Learned Registrar, 2/04/2018

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi.

Sir,

Re:- SC/ST Act : Govt to file review petition in Supreme Court :Please record dissent

With reference to the above I am informed in the news bulletin of All India Radio dated 2/4/2018 that
The government will file a review petition in the Supreme Court today over its recent ruling on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.. (URL:- http://www.newsonair.com)

I request to record my dissent on the issue:-

(a) In a democracy, usually the Government seeks public opinion on the issue that affects public interests, however, no public opinion has
been sought by the Govt.

(b) An ordinary Citizen’s experience:- The prevalent system of staus quo ,usually, forces an ordinary citizen to pay bribe to those
who represent Public Sector/ law enforcement agencies;

I have a positive dream of not to pay or accept bribe. In retaliation, I stand victimized since February 2008 as a public servant with
the following nature of grave charges:-

Regards,

Shri Gopal Soni, 91-9414982395 C-231, Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer-305004

Aadhar no. 397082841702 attachment:- text of my relevant writ petition

 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

Diary No. 41357/2012

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. ………… of 201..

IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. Sri Shri Gopal Soni

Son of Late Johri Lal Ji
R/o C-231,Panchsheel Nagar,Ajmer-305004
… Petitioner Workman

Vs.

1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(NIACL)

Head Office,87,M. G. Road,Fort,
MUMBAI-400001.

2. General Insurers Public Sector Association

(GIPSA), Ground Floor, 5, Jeevan Tara Building,
Sansad Marg, NEW DELHI-110001.

3. Sri G. Srinivasan,CMD,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd(NIACL)
87,M. G. Road,Fort,MUMBAI-400001.

4. Divisional Office,New India Assurance Co.

Ltd.(NIACL),Kotwali Scheme, Khailand
Market,AJMER-305001

5. Parliamentary Committee on Official

Language,11,Teen Moorti Lane,
NEW DELHI-110011
 2

6. Rajasthan High Court,

Jaipur Bench,C-Scheme,
Jaipur(Rajasthan)-302005

7. The Presiding Officer,CGIT,

Distt. & Session Court Compound,
Jaipur Road,AJMER-305001.

8. Central Information Commission,II Floor,

August Kranti Bhavan,Bhikaji Kama Place,
NEW DELHI -110066

9. Mrs. Kamlesh Vashisht ,General Manager

National Insurance Company Ltd,(NICL)3,
Middleton Street, Kolkata- 71.

10. The High Court of Bombay,Dr. Kane

Road,Fort,MUMBAI-400032

11. Central Vigilance Commission (CVC),

Satarkta Bhawan,GPO Complex,Block A,INA,
New Delhi-400001.

12. General Insurance Corporation of India

(GIC),170,J Tata Road,Church Gate,
MUMBAI-400020
- - -

A Writ petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of Writ ,Order
or Direction:-

For the Enforcement of the Fundamental Rights of

the Petitioner ,a citizen of India, under Article
14,16,20(1) & 21 of the Constitution of India.

In the matter of corporate culture of impunity

whereby a coterie lavishly spends public resources
 3

as a matter of right but goes to any extreme to

oppose transparency to less fortunate citizen.

To,

Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and

His Lordship's Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India.
The Humble petition of the Petitioner
abovenamed.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

“Mr. Soni,…

I may advise you to put full stop to your legal

matters including your case for promotion.

As far as this country’s legal system is understood by

me, the winner weeps at home & the loser weeps at
court.”

The above e-mail was communicated to petitioner by a

Deputy General Manager (Personnel) of NIACL ,though
there is no formal reply, inter alia to the legal
notice sent by e-mail dated 20 November 2012,or
registered representation dated 24th February 2015 to
stop the abuse of public resources targeting the
petitioner annexed herewith as Annexure- P/ 13(a) page
no.69 and Annexure- P/ 14 page no.73 respectively.

That it is not abnormal for people of high integrity

to make a sacrifice to take up a stand on an issue of
great cause , humble petitioner , not part of the
crowd, pays the price of writing pointed RTIs
against status quo of inertia to abuse of public money
and corruption in retaliation it is propaganda of
contesting respondents ,since 2008 that petitioner is
“harassing and discomfiting” them.
 4

Contesting Respondent No.1 & 4, being Public Sector

Undertaking (PSU), are Head Office & reporting office
of the petitioner’s workplace.

The contesting respondents no. 2 consist of Chairman-

cum-Managing Directors of 4 PSU General Insurance,
companies, board members of a hitherto un-registered
association, GIPSA, performing public duty therein
while contesting respondent No.3 is chairman of both
GIPSA and NIACL.

That on behalf of respondent no.1* it has been stated

under oath of truth before the division bench of Bombay
High Court that(quote Para no.3) “The Vigilance
department of Petitioner No.1* works under the
supervision of the Central Vigilance Commission
“(CVC) in writ petition (Annexure P/ 9 page no.
58), which is suppression of material facts as per the
following:

Under the Public Interest Disclosure and protection of

informer resolution (dated April 2004) the respondent
No. 11 (CVC) issued an Office Memorandum No. CONF/
1463/ 08 dated 29/ 4/ 2008 directing respondent No.1
that no harassment be caused to the complainant, that
is, petitioner. Full text of the same is annexed in the
Annexure P/10(b) page no. 64

Ironically, the said respondent is not only unable to

provide protection to the petitioner but also to any
other whistle blower as it has replied to the
petitioner in respect of petitioner’s application dated
19/8/2015 under the Right to Information Act:-
“the Whistle Blowers Protection Act,2011” has not come
into force as on date and as the question of granting
protection to the Whistle Blowers under the said act
doesn’t arise.
 5

(c). There are about 30 complaints of petitioner

forwarded by CVC to Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO)
,NIACL. The petitioner never received any formal
communication from any official of NIACL except one
e-mail to congratulate the petitioner’s moral
success as a humble translator’s son secured a distinct
position in prestigious IIT-JEE . Full text of the same
is annexed in the Annexure P/12 page No. 68

All the NIACL/GIPSA respondents consist of public

servants in terms of Section 31 and are bound to follow
the directions of the Central Govt. as per the General
Insurance Nationalisation Act 1972 particularly
Section 19 (3), it reads:-

In the discharge of any of its functions, each

acquiring company shall act so far as may be on
business principles and where any directions have been
issued by the Central Government, shall be guided by
such directions.

That the respondent no. 5 is duly constituted under

section 4 of the Official Language Act, 1963, its
sub committee inspects Public Sector Undertaking
(PSU), Banks, Insurance Companies etc. to ensure the
implementation of said Act, Rules of Official
Language,1976

The Committee of Parliament on Official Language in

Sixth Part of its Report has recommended as follows:

Official Language cadre has been formed to the level of

Ministries of the Central Government as a result of
which a Junior Hindi Translator may reach up to the
post of of Director (OL) but there is no provision of
Official Language cadre in the Subordinate / Attached /
Undertakings/ Institutes/ Offices of the Government of
India. As a result, the officers / employees working
in the Official Language Section are deprived of the
 6

Departmental promotion because they are doing the work

of Official Language. Therefore ,in the above offices,
the promotion should be made on the basis of Official
Language Cadre or they may be promoted on the basis of
seniority in their Department.

The said committee, on the basis of above ,directed

the Respondent No.1 to do away with glaring anomalies
in the grade and pay scale, denial of promotion to
Hindi Translators in the NIACL.

That assurance was given by respondent No.1 as per

Annexure P/1 page no. 32 it remains mired in red-tape.

Respondent No. 6 & 7 are the competent court of law

and the industrial tribunal respectively

That respondent no.8 is a quasi-judicial body set up

under the Right to Information Act, 2005. During
calendar years 2010 till last hearing 2015 unlawful
advantages have been showered upon the contesting
respondents as the said commission invites respondent
NIACL’s comments as per format annexed in Annexure P/
8 (a) , page no. 50 however the said comments are
never communicated to the petitioner.

Respondent no.9 was the Regional Manager of NIACL at

Jaipur as on 7/12/2005 she issued speaking statement of
her intent to remove an NIACL corrupt official, though
the delinquent’s act was established ,head office
action remains awaited. She also issued a transfer
order dated 5.06.2007 to petitioner, the said order
sought to degrade a duly appointed Hindi Translator as
clerk /assistant. It has neither been set aside by any
authority nor the petitioner ever relieved from office
of respondent no.4

That the petitioner brought the attention of

promotional opportunity of the doubtful integrity
official by e-mail(s) to the then Deputy General
 7

Manager (Personnel) Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2011, of

respondent no.1 in reply of that he received advise of
full time to fight corruption , practice as lawyer and
a veiled threat of persecution, full text as per
Annexure P/13(c) page no.72

Thereafter a writ petition in 2012 was filed with

respondent no.6 to secure stay order to prevent timely
justice to petitioner; challenging order dated November
2011 of the Union of India advising respondent no.7 to
adjudicate industrial dispute between petitioner and
NIACL respondents within 3 months.

That a cyber crime complaint with Bombay Police dated -

-March 2013 was filed against petitioner , the copy of
the same has been denied to petitioner by contesting
respondents. Though respondent no.8 issued order dated
July 1, 2015 to respondent no.1 to provide point wise
reply keeping the provisions of RTI act 2005.

Nonetheless it turns out that no cognizance has been

taken by police. The petitioner keeps true evidence
of aforesaid association leaders including one of
salary roll No. 26019 well known for extorting
bribe with “Head Office” of NIACL (reproduced in Para
21), yet another writ petition has been filed as
bullying tactics to secure stay over petitioner’s
access to information before Bombay High Court,
Respondent no.10. Annexure P/9 page no.58 That
pertinent to mention here the reply of another PSU,
that is, Life Insurance Corporation, in respect of RTI
application dated 21.05.2012:- (Para 7) .
“we may state that writ petitions are usually filed by
the employees /former employees against the corporation
and not vice versa”.

That Law Commission of India, in the 145th report

concludes:- Litigation is an unproductive investment
both in time and money. Public sector undertaking and
 8

the Govt. have to conserve their resources and

determine priorities of expenditure by a judicious
approach. So that unproductive litigation does not eat
away large chunk of the scarce resources...

“At any rate it (PSU) cannot afford

to develop a litigious culture.”

Not only the above but also The National Litigation

Policy (2010) is scoffed by contesting respondents with
impunity. This policy is also based on the recognition
that it is the responsibility of the Government to
protect the rights of citizens, to respect fundamental
rights and those in charge of the conduct of Government
litigation should never forget this basic principle.

