Respected Sir,
Ref: memo .............................................................dtd.....................
I most humbly submit the following reply to the above referred
charge memo.
I beg to state that I deny all the charges contained in the memo.
1) The entire memo is based upon the alleged complaint
made by the subscriber shri Kanmani. But the copy of the
complaint was not supplied to me. It was not made known to me
whether the said complaint was made orally or in writing by the said
subscriber, the date of the complaint, the language in which it was made
etc. But I was ordered to submit my reply without providing me
the relevant and vital information about the alleged complaint.
I beg to submit that this was clearly a denial of reasonable
opportunity.
2) The charge that I had DEMANDED a sum of Rs 5000/- from the
subscriber towards his phone connection is absolutely baseless and
totally incorrect.There was no DEMAND at all. I had just informed
the subscriber about the total cost towards his LL and BB connection.
that too, as a reply to his query. The total cost as detailed by me is
as follows: Deposit;Rs 500, Broadband plan: Rs 1000, cost of
modem: Rs 2600, cost of LL phone: Rs 800, total cost Rs: 5000.
When the subscriber wanted to know about the cost of wiring, I have
told him about the cost of drop wires. It is an information given to the
subscriber when he asked about it. It is just that is all and there was
no demand.
3) The break-up figures for Rs 5000 as informed by me correctly to the
subscriber was clearly mentioned in the said memo. Having mentioned
the break-up figures in the memo, it is incorrect to term it as a DEMAND.
The terming of the act of providing a required information to the subscriber,
that too, at his request as DEMANDING is throughly misleading
because providing an information is qualitatively different from demanding.
4) The charge that I had delayed the provision of telephone connection
to the subscriber for a period of one month or forty days is completely
incorrect. As soon as the SDE had sanctioned the connection. I went to
the premises of the subscriber and completed the work andso there was
no delay on my part.
5) I, as a Telecom Mechanic is not an authority to provide a telephone
connection to the subscriber. Only the SDE is vested with the powers to
provide or deny the telephone connection to any subscriber and hence
the charge that I had dodged the subscriber for a month or so is incorrect.
Had there been a delay of a month or so in providing the connection
to the subscriber, that was certainly not because of me, the Telecom
Mechanic who is not a decision-maker. It is obvious that a Telecom
Mechanic can't decide on the question of providing a telephone connection
to any subscriber.
6) Further, in the memo, there was no mention of the dates in respect of
the charge of delaying the connection or dodging the customer. Thus the
charge is too vague to be replied. The following vital information was not
provided in the memo: a) when did the subscriber apply for
the LL and BB connection? b) when was the connection sanctioned by
the Sanctioning Authority? c) when were the field staff ordered to
complete the work in the premises of the subscriber?
7) Without these dates, it is difficult to ascertain the delaying or the
dodging and therefore the charge of dodging is baseless
and incorrect.
8) Under the circumstances explained above, I kindly pray your
goodself to drop the charges in the referred charge memo.
9) I beg to state, Sir, that I am carrying out the orders of my superiors
without fail and without delay and thus discharging my duty sincerely.
I assure you, Sir, that I shall continue to do so to the best satisfaction
of my superior officers.
Ref: memo .............................................................dtd.....................
I most humbly submit the following reply to the above referred
charge memo.
I beg to state that I deny all the charges contained in the memo.
1) The entire memo is based upon the alleged complaint
made by the subscriber shri Kanmani. But the copy of the
complaint was not supplied to me. It was not made known to me
whether the said complaint was made orally or in writing by the said
subscriber, the date of the complaint, the language in which it was made
etc. But I was ordered to submit my reply without providing me
the relevant and vital information about the alleged complaint.
I beg to submit that this was clearly a denial of reasonable
opportunity.
2) The charge that I had DEMANDED a sum of Rs 5000/- from the
subscriber towards his phone connection is absolutely baseless and
totally incorrect.There was no DEMAND at all. I had just informed
the subscriber about the total cost towards his LL and BB connection.
that too, as a reply to his query. The total cost as detailed by me is
as follows: Deposit;Rs 500, Broadband plan: Rs 1000, cost of
modem: Rs 2600, cost of LL phone: Rs 800, total cost Rs: 5000.
When the subscriber wanted to know about the cost of wiring, I have
told him about the cost of drop wires. It is an information given to the
subscriber when he asked about it. It is just that is all and there was
no demand.
3) The break-up figures for Rs 5000 as informed by me correctly to the
subscriber was clearly mentioned in the said memo. Having mentioned
the break-up figures in the memo, it is incorrect to term it as a DEMAND.
The terming of the act of providing a required information to the subscriber,
that too, at his request as DEMANDING is throughly misleading
because providing an information is qualitatively different from demanding.
4) The charge that I had delayed the provision of telephone connection
to the subscriber for a period of one month or forty days is completely
incorrect. As soon as the SDE had sanctioned the connection. I went to
the premises of the subscriber and completed the work andso there was
no delay on my part.
5) I, as a Telecom Mechanic is not an authority to provide a telephone
connection to the subscriber. Only the SDE is vested with the powers to
provide or deny the telephone connection to any subscriber and hence
the charge that I had dodged the subscriber for a month or so is incorrect.
Had there been a delay of a month or so in providing the connection
to the subscriber, that was certainly not because of me, the Telecom
Mechanic who is not a decision-maker. It is obvious that a Telecom
Mechanic can't decide on the question of providing a telephone connection
to any subscriber.
6) Further, in the memo, there was no mention of the dates in respect of
the charge of delaying the connection or dodging the customer. Thus the
charge is too vague to be replied. The following vital information was not
provided in the memo: a) when did the subscriber apply for
the LL and BB connection? b) when was the connection sanctioned by
the Sanctioning Authority? c) when were the field staff ordered to
complete the work in the premises of the subscriber?
7) Without these dates, it is difficult to ascertain the delaying or the
dodging and therefore the charge of dodging is baseless
and incorrect.
8) Under the circumstances explained above, I kindly pray your
goodself to drop the charges in the referred charge memo.
9) I beg to state, Sir, that I am carrying out the orders of my superiors
without fail and without delay and thus discharging my duty sincerely.
I assure you, Sir, that I shall continue to do so to the best satisfaction
of my superior officers.
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக