You must be logged in to ask question. If you are New here, Register first (free). Then Login.

A clarification from WBSR and legal point of view.

Home Forums Legal Help A clarification from WBSR and legal point of view.

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
  • #69619

      A departmental proceeding was started against an employee on the recommendation of Vigilance Commission for inflicting major punishment. In course of the departmental proceeding which ran for more than five years, the employee was exonerated from the charge of having disproportionate assets. However, the Vigilance Commission recommended a punishment against him for withholding his one increment for one year as a minor penalty as he had allegedly not filled up the declaration of assets properly. The employee accepted the punishment but also filed an Appeal before the Chief Secretary of West Bengal laying emphasis that he had been penalised for the charge which was not the part of charge sheet and that the Inquiring Officer of Vigilance Commission WB had demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000 as bribe to square up the matter in course of the preliminary enquiry which he had refused. The employee had also submitted a complaint to the Vigilance Commission against the S.I of Vigilance Commission but nothing has been done till now. His complaint which he had submitted to the Vigilance Commissioner against the said S.I for demanding bribe was forwarded by the Vigilance Commission to the Chief Secretary in Writer’s Buildings where the complaint has been misplaced and is untraceable. On the other hand the Appeal of the employee about the punishment imposed upon him is also lying at Writers Buildings/Nabanna for decision for the last one year without any result. In the meantime, the employee’s increment which had been withheld has been restored after completion of the period of penalty. My question is that when the punishment had not been inflicted for forfeiture of the accrued benefit towards the state upon the withheld increment then why not the authority credited/released the accrued benefit of the employee on the withheld increment to him? Neither the rule nor the punishment order anywhere mentioned that the withheld increment (without affecting the future service) should be released after the completion of the penalty period but not the accrued benefit whether it is D.A or any other benefit. I would like to ask my friends whether there is any rule in WBSR Part 1&2 or any Government Order that the accrued benefit upon the withheld increment should be forfeited to the State? If the accrued benefit is not released and only withheld increment is released after one year without affecting the future benefits, then a huge amount of accrued benefits of the employee will be illegally forfeited by the state especially when there is no order for forfeiture of the accrued benefits upon the withheld increment either in WBSR or in the final order imposing the penalty upon the employee which is still pending with the Chief Secretary. I would request the learned members of this forum to guide me on the intricacy of the rule of WBSR based on which the accrued benefits of the employee has been forfeited and is done in the similar manner in many government departments with many government employees. My friends and colleagues are requested to guide and advise me as to how this matter should be resolved. What should be the representation and what can be the consequences of such representation?

    Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.