TTD - Board Cell, Tirupati - Sri G. Kesava Raju, Asst/Shroff ...
TTD - Board Cell, Tirupati - Sri G. Kesava Raju, Asst/Shroff ...
TTD - Board Cell, Tirupati - Sri G. Kesava Raju, Asst/Shroff ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
BOARD CELL,<br />
B2/ 36655 / 98.<br />
Sub:<br />
<strong>TTD</strong> - <strong>Board</strong> <strong>Cell</strong>, <strong>Tirupati</strong> - <strong>Sri</strong> G. <strong>Kesava</strong> <strong>Raju</strong>,<br />
<strong>Asst</strong>/<strong>Shroff</strong> - Punished with stoppage of One Increment<br />
with cumulative effect for having absented to duty<br />
unauthorlzedly from 29-10-96 to 9-8-97 - Appeal filed -<br />
placed before <strong>TTD</strong> <strong>Board</strong> of Trustees - Regarding.<br />
1) Proc Roc No DA5/44742 / 96, dt 23-7-98<br />
2) Appeal Dt 31-10-98 of <strong>Sri</strong> G <strong>Kesava</strong> <strong>Raju</strong>, <strong>Asst</strong>/<strong>Shroff</strong><br />
Ref:<br />
NOTE<br />
1. <strong>Sri</strong> G. <strong>Kesava</strong> <strong>Raju</strong>, <strong>Asst</strong>/<strong>Shroff</strong> was punished with stoppage of One<br />
increment with cumulative effect for having absented to duty unauthorizedly and<br />
the period of unauthorized absence was treated as "Dies-Non" vide Proc Roc<br />
No DA5/44742/96, dt 23-7-98<br />
2. Aggrieved by the said orders of punishment he filed the present<br />
appeal before <strong>TTD</strong> <strong>Board</strong> of Trustees under Section 120(i) of Act 30/87 duly<br />
affixing the requisite court fee stamps with tn the time stipulated, with a request<br />
to set-aside the orders of punishment and to treat the "Dies-Non" period as leave<br />
for which he is eligible<br />
FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF<br />
3. The <strong>Asst</strong> Exe Officer(Potu), <strong>Sri</strong> T T , Tirumala in his letters dt 31-<br />
10-96, 14-11-96, 3-12-96 & 7-11-97 reported that <strong>Sri</strong> G <strong>Kesava</strong> <strong>Raju</strong>,<br />
<strong>Asst</strong>/<strong>Shroff</strong> has initially availed weekly off on 28-10-96 and applied CPL for Two<br />
days on 29 & 30-10-96 Further reported that the said individual had not turned<br />
up to duty from 30-10-96 onwards The said individuals has given a Telegram on<br />
1-11-96 for sanction of CPL on 31-10-96. He has also given Telegram dt<br />
4-11-96 for sanction of leave from 1-11-96 to 9-11-96 and again extended the<br />
leave upto 20-11-96 by giving another Telegram. Later on also he requested for<br />
extension of leave on piece meal basis by sending leave letters Thus the period<br />
from 28-10-96 to 5-8-97 is left without any regularization and requested to take<br />
further action (the said individual on transfer, joined duty at S V Junior College,<br />
<strong>Tirupati</strong> on 6-8-97 FN<br />
4. Basing on the said report of the <strong>Asst</strong> Exe Officer (Potu), <strong>Sri</strong> TT ,<br />
Tirumala the following Four charges were leveled against <strong>Sri</strong> G <strong>Kesava</strong> <strong>Raju</strong>,<br />
<strong>Asst</strong>/<strong>Shroff</strong>. Vide memorandum of charge Roc No DA5/44742 /97, dt 31-12-97
h<br />
t /if-G<br />
Charge No. 1: "that you have availed weekly off on 28-10-96 and extended<br />
leave from 29-10-96 to 30-10-96 stating that your father is<br />
suffering from fever. Again you have extended leave by way<br />
of telegrams upto 15-12-96 in piece meal. You have neither<br />
taken prior permission or submitted the leave application well<br />
in advance. It clearly shows that you have stayed away to<br />
duty unauthorisedly. Thus you have exhibited your gross<br />
negligence, indiscipline and insubordinate attitude".<br />
Charge No. 2: "that you have again applied for leave from 1-1-97 to 15-1-97<br />
and from 16-1-97 to 31-1-97 through telegrams stating that<br />
your father is seriously ill. But no mention was made for the<br />
period from 16-12-96 to 31-12-96 and remained absent<br />
unauthorisedly without any leave application. A memo was<br />
issued on 12-2-97 directing to submit your explanation within<br />
7 days. In your explanation dt. 21-3-97 you have stated that<br />
on 30-10-96 you went to your native place. Due to<br />
development of temperature and pains all over body, you<br />
extended your leave upto 31-10-96. There was no<br />
development in your health and according to your relatives<br />
your behaviour was strange and becoming sub-conscious at<br />
times. Therefore you were given treatment by both the<br />
exoreist and physician at your native place. Thus leave<br />
applied and explanation submitted were contrary. It reveals<br />
your misconduct, indiscipline and callous attitude".<br />
Charge No. 3 "that you being a regular employee it is your duty to submit the<br />
leave application to your officer and obtain permission or<br />
sanction of leave well in advance. If necessary extension has<br />
to be made with sufficient causes. Due to your willful and<br />
continuous absence much inconvenience and dislocation is<br />
caused to the official work. Thus you have exhibited your<br />
gross indiscipline and misconduct".<br />
Charge No. 4: "that you have not obtained prior permission to leave the<br />
Headquarters besides you have also not mentioned about<br />
your residential address keeping the administration in dark to<br />
send any official communication to you which is contrary to<br />
the rules. Thus it reveals you carelessness and indiscipline<br />
attitude".<br />
5. in reply to the said memorandum of charge dt. 31-12-97, the<br />
appellant submitted his explanation dt. 30-3-98 stating that by availing weekly off<br />
on 28-10-96, he proceeded to his native place and due to severe fever and body<br />
pains he has not attended duty on 29-10-96 and thus he extended the leave on<br />
peace meal basis and therefore requested to drop further action against him. In
Poyt Hv 9<br />
the form-l, enclosed along with his explanation, the appellant mentioned that he<br />
doesn't want any enquiry and requested to excuse him for the inconvenience<br />
caused.<br />
6. After careful examination of the entire issue and taking all the factors<br />
into consideration, <strong>Sri</strong> G. <strong>Kesava</strong> <strong>Raju</strong>, <strong>Asst</strong>/<strong>Shroff</strong> was punished with stoppage<br />
of One Increment with cumulative effect exclusive of leave periods and the<br />
period of unauthorized absence to duty from 29-10-96 to 5-8-97 was treated as<br />
"Dies-Non" vide Proc. Roc No. DA5/44742 /96 dt. 23-7-98.<br />
7. Aggrieved by the said orders of punishment he filed an appeal<br />
before the <strong>TTD</strong> <strong>Board</strong> with a request to set-aside the punishment orders and to<br />
treat the period as leave for which he is eligible instead of treating it as<br />
"Dies-non".<br />
8. The appeal of <strong>Sri</strong> G. <strong>Kesava</strong> <strong>Raju</strong>, <strong>Asst</strong>/ <strong>Shroff</strong>, along with remarks<br />
on the grounds of appeal was placed before <strong>TTD</strong> <strong>Board</strong>. The <strong>TTD</strong> <strong>Board</strong> in its<br />
Res.No.649, dt. 17-1-2004 has Adjourned the subject. Hence the matter is<br />
again placed before the <strong>TTD</strong> <strong>Board</strong> for taking a decision.<br />
"Hp rd the aooellant and perused the records.<br />
Punishment cjnfirmed. Tne period of: absence<br />
may j>e tre jted as leciVe t >r whica he is<br />
eli^ioxe it ne agrees for the same" *<br />
Sd/- Chairman<br />
<strong>TTD</strong>, <strong>Board</strong>