On consideration GR 6.4 + LR 2.1 + SR 1.3 + SR 5.11 | 114352 + 92013

[Aryan mishra]

At timestamp 1:25 in the POV I noticed ID 92013, a Minister of State with a brick hand tattoo, clear evidence of a prior criminal record, violating State Rule 1.3, as individuals with criminal records cannot join the organization. I informed ID 114352 about the tattoo, who publicly stated "Ok Sir you will be suspended for this please remove it" but took no further action such as firing or arresting him or even suspending him (can be seen in GOV logs after matching time). At timestamp 4:45 (Imgur link provided) ID 92013 is seen driving an organization's vehicle licence plate [2GOV129] which is impossible if suspended (can also check logs), and using it for personal purposes by giving rides to non Government or offduty individuals (ID 55563, ID 160493) violating the State Rule 5.11 as well. This indicates that ID 114352 is encouraging illegal activities, tattoos and misleading the public, violating GR 6.4 and LR 2.1 as leaders cannot be corrupt. Additionally, at timestamp 4:06 ID 92013 ignored my valid request to show his ID and fled, further violating GR 6.4.

https://imgur.com/a/qEJ7O5S

The allegations against ID 92013 (Minister of State) lack substantive evidence and appear to rely on assumptions rather than verified facts. Regarding the claim of a prior criminal record under State Rule 1.3, there is no direct proof provided. Article 2.4.3(a) of the Labour Code requires validated evidence to enforce employment restrictions based on a criminal record. A tattoo cannot be considered definitive proof of past criminal affiliation or activity. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, as established by Article 1.6.1 of the Code of Civil and Procedural Law, which states that all claims must be substantiated with credible evidence. ID 92013’s current position as Minister of State reflects a track record of trust and responsibility. Without a valid judicial ruling or documented evidence, the accusation of a criminal record is unsubstantiated.

Regarding the alleged misuse of an organization vehicle under State Rule 5.11, the use of the vehicle could have been authorized for logistical purposes. The Labour Code allows reasonable flexibility in vehicle usage, provided there is no clear violation of rules. The mere presence of non-government individuals in the vehicle does not inherently violate organizational guidelines unless it can be conclusively proven that the use was unauthorized or knowingly for personal purposes. The claim assumes that ID 92013 was suspended, yet no formal disciplinary action or logs confirming the suspension have been presented. Article 7.5.1 of the Labour Code mandates that suspensions must be officially documented, and without such evidence, the claim of violating suspension terms lacks merit.

Concerning the allegation of failing to show an ID and fleeing (timestamp 4:06), ID 92013 may have acted out of perceived safety concerns. Article 3.3.2 of the Code of Civil and Procedural Law supports actions taken for self-preservation when an individual perceives a threat. Additionally, the accuser's method of requesting the ID should be scrutinized to ensure compliance with proper procedural protocols. Any deviation from established norms could invalidate the claim of non-compliance by ID 92013.

The response of ID 114352, who addressed the tattoo issue, was appropriate and proportional. They acknowledged the matter and directed the individual to rectify it. Article 7.1.1 of the Labour Code specifies that verbal reprimands are sufficient for minor first-time offenses. Escalating the matter to immediate dismissal or severe disciplinary action would have been unnecessary without evidence of repeated violations. Rather than encouraging illegal activities, ID 114352’s actions reflected a commitment to resolving issues fairly and maintaining accountability within the organization.

In conclusion, the allegations against ID 92013 lack verified evidence and procedural integrity. Without documented proof of a criminal record, unauthorized use of resources, or intentional misconduct, no disciplinary or OOC action is warranted. Any further investigation or accusations should adhere to the principles of justice, presumption of innocence, and procedural correctness as outlined in the Code of Civil and Procedural Law and the Labour Code.
No off topic As i am in government as a DOJ Attorney this can be solved icly with proper documentation and case files.

 

[Bam Asiri]

The allegations against ID 92013 (Minister of State) lack substantive evidence and appear to rely on assumptions rather than verified facts. Regarding the claim of a prior criminal record under State Rule 1.3, there is no direct proof provided. Article 2.4.3(a) of the Labour Code requires validated evidence to enforce employment restrictions based on a criminal record. A tattoo cannot be considered definitive proof of past criminal affiliation or activity. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, as established by Article 1.6.1 of the Code of Civil and Procedural Law, which states that all claims must be substantiated with credible evidence. ID 92013’s current position as Minister of State reflects a track record of trust and responsibility. Without a valid judicial ruling or documented evidence, the accusation of a criminal record is unsubstantiated.

Regarding the alleged misuse of an organization vehicle under State Rule 5.11, the use of the vehicle could have been authorized for logistical purposes. The Labour Code allows reasonable flexibility in vehicle usage, provided there is no clear violation of rules. The mere presence of non-government individuals in the vehicle does not inherently violate organizational guidelines unless it can be conclusively proven that the use was unauthorized or knowingly for personal purposes. The claim assumes that ID 92013 was suspended, yet no formal disciplinary action or logs confirming the suspension have been presented. Article 7.5.1 of the Labour Code mandates that suspensions must be officially documented, and without such evidence, the claim of violating suspension terms lacks merit.

Concerning the allegation of failing to show an ID and fleeing (timestamp 4:06), ID 92013 may have acted out of perceived safety concerns. Article 3.3.2 of the Code of Civil and Procedural Law supports actions taken for self-preservation when an individual perceives a threat. Additionally, the accuser's method of requesting the ID should be scrutinized to ensure compliance with proper procedural protocols. Any deviation from established norms could invalidate the claim of non-compliance by ID 92013.

The response of ID 114352, who addressed the tattoo issue, was appropriate and proportional. They acknowledged the matter and directed the individual to rectify it. Article 7.1.1 of the Labour Code specifies that verbal reprimands are sufficient for minor first-time offenses. Escalating the matter to immediate dismissal or severe disciplinary action would have been unnecessary without evidence of repeated violations. Rather than encouraging illegal activities, ID 114352’s actions reflected a commitment to resolving issues fairly and maintaining accountability within the organization.

In conclusion, the allegations against ID 92013 lack verified evidence and procedural integrity. Without documented proof of a criminal record, unauthorized use of resources, or intentional misconduct, no disciplinary or OOC action is warranted. Any further investigation or accusations should adhere to the principles of justice, presumption of innocence, and procedural correctness as outlined in the Code of Civil and Procedural Law and the Labour Code.
No off topic As i am in government as a DOJ Attorney this can be solved icly with proper documentation and case files.

Since you're not present at the situation + not Leader or Deputy of GOV, you're not obliged to respond therefore I'll be requesting reviewing admin to punish this individual for Forum Rule 8 as well.

 

[Bam Suar ka lund]

Since you're not present at the situation + not Leader or Deputy of GOV, you're not obliged to respond therefore I'll be requesting reviewing admin to punish this individual for Forum Rule 8 as well.

i would request admin to ban you perma