From
Smt C Gowsalya
LDC (under suspension)
Cantonment Board
Wellington 643 242
Tamil Nadu.
To
The Chief Executive Officer
Cantonment Board
Wellington 643 242
Tamil Nadu.
Respected Sir,
Smt C Gowsalya
LDC (under suspension)
Cantonment Board
Wellington 643 242
Tamil Nadu.
To
The Chief Executive Officer
Cantonment Board
Wellington 643 242
Tamil Nadu.
sub: Appeal against the rejection of my nomination of defence assistant by
the Inquiry Officer- denial of reasonable opportunity- violation of
article 311 (2) of Indian Constitution-reg
the Inquiry Officer- denial of reasonable opportunity- violation of
article 311 (2) of Indian Constitution-reg
ref: 1) my letter of nomination of defence assistant dtd 11 March 2019
submitted to the Inquiry Officer
2) 3rd page of the handwritten minutes, in Tamil, of the question-answer
session conducted by the Inquiry Officer dtd 11 March 2019.
I most humbly submit this appeal against the decision of the Inquiry Officer who rejected
the nomination of defence assistant made by me to assist me in the inquiry for your benign consideration and favourable action.
The presenting officer has summoned me to attend the inquiry on 11.03.2019 at our head quarters
and accordingly I did attend the inquiry promptly wherein I have submitted my request
nominating one Shri P Ilango Subramanian who is not a legal practitioner but a retired employee of Telecom Department, Govt of India and BSNL as my defence assistant.
The nomination of defence assistant made by me was ruthlessly rejected by the Inquiry Officer
without spelling out any valid reason recorded in writing. However I was orally informed
that the defence assistant chosen by me should only be a cantonment employee and not
any other Government servant.
any other Government servant.
A defence assistant is part and parcel of the inquiry and without him an inquiry would be
incomplete. The responsibility of ensuring the participation of the defence assistant lies not only
with the charged official but with the Inquiry Officer too. Under the rules the charged official has every right to take the assistance of another government servant to help him or her to present
the case. The term "another government servant" is interpreted liberally in all the central
government establishments and statutory bodies to include all civil servants of the
Government of India belonging to various departments.
The right to defend oneself in an inquiry is guaranteed by the Constitution of India under
article 311 (2) which says that "(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges".
In accordance with the aforesaid article of the Constitution of India, a charged official
is guaranteed with the right of engaging a defence assistant to assist him in the case.
CCS CCA Rules 1985 and CFS Rules 1937 normally do not permit a legal practitioner as a
defence assistant except in special cases. I am well aware of this rule and therefore
did not nominate a legal practitioner as my defence assistant. I have just nominated a
retired Government servant as my defence assistant and this nomination is reasonable
and in accordance with the well established practice in vogue in all the
central government establishments and related statutory bodies.
But unfortunately the Inquiry Officer has turned down my nomination and in doing so
he has violated the article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.This is a blatant violation
and a clear case of denial of reasonable opportunity and therefore unconstitutional.
Many feminists who are senior advocates of the Supreme court of India and the High court
of Chennai have voluntarily come forward to assist me in this case as defence assistant but
I did not entertain them at all and have chosen a retired government servant who is not a legal
practitioner as my defence assistant. But this simple request was turned down and thus a grave injustice is done to me.
The CFS Rules 1937 are framed during the British colonial rule and the particular rule
12(8) of the CFSR 1937 relating to the nomination of defence assistant
has become obsolete and inappropriate in modern independent India. Moreover our
cantonment is like an island and practically there is no connection between the staff
of our cantonment with those in other cantonments. In Tamilnadu there are only two cantonments
and the other one is at St Thomas Mount, Chennai and I do not have any connection or
correspondence with the staff of other cantonments. Under these circumstances the
unreasonable restriction imposed on me to choose a defence assistant within the
narrow boundary of cantonments themselves is impracticable. Therefore the "choice" given
to me to choose a defence assistant within our cantonments is practically a Hobson's choice
which means no choice at all.
I am aggrieved and driven to the corner. Questions were posed to me by the Inquiry Officer
and I was forced to reply them in the absence of a defence assistant which tantamounts
to extracting statements under duress. As an aggrieved person I am entitled to seek justice in a
court of law. But I still hope that justice may be rendered to me in this domestic inquiry itself
and I further hope that I wont be forced to go to a court of law for justice.
Under these circumstances explained above, I pray your goodself to kindly intervene in this
matter, uphold this appeal and to accept my nomination of defence assistant given already and
render justice.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
........................
(Smt C Gowsalya)
Station: Wellington
Date: 13 March 2019.
Copy to:
Shri C Palanichamy
Inquiry Officer and
Sanitary Inspector
Cantonment Board
Wellington 643 242
Tamil Nadu.
practitioner as my defence assistant. But this simple request was turned down and thus a grave injustice is done to me.
The CFS Rules 1937 are framed during the British colonial rule and the particular rule
12(8) of the CFSR 1937 relating to the nomination of defence assistant
has become obsolete and inappropriate in modern independent India. Moreover our
cantonment is like an island and practically there is no connection between the staff
of our cantonment with those in other cantonments. In Tamilnadu there are only two cantonments
and the other one is at St Thomas Mount, Chennai and I do not have any connection or
correspondence with the staff of other cantonments. Under these circumstances the
unreasonable restriction imposed on me to choose a defence assistant within the
narrow boundary of cantonments themselves is impracticable. Therefore the "choice" given
to me to choose a defence assistant within our cantonments is practically a Hobson's choice
which means no choice at all.
I am aggrieved and driven to the corner. Questions were posed to me by the Inquiry Officer
and I was forced to reply them in the absence of a defence assistant which tantamounts
to extracting statements under duress. As an aggrieved person I am entitled to seek justice in a
court of law. But I still hope that justice may be rendered to me in this domestic inquiry itself
and I further hope that I wont be forced to go to a court of law for justice.
Under these circumstances explained above, I pray your goodself to kindly intervene in this
matter, uphold this appeal and to accept my nomination of defence assistant given already and
render justice.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
........................
(Smt C Gowsalya)
Station: Wellington
Date: 13 March 2019.
Copy to:
Shri C Palanichamy
Inquiry Officer and
Sanitary Inspector
Cantonment Board
Wellington 643 242
Tamil Nadu.
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக