Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the Main Charge VI, it is alleged that the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis had failed in ensuring that the system analyst expedites the pending certificate works as over 250 deposit confirmation receipt was pending for over 2 months resulting in delay in issuing deposit certificates to the depositors.

In reply to the Main Charge VI, it is submitted that the deposit section has initiated the transaction on 18 th to 20th March, 2020 and the next work is only to print the certificates which is the responsibility of Manager, Deposits who miserably failed to complete the work. The said Manager, Deposits who caused delay in printing in deposit certificates, initiated a note file blaming the system analyst and the Petitioner for delay in issuance of the deposit certificates. The Petitioner has also submitted that counterfoils of the abovementioned deposit transactions showing the transaction date evidencing the date of request and immediate action taken by the petitioner to show that there are no long pending deposits for printing. The enquiry authority casually observed that the Manager, Deposits was on deputation suggesting that she cannot be blamed for the delay. This observation is wrong since the Manager, Deposits did not go on deputation during those days though the CMD has issued orders for her transfer and she continued in the Respondent Corporation only. Thereby the inquiry authority has reached the erroneous conclusion without proper appreciation of facts and evidence submitted by the petitioner and held the charge as proved against the petitioner.

The delinquent officer during the enquiry stated that she was on medical leave from 23.05.2020 to 06.06.2020 and was not aware of the facts stated in the letters addressed to Mr.V.Nagappan, Independent Director and she had attended the revised portfolios as ordered by CMD. The Enquiry Officer found that the delinquent officer had engineered the spoiling of the name of TNPFC the powers of the delinquent officer i.e. petitioner were withdrawn by CMD on 8.6.2020 (Exhibit DE17). The Enquiry Officer held that all other officers https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis including company secretary, manager deposit, system analyst etc., were all under the control of General Manager and nothing could be moved without the permission or concurrence of the General Manager. However the petitioner General Manger had no control over others including fund management. In spite of knowing the developments happening around her she had gone on leave from 23.5.2020 and knowing fully well new software is being introduced. Though she is a second level officer next to CMD the General Manager/petitioner had given room for such erroneous credits for which she was fully responsible. The Enquiry Officer had mentioned 7 points to show that with the help of system analyst she has masterminded the engineering petition with ulterior motive to spoil the name of the corporation. On the ground of preponderance of probability, the delinquent officer had clearly engineered the petitions addressed to the independent director so as to disrepute the TNPFC. The said charge was held proved by the Enquiry Officer.

14. The Gist of Charge No.IX is as follows:-

The Delinquent Officer being a member of the selection committee to recruit System Analyst (technically, a sensitive post since the person to be recruited will have direct access to the entire files of the organization) failed to disclose her relationship with one Mr.D.Kumaran, who was ultimately selected to the post of System Analyst. The Enquiry Officer considered the nature of said charge and also the available records on the said issue had decided that examination of those two officers is not necessary and informed the same to the Delinquent Officer. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer put a further question:-

14. The main charge No IX which is a serious charge according to the respondent relates to the appointment of the system analyst and the petitioner was only a part of the selection committee and she is not the deciding authority in the appointment and the members of the committee including the CMD took the decision to appoint the system analayst.

15. The 9 main charges and the 6 supplementary charges were framed against the petitioner on flimsy, vexatious grounds, with ulterior and malafide intentions.