Dear
friends,
Namaste.
The administration was very cordial
throughout the meeting giving the repated advice for unity. Putting our
submissions, we said that we are always in favour of unity and tried our best
for it but opposite group is not ready even to sit with us. During the course
of meeting also, we suggested many times to have a common Convention in the
common interest of the members but, very unfortunately, the opposite group was
not ready for the same.
We submitted the chronology of the
events to re-include the promotee Group A officers as the members of the
Association. We also placed the example of the Income Tax Gazetted Officers
Association having promote Group A officers as their members as well as office
bearers. We also gave the examples of other Associations in our own organization
of CBIC having the officers belonging to feeder as well as promotional posts as
the members of the Association. We specifically mentioned that the amended
Constitution was duly sent to the Board and we received nothing adverse against
it till date. Not only it, we were also invited by the Board for the meeting on
Group A officers’ transfer/posting and the Board also gave an affidavit in the
Apex Court. And also that our Hyderabad AEC meeting was attended by the Member
(Admn) alonwith promoting message from the Chairperson.
Opposite group was of the view that
the promotee Group A officers may only be members of the Association but should
not be allowed to contest for any post of the office bearers. However, the view of the administration was that the
promotee Group A officers are equally eligible to contest once they are
included as members. Sh. Manimohan also said that they have submitted some
5000+ DDO certificates but the administration took no note of it. However, we
clarified that we have also submitted 5500+ DDO certificates adding that the
certificates submitted by Sh. Manimohan also belong to our Association being in
the name of AIACEGEO having the members belonging to the distinct category of “gazetted
executive officers”. We also requested to decide first “which Convention was
legal on the date of elections” before going into the number of DDO
certificates because legality of the Convention will decide the legality of
Association and it is to be decided as on 28.05.17.
We also detailed our efforts for
unification & unity and clarified that we always got negative response from
the opposite side. We repeatedly made it clear that we are always in the favour
of unity as well as common Convention and we had already invited the opposite
group for the same but our invitation was not responded by Sh. Manimohan &
associates.
The opposite group claimed to have
24 units out of 42 with them. We clarified that only the units existing as on
date of elections are to be considered for this purpose. We clarified that they
have floated some new units which never existed. We also clarified that a few
units aligned with them later even after being present at Gandhidham
particularly after getting defeated in the elections but this act is totally
illegal. Surprisingly, Sh. Manimohan termed the units in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat
etc. as “defunct” and also claimed about Delhi Unit not to be with us. He was
given befitted response by us. Administration was also requested to look into
the matter and decide the issue legally considering our all submissions. It was
also pointed out to the administration that there exist no provisions of
renewal of the recognition under RSA Rules.
The opposite group also claimed that
the Bombay and Kolkata units are with them. It was clarified by us that both
places have two divisions and one of them is with us. Sh. Kousik Roy claimed
that he is regularly General Secretary of Kolkata Unit for last five years. His
resignation letter from Kolkata Unit was produced before the administration by
us.
The following issues were also
raised by us at the relevant point of the time-
(1) DPC
for the post of AC- The response was that every effort is being made to do it
at the earliest but the repeated legal stays/contempts are not allowing to
proceed.
(2) In
rem implementation of Subramaniam verdict- The response was that the
Expenditure Department is always asking to implement the same only for the
applicants. The administration, however, assured that they are already working
on it as to how to implement the verdict in rem.
(3) Regional
disparities- We raised this point submitting that the position is very disappointing
in the zones like Shillong, Uttar Pradesh, Central Zone etc. because the
officers are becoming Superintendents after serving for long years at the post
of Inspectors resulting into the disparities for the promotion to the post of
AC also. Accordingly, it was requested by us to implement the in situ promotion
scheme approved by the Board in 2011 as an instant measure to remove the
regional disparities.
(4)
Transfer/posting of promotee ACs- We requested that all the ACs
transferred/posted outside their parent places may kindly be brought back to
their parent zone. It was assured by the administration that the policy would
certainly be followed this time and all of the officers falling under the criteria
of three years would be brought back to their parent places/zones and compassionate
grounds would also duly be considered.
(5)
Shortage of manpower under GST vs number of assessees- The response from the
administration was to do the needful intending that Ranges should have at least
two Inspectors, if not three. The issue of on line assessment was also
discussed by the administration in relation of this point.
(6)
Clause of no further promotion against temporary posts of AC- The response was
that the due measures would be taken to remove this clause.
(7)
Promotion against the post of Superintendent vacated on ad hoc promotions to
the post of AC- We pointed out that the promotions are not being made at some
places including Kolkata Customs to the post of Superintendent against vacated
posts. Sh. Kousik Roy tried to link this issue with some court stay but the
same was not found to be correct. We also produced the clarification given by
the Board on this issue. The response was to do the needful immediately. The
Member was also pleased to ask whether Customs people are also our members as
their cause is being raised by us. We submitted that they are our members under
the Confederation formed by various Associations under CBIC.
(8)
All India cadre of Inspector- In response to our point of removing regional
disparities, the administration opined to have All India cadre of Inspector
with minimum displacement from parent zone particularly no displacement upto
the level of Superintendent. As we are already agreed to this point, we said
that we are in full agreement to it.
All the submissions were patiently
heard by the administration. We requested the administration to go through our
submissions and pass a judicious speaking order accordingly. The administration
promised for the same and the Member was pleased to ask the Principal
Commissioner of Coordination to note down some points to be examined and get
back at an early date. He specifically asked her to verify the position in r/o
Income Tax Association and other Associations under CBIC.
At the relevant point of time, the
administration also intended to dispose off vigilance cases at the earliest as
the initiative has already been taken in this direction. We thanked the
administration for it. It is pertinent to mention that we had already raised
this point to the administration.
Our delegation included S/Sh. A.
Venkatesh, Ravi Malik, C. S. Sharma, Shravan Kumar, Harpal Singh and N. R.
Manda.
The written submissions made by us
are posted below.
Loving regards,
RAVI MALIK,
Secretary General,
AIACEGEO.
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS
President: Address for
communication:
Secretary General:
A. Venkatesh 240, Razapur, Ghaziabad-201001
(U.P.)
Ravi Malik
Vice Presidents: Apurba Roy, P. C. Jha (East); A. K. Meena, SomnathChakrabarty
(west); Ashish Vajpayee, PranaveShekhar (North); B. Pavan K. Reddy, M.
Jegannathan (South); K.V. Sriniwas, T. J. Manojuman (Central) Joint
Secretaries: Ajay Kumar, R. N. Mahapatra (East); B. S. Meena, SanjeevSahai (West);
Harpal Singh, Sanjay Srivastava (North); M. Nagraju, P. Sravan Kumar (South);
Anand Kishore, AshutoshNivsarkar (Central) Office Secretary: C. S.
Sharma Treasuer: N. R. MandaOrganising Secretary: SoumenBhattachariya
(Recognised by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide letter F.No.
B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 155/AIB/A/19
Dt. 12.07.19
To,
Sh. Ashok
Kumar Pandey,
Member
(Admin & Vigilance), CBIC,
North
Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Notice of Meeting – Holding of meeting to discuss the
issue relating to 02 Associations claiming their legal right for All India
Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers- reg.
Sir,
Kindly
refer to the letter F.No.12017/07/2017-Ad.IV-A Dt. 27.06.19 of the CBIC on the
above subject.
2.
The following submissions among others are made with due regards to be
considered during the discussions and take an appropriate decision in the
matter-
(1)
Prior to the AEC meeting of the Association held at Agra, the promotee Group A
officers were the members of the Association.
(2) There
was again repeated demand from the units of the Association to include the
promotee Group A officers as the members of the Association on the lines of the
Income Tax Gazetted Officers Association (ITGOA). Accordingly, a committee was
formed based on the resolution brought by the Kolkata Unit in the General Body
meeting held at Jaipur in the year of 2012 to study the issue and submit the
report to look into the amendment of the Constitution of the Association to add
the promotee Group A officers as members. The minutes of the Jaipur General
Body meeting are enclosed atAnnexure-I.
(3)
Based on the report of the committee, the promotee Group A officers were
included as the members of the Association (without any clause not to contest
as office bearer of the Association) in the Daman General Body meeting in 2014.
The minutes of the Daman General Body meeting are enclosed atAnnexure-II which
were prepared by Sh. B. K. Chakravarthi and Sh. C. S. Sharma. Sh. B. K.
Chakravarthi was also one of the members of the committee formed on the issue
which didn’t recommend any clause for Group A promotee officers as member of
the Association not to contest as office bearer of the Association. Sh. R.
Chandramouli himself and Sh. Kousik Roy etc. were also present in this meeting
alongwith others.It is
reiterated that the committee made no recommendation that promotee group A
officers would not be eligible to be the office bearers of the Association.
(4)
Accordingly, the Constitution of the Association was amended to include the
promotee Group A officers as the members of the Association and minutes were
circulated to all units.
(5)
The amended Constitution of the Association was sent to the CBIC on 08.09.15
after waiting for objection (if any) from the units. The Constitution is also
enclosed herewith as Annexure-III.It is reiterated that no objection has been received till date
from the Board on it. Thus, the Association has every reason to believe that
the same has duly been accepted and approved by the CBIC because of nothing
adverse being received within a reasonable time.The belief of the Association
was reaffirmed on being called vide letter F. No. 8/B/137/HRD(HRM)/2013 Pt. IV
Dt. 31.01.18 for a meeting held on 09.02.18 under the Chair of Member (Admn) on
transfer/posting policy of Group A officers, the promotee Group A officers
being the members of the AIACEGEO.
(6)
An AEC meeting of the Association was held at Delhi on 04.02.17. The then
President, Sh. R. Chandramouli, himself declared this meeting as Pre-Convention
meeting. A message was received from the President of Kolkata Unit that they
were unable to attend the meeting due to unavoidable circumstances. They
further said that they would abide the decisions to be taken in the meeting.
However, Sh. Koushik Roy and Sh. Pyne attended the meeting after resigning from
Kolkata Unit. The copies of their resignations are enclosed at Annexure-IV and
Annexure-V. It is not understandable how they can remain the office
bearer or member of the Association after their resignation. Despite of not
being even in executive member of any unit, Sh. Manimohanalso tried to
represent five units in this meeting in unconstitutional mannerand was not
objected even by then President, Sh. Chandramouli.Thus, the Act of S/Sh.
Chandramouli, Koushik Roy, R. Manimoha, T. Pyne etc. shows that they were
predetermined to divide the Association. Informally, it was declared in this
meeting that the next Convention and General Body meeting would be held in the
month of May tentatively at Gandhidham. Minutes of Delhi AEC meeting are
enclosed at Annexure-VA.
(7) After
the division of the Association, Sh. Chandramouli took VRS rising the question
why he was determined and masterminded the division of the Association in
collaboration of S/Sh. Koushik Roy, R. Manimoha, T. Pyne etc., if he was to
take VRS which he had submitted well in advance even before the division. It is
also not understood how the name of a retired officer namely R. Chandramouli is
being reflected on the letter head of Sh. Manimohan& associates because the
retired persons can’t be member of the Association as per the RSA Rules.
Moreover, as being reflected on their letter head, there also exists no post
like Asstt. Secretary General as per the Constitution of the Association. Thus,
it seems that they have formed their body by distributing the posts as a matter
of pleasure in a closed room without following any prescribed procedure or
rules. So, they can no way be termed as Association under the RSA Rules.It is
also worth to submit that Sh. Chandramouli was determined to divide the
Association in collaboration of the above named persons because of having
perhaps the grudge that the undersigned had refused him to interfere in
individual causes of individual officers in Chennai Zone and also advised Sh.
Chandramouli not to observe agitationalprogrammes in Chennai without taking the
All India Body into confidence.No need to submit that Sh. Chandramouli was in
the habit of pursuing the cases of the individuals of his interest in Chennai
with the help of the undersigned.
