Why action is not being taken against D.P.R.O Mirzapur if there ample evidence against him?

Grievance Status

Print || Logout
Status as on 30 Jul 2017

Registration Number : MOPRJ/E/2017/00791
Name Of Complainant : Yogi M P Singh
Date of Receipt : 30 Jul 2017
Received by : Ministry of Panchayati Raj
Officer name : Smt. Sujata Sharma
Officer Designation : Economic Advisor
Contact Address : Room No. 127, First Floor,
Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001
Contact Number : 23746557
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. 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 4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that IPC 467: Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 1 *imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that IPC 468: Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code Forgery for purpose of cheating Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 6-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Section 469 in The Indian Penal Code 469. Forgery for purpose of harming reputation.—Whoever commits forgery, 1intending that the document or electronic record forged shall harm the repu­tation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. 7-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code 471. Using as genuine a forged 1document or electronic record.—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 1document or electronic record.
Current Status : RECEIVED THE GRIEVANCE

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Whether it is justified to shield wrongdoers by the D.P.R.O. Mirzapur. Honesty is not to say but it reflects in the working of an Honest man. Whether any one is honest if yes ,then why not reached my grievance to that great man?
1 message
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 10 July 2017 at 02:19
To: pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, hgovup@up.nic.in, “csup@up.nic.in” <csup@up.nic.in>, uphrclko <uphrclko@yahoo.co.in>, lokayukta@hotmail.com

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

2 comments on Why action is not being taken against D.P.R.O Mirzapur if there ample evidence against him?

  1. 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. 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.

  2. 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 allows 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: