ENQUIRY REPORT

Enquiry Report of Mr. Yagniah, Enquiry Officer in relation to enquiry conducted into the charges leveled against Mr. T
Venkat Reddy, Job Opted Seasonal employee, No: 404108, Centrifugal Operator, Process Department, Nizam Deccan
Sugars Limited, Mutyampet, Metpally Unit vide charge sheet dated 27.11.207.

Introduction:

The under signed was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide a letter dated 19.02.2008 of the Management of Nizam
Deccan Sugars Limited, Metpally Unit to conduct Domestic Enquiry into the charges leveled against Mr. T Venkat Reddy,
Job Opted Seasonal employee, Centrifugal Operator, Process Department, Nizam Deccan Sugars Limited, Mutyampet,
Metpally Unit vide charge sheet dated 27.11.2007, in the Admn. Office of Nizam Deccan Sugars Limited, Mutyampet,
Metpally Unit. Accordingly Mr. Venkat Reddy was intimated by letter dated 12.03.2008 that enquiry would be conducted
on 19.03.2008 from 2.30 PM onwards.
The enquiry was commenced on 19.03.2008 at 2.30. PM., as was scheduled. Mr. M Suresh Reddy, Personnel
Department, was present as Presentation Officer on behalf of the Management
The Charge-sheeted workman, Mr. T Venkat Reddy, was absent. Though, the enquiry was scheduled at 2.30. PM
the under signed waited for the charge-sheeted workman till 5.00 PM in the evening. But the CSW did not attend the
enquiry.
In view of his absence, the enquiry was postponed to 24.03.2008 at 2.30 PM in the same place and premises.
Accordingly on the same day i.e., on 19.03.2007 I have issued an enquiry notice, intimating the CSW that I would conduct
the enquiry on 24.03.2008 from 2.30 PM on wards.
Again on 24.03.2008, the enquiry was resumed as scheduled in the Admn. Office of Nizam Deccan Sugars
Limited, Mutyampet, Metpally Unit at 2.30 PM., as scheduled.
Mr. M Suresh Reddy, Personnel Department, was present as Presentation Officer on behalf of the Management.
Though, the enquiry was scheduled at 2.30. PM, the undersigned waited till 3.30 PM for the Charge sheeted
workman, Mr. T Venkat Reddy. But he did not attend the enquiry.
The Charge sheeted workman was set ex-parte, as he failed to attend the enquiry on two occasions i.e.,
19.03.2008 and 24.03.2008, though he received the intimation of conducting enquiry from the Enquiry Officer. The CSW
was given reasonable opportunity to defend the charges, but he did not avail. Hence he was set ex-parte and proceeded
with the enquiry on 24.032008.
Charges in brief as per charge-sheet dated 27.11.2007:
It was alleged in the charge sheet dated 27.11.2007, issued to Mr T Venkat Reddy that he was working as
Centrifugal Operator (Job Opted Seasonal) in Process Department; that vide transfer orders dated 08.10.2007 his services
have been transferred to Metpally Unit; that he was advised to join immediately at Metpally Unit, in view of the exigencies
of work and administrative reasons; that since there was no response from his end nor joined to his duties once again he
was advised to report to duties by their Office letter dated 31.10.2007; that also in his own interest, he was advised by
another letter dated 07.11.2007, since the season was being commenced on 13.11.2007; that inspite of transfer order and
repeated reminders he had not joined to his duties at Metpally unit till that date; that they have received a letter dated
20.11.2007 without any valid reasons; that his absence from 15.10.2007 will amount to unauthorized absence; that on
10.11.2007 he has participated in a dharna organized by the TRS party; that he has instigated co-workers to leave their
workplaces and to participate in the dharna along with him and that he was resorting to such activities which may cause
damage to the harmony and discipline of the other workers.
At the outset, the Presentation Officer has placed the following documents, in the enquiry, in seriatim and they
were taken on record as Management Exhibits.

S No Date Description of the document Ex. No.

1 19.03.2008 Letter issued to the Enquiry Officer by the Genera Manager, Ex. M1
Metpally Unit that Mr. M Suresh Reddy will be the Management
Representative and will submit the necessary papers.
2 O4.03.2008 Letter addressed by the General Manager to the charge-sheeted Ex. M2
workman that Mr. Yagniah has been appointed as Enquiry
Officer in the Place of Mr. G Suryam, to conduct the enquiry.
3 06.12.2007 Intimating Mr G Suryam by the General Manager that he was Ex. M3
appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against the
Charge-sheeted workman
4 06.12.2007 Letter of General Manager intimating the Charge-sheeted Ex. M4
workman that Mr, G Suryam has been appointed as Enquiry
Officer
5 27.11.2007 Charge-sheet issued by the Genera manager to CSE and itsEx. M5
acknowledgment
6 04.12.2007 Explanation offered by Mr. T Venkat Reddy to the Charge-sheet Ex. M6
dated 27.11.2007
7 08.122007 Transfer Order issued to the Charge-sheeted workman. Ex. M7
8 08.12.2007 Relieving Order of Mr. T Venkat Reddy, Ex. M8
9 27.10.2007 Representation of the CSW given to the General Manager, Ex. M9
Metpally
10 31.10.2007 Letter addressed by the General Manager to CSW asking him toEx. M10
 come and join to duties.

11 07.11.2007 Letter addressed by the General Manager to CSW asking him to Ex. M11
come and join to duties immediately
12 12.112007 Copy of the letter by the General Manager to General Manager, Ex. M12
Metpally
13 11.10.2007 Complaint given by Mr Ratan, Security Officer, Medak to Genera Ex. M 13
manager, Medak.
14 24.01.2008 Copy of the letter by the General Manager to General Manager, Ex. M14
Metpally, with regard to the activities of Mr. T Venkat reddy.
15 28.02.2008 Copy of the letter by the General Manager to General Manager, Ex. M15
Metpally

Statement of Sri B Soma Raju, Dy General Manager (Process) – MW -1:

I am working as Deputy General Manager (Process) since 2004 in Nizam Deccan Sugars Limited, Metpally Unit.
Earlier to this, I worked as Head of the Process department in Medak and Shakarnagr Units of Nizam Decan Sugars
Limited.
I know the Charge-sheeted Workman Mr. T Venkat reddy. He has been working as Centrifugal Operator since
2002 in Nizam Deccan Sugars Limited, Medak Unit. He is a job Opted seasonal employee.
At our Metpally Unit, as a part of modernization of the plant, we have installed two new centrifugal machines (‘A’
side). The workmen, who are working here, are new to these machines and they have no working knowledge of these two
machines. Since these two machines are new ones and require an experienced centrifugal operator to handle the
machines carefully. In this background on my request, my General Manager, Metpally had requested the General
Manager, Medak to send one of their experienced centrifugal operators to handle the new centrifugal machines for this
season 2007-08. We further requested to send the operator, who is having experience, during the month of October, to
take trails of the new machines in the presence of the Principal supplier of the machine
Accordingly the Management transferred Mr. T Venkat reddy, Charge-sheeted workman, Centrifugal operator as
per Ex. M7 and he was relieved on the same date i.e., 08.10.2007 by the General Manager, Medak (Ex. M8). But he did
not join. Our General manager asked him twice (Ex. M10 & M 11) to come and join at Metpally.
Since the CSW did not join to duties at Metpalli, inspite of repeated reminders of the General Manager, Metpally,
the General Manager issued charge-sheet dated 27.11.2007( Ex. M5), offering his explanation. The explanation submitted
by the CSW (Ex. M6) was not satisfactory, intimated the CSW that an enquiry would be conducted against him (Ex. M4).
I further submit that it is learnt from the Ex. M12 to 15 that the CSW has participated in the Dharna organized by
TRS on 10.11.2007 and provocated the employees against the Management during the meeting and further that the CSW
along with Mr. P Siddi Ramulu Goud caused nuisance in front of the Factory main gate at Medak and that CSW forcibly
entered into the premises by pushing aside the security people and also prevented the workers from attending to their
duties.