(8) As
per the decision taken in Delhi AEC meeting, the 12th Convention and
General Body meeting ofthe Association was held at Gandhidham on 27.05.17 and
28.05.17 and the present body was elected by following the due procedure where
the undersigned was duly elected as the Secretary General through due
electoral process after confirmation of the Daman decision/minutes by the House
allowing the promotee Central Excise Group A officers to contest for the
elections. Out of total 41 units, 28 were present there in addition
to message of support from 4 units which couldn’t attend the meeting. As per
the Constitution, the quorum of this meeting should have been 2/3rd
of the total units existing on the date. Thus, 28 out of the 41 units attended
and four more supported this meeting making the quorum 3/4th against
required 2/3rd. A few units were neutral which attended neither
Gandhidham nor Chennai. Out of remaining units, a few gathered at Chennai on the
same date in the form of splinter group with less than 1/4th
strength against the quorum of 2/3rd forming so called association
in the same name in a closed room. The minutes of the Gandhidham Convention and
General Body meeting are enclosed atAnnexure-VI. The attendance of the
units attending Gandhidham Convention and General Body meeting is enclosed at
Annexure-VIIduly verified by the Election Officer. The Election Officer at
the Convection was Sh. NiranjanGodhara, Asstt. Commissioner.It is not
understood why Sh. Manimohan& associates didn’t come to Gandhidham and
contested elections.However, Sh. R. Chandramouli
wrote a letter on 29.04.17
(after a gap of more than one month of the letter of the Secretary General for
Convention to be held at Gandhidham on 27.05.17 & 28.05.17) for
Convention to be held at Chennai on 27.05.17 & 28.05.17 (same dates). This
letter was written unilaterally by him without calling any meeting of the
units or consulting them and also in the violation of the provisions of the
Constitution of AIACEGEO. List of units as on date of Convention is Annexure-VIIA.
(9) Other
contestants also claimed before the Election Officer at Gandhidham that the
promotee Group A officer/Asstt. Commissioner couldn’t contest the elections but
the Election Officer rejected their claim in consonance of the preceding para
as well as deciding that an officer promoted on ad-hoc basis always belongs to
the feeder cadre for such purpose. No need to submit that the Promotee Group A
officers were again made the members of the Association following a long
process/deliberations for around five years started in 2012.
(10)
The result of the Convention was communicated to the CBIC on 28.05.17 itself.
All the relevant documents alongwith the copy of Constitution were again sent
to all concerned authorities including the Revenue Secretary on 24.07.17. The
same again were sent to the Director, AD IV on 16.11.17.
(11) It
is reiterated that merely less than 1/4th units were present at
Chennai against the required quorum of 2/3rd. A body was formed by
them in the name of association in unconstitutional manner instead of coming to
Gandhidham to contest the elections.
(12) As
far as so-called Malwa, Chattisghargh, Vidarbha etc. units (as being claimed
by Sh. Manimohan group to be with them) or any other unit like it is concerned, no such unit ever
existed in the history of the AIACEGEO and it is merely a group of splinters.No need
also to say that the splinters may float some more invalid units formed by
unauthorized persons under their vested interest.
(13) The units like Jaipur/Rajasthan and
Karnataka/Bangalore aligned with these splinters later in illegal manner after being
defeated in the elections held at Gandhidham. Also, the defection and support to Sh.
Manimohan group by a few more units (appearing/supporting Gandhidham
Convention) after Convention have no legal meaning for the purpose of the
legality of the Association as it is to be decided as on 28.05.17.
(14) It is reiterated that these were
the same splintersat Chennai who not only divided once Inspectors
Association in the past under their vested interest and over-ambitions but were
also instrumental in supporting, advocating and filing the Bhartan Case on
Parmar issue in Chennai/Madras CAT as well as High Court and Supreme Court
opposing the CBIC. They also made the contemptuous and derogatory comments like
“match fixing successful” against the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as CBIC
after the DPC to the post of Asstt. Commissioner being allowed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court.
(15)
After the communication of the amended Constitution to the CBIC on 08.09.15,
nothing adverse has been received till date from the CBIC by the Association.
The promotee Group A officers being the members of the Association, the
Association was also invited by the CBIC for the meeting of 09.02.18 on
transfer & placement guidelines for IRS (C&CE) officers and the
submissions made by the Association on the issue were duly considered. The
invitation letter Dt. 31.01.18 is enclosed at Annexure-VIII.
(16)
The AEC meeting of the Association held on 20.01.18 and 21.01.18 at Hyderabadwas
also attended by the Member (Admn) of the CBIC.The Chairperson of the CBIC was
also pleased to give a message regarding the importance of coming of one of
them {Chairperson or Member (Admn)}to the said meeting of the Association. The
Member was pleased to assure to do the needful on each and every issue with
full seriousness in this meeting. The minutes of the meeting are enclosed atAnnexure-IX.
Thus, the Association always had every reason to believe that it has been kept
recognized at each and every step by the administration particularly after
being invited for the meeting of 09.02.18 and AEC meeting being attended by the
Member (Admn) and also getting the message of Chairperson about the importance
of one of them to be in the meeting.
(17)
On 09.04.18, when Sh. Manimohan& associates were opposing the DPC for the
post of Asstt. Commissioner in the name of the implementation of the Parmar
verdict in the Bharathan case, an affidavit was filed by the CBIC in the favour
of the Association in SLP (C) No. 4870-4871/2018 mentioning under para 21, “The
respondent association after impleading in the case has pleaded that the
department may be permitted to order ad hoc promotions. In this regard, it is
submitted that the department has already filed an interlocutory application
praying for holding the DPCs for ad hoc promotions from Group B
(Superintendents) to Group A (Asstt. Commissioner) for about 600 number of
posts lying vacant in the cadre of Asstt.Commissioner.”The affidavit of CBIC is
enclosed atAnnexure-X.The Association also got the stay on DPC vacated
in the Madras High Court earlier. The most unfortunate thing is that, on DPC
being allowed by the Apex court, the comments of Sh. Manimohan& company
about theHon’ble Supreme Court, CBIC and Association were, “Match fixing
successful”. The filing of the affidavit in the Apex Court favouring the
Association is the greatest evidence that it is the only legal Association.
(18)
However, as per the advice of the Board, repeated efforts were made by the
Association to be united but Sh. Manimohan was not ready even to sit with us. A
Circular Dt. 14.06.19 was also issued by the Association inviting them without
mentioning date and venue intending a common Convention for which venue and
time could be declared under mutual consent afterwards but, unfortunately, they
issued their separate letter for separate Convention instead of agreeing to
common Convention.
(19)
As far as the renewal is concerned, there is no clause for renewal of
recognition of the Association except the recognition for two years at first
step and further recognition for five years after itas per the RSA Rules, 1993.
This Association has already been granted both recognitions. The letter of the
CBIC Dt. 25.02.13 granting five years recognition to the Association is
enclosed atAnnexure-XI. Despite of no requirement of the renewal of
recognition, the renewal was applied by the Association on 26.11.14 on the
insistence by the concerned section, reminder was given on 27.01.15 and again
on 08.09.15 alongwith the amended Constitution. Some queries were raised by the
CBIC vide the letter Dt. 11.12.15 on being reminded on 08.09.15. The queries
were duly replied on 27.12.15 again providing the amended Constitution. Again a
letter was written to the CBIC on 13.10.16 on the issue in response of letter
Dt. 29.09.16 of the CBIC.Again reminder was sent on 14.03.17.
(20)
Some letters of the CBIC addressed to the undersigned as the Secretary General
of the Association are also enclosed as Annexure-XII. All of these
letters, invitation for the meeting of 09.02.18 on transfer & placement
guidelines for IRS (C&CE) officers, attending the Hyderabad AEC meeting by
the Member (Admn) as well as the message given by the Chairperson and the
affidavit given by the CBIC in the favour of the Association in SLP (C) No.
4870-4871/2018 are sufficient to believe that the amended Constitution was duly
accepted by the CBIC and this is the only legal Association in the name of All
India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers. If any other
Association is to be formed, it will have to be formed in another name
following the prescribed procedure. The Association is really unable to
understand what circumstances forced the concerned section to issue the letter
Dt.27.06.19 despite of this Association being legal one.
(21)
Moreover, as per RSA Rules, 1993, the Association is formed for the furtherance
of the common interest without favouring or opposing any particular category or
individual. The issues relating to any category or individualmay only be taken
up separately without using the platform of the Association. The Association
should also not be politically affiliated and also should not be associated
with the politically affiliated/motivated organization/s. But unfortunately,
Sh. Manimohan& associates are opposing the interest of the promotee
officers, sportspersons, Inter Commissionerate transferee officers,
compassionate appointee officers etc. by pursuing the Parmar verdict in the
Bharathan case since very beginning. They are also opposing the interest of the
reserved category SC/ST officers since very beginning. They are also looking
the interest of the particular zone/zones instead of looking for the common
interest of all zones.No need to submit that the Association should
take a neutral stand on such issues because of the same not being of common
interest for all members. Further, Sh. Manimohan group is also opposing the DPC
for promotion under their vested interest which also doesn’t fall under the
category of common interest of the members. So, they can no way be termed as a
legal association and be given no recognition on account of not furthering the
common interest of the members as per RSA Rules, 1993.
(22) Not
only it, they have also joined the politically motivated organization of the
Confederation of Central Government Employees which already has politically
affiliated trade unions as its constituents. Needless to submit that any type
of political affiliation/inclination/association is not allowed under the
Conduct Rules. The group being indulged in such activities can never be termed
as the legal Association as per the RSA Rules.
(23)
Not only it, Sh. Manimohan& associates are opposing every good thing
initiated by the CBIC from DPC for the post of Asstt. Commissioner to SPARROW for
Group B and C officers. Such type of negative activities are never expected
from any Association.
(24)
It is also worth to submit that Sh. Manimohan& company are habitual of
dividing the association under their vested interest as they also divided the Inspector
Association in the past once upon a time.It is also reiterated
that Sh. Manimohan has never been elected the office bearer of AIACEGEO in any
authorized/legal Convention.
(25)
It seems that an already decided issue has again been arisen by the concerned
section vide the letter Dt. 27.06.19 because the CBIC has already decided the
issue as evident from the letters enclosed atAnnexure-XII, the
invitation (Annexure-VIII) to the Association for the meeting of
09.02.18 on transfer & placement guidelines for IRS (C&CE) officers, attending
the Hyderabad AEC meeting by the Member (Admn)as well message given by the
Chairperson and the affidavit given by the CBIC (Annexure-X) in the
favour of the Association in SLP (C) No. 4870-4871/2018 in the Apex Court.
(26)
As far as the question of the feeder and promotional cadre being the member of
Association is concerned, the Examiners (feeder post) and Appraisers
(promotional post) are also the office bearers/members of the All India
Appraising Officers Federation w.r.t. the reply given by the CBIC in r/o online
RTI registration No. CBECE/R/2019/50268. As on date, the Income Tax
Gazetted Officers Association (ITGOA) in CBDT in our own Department of Revenue
also consists feeder posts as well as promotional posts, i.e., Income Tax
Officers, Asstt. Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, Joint Commissioners and
above, as its members as
well as office bearers. As on date also, their President is Deputy or Joint
Commissioner. Not only it, the Customs Preventive Service Officers Federation
also consists of Preventive Officers (feeder post) and Superintendents
(promotional post) as its members as well as office bearers in our own CBIC.
Likewise, the Association/Federation representing direct recruit Customs
Appraising Officers also consists feeder posts as well as promotional
posts, i.e., Appraisers to Addl. Commissioner, as its members as well as office bearers in our own
CBIC. Same is the position in the direct recruit IRS Officers Association in
CBIC itself which also consists feeder posts as well as promotional posts, i.e.,
Asstt. Commissioner to Commissioner and above, as its members as well as office bearers. Now, the
question of law arises why the officers belonging to the feeder posts as well
as promotional posts, i.e., promoteeAsstt. Commissioners and other higher
promotee Group A officers, can’t be the members/office bearers of the All India
Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers alongwith
Superintendents, if they can be the members/office bearers of all of above
mentioned Associations/Federations under our own CBIC/Department of Revenue.
(27)
It is also worth to submit that there can’t be two associations in the
identical names as being repeatedly submitted by this Association. However, the
basic question of the law is which Convention (Gandhidham or Chennai) is valid
and legal. This basic issue is to be decided by the CBIC based on the above
submissions to decide the legality of the Association. Thus, the issue is to be
legally decided as on 28.05.17, i.e., the date of the Conventionas the
so-called other association was formed on this day only.If another association
is to be formed, it is reiterated that it shall be formed in another name
different to the name of already existing association. In no way, the new association can use the DDO certificates issued
in the name of the existing one. Accordingly, the new association has also to
seek fresh recognition as per the RSA Rules after submitting the new DDO
certificates of the member officers being subscribed in the new name of the
Association.
(28)
As far as the CCA(RSA) Rules, 1993 are concerned, these noway disqualify the
promoteeAsstt. Commissioners or promotee Group A officers to be the members of
the Association alongwith Superintendents. These rules say that the Association
may be formed by the officers falling under “distinct category”. In our case,
distinct category is “gazetted executive officer”like Income Tax Gazetted
Officers Association (ITGOA) having distinct category “gazetted officer” which
is very well covered under the rules and also evident from the name of the
Association itself.Even otherwise, the ad-hoc officers are always the
members only of the Association belonging to the cadre from which the ad-hoc
officers have been promoted. The clarification given by the Government of India
vide letter No. 13/03/2014-SR Dt. 27.05.15 of the Government of India, Ministry
of Communications & IT, Department of Posts is enclosed herewith to
clarifying the issue atAnnexure-XIII.
3. The
Association is also not aware of the content of the Reg. No. CBEC/2/2017 Dt.
29.05.17 as mentioned by the Under Secretary, Ad. IV-A in one of his
communications which may kindly be provided to the Association at an early
date.
4. In
view of the above, it is requested to take an appropriate and legal decision on
the issue also considering all of the earlier submissions made by the
Association on the issue ruling out any possibility of arising any question of
law. It is also submitted that the issue is to be decided as on 28.05.17 as the
splinter group formed the so called association on this day sitting in a closed
room without following legal procedure. It is also requested that a detailed speaking order may kindly
be passed deciding the following questions of law among others giving due
considerations to all points submitted by the Association in current as well as
earlier submissions including itsRef. No. 07/AIB/A/17 Dt. 11.06.17, Ref. No. 47/AIB/A/17 Dt.
24.07.17, Ref. No. 65/AIB/A/17 Dt. 02.08.17, Ref. No. 70/AIB/A/17 Dt. 04.08.17,
Ref. No. 77/AIB/A/17 Dt. 19.08.17, Ref. No. 90/AIB/A/17 Dt. 06.09.17, Ref. No.
147/AIB/A/17 Dt. 08.11.17, Ref. No. 157/AIB/A/17 Dt. 16.11.17, Ref. No.
05/AIB/B/17 Dt. 05.01.18, Ref. No. 37/AIB/A/18 Dt. 08.02.18, Ref. No.
48/AIB/A/18 Dt. 20.02.18, Ref. No. 39/AIB/G/19 Dt. 15.02.19 etc.-
i)
Whether any Convention and General Body meeting can be termed as legal or valid
without having required quorum?
ii)
Whether any Association formed based on the Convention and General Body meeting
having incomplete quorum can be termed as legal Association?
iii)
Whether the question of legality of any Association can be raised even after
affidavit being given in the favour of the Association by the CBIC in the Apex
Court?
iv) Whether the
sarcastic comments like “Match
fixing successful” should not be treated as the contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and derogatory to our CBIC also?
v)
Whether any Association can be termed a legal Association despite of furthering
the interest of any particular individual/s or any particular category or any
particular region/zone and opposing others instead of furthering the common
cause/interest?
vi)
Whether any Association can be termed as legal Association despite of having
political inclination and being associated with an organization having
politically affiliated constituents?
vii)
Why can this Association not have the officers belonging to feeder and
promotional posts as members, if other associations can have?
viii)
What is the status of the ad hoc officers regarding the membership of the
Association?
ix) Whether anybody can be the office
bearer or member of the Association after his/her resignation from the
Association or job?
x)
Whether anybody can represent five units despite of not being even the
executive member of any unit?
5. Accordingly, it is also requested that-
(i) The DDO certificates submitted
by Sh. Manimohan group may kindly be treated/counted to be related to this Association only on
account of the subscription being deducted in the name of AIACEGEOas there can
exist no other Association in the name of AIACEGEO except this one.
(ii) Sh. Manimohan group or any other person or group
of persons may kindly not be allowed to use the name of this Association.
Thanking you,
Yours
sincerely,
Encls: As above.
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary
General.
Copy with the request for necessary action to:
(1) The DG, HRM, CBIC, New Delhi.
(2) The Principal Commissioner (Coordination), CBIC,
New Delhi.
(3) The Joint Secretary (Admn), CBIC, New Delhi.
(4) Director, Ad IV, CBIC, New Delhi.
