Whether it is justified to submit illegal report to senior rank officers prepared by wrongdoers themselves.

आवेदन
का विवरण
शिकायत
संख्या
60000170052015
आवेदक कर्ता का नाम:
Yogi
M P Singh
आवेदक कर्ता का मोबाइल न०:
7379105911,0
विषय:
Subject
–D.P.R.O. Mirzapur submitted forged documents before the senior rank officers
so he must be subjected to scrutiny under sections 465,466,467,468,469 and
471 of I.P.C. With great respect to revered Sir , your applicant invites the
kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that D.P.R.O Mirzapur cheated the
senior rank officers through Communication dated-03-05-2017 like 1 –District
Magistrate Mirzapur 2-Commissioner ,rural development, Uttar Pradesh
3-Secretary, office of Hon’ble chief minister, government of Uttar Pradesh
and also your applicant. Hon’ble Sir, please take a glance of attached
documents with this representation. 2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir
that Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code 465. Punishment for
forgery.—Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both. 3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Section 466 in The
Indian Penal Code 466. Forgery of record of Court or of public register,
etc.—1Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a
record or proceed­ing of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism,
marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a
certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his
official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take
any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
1Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “register” includes any list,
data or record of any entries maintained in the electronic form as defined in
clause (r) of sub-section 4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that IPC
467: Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code
नियत तिथि:
03
– Jul – 2017
शिकायत की स्थिति:
निस्तारित
रिमाइंडर :
फीडबैक :
दिनांक 13/07/2017
को फीडबैक:- शिकायत संख्या-15199160160090 आवेदक कर्ता का नाम:महेश प्रताप सिंह How much
surprising that wrongdoers are being shielded under the nose of accountable
public functionaries ​ ?​ Subject-Communication dated-03-05-2017 addressed
to your applicant is sheer  illegal ,unjustified ,unconstitutional
,mockery of law of land and ultravires to  constitution if accepted will
only promote lawlessness and anarchy in the system and will set up bad
precedent for future generation.  With great respect to revered Sir,
your applicant invites the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following
submissions as follows. 1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir
that D.P.R.O. Mirzapur is itself a wrongdoer and shielding the
wrongdoers indulged in siphoning the public fund. Hon’ble Sir please
take a glance of first second and third page of attached documents which are
reports of joint team of E.Os. nominated by District Magistrate Mirzapur i.e.
district level officers Deputy commissioner MGNREGA and Project director.
They have evidently recommended Rs. 1  Lakh 1 thousand and 6 hundred 15 .
   2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that aforementioned
recommendation was made on 28-July-2015 .  3-It is submitted before the
Hon’ble Sir that under point 3 in the enquiry report ,it has been mentioned
that complaint regarding the plantation and pond couldn’t be looked into
because concerned didn’t provide the records so enquiry couldn’t be carried
out consequently sector officer be sent by B.D.O. to carry out enquiry on the
ground of merit and defect and then higher authorities be informed about the
report.   4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that page four
is the communication dated-03-05-2017 and page 5 is enquiry report carried
out by wrongdoers themselves who are proved guilty in the report of team
nominated by District Magistrate Mirzapur as aforementioned.   5-It
is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that think about the time gap
between 28-July-2015 and 03-05-2017 i.e. time gap of one year nine
month and five days. Even layman can know the motive of D.P.R.O. Mirzapur and
his working style from existing circumstancial evidences.   6-It is
submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your applicant motive was to implement
the recommendation of enquiry officer nominated by district
magistrate  through enquiry so that public exchequer be benefitted
but motive of D.P.R.O. Mirzapur is ipso facto obvious that he wanted to
shield his wrongdoer companions and he succeeded to achieve its ulterior
motives.   7-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that  119.
The Apex Court held that if the basic order stands vitiated, the
consequential order automatically falls.”  In another case of
Chunmun Vs. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and others; 1998 (89) Revenue
Digest 771, this Court has clearly held that the cessation of the financial
and administrative powers of a Pradhan on the basis of report submitted by an
officer/public servant who is not defined as an Enquiry Officer under Rule 2(c)
cannot be the basis for exercise of power under Rule 5.  Reliance has
been placed by Sri Hemant Kumar Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the
opposite party no. 7 on a Single Judge decision of this Court in the case of
Smt. Malti Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2008 (1) CRC 714. This case
Smt. Malti Devi (Supra) is of no avail and is of no relevance at all in as
much as that in this case the District Magistrate had appointed the District
Basic Education Officer to hold a preliminary enquiry and undisputedly,
District Basic Education Officer is a District level officer and, therefore,
being a district level officer and having been nominated by the District
Magistrate for holding the preliminary enquiry fully fall within the meaning
of Enquiry Officer as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules. In the
case in hand there was no appointment of the Enquiry Officer by the District
Magistrate and two members of the Enquiry Committee appointed by the Chief
Development Officer who is not competent to appoint Enquiry Officer under 1997
Enquiry Rules, could not at all act as Enquiry Officer and any report with
their participation in the Enquiry could not be taken as an Enquiry Report
under Rule 4. Therefore, the case of Smt. Malti Devi (Supra) had no relevance
or any bearing at all so far as the present case is concerned.  Whether
staffs of B.D.O. who are itself proved guilty in the enquiry report carried
out under Panchaayti Raj Act can supersede the enquiry report by
misinterpreting earlier report. Whether D.P.R.O. Mirzapur is a layman who is
not apprised with the fact that pricipal of natural justice never allowes a
wrongdoer to carry out enquiry in order to prove itself innocent. Undoubtedly
D.P.R.O. Mirzapur set wrongdoers scot free by making the mockery of law of
land. Undoubtedly D.P.R.O. Mirzapur is guilty of misinterpreting the enquiry
report through wrongdoer subordinates of B.D.O. Chhanbey.
आवेदन
का
संलग्नक
अग्रसारित विवरण
क्र..
सन्दर्भ
का प्रकार
आदेश
देने वाले अधिकारी
आदेश
दिनांक
अधिकारी
को प्रेषित
आदेश
आख्या
दिनांक
आख्या
नियत
दिनांक
स्थिति
आख्या
रिपोर्ट
1
अंतरित
लोक
शिकायत अनुभाग – 2( मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय )
03
– Jun – 2017
जिलाधिकारीमिर्ज़ापुर,
कृ0 नियमानुसार कार्यवाही करने एवं
कृत कार्यवाही कर यथोचित कार्यवाही से प्रार्थी को समुचित उत्तर दे दिया जाये। 
04
– Jul – 2017
सहमत
निस्तारित
2
आख्या
जिलाधिकारी ( )
03
– Jun – 2017
जिला पंचायत राज
अधिकारीमिर्ज़ापुर,पंचायती राज विभाग
नियमनुसार आवश्यक कार्यवाही करें सहमत
04
– Jul – 2017
refer
to attach letter
निस्तारित

