performance official duties became crime in haryana khadi and vi board, naresh kadian harassed for...

8/12/2019 Performance official duties became crime in Haryana Khadi and VI Board, Naresh Kadian harassed for no reason

1/27

To,

The Chief Executive,

Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board,

Panchkula.

Subject: Comments and reply on the half back and biased inquiry report dated 1-4-2014 reg.

Sir,

Kindly refer to your office letter No. HRB/Admn/EA-1/4764 dated 29-5-2014 read with all my

representations submitted, Receipt No. 8701 dated 23-1-14 of SHO, Police Station, Old Faridabad, SHOreport dated 28-1-14, Receipt No. 81 dated 28-2-2014 of SHO, Gurgaon City, Section 4 of the agreement

executed amongst Board and National Enterprises, Information sought under RTI Act, 2005 para 1 to 8dated 21-8-2012, School Department, Haryana letter No. 17/19-2008HRG-1(2) dated 5-8-2011 and

Charge sheet submitted in FIR No. 2 dated 4-2-2010 by the State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak etc.

It is humbly submitted that inquiry report is not fair and transparent because then DEEO, Gurgaon wasnot examined by the Inquiry officer and two inquiry officers refused to conduct inquiry in question, likewise Inquiry officer ignored the section 4 of the agreement executed between Board and the supplier,

information obtained under RTI Act, 2005, complaint lodged against supplier and report of the SHO,Faridabad old, statement of Balwan Singh that the Board never circulated the instructions loaded down

from HIPA website, to the field functionaries of the Board, recovery of excess payment order ofEducation Department, charge sheet submitted by the SVB, Rohtak in FIR No. 2, statement of R.K.Shukla that rates neither be verified from open market nor quotations be obtained from open market etc,

hence I strongly protest against the inquiry report, where as Inquiry officer recorded unnecessary opinion,which is reproduced In my opinion unholy alliance between supplier, purchasing department and others

is not ruled outbecause he has to inquire only charge sheet in question not behind that, hence he crossedhis limit under influence because his services were hired against payment and his action was only toignore facts in my favour and to highlight those instructions of HIPA, which were never been circulated

to the field functionaries of Board. It would be pertinent to mention here that there was no loss to theBoard and excess payment released by then DEEO, Gurgaon was recovered from her, after departmental

inquiry, holding her guilty but Inquiry officer quoting many times that this excess payment was loss to theBoard, which is not true. In fact establishment officials of the Board, doesnt have the experience ofdealing procurement orders.

Where as Inquiry officer admitted that Board earned revenue @ 5% of the procurement in question,which proved that my action was in the interest of the Board and Board officials are duty bound to watch

interest of the Board and I have performed my official duties, as it was in practice.

As per inquiry report charge No. 3, 5 and 6 not proved against me, where as charge No. 4 is partly proved,

in fact whole charge sheet framed on the basis of the Vigilance report and the official concerned alongwith then Chief Executive never applied their mind, while framing the charges because they were under

pressure and in hasty to frame baseless charges against me with sick and biased mentality withimagination, May I demand departmental action against all concerned, who are responsible for framing

baseless charges against me, which create unnecessary harassment, mental torture to me along with my

whole family, in fact all concerned officials of the Board failed to examine the replies submitted inquestion, against baseless charge sheet, if they were with healthy and presence of mind, definitely positive


2/27

action was to be required for asking the supplier, for the violation of the agreement, executed betweenBoard and supplier.

It is further submitted that while examining the procurement order in question, necessary verble

permission was obtained from then Chief Executive of the Board, to proceed further, to execute thesupply order, where as it was in the interest of the Board and another competitive department Super

Bazaar also approved the same rate of the same item and was ready to execute the supply order, in case ofany delay and refusal, which was not in the interest on the Board. As per past practice interested suppliers

procured the supply orders from the purchasing department and same was to be forwarded to them forfurther execution, as per agreement executive amongst Board and supplier because Board do not produceany items and as per initial advertisement of the Board, which published in the leading news papers,

which reproduced as The HaryanaKhadi and Village Industries Board participates in bulk tendersfloated by the State / Central Government Department as per their requirement on behalf of the units

registered with the Board

Section 4 of the agreement executed between Board and supplier, reproduced as That the goods

supplied on behalf of the 2nd

party will be of the approved samples of the 3rd

party. In case of any

complaint on account of sub standard, any manufacturing defect or such latent or patent defect

that may come to light that 1stparty will be wholly bound to replace or reimburse the 2ndparty orits nominee on account of loss, thus incurred

If any complaint received from the purchasing department about the sub standard supply then definitely

same was to be replaced by the supplier, as per said section 4 but there was no complaint against thesupply submitted by the purchasing department till date, where as the purchasing department issued goods

receipt along with the payment, which presumed that purchasing department received the items asrequired by them. It would be pertinent to mention here that Board earned 5% service charges for promptservice, if necessary because 5% service charges have to bear by the supplier only and Board has to

execute the supply orders, on behalf of the suppliers. It would be pertinent to mention here that theDEEO, Faridabad released the payment in another supply and after processing the papers submitted, after

deduction of 5% service charges, rest payment cheque was issued but after inspection of then ADC, I was

asked to stop the payment and I did that, if any objections raised by the purchaser in question thendefinitely payment was not released to the supplier and the said papers were submitted before the inquiryofficer, who concealed these facts, while preparing his report.

It is submitted that three quotations were already received by the office from the registered suppliers andthe party, who execute the orders quotation was found in order, action was also taken against the supplier

by me for breach of agreement, which was executed between Board and supplier, SHO of Faridabad oldPolice station submitted his findings before the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad and same complaint

against supplier was forwarded to Gurgaon and these facts were willingly ignored by the inquiry officer,where as inquiry officer of State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak filed the charge sheet against the same suppler

before the Court, in another similar Chullah Bhathi supply on same rates and this purchase was made bythen DEEO, Jhajjar through Super Bazaar, where as SVB, Rohtak do not find any evidence against the

billing Authority Super Bazaar and same procedure was also adopted by me, while executing the supplyorder in question. It would be pertinent to mention here that rates were approved by the purchasingdepartment then DEEO, Gurgaon not by me and I was asked to supply chullah bhathi set @ 3170/- eachand I have never examined the goods during executing the orders because it was not in practice,

confirmed by R.K. Shukla and information obtained under RTI Act, 2005. The Inquiry officer does notallow me to submit evidences after getting another reply under RTI Act on 7 thbecause reply was

dispatched by the Board on 5thin record only and same was sent after many days through post, this illegalpractice was adopted by R.K. Sharma, SPIO of the Board, to snatch my legal rights of defense.


3/27


4/27


5/27


6/27


7/27


8/27


9/27


10/27


11/27


12/27


13/27


14/27


15/27


16/27


17/27


18/27


19/27


20/27


21/27


22/27


23/27


24/27


25/27


26/27


27/27

performance official duties became crime in haryana khadi and vi board, naresh kadian harassed for...

Documents