Te To Date: 19-12-2014. ‘The Chairman, ‘Telangana Grameena Bank,(DGB) Nallakunta,Hyderabad Sir, ape? post Sub:- Representation of T.Venugopala Swamy, Officer, MMGS-II, (u/s) Telngana Grameena Bank,(DGB), for conduct of common enquiry Under Regulation No.42 of DGB Officers and employees Service Regulation 2010 - Request for conduct of common enquiry ~ Regarding. 1 Tenugopala Swamy, Officer, MMGS-IL(u/s), submit this representation for conduct of common enquiry under regulation No.42 and the representation are as follows:- 2) It is submitted that, some allegations leveled against me pertaining to the irregularities and fraudulent transactions through fictitious accounts in the name of the customer account and sanction of loan exceeding the discretion power. during the period while | am working as Accountant in Deccan Grameena Bank, at Renjerla Branch, Nizamabad District. 3) In fact, I worked in the Renjerla Branch from July 2011 to 29/10/2012 apart from this, there are 2 clerk cum cashiers namely Sri Gangadhar and Sri Laxmana Kumar , 1 Accountant and 1 manager namely Sri Bhoomanna and another Probationary Officer namely Umesh Kumar. 4) It is submitted that, for every transaction in the bank, clerk cum cashiers will create the voucher, there after it is circulated to the accountant for passing and in the case of accountant creates a voucher then the manager passes the voucher. Thus, all the 4 staff, clerk-cum-cashiers and accountant, Manager are entirely dependent on each other in every transaction , and as such without the knowledge of the each other person any irregularity or fraudulent transaction as alleged by the bank is totally far from truth and recorded facts and all of us 4 involved in ank transactions jointly and allegations leveled against me also common to all of us, for working in the same branch. 5) Initially our bank was issued a notice calling my explanation on the alleged charges vide Lr.no Gr/VI/F 15/2012-13/6790 Dt 13-2-2013 so as to reach by 25/2/2013, there after I requested for extension of time vide my letter dt.27- 02-2013 as I was in receipt of the said letter on 26/2/2013, and the time was permitted up to 08-03-2013, there after I requested for supply of documents vide my letter dt.05-03-2013, and the bank permitted to visit the branch by letter no Gr VI/F.15/2013-14/8753 dt.03-04-2013 and advised me to submit replies by 25/2/2013, but I could not visit the bank due to some health reasons and requested to send the documents through post by my letter dt.16-04-2013,ae and without sending the documents required by me , your kind authority decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings and charges framed vide your letter Gr.VII/2013-14/1696 dt.18-06-2013, and I submitted my replies on 09-07-2013, there after enquiry was ordered vide your kind authority order Gr VII/2013- 14/4569 dt.31-07-2013. 6) It is surprised thing to learnt by me that, your kind authority not only initiating disciplinary enquiry against me, but also against Sri M.Gangadhar, clerk cum cashier, Sri Laxmana kumar, Clerk-cum-cashiers and Manager Sri P.Bhoomanna, and they are also facing the enquiry on the similar charges, as leveled against me, but your kind authority ordered individual enquiry against all these 4 persons without ordering common enquiry as stipulated in the regulation No.42, of our bank. 7) I sincerely submit that, Regulation 42 of our bank, makes it very clear that, if 2 officers in different grades or any officer or /and an employee are involved jointly in an incident and disciplinary proceedings are sought to be instituted against both of them, your kind authority is competent authority to order for common enquiry against 4 of us , but the regulation 42 was not followed in my case, your kind authority with great respect would have initiated common enquiry under regulation 42 against 4 of us. 8) At this odd hour it is necessary to initiate common enquiry on the allegations leveled against all of 4 persons who worked at Renjerla Branch from July 2011to Oct 2012.otherwise , if independent enquiry carried then it is futile effort and each enquiry officer may follow different standards and yardsticks to arrive the truth and in it some one will be made scrape goat and he will be and the innocent officer/employee will be punished and it is always necessary to order common enquiry in such cases, therefore s regulation 42 was created by our bank. 9) In these circumstances, I request your kind authority , kindly take necessary action to order common enquiry under regulation 42 of our bank regulation 2010 against me and my colleagues who worked during the aforesaid period and the allegations leveled against me, and Sri Laxmana kumar and Sri Gangadhar, and Sri Bhoomanna, Manager and Umesh Kumar Probationary officer and order common enquiry against all of us to arrive the truth in the allegations by the same enquiry officer, otherwise there will be irreparable loss and injury to me and to avoid the same order common enquiry in the interest of justice. Yours faithfully, pes. T.Venugopala Swamy, Officer, MMGS-II,(u/s) Copy to the Inquiring Authority Sri S.Parthasarathy, Officer SMGS-IV, Head Office/Hyderabad for information with request to await the orders of Competent Authority to order common enquiry and in the mean time not to proceed withI Angad Hawi lw it Nallakunta, Hyderabad. BY SPEED POS' sir, Sub:- Submission of representation of _T.Venugopala Swamy, Officer, MMGS- Il (U/s), for engage of legal practitioner as defense representative for the purpose of ongoing enquiry under regulation 44 of our bank. Request ~ Regarding. 1, T.Venugopal Swamy, Officer, MMGS-II, (U/s) while working at Deccan Grameena Bank, R.0., Nizamabad District, placed under suspension, and submitting this representation to your kind authority as follows:- 2) Your kind authority decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings without supplying the documents required by me and without awaiting submission of explanation to your notice dated 13-02-2013, on certain allegations and irregularities and straight away decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings vide Ir no Gr VII/2013-14/1696 dt. 18-6-2013. As such I was the only accountant working in Renjerla Branch of our bank and below me 2 clerk cum cashiers namely Sri Gangadhar and Sri Laxmana Kumar, apart from Sri Bhoomanna, Manager above me, were also working in that branch, and all of 4 are dependent & inter dependent in each and every transaction of bank and nothing will be done without the knowledge of all these 3 cadres and ordering individual enquiry against me instead of conducting common enquiry under Regulation 42 of our bank regulation, causes great loss and injury. 3) Your kind authority earlier permitted to engage Sri Nandulal, Officer MMGS-II, working at Chennur, as defense representative to assist me in the on going enquiry, and he had attended 4 times , there after a memo was issued to Sri Nandulal, pertaining to the charges of 7 years back , there after he has with drawn as defense representative to me on the health ground, but he is discharging his duty at Saroornagar Br. , Hyderabad regularly , if that is the case of health ground, he would have not attended the bank regularly. Neer ee cesar errr eneryears back, there after the with drawl from defense representative in my case, after that he was also discharged on the aforesaid charge by our bank, and the bank intentionally issued charge memo to Sri Nandulal, after engaging him as defense representative and there after with drawn the same, -and no employee or officer is coming forward to assist me as defense representative in the ongoing enquiry , such a terror was created by raising a charge of 7 years back issues in the case of Sri Nandulal by our bank and I made several efforts and made several requests to our senior officers and my colleagues and our bank association members also, but no body expressed any willingness to come forward to act as defense representative in my on going enquiry due to the fear created in the case of Sri Nandulal, by our bank. 5) I sincerely submit that, there are restrictions to engage a legal practitioner as defense representative in our bank enquiry, but regulation 44 makes it very clear that, for the purpose of any enquiry under this regulation, the officer or employee shall not engage a legal practitioner till the prior permission of the chairman, who is the competent authority. Your kind authority is the competent to accord prior permission in the rarest circumstances to me , as no body is coming forward from our bank to assist me as defense representative. 6) Therefore, I request your kind authority, permit me to engage a legal praviitionsr a my defense representative in the ongoing enquiry against me, as the enquiry officer strictly warned me vide his letter dt.11-12-2014, that, in the case , if I failed to attend the enquiry on 22-12-2014, with my defense representative then he will proceed to conduct ex-parte enquiry and in the case of ex-parte enquiry, then I will be put to irreparable loss and based on such ex-parte enquiry report your kind authority may take harsh steps to punish me without permitting to put forth my case before the enquiry officer as per the principles of natural jai aquy and fair plays76) There is need and necessity at this odd hour for your kind authority intervention to permit me to engage a legal practitioner defense representative and also order the enquiry officer till your kind authority accord permission under regulation 44 of our bank to engage legal practitioner as my defense representative in the on going enquiry till then instruct the inquiry officer not to proceed with the enquiry and I expect your kind authority to issue necessary orders to accord permission to me to engage a legal practitioner as my defense representative. Yours faithfully, fo T.Venugopala Swamy, Officer, MMGS-II,(u/s) Copy to Sri S.Pardhasaradhy, SMGS-IV, /Inquiry Officer, Telangana Grameena Bank,(DGB) Nallakunta, Hyderabad is requested to treat this as rarest case and I sought intervention of our chairman to accord prior permission to me under regulation 44 to engage legal practitioner as defense representative till then await for orders of the chairman and not to proceed with the on going enquiry on 22-12- 2014, and do justice and in the case of conduct of ex-parte enquiry as stated by you in your order dt.11-12-2014, then I will be put to irreparable loss and injury and to avoid the same, kindly postpone the enquiry and await for the orders of our chairman and competent authority of our bank, apart from this I already submitted representation to conduct common enquiry as per regwlation 4@ of ovr Bank to our Chairman and do justice to me.