Employee Sues Capgemini CEO For Cheating, Forcing To Resign; This Is What Court Said
A complaint has been registered against three officers of Capgemini India Private Limited by a woman who is accusing them of cheating and threatening her.
The complaint has been filed against some top level employees of the company. However no action has yet been taken by the court.
Read on to find out what is happening at Capgemini India right here!
Software Engineer Files Criminal Complaint against Capgemini India and 21 Officers
Roshni Roy who is a 42-year-old software engineer has now filed a criminal complaint against Capgemini India and 21 of the company’s officers. The charges against them are criminal breach of trust, cheating, harassment, exploitation and coercing her to resign for years.
This complaint has been filed against the group chairman and CEO, Paul Cermelin, company CEO, Ashwin Yardli, chairman Shrinival Kandula and others.
Roy has been the employee of Kanbay Software India Ltd, which was acquired by Capgemini Services India Ltd.
As per Roy she was constantly pressured to resign to which she buckled and resigned in May 2011. However immediately she requested the company to allow her to withdraw her resignation at the instance of a new supervisor. However when the company did not allow her to do so she went ahead and filed a complaint against the company. A civil suit was filed and also was withdrawn on the assurance that if it was withdrawn she would be permitted to withdraw her resignation.
however she has also stated that she is being discriminated against in various factors such as promotion increment and bonus. There also was an attempt to demote Roy, as per her allegations.
Capgemini‘s Officers Seek Quashing of the Issue Process Order
The three officers, Cermelin, Yardli and Kandula, have filed for a revision and sought the quashing of the issue process order by their representative lawyers, Harshad Nimbalkar and Shivam Nimbalkar.
As per Nimbalkar, “The petitioner is CEO in Capgemini in France. He works outside the territory of India and has nothing whatsoever to do with the allegations made in the complaint. He never came in direct contact with the complainant.”
He further submitted that the dispute is of civil nature and complainant has tried to colour it with allegations of criminal nature, pointing out that the complainant is still working in the company.
“All three officers against whom the process was issued reside out of the jurisdiction of the court. The provision of section 202 is mandatory and issuing process against the officers without following the mandate of this provision has prejudiced and affected their substantive rights,” he added.
The sessions court of SM Agarkar has said that the complainant has not disputed the fact that the accused is located in France and that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrate who issued the process.
The court has also observed that the complainant’s accusations that are levelled in the complaint prima facie do not include any cognizable offence, and that this calls for a careful scrutiny of the material before issuing the process. The court has stated that from the process order it is clear that the magistrate has not done the required exercise, The magistrate has not properly appreciated the material on record and has issued the process mechanically which results in non-sustainability of the impugned order and that interference is needed.