Stay Order Writ Motive Name of

dated Petition Court
filed by
01.12.2010 Respondent Escape the Delhi High
no.2 citizen’s Court W.P.C.
access to 8041/2010
information
09.04.2012 Respondent Escape the Rajasthan
no. 1 & 4 industrial High Court
dispute W.P.C.
proceedings 4007/2012
30 April Respondent Deny access Bombay High
2014 no.1 of Court W.P.C.
information 429/2014
to
petitioner

2. That 2006-07 was the peak year of

accountability and transparency in the NIACL. As
the Right to Information (RTI) was a new law
everyone who had skeletons in his cupboard was
under fear. The petitioner wrote an article upon
 9

the RTI it was not only published in the in-

house magazine “Darpan” of NIACL but also the
respondent No. 9 issued a “Certificate of Merit”
to the petitioner.
That before moving to the respondent no.6
seeking protection of law to save his lawful
post, which he was forced to vide S.B. Civil
writ petition No. 4575/2007 the petitioner wrote
the following representation to respondent No.1,
dated 10 May 2007
Subject : Last reminder to restore the post of
Translators and to correct anomalies in their
Pay scale
Sir,
In this matter I and the other translators have
drawn your attention vide the following:-
1.Original Dated- Trans-
representation 5/5/2006 lators
2.Reminder 1. Dated-17/ As above
11/2006
3.Reminder 2. 7/02/2007 As above
Representation 16/7/2006 As above
in support

In brief it is to reiterate that translators

were appointed on the basis of minimum
qualification of 50% second class graduate and
specialized knowledge of English and Hindi
however they have not been placed in the cadre
of senior grade commensurate to their
qualifications.
To add insult to injury the company has been
exhibiting in the salary sheet since Salary of
April 2006, translator as assistant though we
were appointed on the post of translator and
company has no right to alter our designation to
a post of lower qualification (12th pass).
 10

Therefore it is requested to you again to take

positive action of senior grade to translators
from their date of appointment & reinstate the
translator post in the company. We the
translators may resort to legal struggle if no
positive reply is received to us by 23-05-2007.

3. That following format was used on behalf of

respondent NIACL by a coterie who as a norm
caused loss of public money enjoying uncalled
for tour by flight as exemplified by table in
Para 5 and Para 19:-
CPI CELL/ HO/ year/ No…………Dated:..
Mr......Vigilance cell, Ministry of Finance,
/Central Vigilance Commission/..........delhi.
Dear Sir,
Ref: Information under RTI act,2005
We have received copy of application dated....of
Shri Gopal Soni vide your letter
No............dated received by us on......
Shri Gopal Soni is an Ex-employee of the Company
who was removed from the services of the
Company on various counts of misconduct under
the CDA Rules of the Company as applicable. He
has been making RTI applications seeking
information which is repetitive in nature
thorough frivolous and vexatious applications.
Till date Mr. Gopal Soni has made more than 240
applications with our Company. Though Shri. Shri
Gopal Soni is well aware of the names and
addresses of the CPIO’s of our company from whom
the information can be sought , he repeatedly
keeps on submitting applications to various
public authorities who in turn transfers the
said applications to our Company, thus
diverting the scarce resources of various
 11

Public authorities...............In view of the

above instead of entertaining and transferring
his applications, we shall be grateful to you if
his applications in future could please be
returned to Shri. Shri Gopal Soni.
That although the spirit object and preamble
of the RTI Act, 2005 is premised on disclosure
being the norm and refusal the exception yet the
Right to Information of petitioner is denied on
perverse hatred.

4. That contesting respondents enjoy a world

of absolute lack of transparency (where right
hand pretends not to know what the left hand is
doing) with success at any cost ,whether by hook
or by crook:-

(I) The petitioner’ cadre is shown distinct from

that of an assistant, as per the mandatory
list under the Transfer Mobility Policy
notified during 2007 on the notice board of
NIACL by Respondent no.9

S. NAME S.R. CADRE

No NO.. (as on
. 31/12/2006)
1. SHRIGOPAL SONI 24001 TRANSLATOR
2. SANJAY KUMAR VERMA 21545 ASSTT.(C)
3. KAILASH CHAND Khinchi 30477 RC

Issued by the then Chief Regional Manager,

respondent No.9 . Pertinent to mention here
that the subsequent order of 5.06.07 was
issued with distorted cadre of petitioner
as “assistant translator”, though petitioner
has lawfully been appointed as “Hindi
Translator”.
(ii). At the same time the GM-Chief Vigilance
 12

Officer of respondent NIACL repeatedly stated in

reply to Office Memorandum addressed to the
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) that the
petitioner is a Hindi Translator, she
stressed 3 times the specialized designation of
the petitioner, Hindi Translator, as per
Annexure P/10 (a) Page no.62
(iii) One A. R. Sekar, most influential person
in both GIPSA and NIACL ,from 2007-2014(first
quarter), in the course of his official duties
of General Manager-cum-Appellate Authority
(appeal no. 132/2007-08) issued order dated

13th March 2008.(extract), he suo motu declared

about the petitioner:-“As regards point no.5 of
the application the appellant being an employee
of the organization is well aware of his
designation which is that of an “Assistant”.
That Mr. Sekar not only exceeded the functions
of appellate authority, as providing information
is duty of CPIO but also he did not bother to
see appointment order of petitioner wherein
“assistant” has been erased as per Annexure P/4
page no. 38
(iv). That one Atul Sahai,Chief Manager,CORP:HRM
(corporate human resource management,
translated) disclosed on 19th December 2011 that
presently there is no existence of Hindi
Translator post.
That incredibly contradictory declarations not
only put a question mark on credibility of our
institutions but also the last information is in
defiance of settled law of hon’ble apex court as
annexed in Annexure P/7(b) page 49

5. That mis- management of public resources is a

norm without exception ,during calendar years
2010-2013 those in the Central Public
 13

Information (CPI) Cell of respondent NIACL

deliberately misread the notice(s) of the
respondent no. 8 (with copy to petitioner as
per Annexure P/8(a) page no.50) to attend
video conference. Instead the public servants of
NIACL lavishly spent scarce resources ,that is,
wasted precious time by claiming tour ,loss of
public money of approx. Rs. 10000/- to 25000/-
per person to claim habitual visit to Delhi,
Central Information Commission. That
there are 4 Companies called GIPSA companies:-
1.NationalInsurance Co. Ltd,(NICL) H.O. Kolkata
2.New India Assurance Co. Ltd,(NIACL)H.O. Mumbai
3.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd,(OICL) H.O. Delhi
4.United India Ins. Co. Ltd,(UIICL) H.O. Chennai
It was only the NIACL officials who, in
collusion, were witnessed incurring lavish
expenses of public money by uncalled for
personal visit ,e.g. on 17.05.2013
Appeal/ NIACL Flight
decision FAA/CPIO from
CIC/DS/A/2012/0 J.K. Indore
02690 Lakhania /Bhopal
CIC/DS/A/2012/0 A. L. Chandi-
02364 Madan garh
CIC/DS/A/2012/0 Vinay Mumbai
02272 Batra
CIC/DS/A/2012/0 S. K. Dash Mumbai
02457

Petitioner’s RTI raised issue of lavish expenses

claimed by a Deputy General Manager (DGM) who
enjoyed uncalled for flight at Delhi on
20/05/2013 +, instead of present from Mumbai.
The DGM retaliated by filing writ petition no.
429 of 2014 to Bombay High Court though NIACL
 14

officials were present in person at Delhi,

petitioner was heard from Ajmer, no cause of
action+ arose at Mumbai.
That the object of filing the writ petition is
twin fold:-
(a). Escape the misappropriation of public
money (b).Exploiting extremely limited means of
the petitioner.

6. That bizarre Contradictions are marked in 2

writ petitions against the petitioner filed on
behalf of NIACL:-
(a) That on the one hand while seeking stay
orders against the Central Government’s order
of reference of adjudicating the Industrial
Dispute between the petitioner and NIACL
with intent to deny the petitioner’s legal right
of relief it has been stated in the Writ
Petition No. 4007/ 2012,registered on 22.03.2012
before the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court
as a fact under oath of truth that:- “The
reference in regard to termination order dated
16.11.2009 is not tenable because the
petitioners vide order dated 9.06.2011 had
reinstated the respondent no. 4 in service.”
The ex-parte stay order to prevent petitioner’s
re-instatement was secured in April 2012,the
same month an envelope sent on behalf of
respondent no.1, NIACL reads:-
RTI Matter REGISTERED
Shri Gopal Soni
(Ex. Employee),

(b) The synopsys of freshly filed writ petition

states:-“The Respondent No.3 is a class
III employee of the Petitioner No.1 who is
 15

working as Sr. Asstt. In the Regional Office of

the petitioner No.1 at Jaipur. Accordingly to
the Respondent No.3 who belongs to SC Category
persons who were less meritorious were
promoted.”
Para No.4 of the same Writ Petition ,states
about the petitioner:-“The Respondent No.3 is
an ex-employee of Petitioner No.1 who was
working in the Jaipur Regional Office of the
Petitioner No.1 at Ajmer, Rajasthan.”
The fact is:-
The Petitioner is Hindi Translator since
appointment, does not belong to SC category.
Petitioner has never worked as “Sr. Asstt”
Those NIACL officials fully know petitioner
cannot afford to go to Mumbai to defend costly
litigation they enjoy spreading false rumours.
In respect of (a) Annexure P/6 page no. 42 and
(b) Annexure P/9 page No.58 are enclosed
respectively.

7. That "The government undertaking must have

human approach and should not indulge in the
jugglery of legal provisions as to deprive the
unfortunate victims of their legal due," a court
in Delhi said while imposing a cost of Rs 5,000
on New India Assurance Co. Ltd (NIACL) for
filing an appeal against an interim
compensation.
That instead of showing human face or an iota of
transparency the reply of NIACL under the Right
to Information Act in respect of news published
in the first week of May 2008 is:-“ The court
orders are available in public domain and we are
not the exclusive holders of information, hence
denied under section 2 (j) of the RTI Act,2005”
 16

8. That the petitioner suffers legal jugglery of

contesting respondents since 5.06.2007 as he
was forced to seek justice from High court for
lawful cause of injustice against Hindi
Translator.
(i) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.4575 / 2007
In respect of (i)the respondent No.6 granted
stay orders against transfer of petitioner which
remained effective up to 21st October 2011. That
an advocate the petitioner did not authorize was
presented, respondent NIACL concealed the
material fact that pending the stay order of
transfer ,as on 9.06.2011 the respondent No.1
issued yet another transfer, thus the high court
(formal party No.6) was misguided and
consequently passed the following order dated
21st October,2011 relying solely upon oral
submission of advocates; extremely contradictory
to written submission:- Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that petition filed against
the order of transfer has become infructuous as
subsequent to the order of transfer, order of
dismissal was passed and the same was maintained
in appeal. However, on memorial, punishment was
reduced but the petitioner has not joined the
services. Looking to all these facts, no
significance is now attached to the order of
transfer so as to press this writ petition. So
far as the prayer for promotion is concerned,
candidature of the petitioner was considered in
the year 2003 and 2006 but therein he was not
found suitable by the respondents, accordingly,
promotion could not be extended to.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
so far as order of transfer is concerned, it has
lost significance in view of the subsequent
 17

development. However, if the petitioner joins

the services, it may be kept open for him to
take up the matter for denial of promotion if so
desired.
I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties. So far as the
issue of promotion is concerned, same has
separately been challenged by maintaining
another writ petition.
Looking to the aforesaid, now the writ petition
for challenging to the order of transfer becomes
infructuous in view of the subsequent
development indicated above. Hence, the writ
petition for the purpose is dismissed. So far as
the question of promotion is concerned, it would
be decided by this court in writ petition
separately preferred and is pending for
consideration before this court(M.N.Bhandari)J.

That the reply on record supported by affidavit

of NIACL was “the promotion policy would be
placed before this hon’ble court at the time of
arguments” and that petitioner was un
fortunately not promoted and “can further be
promoted to the officer cadre”.
That legal manipulations as suffered by the
petitioner on influence of resourceful corporate
shall continue, unless the hon’ble apex court
intervenes to admit this writ petition &
pronounces rule of law that oral submission on
behalf of a litigant cannot be contradictory to
/ override the written affidavit of case file.

(ii)S. B. Civil Writ Petition no. 14838/2010

That when the wage revision of state owned
insurance sector employees during 2010 was due
 18

to be notified, without promised and admittedly

justified higher grade to Hindi Translators,
reasonably expected to be recommended by
respondent no.2 GIPSA, the petitioner ,for the
lawful cause of Hindi Translators moved the
aforesaid writ petition.
That advocate on behalf of GIPSA suppressed the
reference before it as per Annexure P/1 page
no.32 and thus escaped its accountability as per
Annexure P/2 page no.34
That it is because of stay orders ,as per table
on page no. 8,of Delhi High Court that
petitioner has not been able to get information
of action in respect of Annexure P/1 from GIPSA
That GIPSA ,being an authority without
responsibility has not bothered to be
transparent and reply to petitioner despite
cognizance and directions of the authority that
ordered for its creation, that is, Ministry of
Finance, its directions to GIPSA as per table on
Page B-1 of Synopsys.

9. That contesting respondents No.1 and 4 ,

conspired to abolish the petitioner's lawful
post of Hindi translator, accordingly, without
any vacancy of Hindi Translator, in the garb of
what they called Transfer Mobility Policy, an
order dated 5.06.2007 was issued, the same was
being challenged before respondent No.6 which
was registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4575/2007 and by way of order dated 30th
July 2007, the respondents NIACL were
prevented from effecting the transfer of the
petitioner ; that the text of the high court
order was:-“Issue notice to the respondents
returnable within four weeks. In the meantime
 19

order dated 5.6.2007 shall remain stayed”.

That pending the aforesaid the NIACL had no
legal right to transfer the petitioner however
,they playfully put the petitioner into
suspension, held two shoddy investigations the
same day, altered not only the definition of
rules but also the name of the rules too in
between the inception and completion of
investigation and the power of the chairman
that is positively used to transfer sick
employees who suffer grave diseases was
negatively used to transfer the petitioner
exceeding the duly notified transfer policy. The
text of the punitive transfer order dated
9.06.2011 issued by respondent no.1 is annexed
herewith in Annexure P/ 8(b) page no.52

10. That the terms of reference before the

respondent no.7 were:- (1). Whether penalty of
dismissal order dated 16/11/2009 against Mr.
Shri Gopal Soni by management New India
Assurance Co. Ltd, Ajmer is justified and
lawful? (2). Whether the transfer orders dated
9/6/2011 from Ajmer to Ahmedabad issued to
workman Shri Gopal Soni by management New India
Assurance while reinstating him are justified
and lawful? (3). Whether in consequence of the
said two orders of management dated
16./11/2009 and 9/6/2011 denial of arrears
of pay w.e.f. 1/8/2007,denial of increment of
pay to workman during years 2009,2010,2011 and
denial of back wages from 10/4/2009 till date
are justified and lawful.

11. That victimization in the name of so called

CDA rules of the company has systematically been
 20

perpetrated against the honest petitioner

because of deliberate disregard to ethics laid
down in the book of Do’s and Don’ts. The ethics
that prohibit the contesting respondents from
being whimsical in decision was supplied by the
Insurance Division of Ministry of Finance
to the petitioner vide letter dated 19th July
2012. It reads as under:-“Do not be arbitrary
and capricious in your decision. Your decisions
should be Justifiable and based on sound
reasons.”

12. That petitioner was forced into dismissal

with effect from 16 November 2009 on the basis
of a so called "gyapan" (vernacular term for
memorandum) wherein the only" grave" charge
ever alleged was (Translated extract)“The acts
of Mr. Shri Gopal Soni leaving headquarters
repeatedly without permission of competent
authority amounts to his grave violation of
company rules which is not expected from a
public servant (company personnel).
It is clear from the aforesaid that Mr. Soni did
not observe honesty and integrity to his duties
& he acted against the image of a public servant
& under prejudice to the interests of the
Company & thus violated rules3(i)(ii) (iii)
(iv)& committed misconduct under Rules4(1)
,(5),(6),(7),(8),(9),(16),(17),(20)& Rule 18(1)
& Rule 19of General Insurance Conduct Discipline
& Appeal Rules, 1975,as amended.”

13. That there was neither any serious material

against honest petitioner nor any lawful rule. A
chief Manager, Head Office NIACL admitted the
following as on February 21, 2010 vide ref.
 21

CORP.HRM.IDD:2010 :- “by oversight the CDA

Rules 1975 was mentioned”.
There are glaring loopholes in the CDA rules of
NIACL:-(a) The so called CDA rules of the
respondent NIACL do not address the issue of
NIACL public servants making /framing/adding/
abetting false or exaggerated deposition .
(b) That nowhere in the so called CDA rules of
2003 it is mentioned from where the power to
make rules flows.
(c). The Central Govt. clarified they have not
delegated power to make rules to either NIACL
or GIPSA (Annexure P/7(a) page no.48).
(d). According to the reply available with the
petitioner dated 04.06.08 reference
CORP:HRM:CLASS III & IV CELL:2008 information
supplied by one Inderjeet Singh, Manager, on
behalf of respondent no.1, the printed book of
“Conduct, Discipline AND Appeals” (CDA) Rules
was enclosed to the petitioner, its definition
of employees to whom the rules are applicable
reads:-‘Employee’ means an employee of the
Corporation and/or its subsidiaries.
The printed book cover says GENERAL INSURANCE
(CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE & APPEAL) RULES,1975
It states “Amended upto 31-12-2007” Further the
petitioner was informed the RTI reply issued by
A. B. Dange, Chief Manager reference no.
Corp:HRM:IDD:2009 dated November 9,2009:-
“No amendments were made to CDA Rules during the
period from 1st January 2008 to 1st May 2008 as
specified by the applicant”.
Pertinent to mention here the reply in respect
of petitioner’s application dated 22.07.2009
addressed to Ministry of Finance. The reply
issued by one J.P. Sheokand, Dy. GEN. MANAGER
 22

,on behalf of respondent no.1 states:

Item No.3.a & B: -“No identifiable information
has been sought under this item as no action has
yet been taken under CDA Rules. The Name of the
CDA Rules is The New India Assurance Company
Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules 2003
effective from 19.05.2003”

14. That article 20(1) of the constitution of

India guarantees rights against ex- post facto
laws. The respondents NIACL shockingly created
rules, effective from back date to penalize the
petitioner by hook or by crook which is
unconstitutional and mala fide with no force of
law.
It is most pertinent to mention here that one
S.K. Kundra merely a manager, who pretended
himself being competent authority was not
competent to dismiss the petitioner, a Hindi
Translator, by virtue of appointment. The
appointment letter of petitioner workman
(translated) annexed herewith as Annexure P/4
(Pages 38-39 ) states "Regional Manager" as the
appointing authority of the petitioner.

15. That it is against ethics to spread hatred

however one Mr. A. R. Sekar’s (photo page 29)
involved himself in acts against the honest
petitioner of impeccable record:-
(a). That rarest of rare kind of dismissal
orders against the petitioner were passed when
Mr. Sekar had direct influence in contesting
respondents, that is, GIPSA & NIACL obviously as
a punishment of daring to prove by way of RTI
act the wrongdoings, e.g. attempts to create the
retrospective rules despite no delegation of
power to make rules.
 23

(b).NIACL filed Writ Petition challenging the

order of Central Government to obstruct justice
to petitioner when Mr. A.R. Sekar was Ex-officio
chairman NIACL & director, GIPSA.
(c). That deliberately forgetting the basic
ethics that no public servant can be punished
for approaching the law seeking justice Mr. A.
R. Sekar, then senior most general manager of
NIACL, a public servant issued one of the
"orders " as per the following:-
Appeal No. 029/2009 Dated 25th June 2009
regarding RTI application dt.16/03/2009 "On
perusal of the Appeals ( numbering 74 as on date
) filed by the Appellant to the undersigned
against his 109 no. of applications under
RTI submitted by him to his Employer /
Committee of Parliament on Official Language /
Ministry of Finance ,Central Vigilance
Commission etc., it is noted that the appellant
is not interested in any genuine information but
is merely making an attempt to subvert the
mechanism of the Act for no public gain. His
umpteen applications are repetitive in nature
relating to domestic enquiry proceedings
against him and are designed not to elicit
information as defined in section 2(f) of the
Act but to cause discomfort to the
authorities concerned for having initiated
disciplinary proceedings against him ”.
That though Mr. Sekar retired during 2014 his
legacy of inciting hatred continues.
(ii)That two glaring examples of deposition of
witness during so called domestic investigation
against petitioner are:-
Mr. Harichand, the then in charge respondent
No. 4 indulged in deliberate obscene remarks
 24

