Prime Minister’s Office, 12/07/2020

New Delhi (India)

Re:- Consequences of protecting and promoting officers with corruption/bribe taking antecedent and
harassing whistle blower in our PSU bank/insurance

Hon’ble Sir,

In india we have mandatory guidelines of our Hon’ble Supreme Court/ Rajasthan High Court / Central
Vigilance Commission against protection and / or promotion of a public servant caught red-handed in
the act of bribe taking ; a serious moral turpitude ;

authority Month / year Page no. of this representation

Central Vigilance Commission December 1999 3 ; event no. 3

Rajasthan High Court Reported February 22; 2017 Page no. 8

Supreme Court of India reported in 2001 (6) SCC 584 Page no. 8

being a consistent whistle blower of our PSU Insurance I bring to your kind attention that one or more
insurance employees under the administrative authority of our Ministry of Finance, Department of
Financial Services (DFS) get protected for about one and half decade and thereafter awarded with bright
future {details as per attached event no.3, event no. 5 ; event no. 19.b ; event no. 23.b; event no.26}

On the other hand the Privileged and powerful decision makers including their un-registered
association, namely GIPSA rushes to High courts indulging in complex labyrinth of litigations {details as
per Page no.2} so as to cripple an honest citizen’s of India’s Right to earn a livelihood ; access to
transparent information; cognizance against institutional dishonesty , lack of transparency and
systematic abuse of public money keeping the status quo of protecting the insurance mafia.

I seek your immediate interference to quash the resolution that empowers our PSU insurance
management to abuse public money for un-abated protection of employees with history of bribe
taking. I also seek your interference to recall all proceedings against me initiated since February 2008
that isolate and destroy the career of an honest Hindi Translator on account of workplace jealousy.

Regards,
ShriGopal Soni ,C-231, Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer-305004 <revribhav@gmail.com>

91-9414982395 https://twitter.com/revribhav

Enclosed :-Page no. 2,3,4,5,6 ,7 and 8 drafted/quoted by applicant.

Annexure from ShriGopal Soni,C-231, Panchsheel Nagar,Ajmer-305004

apex decision maker’s of India’s Corporation/association ; Address

PSU non-life insurance
1. Mr. Dinesh Vaghela * officiating The Oriental Insurance
CMD, {event no.24.a}
<cmd@orientalinsurance.co.in>
2. Ms.Tajinder Mukherjee ; CMD, National Insurance Company
<cmd@nic.co.in>,
3. Mr. Atul Sahai ;CMD , {event
no. 22}
<cmd.sectt@newindia.co.in>
4. Mr.Girish Radhakrishnan ;
<cmd@uiic.co.in>,
5. Mrs. Alice G Vaidyan;
<cmd@gicofindia.com>
6. Mr. Debasish Panda, Secreatry
< secy-fs@nic.in>
6. (GIPSA),
harish.gipsa@gmail.com
regulator as per the
General Insurance Act
Company Ltd {OICL}
Limited {NICL}
The New India Assurance
Company Ltd; **{NIACL}
United India Insurance Co. Ltd
{UIICL}
General Insurance
Corporation Of India {GICRe}
Department of Financial
Services;
{DFS}, Ministry of Finance,
General Insurers Public Sector
Association {an association of
above no.1,2,3,4 and 5}
Oriental House, A-25/27 ,
Asaf Ali Road,New Delhi -
110 002.
3, Middleton Street
Kolkata -700 071.
87, M.G Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400 001.
24, Whites Road,
Chennai - 600 014.
Suraksha, 170, J Tata
Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai – 400 020
3rd floor JeevanDeep
Building, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-- 01
Ground Floor, 5, Jeevan Tara
Building, Sansad Marg, NEW
DELHI-110001.

Approximate loss is Rs. 2.1 million per month in each PSU non life insurance :- every member of GIPSA ,that
is, NICL,NIACL,OICL,UIICL incurs expenditure of about Rs. 1.5 lakh upon vigilance officer (VO) in each
regional office (RO) & Rs.2.1 lakh upon Chief Vigilance Officer(CVO) in their Head Office(HO).

The theory of preventive vigilance that, eventually, fails in practice.

