Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ARTICLE-II That the said Shri Rakesh Dhingra submitted an experience certificate at the time of his appointment in NSFDC for having worked as an „Accountant‟ from 29.6.78 to 31.1.80 with a firm M/s Moon Enterprises whereas enquiries reveal that the said firm was not in existence at the stated time and place.
ARTICLE-III That the said Shri Rakesh Dhingra defied the lawful and reasonable order of his superior by not complying with the instructions issued to him vide Order No. NSFDC/21/89-Pers. Dated 6.8.93 whereby he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 6.8.93 and advised to hand over all the files/documents key(s) of almirah(s) etc. under his custody to Shri Devanand, Assistant Manager (Vigilance) immediately.
ARTICLE -V That the said Shri Rakesh Dhingra unauhtorisedly enclosed a copy of an agenda note sent to him for submission before the Board of Directors with his Writ Petition filed against the Corporation and also quoted verbatim from a strictly confidential letter from the CMD addressed to the Joint Secretary (SCD), Ministry of Welfare, Govt. of India in his writ petition.
ARTICLE-VI That the said Shri Rakesh Dhingra did not disclose at any stage either at the time of his appointment in the Corporation or even after his induction, the fact that there was a disciplinary case pending against him in his previous organization i.e. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. (PICUP) and the proceedings in the case were yet to be finalized. Shri Rakesh Dhingra by his above acts, furnished false information/certificate regarding his previous service, willfully disobeyed a lawful and reasonable order of his superior, unauthorisedly communicated official documents and information and suppressed material facts at the time of his appointment in NSFDC, thereby contravening Rule 5(4), 5(6), 5(20) and 11 of NSFDC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1990."
If the CO had felt that he had not deliberately suppressed the fact of his having passed the B. Com Degree in 1977, then when the P & A Deptt. asked him to submit this B. Com Certificate on 28.12.1990 (Ex.S-3/1), he should have readily complied with as it is the prime responsibility of any employee to cleanse himself first and could have claimed innocence on his omission of furnishing the detail at the time of his seeking employment in the organization. But the sequence of the events detailed above such as; providing evasive answer, questioning the G.M. (P&A) for the need for asking this certificate, stating that he misplaced the certificate, involving in perjury by stating that he had already submitted the certificate, raising logical question as to how one could have acquired higher education without this certificate, furnishing not the original but a photo copy of the certificate, that too after dodging the issue for 3 years, 8 months i.e. upto April 28, 1993 without any valid reason; etc. did not lead to see even a remote possibility of innocence on the part of the CO on this issue. Further when the CO‟s action to furnish all his other degree certificates including his secondary education certificate but not his B.Com certificate alone strengthen the charge that he intentionally suppressed the fact of having passed his B. Com in 1977. Therefore the CO deliberately suppressed the fact that he passed B.Com Degree in 1977 to claim undue experience to his account. The CO joined NSFDC on deputation basis and later got absorbted in the services of NSFDC. The CO, not furnishing the details of his B.Com Degree should have been noticed by the G.M. (P&A) from CO‟s application (Ex.S-2/1) and should have called for the same at the time of his interview or at the time of his joining NSFDC or at the time of his absorption in NSFDC or atleast at the time he applied for the post of DGM(F) in NSFDC. Uptil 11.2.1993 (Ex.S-4/1) the G.M. (P&A) has not taken any substantial step to get the details of the B.Com Degree of CO verified. Though the CO had claimed undue experience by suppressing the fact, the negligence on the part of GM (P&A) with regard to verification of certificates of an employee at various points of time cannot be overlooked.

"In connection with this charge, Exhibits cited in DOS dated March 4, 1994 at Page - 3, S.No.: 3(c) iv was verified.
The CO joined in NSFDC on deputation in April, 1989 and was absorbed in October, 1989. The CO should have divulged the fact that an enquiry was pending against him in PICUP on either of the above two occasions or at a later stage voluntarily. It is also surprising to note that PICUP did not inform NSFSC about the pending enquiry against the CO until such time NSFDC verified the antecedent of the CO from PICUP. It is also not known by GM (P&A) could not detect these facts at the time of appointment or absorption of the CO in NSFDC and waited up to November, 1991 (Ex.S-42/1). Further it is also not clear how PICUP relieved its officer (CO) from its service when enquiry was pending and accounts not settled with them. The CO before joining NSFDC should have settled these issues with PICUP as it happened to be his immediate previous employer or should have kept NSFDC informed of the same. The failure to do so by the CO raise various doubts about the integrity of the CO. The CO had suppressed the fact that an enquiry was pending against him in PICUP.