2 comments on Whether it is justified to submit illegal report to senior rank officers prepared by wrongdoers themselves.

  1. Hon’ble Sir that your applicant motive was to implement the recommendation of enquiry officer nominated by district magistrate through enquiry so that public exchequer be benefited but motive of D.P.R.O. Mirzapur is ipso facto obvious that he wanted to shield his wrongdoer companions and he succeeded to achieve its ulterior motives.

  2. The Apex Court held that if the basic order stands vitiated, the consequential order automatically falls." In another case of Chunmun Vs. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and others; 1998 (89) Revenue Digest 771, this Court has clearly held that the cessation of the financial and administrative powers of a Pradhan on the basis of report submitted by an officer/public servant who is not defined as an Enquiry Officer under Rule 2(c) cannot be the basis for exercise of power under Rule 5. Reliance has been placed by Sri Hemant Kumar Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 7 on a Single Judge decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Malti Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2008 (1) CRC 714. This case Smt. Malti Devi (Supra) is of no avail and is of no relevance at all in as much as that in this case the District Magistrate had appointed the District Basic Education Officer to hold a preliminary enquiry and undisputedly, District Basic Education Officer is a District level officer and, therefore, being a district level officer and having been nominated by the District Magistrate for holding the preliminary enquiry fully fall within the meaning of Enquiry Officer as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules. In the case in hand there was no appointment of the Enquiry Officer by the District Magistrate and two members of the Enquiry Committee appointed by the Chief Development Officer who is not competent to appoint Enquiry Officer under 1997 Enquiry Rules, could not at all act as Enquiry Officer and any report with their participation in the Enquiry could not be taken as an Enquiry Report under Rule 4. Therefore, the case of Smt. Malti Devi (Supra) had no relevance or any bearing at all so far as the present case is concerned. Whether staffs of B.D.O. who are itself proved guilty in the enquiry report carried out under Panchaayti Raj Act can supersede the enquiry report by misinterpreting earlier report. Whether D.P.R.O. Mirzapur is a layman who is not apprised with the fact that principal of natural justice never allowes a wrongdoer to carry out enquiry in order to prove itself innocent. Undoubtedly D.P.R.O. Mirzapur set wrongdoers scot free by making the mockery of law of land. Undoubtedly D.P.R.O. Mirzapur is guilty of misinterpreting the enquiry report through wrongdoer subordinates of B.D.O. Chhanbey.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: