Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mondal...... .............. .................. Smt. Chatteijee^whS^could^riot concentrate on her office duty^Hfeeause ofcherviother_involv,emgiff"

In these paragrapfil^Smt.?fcCJhitmlek^^^iey has made a serious charge against Shri Sujit Baran Moiidal, DCIO/Exe, RTC of making highly inappropriate and objectionable statements to her, while she was alone with !. him in die office. The incident itself took place sometime in the month of June, 2014 while a training course for LDC was being conducted, but the complainant could not recall the exact date. However, she remembered that it was during the second fortnight of June, 2016.
Comments: The incident took place sometime in June, 2014. At the time of its occurrence, Smt. Chitralekha Dey and Shri Mondal were alone in the office room, as a class was being conducted in the next room. According to the statement of the complainant, it was late in the afternoon and she immediately rushed out of the office. She informed Shri Shyamai Kanti Ghosh, AD, RTC over phone about the incident in the evening and next day complained to him verbally. He, however, prevented her from informing JD, SIB, Kolkata on the pretext that it would create a bad name for RTC and assured that he would ensure that it would not happen in future. '* 9 O.A. 350.1339.2018 It is important to note that in such incidents, there would obviously be no witness to corroborate the actual statement, gesture or act that transpired between the complainant and the accused. The Committee has to draw inferences from circumstantial evidence following the incident. The fact that favours Smt. Chitralekha Dey's complaint against Shri S.B. Mondal is that most witnesses corroborated the strained official relationship between her and Shri S.B. Mondal. Her only justification for reporting late is that she tolerated the humiliation in order to continue to work in the RTC in the hope that she would be able to move closer to her residence as RTC was to shift to Patalu shortly. The fact of her having communicated the same to Shri Shyamal Kanti Ghosh could not be corroborated, as Shri Ghosh denied knowing anything about the alleged incident. He also stated that he would have advised her to submit the same in writing. He said that he came to know about the incident much later when Smt. Chitralekha Dey complained to his sister when he was hospitalized. Shri Shankar Mukherjee, ASO in his deposition observed that some indirect angry words were usually being exchanged between Smt. Chitralekha Dey and Shri Mondal in the office. Shri Anindya Hore, DCIO, RTC during his deposition, stated that he learnt about th^ misbehavior of Shri Mondal with Smt. Dey on the day after the .incident. H^saidgtha^shprwent to^Shri Shyamal Kanti Ghosh, the then AD, but he didImo^v^?^a%l?ey^31scii|sed. §hri S.K. Lala, AD, RTC stated that "during?^^ hald of 20 was on leave and when he returned^ he fpiiiid %ie atmosphere of RTC qiiife gloomy. Officers were not speaking to bllier coUeaguesfrgehkjasJhey used to earlier. During the first week^ of '^idy.'^O 14, SmgtfCTStr^^^teDey divulge&^o hinrfyhe alleged misbehaviOT^of Shri MorfEHSTshn Ldla aclvis^mbrnot to stay infefficfe alone. He could «*not intervene^^Sie^kasljbhS hifd dfreaSjfepprised t^S matter to Shri ShyamafaCanti Ghdiff/'me tKenlAD, $Tcf Shfijy&ti RanjamegSiha, %D, RTC confiiSS&l that th^Sfrfegatidhs tby'6le|i m^p^^ompl^mt . were truerin enl^rety. He isaidithut Shri StiyLuaT^anS^Ch^shf^die^the^AD, ^TC was ai^^s trying to lavoid^lhe respoi^si^litvfQn^^^^^^XDj^^^s^phygica^ulments. Sa^oj Kr. | Das/peon state^^at haJpi^l^^mB^feffShri.MondS:having said*something | obj^Eonable tolKint'^Cnitrald^^^^^^^ja^ Durga pksad Misfe-ST Ad| RTC I adfetted that Mondah^and |Smt. | Chitralekha (husband^ of iSmt.
6.6. The Fact Finding investigation concluded in their report dated 28.9.2016 as follows:
"Allegations made against Shri S.B. Mondal have been corroborated to quite an extent by statements of the complainant and the witnesses. Disciplinary authority may take a view, as deemed fit, in this regard."

\ IP 14 OA 350.1339.2018 When we look at the memorandum of charges, however, we find that the statement of imputation of misconduct at Article I reads as follows "Statement of imputation of misconduct on which action is proposed to be taken against Shri S.B. Mandal, DCIO, Bol Kolkata Article -1 That the said Shri S.B. Mandal, DCIO while posted at RTC Kolkata made several indecent proposals to Smt. Chitralekha Dey, UDC during June, 2014. He once asked her, "Whether she caressed her own body part with another body part" and "Whether she would love to dine in a Five Star hotel without her family." She was shocked.and fverbally'icomplained to the then I/C Shri S.K. Ghosh, Retired AD/Training.

Article-II That the said Shri S.B. Mandal, DCIO while posted at RTC Kolkata failed to observe proper official decorum and discipline in connection with his relationship with Smt. Srijata Chatterjee, Steno, which was highly inappropriate and objectionable.
As per the report dt. 28.9.16 of the ICC, the relationship between Shri S.B. Mondal and Smt. Chatteijee was not strictly official and they did not observe official protocol and discipline. All witnesses (Smt. Chitralekha Dey, UDC; Anindya Hore, DCIO' S/Shri J.R. Sinha, AD; S.K. Lala, AD; Subrata Baneijee, JIO-I/MT; S.K. Barik, CCWC, Amit Paswan, ASA; Shri R.K. Bera, CCWC, Mohan Das, CCWC; and Subasish Das, Peon) examined during the course of inquiry by ICC corroborated that interactions of Shri Mandal and Smt. dUL tBr-crr.'----*»■ 'V : / Sf sr Y'% 15 O.A. 350.1339.2018 IS ;J k' W'& Chatteijee were highly objectionable and inappropriate in the office environment and they were found indulging in inappropriate behavior in the office premises.