet is a deliberate attempt to victimize me for my role as a union's chief executive. Therefore, I respectfully request that you drop these charges, considering the facts and evidence I have presented.
One postmaster was charge sheeted under Rule 16 for excess drawal of pay for two Group D posts. The mistake was unnoticed. He called for the following details for submission of his reply
Post a Comment