,on the official letter head of the company,

dt. 26.03.2008 ,part of the exhibits against the
applicant ,on the basis of which the petitioner
suffers consequences of dismissal. It was an act
of spreading obscenity against the family of the
petitioner , he wrote in his own handwriting:-
“It is surprising fact that the wife of Mr.
Soni is not following the Hindu Family
Traditions as she is comfortable away from
her sick husband deliberately leaving the
children with him though it is apparent from his
letter there is no one else taking care of him”
.
One Mr. Prithvi Raj who reports to respondent
No.4, though he was not a declared
witness offered suo motu deposition duly signed
by him on 15.05.2009 -" Mr. Soni used to report
me for legal and Hindi department He used to
pollute the atmosphere by not working during
office time-He often used bilingual and non
parliamentary language and called officers
thieves saying CRM to SDM all are corrupt.
(Though) He himself was involved in her- pher
worth millions”. (translated)

16. That order dated 9.06.2011 was issued by

chairman of respondent no. 1 & 4 vide which
the authority observed:- On scrutiny of the all
the relevant documents pertaining to both the
disciplinary actions against Mr. Soni, I observe
as under:…. Hence, on consideration of all the
facts and circumstances of the case as also
to meet the ends of justice, …I hereby set
aside the Orders dated 5.11.2009 and 16.11.2009
passed by the Appellate Authorities.
That the said authority may have power to set
 25

aside the previous orders, however he had no

reason to inflict transfer going beyond the
directions of central govt., inflict fresh
punishments, denial of back wages, two
increments etc. upon fallacies and false
arguments, thereby causing legal fiction, e.g.
“English translated copy (was demanded) after
the inquiry commenced. He could have asked for
the same before sending reply to the charge
sheet” Whereas, it was, actually and repeatedly,
demanded by the petitioner.
It is a matter of record, the petitioner sent
only “Provisional” reply, there was no response
except apathy, eventually the respondent no.9
who was then the Regional Manager of NIACL
Jaipur, issued a letter dated 10/7/2008. She
denied the desired documents repeatedly
requested for defence of the petitioner arguing
that “charge sheet is neither an order nor
notice” despite the mandatory rule of law:-“The
Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of
the Union) Rules,1976:- (7). Applications,
representations etc.-iii) Where an employee
desires any order or notice relating to service
matters (including disciplinary proceedings)
required to be served on him to be in Hindi, or
as the case may be in English, it shall be
given to him in that language Without any
further delay.”
That petitioner was informed the following
reply dated 22/10/2009 in respect of his
RTI dated 14/11/2009:- “English version of
charge sheet was never supplied to you.”
That the term “charge sheet” is misnomer, the
term was nowhere used , it was a notice as
explanation of petitioner was sought.
 26

The defense of the petitioner was suppressed by

respondent no. 4 on account of whimsical
arguments as per Annexure P/8(c) page no.57
That text of chairman’s order is in Annexure
P/8(b) page no.52

17. That respondent no.3 Mr. Srinivasan was

issued directions from Director of Insurance,
Government of India ,Ministry of Finance, the
competent authority empowered in respect of
service matters, rules and regulations, in all
public sector insurance companies, in terms of
the General lnsurance Nationalisation Act-1972
,not to transfer the employees belonging to
Class III (of workman petitioner) beyond 150 Km
in ordinary circumstances and not beyond 200 Km
by the authority of Chairman dated 16.11.2010.
Text of the aforesaid direction is annexed as
Annexure P/5 Page no.40 .
That GIPSA, being not registered as an
association, argues it cannot legally sue and be
sued yet it spends public money of at least Rs.
Twenty thousand per month to an advocate.
The governing board that runs the association
enjoys absolute non transparency, there is no
website of the association.
The funds of association are not subjected to
statutory audit as per information available
with petitioner.

18. That Mr. A. K. Singhal while working as

Chief Executive of GIPSA, respondent no.2 cheque
of public money of about Rs. 35 lakh that was
sanctioned for the account of National
Insurance Academy (NIA),a public trust. It was
allegedly deposited into personal account of
 27

wife of the then NIA chief, Mr. Singhal was

subsequently promoted by NIACL.

19. The petitioner consistently raises the issue

of lavish spending by NIACL officials in the
garb of RTI Act, A sample list of the officials
who enjoyed uncalled for tour at the respondent
no.8 from Jaipur to Delhi by Air :-
Head wise NIACL NIACL Assistant
to
Expenses Appellate CPIO
Rs. CPIO
Authority
Air Fare ,
2703 5921 Travelled
with CPIO
Halting 1800 1550 1300
Allowance
Incidental Nil 700 600
Conveyance 900 Nil Nil

