Whether it is justified to cheat citizenry in the name of pseudo honesty.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh
Today, 3:31 PM
Hide original message
Fair enquiry is the need of our in order to win the confidence of the people. Two public servants has been suspended but who has been nominated enquiry officer in the case concerned by the competent authority still unknown to aggrieved concerned.
Subject-Whether in the name of enquiry citizenry can be cheated as going on here in this case of huge corruption for the of transfer and postings of teachers in the department of basic education, district-Mirzapur of government of Uttar Pradesh ?
Most revered Sir –Your applicant invites the kind attention of Hon’ble Sir with due respect to following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble sir may be pleased to take a glance of published news story in leading vernacular daily Amar Ujala which reveals the suspension of two earlier posted basic shiksha adhikaris in district by government of Uttar Pradesh for allegedly indulged in wrongdoing of illegal promotion, postings and transfers of teachers by taking illegal gratification and by not conforming set up standard norms. For convenience, scan copy in PDF form is attached with this representation.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that you Hon’ble sir may take a glance of attached PDF documents which brief is as follows.
Supreme Court of India
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Jogendra Singh on 4 March, 1963
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1618, 1964 SCR (2) 197
Author: P Gajendragadkar
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
Public Servant—Disciplinary proceedings–Procedure–
“May”-Construction of–U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings
(Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, r. 4 (2).
Rule 4 reads as follows:-
“4. (1) The Governor may refer to the tribunal cases relating to an individual government servant or class of government servants or government servants in a particular area only in respect of matters involving :-
(b) failure to discharge duties properly-.
(c) irremediable general inefficiency in a public servant of more than ten years’ standing; and
(d) personal immorality.
(2) The Governor may, in respect of a gazetted government servant on his own request, refer his case to the Tribunal in respect of matters referred to in sub-rule (1).”
On June 28, 1958, the Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, U. P., informed the respondent that in accordance with the orders passed by the appellant/ State Of Uttar Pradesh his case had been entrusted to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, with directions to take disciplinary proceedings against him, and his request that the charges against him, should be entrusted for investigation to the Administrative Tribunal had been rejected.
Therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court was right in quashing the proceedings proposed to be taken by the appellant against the respondent otherwise than by referring his case to the Tribunal under the Rules. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that you Hon’ble sir may take the perusal of attached PDF as attached with this representation as The High Court also decided that the petitioner should be placed under suspension, and on receipt of a recommendation to that effect an order dated 23.3.1978 by the Governor was placed. In accordance with the direction of the High Court the inquiry was conducted by an Administrative Tribunal framed under the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the evidence of the witnesses examined was recorded. After completion of the inquiry the entire matter was placed before the High Court and it was considered by the Full Court of the High Court, which approved the findings of the Administrative Tribunal, holding the writ petitioner to be guilty of the third charge. The High Court, thereafter by its letter dated 18.12.1979 requested the Governor to remove the petitioner from service and the impugned order terminating the services of the writ petitioner was accordingly passed.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that in larger public interest, it must be disclosed in public domain that who has been nominated enquiry officer by his Excellency in the matter concerned when it was not referred to tribunal under aforementioned subsections of section 4.
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that according to news story, district coordinator Ajay Shrivastava revealed before media as- documents concerned are deeply checked but here this question arises that whether Ajay Shrivastava is enquiry officer nominated by His Excellency as required in accordance with the law or addressed media on behalf of someone nominated enquiry officer in the case concerned. Since the matter is concerned with deep rooted corruption in the system so enquiry must be carried out in transparent manner to ascertain those accountable for alleged indulged in corrupt practices, by pursuing set up standard norms and in accordance with the law.
This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that how can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote anarchy, lawlessness and chaos in arbitrary manner by making mockery of law of land? There is need of hour to take harsh steps against wrongdoer in order to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh. Pin code-231001.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10