Whether subordinates of BDO against whom charges are proved can be enquiry officer to give itself clean chit

Grievance Status for registration number : GOVUP/E/2018/05077
Grievance Concerns To
Name Of Complainant-Yogi M. P. Singh, Date of Receipt-29/05/2018
Received By Ministry/Department-Uttar Pradesh
Grievance Description-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.
Grievance Document, Current Status-Case closed, Date of Action-31/08/2018
Remarks-
 
 ,
 
 ,ok
 ,
 shikayt krta dwara purv mai shikayt kiya gya tha jiski janch diya gya hai
Reply Document
Rating Rating Remarks
Whether it is not a mockery of law of land that the enquiry under challenge was made ground to dispose of the grievance. The bogus enquiry made by the wrongdoers in order to shield themselves upheld by the D.M. Mirzapur itself which is a mockery of law of land and creating insecurity in the mind of the citizenry and credibility of institutions have reached the nadir in the eye of common citizenry. It is submitted before the Honourable Sir that deputy commissioner work and employment had also been granted the charge of B.D.O. Chhanbey arbitrarily carried out enquiry through its subordinates in order to shield its corrupt coterie. In order to shield its skin this deputy commissioner and working B.D.O. Chhanbey Sushil Tripathi made the mockery of the panchayat Raj ACT and ordered enquiry and superseded enquiry made by the joint team of senior rank officers Deputy Commissioner MGNREGA and 2-Project Director Mirzapur carried out under panchayat raj act.
Officer Concerns To, Officer Name-Shri Kalyan Banerji, Officer Designation-Under Secretary
Contact Address-Chief Minister Secretariat U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow
Email Address, Contact Number-05222215127

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
PLEASE direct concerned to pursue the law of land instead of making a mockery of it.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 5 May 2017 at 03:13

To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>
Cc: urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, Anjali Anand Srivastava <secy-cic@nic.in>

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. 

This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook  the rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                                          Yours  sincerely
                            Yogi M. P. Singh Mobile number-7379105911

Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .
 

On 18 December 2016 at 11:27, Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> wrote:

[Quoted text hidden]


Recovery recommended by E.O. illegally withheld by DPRO Mirzapur.pdf
469K
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

It is submitted before the Honourable Sir that deputy commissioner work and employment had also been granted the charge of B.D.O. Chhanbey arbitrarily carried out enquiry through its subordinates in order to shield its corrupt coterie. In order to shield its skin this deputy commissioner and working B.D.O. Chhanbey Sushil Tripathi made the mockery of the panchayat Raj ACT and ordered enquiry and superseded enquiry made by the joint team of senior rank officers Deputy Commissioner MGNREGA and 2-Project Director Mirzapur carried out under panchayat raj act.

Arun Pratap Singh
2 years ago

Whether it is not a mockery of law of land that the enquiry under challenge was made ground to dispose of the grievance. The bogus enquiry made by the wrongdoers in order to shield themselves upheld by the D.M. Mirzapur itself which is a mockery of law of land and creating insecurity in the mind of the citizenry and credibility of institutions have reached the nadir in the eye of common citizenry. It is submitted before the Honourable Sir that deputy commissioner work and employment had also been granted the charge of B.D.O. Chhanbey arbitrarily carried out enquiry through its subordinates in order to shield its corrupt coterie. In order to shield its skin this deputy commissioner and working B.D.O. Chhanbey Sushil Tripathi made the mockery of the panchayat Raj ACT and ordered enquiry and superseded enquiry made by the joint team of senior rank officers Deputy Commissioner MGNREGA and 2-Project Director Mirzapur carried out under panchayat raj act.

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh

Undoubtedly it is reflection mockery of rule of iaw but it seems that our system is full law breakers. Think about those who syphoned public fund is being shielded by the high rank officers.'

Beerbhadra Singh
Beerbhadra Singh
6 months ago

From top to bottom everyone is glorifying its honesty but here this question arises that who is honest? Here condition is more worst that act of corruption is being shielded through corrupt activities. From the post it is quite obvious that corrupt officers are being shielded by making the mockery of the law of land which is complete unconstitutional but no accountable public functionary in the state of Uttar Pradesh or in this largest democracy in the world is taking cognizance of it.