SF-5

Submitted by Rakesh Kumar Jain on Tue, 07/01/2014 - 21:18

I have been charge sheeted by the administration on 28.11.2013, the article of charges are ;-

" Shri R.K.Jain ,CMS while functioning in the capacity of Secretory Welfare Comittee Parel , has  committed an act of omission & misconduct in that:-

  On 23.11.2013, the sanitized water purified plant was reported & found missing . Shri R.K.Jain failed to ensure proper custody of the sanitized water purified plant located at welfare hall PR. He disposed off the plant without informing any other member of welfare committee & without following proper procedure, to a cotractor who had not been authorized by the committee to dispose off the plant.

Thus the said act on part of Shri R.K.Jain , tantamount to serious misconduct.

By this act Shri Jain has violated Rule No. 3-1(i),(iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rule 1966.

2. That in support of above statement of article of charges, a statement of imputation of misconduct was furnished as Annexure -II, Further a list of document by which & a list of witnesses by whom the charges ewre proposed to be sustained were also furnished as Annexture III & IV, respectively.

In response to the above, I deny the charges & have submitted my defiance statement  as follows:-

That the statement of imputation of misconduct is quite absurd, vague and presumptive and not supported by any admission or legal evidence even prima-facie-

i) No document on record for any complaint regarding custody or disposed off the plant by me..

ii) No document on record for any decision taken by me without informing / consulting the committee members.

iii) The only document & witness in support of article of charges furnished as Annexure III & IV respectively, is also not a authentic document, since not countersigned by the authority who has recorded his statement. Further no where it is stated that I failed to ensure proper custody or disposed off the sanitized water purifier plant

The statement of imputation should contain all relevant facts  in accordance with the provision of Rule-9(6). The term ‘Relevant facts’ connotes that the statement of imputation should contain the details of the offence, and date of offense, time & place of its commission, as per the Hon. Supreme Court judgment in case of state of U.P. V/S Mohd. Sharief,AIR 1982 S C 937 and the evidence in support thereof to sustain the charges. Unfortunately all the important and material ingredients are conspicuously missing. The list of defense witnesses & defense documents will be submitted in due course, if enquiry held.

            In view of the above facts & circumstances it is requested to drop the charges, since liable to be quashed .

Humble defendant

R.K.Jain

______________________________________________________

It is surprised to note that the DA denied the above submission & further stated that the plant was found missing as intimated by the witness , therefore as per the by-laws of the committee the secretory is responsible, vide letter dtd.23.12.2013.

It is DA's own presumption since neither sated by the witness nor copy of any complaint & copy of by-laws enclosed  with SF-5 as RUD.Further the plant was not the railway property & it was the property of welfare committee, who  has   not made any allegations against the secretory .

Please guide me further course of action in the matter. I am due for retirement on 31st march 2014.