Statement of Mr. G Sridhar Reddy, Asst. manager (Personnel) – MW 2

I, G Sridhar Reddy, am working as Asst. Manager (Personnel) since October 2007. I know the CSW. On
exigencies of work Mr. T Venkat Reddy, Centrifugal Operator (JOS, the CSW has been transferred to Metpally Unit and was
relieved on 08.10.2007 (Ex. M7 & 8). But it has REPEATEDLY BEEN INFORMING BY THE General Manager, Metpally Unit
that the CSW has not joined to duties at Metpally and that he has addressed letters to the CSW under Ex. M 10 & M 11
advising the CSW to join to duties immediately. But inspite of this the CSW did not join.
This being the position, on 10.11.2007 the TRS, a local political party, has organized a dharna at Medak and the
CSW also participated in the said dharna. In the said dharna the CSW has provoked the employees to agitate against the
Management. He further forcibly, along with his followers, entered into the factory premises by pushing aside the security
personnel at the gate. And also CSW pushed the security Officer, Mr. Ratan, who on duty on that day and entered into the
factory. I have also seen that the CSW was provocating his co-employees to agitate. The above incident was brought to
the notice of the General Manager, Medak unit and in turn the General Manager informed to GM Metpally Unit vide Ex. M12
and Ex. M13. Likewise he further participated in a meeting by Mr. Chukka Ramulu on 23.01.2008 and in a dharna
organized by the Job Opted Employees of NDSL, Medak Unit and behaved in above manner. The same has also been
brought to the notice of GM Metpally UNIT BY GM Medak Unit (Ex. M14 & M15).
It is true that he is an Office bearer of the said Union. But he is not a protected workman. As per rules laid
down, any union has to make an application to the Management for recognizing the list of Office Bearers supplied by
the Union as Protected Workmen. In turn the Management has to recognize the said workmen/Office bearers as Protected
Workmen and to be intimated to the Unionin writing. But in this case the Union had not made any application so far to the
Management for recognizing certain number of Office Bearers as Protected Workmen or the CSW. The CSW is creating
problems and causing disturbance for smooth running of the crushing season.

Statement of Mr. B Ratan, Security Officer, Nizam Deccan Sugars Limited, Medak Unit – MW -3

I, B Ratan, am working as Security Officer through Front line management Serices for Nizam Deccan Sugars
Limited, Medak Unit. I know the CSW, Mr. T Venkat reddy. I was told that he was transferred to Metpally Unit. On
10.11.2007, the TRS has organized a Dharna infront of the Factory gate from 10.00.AM to 5.00 PM. I was on duty on that
day and I was asked to be at the gate to avoid unforeseen disturbances. On that day the CSW Mr. T Venkat reddy and Mr.
P Siddi Ramulu Goud have come and joined in the Dharna. Both CSW and Mr. Siddi Ramulu Goud have exerted pressure
and they created a scene in front of the gate by threatening the officials, if they were not taken into service. At one time
Mr. Venkat reddy did not heed to the advices and crash the gate into the factory by pushing away my security guards, who
are on duty, in which two of the guards fell down. The CSW shouted on me and pushed me aside and entered into the
factory premises. The CSW also called the workers who are going to the shift to join him and thus prevented the workmen
from attending to their duties. This incident has been brought to the notice of the General Manager, Medak in writing (Ex.
M13).

Evaluation of evidence and findings:

A Charge sheet dated 27.11.2007 was issued to Mr. T Venkat reddy, Job Opted Seasonal employee, EMP No:
404108, Centrifugal Operator, Process Department, Nizam Deccan Sugars Limited, Mutyampet, Metpally Unit making
certain allegations against him, out of which the following issued arise for determination.
Issue No: 1: whether Mr. T Venkat Reddy has disobeyed the Transfer orders of General Manager, Medak.
Issue No: 2: whether Mr T venkat reddy has participated in the Dharna and tried to enter into the Factory premises
forcibly.
Issue No: 3: whether Mr. T Venkat Reddy has resorted to such activities which may cause damage to the harmony and
discipline of the other workers.
Issue No: 4: Whether Mr T Venkat reddy is a protected workman.
MW1 stated in his evidence that as a part of modernization of the plant, we have installed two new centrifugal
machines (‘A’ side) and that the workmen, who are working there, are new to these machines and they have no working
knowledge of these two machines. Further that they need an experienced centrifugal Operator to handle the machines.
He further stated that they requested the General Manager to send him in October for taking trails. He has not joined to
duties inspite of reminders of General Manager, Metpally.
MW2 stated in his evidence that the CSW has participated in the dharna organized by the TRS Party. In the said
dharna the CSW has provoked the employees to agitate against the Management. He further forcibly, along with his
followers, entered into the factory premises by pushing aside the security personnel at the gate. And also CSW pushed the
security Officer, Mr. Ratan, who on duty on that day and entered into the factory. Likewise he further participated in a
meeting by Mr. Chukka Ramulu on 23.01.2008 and in a dharna organized by the Job Opted Employees of NDSL, Medak
Unit on 27.01.2008 and behaved in above manner. MW2 further stated that Mr. T Venkat Reddy is not a protected
workman as the Union had not made any application so far to the Management for recognizing certain number of Office
Bearers as Protected Workmen or the CSW. CSW is creating problems and causing disturbance for smooth running of the
crushing season.
MW-3 stated in his evidence that on 10.11.2007; the TRS has organized a Dharna in front of the Factory gate
from 10.00.AM to 5.00 PM. He was on duty on that day and he was asked to be at the gate to avoid unforeseen
disturbances that the CSW Mr. T Venkat reddy and Mr. P Siddi Ramulu Goud have come and joined in the Dharna. That
Mr. Venkat reddy did not heed to the advices and crash the gate into the factory and that the CSW shouted him and
pushed him aside and entered into the factory premises. The CSW also called the workers who are going to the shift to
join him and thus prevented the workmen from attending to their duties.
It can be seen from the above statements of MW1 to Mw3 that the services of the CSW are required at Metpally
Unit, He has not joined at Metpally inspite of the reminders of the General Manager Metpally, He has participated in the
Dharna and other meetings at Medak and he forcibly entered into the Factory and provoked the co-workers to agitate
against the Management.
I have also perused the reply, Ex. M6, submitted by the CSW to the charge-sheet. The stand taken by the CSW
that he had not received the Transfer Order or relieving order; that he cannot be transferred when the wage revision
meeting was pending before the ACL and that he is a protected workman etc. are no way helpful to the CSW and the CSW
is avoiding the transfer on some pretext or the other.
Being a senior employee of the Organization, he ought to have honored the orders of the Management keeping in
view of the requirement of his services at Metpally and ought to have joined at Metpally. But he failed to do so. It clearly
shows the indifferent attitude of the CSW.
As discussed above there is corroborative evidence of MW1, Mw2 and Mw3. A close reading of the evidence and
the documents filed during course of the enquiry it is evident that the CSW had not joined to his duties at Metpally Unit as
per transfer orders Ex. M7; he had participated in the Dharna organized by TRS on 10.11.2007 and in a meeting held on
23.01.2008 and on 27.01.2008 as per Ex. M12, M13, M14 and M15. And also it has also been established by the
statements of MW 2 and MW 3 that CSW had participated in the Dharna and other meetings and had forcibly entered into
the Factory premises by pushing away the Security Personnel. I have no hesitation to hold that he was resorting to such
activities which may cause damage to the harmony and discipline of the other workers as alleged.
In conclusion, I would like to say that all the charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 27.11.2007( Ex. M5)
are proved beyond doubt and I have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that Mr. T Venkat Reddy guilty of committing
misconducts as alleged in the charge sheet.

Enquiry Officer