The labyrinth of stay orders targeted exclusively against honest

whistle blowers, e. g. the applicant with no criminal antecedent:-

Stay Order dated Filed by Name of authority

1.12.2010 GIPSA (A powerful Delhi High Court
association enjoys public
Secured upon the argument money without W.P.C. 8041/2010
that GIPSA is a loose transparency) in secret
association and eventually collusion with (officially
GIPSA manages to escape challenging) the CIC
accountability under RTI
act,2005
9.04.2012 NIACL Head Office Mumbai Jaipur Bench Rajasthan
and Regional Office Jaipur High Court Civil Writ
Stay orders sought by and insist inter alia, that Petition 4007/2012
granted to artificial persons applicant was already
against reference of Union reinstated
of India {Ministry of Labour}
NIACL Dy GM escapes the Bombay High Court Civil
charge of embezzlement of Writ Petition 429/2013
30.04.2014 public money,though he
was called upon to attend
Stay order to deny access video conference from
of information to applicant Mumbai,he took tour by
air.Promoted as GM after
securing stay orders.

2
Events experienced by applicant, a whistle blower against insurance mafia :-

1 24/02/1988 Applicant is appointed as Hindi Translator in a PSU

Insurance company; the minimum qualification required is
that of second class graduate, a class-1 officer’s minimum
qualification was graduate in LIC/GIC
2 31.10.1991
OICL directions that If a Hindi Translator seeks transfer as Asstt.
he should be asked to forego additional increments..
3.## “effective N Vittal the then Chief Vigilance
punishment of Commissioner (authority equivalent to High court ) issues
corrupt through time bound directions for ensuring disciplinary action
traps” against alleged corrupt ; irrespective of criminal
proceedings. Copy is communicated to apex decision
No.3(v)/99/10
makers of PSU bank / insurance
Reported that an employees of NIACL (
January 2003 salary roll no.26019 **) trapped bribe extortion in
consideration of cheque release from the insured near
Jaipur (Rajasthan); the anti corruption law enforcement
catches him red-handed, forensic evidence that his trouser’s
pocket ,his hands turned red with gratification.
4 29.09.2003 Applicant is discriminated in promotion while
junior persons ,e.g. salary roll no.24449 promoted in the
NIACL {New India Assurance Co. Ltd}, where the slogan is
“follow the leader”
5 7.12.2005 Kamlesh Vasisht, the
then in-charge of NIACL regional Office Jaipur
communicates to law enforcement authority S R No. 26019
doubtful integrity officer’s misconduct that his act of bribe
taking is established.
She expresses her intent to remove the alleged bribe taker
from the services of NIACL
6 30.07.2007 Competent court of law
grants stay orders upon transfer orders issued to applicant
dated 5/6/2007 . A Hindi Translator is addressed as
assistant for the sake of transfer. S. B. Civil writ
petition no. 4575/2007 seeking equitable promotion of
applicant.
7 30.08.2007 NIACL RTI reply: A Non Matriculate

3
 employee cannot be promoted to the post of Hindi
Translator. {however, can be promoted as an assistant }
8-a 24.09.2007 NIACL replies that the balance of leave in
applicant’s account cannot be supplied as leave for
21/06/2007 to 31/7/2007 is pending in Jaipur
8-b 26.3.2008 One Harichand,
{misogynist on behalf of NIACL is pleased to

deposition write:-“It is surprising fact that

the wife of Mr. Soni is not
against wife of
following the Hindu Family
applicant}
Traditions as she is comfortable
away from her sick husband..” {Salary
No. 20676 is soon to be rewarded as
Dy Gen Manager}
9-a April 2008 Suspension order issued by name of applicant ,1975 rules;
altering his designation to assistant, no grave charge except
so called violation of discipline of leaving
headquarter{February 2008}.

No.
CONF/1463/08- 29/4/2008 CVC Office Memorandum :- cognizance on
9639
the complaint against isolation forced against the
applicant, CVC directs NIACL to ensure no harassment to
the applicant
9-b 14/11/2008 LIC to applicant:- Our
disciplinary process*,being based upon Principles of natural
justice, the enquiry/investigation officer without prior
intimation to charge sheeted employee (CSE) cannot include
deposition of any fresh witness than that of pre-declared.
9-c 10/12 Central Information Commission records

/2008 defence of NIACL respondents F. No. CIC/ AT / A/2008

/00535 :- “Appellant’s purpose is only to cause harassment and
loss to the public authority. He cannot be allowed to carry on his
activities.”