20. a).The Central Govt. asked the senior most

authority of respondent No.1 to follow the law
of transparency, The then CMD NIACL Mr. Ramdoss
was directed by the then Jt. Secretary,
Insurance Sector, Govt. of lndia, Ministry of
Finance, Mr. Tarun Bajaj.
"Forwarded [email protected]
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010
Subject: Fwd: RTI Appeal 24.11.10 from shrigopal
soni for disclosure pertaining to application
23.09.2010 To: [email protected]
Sir, Please look into the RTI appeal
attached herewith. Kindly intimate us of the
action taken.
(b). That the Ministry of Finance issued the
following letter to the Chairman, respondent
NIACL in the matter of arbitrary denial of
petitioner to the opportunity of promotion as
Hindi Officer:-F No. 11016/2/2012 Hindi Dated
 28

9th January 2012 Subject: Encouragement to

corruption and discriminatory denial of
promotion to honest Hindi Translator in
the insurance company “I have received a letter
from (Ministry of Home),Department of Official
Language in which it is mentioned that Mr. Shri
Gopal Soni, Hindi Translator is being denied
opportunity of written test as Hindi Officer.
The denial of an eligible candidate from test
amounts to violation of fundamental rights...”
(c). A sample list shows discrimination to
petitioner within Hindi Translators ,those who
had been junior to petitioner despite that
promoted , either not transferred or
transferred within a radius of 150 Km
1. Sanjot Vyas salary Roll No. 24929
2. Nasrullah Khan salary Roll No. 23734

21. That formal respondents No. 6 and 7 afforded

opportunity of mutual and inexpensive settlement
of dispute pertaining to S. B. Civil Writ
Petition no. 4007/2012 and case No. CITR 4/2011
respectively so that speedy justice is delivered
between industrial dispute of petitioner and
respondents NIACL by spirit of LOK Adalat,
on 9th April 2014 & 15/03/2012 respectively
at Jaipur and Ajmer. That the contesting
respondents refused to settle the dispute in the
spirit of LOK Adalat on both of the occasions.
On the other hand said Mr. Sekar who bitterly
condemned petitioner's Right to Information in
person was seen in the company of "office
secretary" of salary roll no. 26019 well known
for extorting bribe also one permitted an
altered name ,as on 20 July 2012 while visiting
Jaipur as ex-officio chairman NIACL, evidence :-
 29

Grounds:

1. Because the written assurance for justice to

Hindi translators is mired in red tape
2. Because NIACL and GIPSA officials are not
owners of public money; they are expected to act
as trustees of public money
3. Because oath of transparency in public life
is violated:- “we, the public servants of india,
do hereby solemnly pledge that we shall
continuously strive to bring about integrity and
transparency in all spheres of our activities”.
4. Because the respondent no.11 violates the
spirit of transparency, its RTI reply to
petitioner’s RTI of 7th July 2015 states:-“The
requested information is in the form of a query
which is not permissible under the RTI act”.
The desired information under Para 2 was:
Information of the time frame within which an
employee of a public sector undertaking is
required not to be paid salary once a court
order is passed holding him guilty of
corruption.
5. Because the respondent no. 8 is
“influenced” to dilute an ordinary citizen’s
access to information.
That after about 10 years of RTI act, petitioner
was advised on 1 July 2015 by said respondent
that his RTI applications were causing strain
upon limited resources of NIACL respondents.
However, it is only because of earlier orders
of 2007-08 that petitioner survives hate
 30

campaign unleashed against him. Consequent to

petitioner’s application dated 10.03.08
respondent no. 8 order dated 17.11.08 the
respondent no.1 had to disclose the petitioner
that those who regularly leave headquarters from
Jaipur to Delhi in the weekend include one Mr.
Kundra (who put signature upon dismissal order
of petitioner on the basis of a “grave”
violation allegedly of leaving headquarters) .
6. Because of organised dis-honesty :- That
despite Order of respondent no. 8 dated
15.03.2013 Para 5 ”The CPIO Jaipur is directed
to provide information whether the employee
identified in this point has been chargesheeted
by the department” (the alleged bribe taker is
seen in the photo of page no. 29) there is no
compliance.
7. Because the legal maxim “what cannot be
done directly cannot also be done indirectly”
applies. The contestitng respondents are so
manipulative that they have turned upside down
the remedy of writ petition to a citizen of
India pitted against agency of state.
8. Because oral submission without affidavit
of an advocate on behalf of an agency of state
cannot contradict written submission supported
by affidavit.
9. Because subordinate legislation-the making of
rules, regulations etc. in exercise of power
given by primary legislation -is a form of
administrative action. It is so treated in
America, in Britain also, and validity of
subordinate legislation is therefore subject to
normal law governing Judicial Review of
administrative actions.

That the petitioner has no pending petition in

 31

any tribunal, high court or the Supreme Court

on the subject matter of the present petition.

THE PETITIONER THEREFORE PRAYS

(a). For the Writ of Certiorari or any other

appropriate writ set aside the 3 writ petitions
that infringe the fundamental rights of less
fortunate citizen(s).
(b). a Writ of Mandamus to respondent no.1 for
maintaining the petitioner’s status as Hindi
Translator in the NIACL as on 5.06.2007 with all
consequential benefits.
(c). For directions to respondents that so
called disciplinary actions against petitioner
are void ab initio.
(d). For Compensation to petitioner ;not only he
alone his family suffer stigma for speaking out
against corruption.
(e) to pass such other orders and further orders
as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in
the circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER

AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY
Drawn and filed by:

(SHRI GOPAL SONI) (Update of 12.12.2012)

PETITIONER- IN- PERSON 30/09/2015