4
10 February 09 Rules of discipline are altered from

11/02/09 retrospective effect. Bribe taking is reported at Jaipur

NIACL, CBI entraps one B.K. Gupta; however, no one put
to suspension. RTI reply on behalf of NIACL:-“applicant
has expressed his opinion about state of corruption in its
confirmation asked information about third party, hence
denied”. ethics is that even CBI cannot deny information
of corrupt employees
11 2008-09 In the garb of domestic enquiry,
Investigation officer NIACL directs “written brief” from
one Harichand, it is deposed in the said brief that applicant
left headquarters to get stay orders.
12 12.02.2009 LIC informs: there is no provision of
such”brief” from a witness. (during domestic enquiry)
13 8.06.2009 LIC informs : The
disciplinary authority is required to submit complete
enquiry/investigation report before taking a decision in the
matter of charged employee.
14 14.05.2009 RTI to CVC reveals applicant that his
complaint was sent for necessary action to CVO, NIACL on
29/4/2008
15 27.06.2009 It (RTI of applicant) is a crude attempt to
confuse the different authorities & an attempt to escape
from the due process of law, observes one A R Sekar, GM,
NIACL
16 30.09.2009 No provision of taking cognizance on the basis of
joint representation of insurance employees. LIC RTI reply.
“There is no provision of delivery of communication to the
5.10.2009
delinquent employee at his home by the messenger. “
RTI reply of NICL
17 19.05.2010 Applicant’s RTI to apex
court that egregious corruption has eroded public confidence,
fwd by Add. Registrar to NIACL
18.a 3.01.2011
NIACL, a corporate person challenges the Govt order not to
Appeal No. supply information in terms of RTI Act, gets favourable
CIC/LS/A/2010/001130 order from Central Information Commission pertaining
to income computation with IT/TDS Challan,etc.
DS
of 4 persons required from Income Tax Department{CBDT}
CIC records: “Appellant stated that they
were themselves public authority”

5
 30/05/2011 Dept. of Official Language,Ministry of Home
18. (MHA) takes cognizance of Applicant’s complaint 10.5.2011
b
about protection to corrupt officials NIACL, forwards to
DFS.
NIACL chairman’s order sets aside the
19.a
June 2011 disciplinary penalties of 11/2009 ; yet ignores the principles
of natural justice ,inter alia, the directions of CVC as per
event no. 8; 10 to 16

19. July 28, 2011 The applicant receives e-mail from NIACL DGM in
b response to the whistle blowing entitled Re: Fw:
How corrupt officials are well paid with name
change in NIACL
“If you are so engrossed in fighting corruption etc why don't you
devote full time for the same besides using Law qualification for
practicing as a lawyer instead of trying to continue to be in service
whcih has certain limitations as you will be governed by CDA rules etc
which may not allow some of the activities” .
20 10.08.2011 Applicant’s RTI 13/6/11
forwarded by PMO : Delhi NIACL negative reply :
“Information sought by the applicant is nearly 23 years
old…”
21 15.09.2011 “Only when the competent authority is not available in the
R.O. matter is referred to HO.” DGM, RTI OICL informs
22 12.10.2011 Petitioner-applicant is otherwise employee of respondent
insurance company, Rajasthan High Court interim order in
S. B. (c) Writ Petition No. 14838/10
Mr. Atul Sahai, Chief Manager , informs
19/12/2011
there is NO existence of Hindi Translator in the NIACL {he
is presently the CMD, NIACL}
January 2009 Chief Vigilance Officer, NIACL replies the
CVC memorandum , she insists 3 times that Mr. Soni is
Hindi Translator
23.a 9.01.2012 {12-2011 DFS letter to Chairman NIACL ignored on

to 1-2012} applicant’s complaint of denial in promotion :-“denial of

fundamental rights”... doubtful integrity employee 26019
participates by virtue of his non suspension .
23.
b 01/10/2012 Doubtful integrity employee no. 26019 NIACL gets favourable order of
disclosure of Information from Central Information Commission{CIC}
in respect of marks obtained by 3 successful candidates in written
examination for promotion. Appeal No.
CIC/SD/A/2012/000536
24.a 15/01/2014 Mr. Mukund Pawar,Sr Inspector of Police on behalf of Cyber crime Cell

6
 Mumbai communicates call for enquiry dated 3.02.2014 complaint
against ShriGopal Soni filed by Mr. Dinesh Vaghela , the then DGM,
NIACL; he is presently the officiating chairperson of OICL (Page no.2)
no cognizance .

30/07/2014 applicant’s RTI 29/09/2010 Ranjit Gangadharan, Manager NIACL,a

Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/ PSU Insurance Public authority gets stay order from Bombay High
.b 2012/002361 Court to obstruct the Right to Information of applicant in respect of
CIC decision 20 May 2013 to disclose information to applicant; He gets
lavish tour of Rs.22710/-for in-person appearance at Delhi on
20/5/2013 though his presence was required by video conference

Reserve Bank of India, the financial regulator’s Chief Vigilance Officer

{cvo@rbi.org.in} forwards applicant’s concerns , entitled:-
.c 26.12.2014 GIPSA company’s tactics of Writ Petition to protect the corrupt abuse
of…

25 Case No. CIC/MP/2016/000371 Date of decision 30 Januray 2017

6/01/2017 CIC record the NIACL Jaipur respondent’s oral submission:- …
they further stated that the appellant was a terminated employee of
NIACL and had filed 100 RTI applications.
The appellant stated that he was proud of his record of making RTI
applications. (applicant’s reply)

26 a fully disciplined
NIACL,S.R. No. 26019
was seen in company
of most powerful
A.R.Sekar as on
20/07/2012; November ,2018 General Insurers Public Sector Association {GIPSA}an
December 2018 unregistered apex body frames scheme of immunity for decision
NIACL eventually makers of PSU non-life insurance Co.s euphemistically called : “legal
promotes regular and financial support to serving/retired employees/officers .. against
employee with legal cases arising out of bona fide execution of Company’s work”.
S.R. No. 26019 The scheme benefits the workplace psychopaths and their promoting
managers who somehow get rewarded in our PSU Insurance.

7
  Why staff caught taking bribes not dismissed: Rajasthan high court

TNN | Feb 22, 2017, 11:11 IST

JAIPUR: Coming down heavily on government employees caught red-handed while accepting
bribes, the Rajasthan high court has asked the state to explain why such personnel were being
granted subsistence allowances.
The high court observed that it was a well-established law that even during the pendency of the
criminal case, a departmental inquiry could be held and the services of a corrupt official can be
dispensed with by passing an order of dismissal.
The single bench of Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia has directed the chief secretary to file an
affidavit as to how many employees who were caught red-handed while accepting bribes were
continuing even after suspension or have been reinstated. The chief secretary has been further
directed to explain why the services of these employees were not terminated and why they were
being paid subsistence allowances or were allowed to continue on the rolls of the state
government.
The matter would be heard again by the court on March 21.
Justice Ahluwalia passed the interim order while hearing the petition of one Sugar Singh, who
has been contesting his suspension from the services since August 2015 on charges of being
caught red-handed accepting bribe.
The high court remarked that it cannot become oblivious to the fact that due to poor
infrastructure, less number of courts was constituted to try corruption cases. The trial of
corruption cases was often delayed and the outcomes eluded the state for more than
decades, Justice Ahluwalia noted. He asked the state to evolve a system so that even during the
pendency of criminal trials, the services of the employees caught accepting bribes could be
terminated…

……………………………………………………………………………………..

At this juncture, it is worthwhile to extract the views of the Supreme Court in cases relating to
corruption, in K.C.Sareen v. CBI, reported in 2001 (6) SCC 584,
"Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have
started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles
are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functions of the public and impeded
from gripping the normal and orderly functions of the public offices, through strong legislative,
executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of
such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic policy.

Profit ration of corrupt public servants could garner momentums to cripple the social order of such
men are allowed to continue to manage and operate public institutions. When a public servant was
found guilty of corruption after a judicial when a adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law,
judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior Court.
The mere fact that an appellate Court or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to
go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even
temporarily absolve him from such findings.

If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he
is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of conviction it is public
interest which suffers and sometimes even irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted of
corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office it would impair the morale of the other persons
manning such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in
such public institutions besides demoralising the other honest public servants who would either be the
colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person.

If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of
the suspension of the conviction the fall out would be one of shaking the system itself.

Hence it is necessary that the court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for
corruption charges to hold only public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial
adjudication at the appellate or revisional level.