Brief background Note regarding filing of Criminal Case Number-0/2007, : Ravi Kumar Poddar versus Santosh Gauriar & others under Section 409,420,467,468,120-B IPC before the Court of Hon’ble First Class Judicial Magistrate, Indore.
In retaliation Shri Gauriar also filed a case in the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide M.Cr.C. No. 3579/2009 dated 15.05.2009 under Section 482-Cr.P.C, : Shri Santosh Gauriar, erstwhile PMG Indore & present CPMG Rajasthan Circle, Shri R. C Borkhadia, AD(E&BD), Shri A. K Tomar, AD(S) O/o PMG, Indore Region and Shri S. M Gupta, SPOs Indore Muffassil Dvn. Versus Ravi Kumar Poddar.
* * * * * * * *
1. An RTI activist had requested for information under RTI Act-2005 pertaining to some construction works, and the requested information/documents were provided to him by the CPIO & DPS Indore after obtaining approval in File of the then PMG Indore, Shri Santosh Gauriar. The then PMG Indore, Shri Gauriar had been dealing with Building Branch and Business Development construction work files directly as Shri R.C Borkhadia, AD(Bldg& BD) was submitting Files directly to PMG and after joining of Ms Madhuri Dabral as DPS Indore the same channel of submission of files procedure continued. Thus the then DPS Indore had not dealt with any of the Files pertaining to floating of tenders or requisition to Postal Civil Wing regarding award of work etc. But since the PMG gave his written approval in RTI File therefore all requested documents were provided, thus the then DPS Indore was not aware that there was anything wrong in the matter.
2. Shri Santosh Gauriar left Indore Region on promotion on 2nd June 2007 and joined Rajasthan Circle. However before leaving Indore, Shri Gauriar had lodged a Police Complaint vide Letter No.PMG/IND/CONF/GENL/07-08 dated 11 April 2007 on the subject regarding receipt of threat of physical attack and threat to life of undersigned (Shri Gauriar) and SSPOs Indore (Ms Shipra Sharma) against subordinate staff about which the then DPS Indore, Ms Madhuri Dabral came to know much later when a Police Inspector sought her permission to record statements of lady officials and met her in the Office. The full details are available in Para-33 and 37(viii) of Letter dated 13.09.2010, dealt in DG Posts File No. 28-48/2010-SPG. Shri Gauriar had also abruptly cancelled the farewell dinner hosted in his honour and changed the venue of his departure by train from Ujjain instead of Indore at the last moment. Shri Gauriar relinquished charge on 02.06.2007 but did not sanction the bills of contractor despite having adequate time from 1st April 2007 to 2nd June 2007 i.e. full two months at his disposal to clear the backlog of pending bills.
3. The irregular Bills of Contractor had been rejected with the approval of Shri B.B Dave the then PMG Indore. However later on Shri V.C Roy the then DPS Indore sanctioned these already rejected Bills at a later date. As a result the RTI activist filed a Criminal Case in Court vide No. 0/2007, filed by Shri Ravi Kumar Poddar under Section – 409, 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore against Shri Santosh Gauriar, Rtd. Member (O) P.S.B. Shri Gauriar had given an evasive reply that, “Matters not relevant here will be replied at an appropriate time later when required.” when his comments were called for on the contents of Ms Madhuri Dabral’s Letter dated 13.09.2010, regarding this criminal case filed against him vide Para-2 of his Letter No. CPMG/MP/ACRs/2010-2011 dated 9th December 2010. Shri Gauriar along with Shri R. C Borkhadia, AD(E&BD), Shri A. K Tomar, AD(S) O/o PMG, Indore Region and Shri S. M Gupta, SPOs Indore Muffassil had in retaliation filed a case against Shri Ravi Kumar Poddar in the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 482-Cr.P.C,vide M.Cr.C. No. 3579/2009 dated 15.05.2009 which case was also in the knowledge of the senior officers in the Directorate but they chose to remain silent.
4. After Shri Gauriar relinquished charge of PMG Indore, the Contractors started making rounds of the Regional Office and it transpired that in the Financial year 2006-07, some construction work amounting to about Rs. 38,79,724(Thirty Eight Lakh Seventy Nine thousand seven hundred & twenty four only) was carried out in 5 offices i.e. Gwalior R.S, Morar, Guna, Mandsaur and Dewas HO as per details below :-
No. Name of Office Amount Date on which work awarded Date of Payment Name of Contractor Date of Completion of work as certified by Divl. Heads 1 Gwalior R.S S.O 6,39,359 02.03.2007 & 30.03.2007 03.03.2007 & 30.03.2007 Om Construction 31.03.2007 2 Morar H.O 7,30,000 02.03.2007 & 30.03.2007 03.03.2007 & 30.03.2007 Om Construction 31.03.2007 3 Guna H.O 12,84,584 30.03.2007 30.03.2007 Om Construction 31.03.2007 4 Mandsaur H.O 4,16,518 30.03.2007 30.03.2007 Om Construction 28.03.2007 5 Dewas H.O 8,09,263 21.03.2007 & 30.03.2007 22.03.2007, 27.03.2007 & 30.03.2007 Milind Construction 31.03.2007
(Thirty Eight Lakh Seventy Nine thousand seven hundred & twenty four only)
(a). The modus operandi was such that it is very difficult to arrive at the exact figures because the expenditure was split in small portions and the expenditure was directly booked in multiple offices i.e. some Bills in Divisional Office, some in the respective Head Post Offices and a few in the Regional Office and Sr. Postmaster Indore issued cheques directly in some cases and in many cases the sanction Memos were not endorsed to DDO and to keep up appearance only a few Bills were booked in Regional Office and routed through the RIFA & DDO. Thus a web of confusion was created by splitting of Bills, splitting of expenditure, splitting of records in order to avoid centralized monitoring and a clear picture to emerge. As a result the above cited amount of Rs. 38,79,724 (Thirty Eight Lakh Seventy Nine thousand seven hundred & twenty four only) is not the final figure and if proper check is carried out in the various offices the Amount/figure will likely increase further.
(b). This is not a simple case of non-adherence to rules and procedures, but it is a case in which the Contractors have submitted Bills for higher amount whereas work commensurate with the amount claimed has not been performed by them. Moreover to make matters worse the Contractors were not issued list/details of items to be executed and no work orders were issued and work was performed on verbal orders. Even later on no efforts were made to bring on record and write the same in file for future reference and record purpose. Work Orders were not issued intentionally to avoid verification at a later date, thus reducing chances of getting caught. For example if the Bill submitted was for Rs. 10 Lakhs by the contractor then the work actually performed was for a fraction of this amount i.e. just Rs. 2-3 Lakhs. Since no work orders had been issued thus it became difficult to verify the work actually done. Moreover due to splitting of works these Contractors took advantage and added to the confusion by submitting numerous Bills for petty amounts as small as Rs. 20,000/- for purchase of construction related material etc which were difficult to verify and thus there was no other option but to go by the say of the Contractor who had the final word.
(c). The Hon’ble Supreme Court bench of Mr Justice B.N Kirpal, Mr Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat, in its judgement dated 18th February 2002, upheld a Tribunal decision allowing UCO Bank to remove one of its employees from service. It was contended by the bank that the employee, Hardev Singh, had illegally kept with him Rs. 864 by rounding off the fixed deposit amount and surrendered the same to the bank only after he was caught in the act. The Supreme Court held that even minor embezzlements by bank employees would warrant their dismissal from service as banks are regarded as the custodians of public savings. In similar manner as per Rule-204-A of Postal Manual Volume-III under subheading Responsibility, “every public officer should exert the same vigilance in respect of public expenditure and public funds generally as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of the expenditure and the custody of his own money. ……. personal liability must be strictly enforced against all officers who are dishonest, careless or negligent in the duties entrusted to them.”
5. The following rules were flouted :-
(i). Rule 129 of GFR – (1) No works shall be commenced or liability incurred in connection with it until – (iv). estimates containing the detailed specifications and quantities of various items have been prepared on the basis of the Schedule of Rates maintained by CPWD or other Public Works organizations and sanctioned; (vi). tenders invited and processed in accordance with rules; (vii). a Work Order issued.
(ii). Rule 130 of GFR – For purpose of approval and sanctions, a group of works which forms one project, shall be considered as one work.
(iii) There is no provision of executing the civil wok under the supervision of a committee. A committee can be appointed for purchase of goods costing above Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only and up to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only on each occasion under Rule 146 of GFR.
(iv) In all the cases splitting of bills has been allowed which is against Rule 148 of GFR 2005.
(v) The tender rates in question on the basis of which proposals in respect of Dewas HO Financial Mart had been called for and approved, were not valid. The work was therefore irregularly ordered and carried out on the basis of a single quotation which is in violation of Rule 132 (v) of GFR2005, “Rule 132 (v) limited tenders will be called for works costing less than Rupees five lakhs;”
(vi) The files were not routed through proper channel and were submitted to the PMG directly violating the provisions of O&M. Two levels i.e. PMG and DPS have been provided in the Regional Office so that there is objectivity in decision making and continuity. Since the DPS is the CPIO of Regional Office in case of RTI applications, thus the DPS cannot be kept out from handling Building Construction files as all such Files come under the public domain as per RTI Act-2005. Moreover as per the Manual of Office Procedure, Chapter-VI, Action on Receipts Para-27 regarding level of disposal and channels of submissions it lays down vide sub Para (9) Wherever level jumping is done in respect of any category of cases, each such case on its return, will pass through all the levels jumped over who in suitable cases could resubmit the cases for reconsideration. One illustrative example of an Officer who was placed under suspension and CBI FIR lodged against her as she bypassed office hierarchy due to ulterior motive is cited as under:-
(a). Smt Ranju Prasad, the then SSPOs Chandigarh (01.03.1993 to 24.12.1996) who also worked as PMG(R) Punjab from 11.02.2010 to 26.02.2014 had been placed under suspension and CBI FIR No. 13 dated 01.03.1996, had been lodged against her by the CBI as Principle Offender being accused number one under Section 120-B r/w 420,467,468, 471 of the Indian Penal code and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Smt R. Prasad, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandigarh Division was accused number-1 and the Dealing Assistant who faithfully carried out her orders as accused No-2. In the FIR it has been stated that Smt R. Prasad while posted and functioning as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandigarh Division had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object to cheat and defraud the Department of Posts. The Office Assistant prepared fake sanction orders due towards the legal charges, booking of Lajpat Rai Bhawan etc. The files were being submitted directly by the Office Assistant to Smt R. Prasad, who was intentionally bypassing the laid down departmental hierarchical structure in the Divisional Offices and she passed the sanction orders for payment knowing that the payments were not due to them as there was nothing on record. As per rules the sanction orders should be routed through the Assistant Superintendent of Post offices who is supposed to put up these sanctions in file after giving details of the cases/judgments against which the payments are to be made. However Smt R. Prasad, passed the fake sanction orders directly in connivance with the Office Assistant who was carrying out her instructions. The sanctions were passed for payment even without the fee bills of the standing counsel and knowing fully well that such sanctions were fake as these were not supported by any fee bill of the counsel etc.
6. The following irregularities were noticed :-
(i). The Tender Opening Committee comprised of Shri R.C Borkhadia, AD(Estt&BD), Shri R. Surendra, RIFA and Shri S.M Acharya, A.E Postal Civil Wing. Thereafter none of the Files regarding issue of sanction memo’s, payment orders etc. were referred to RIFA and the construction work by approved Contractors was not seen or supervised by the A.E Postal Civil Wing. In some cases the rates of Om Construction had been approved being lowest Tenderer, but work was got done through Milind Construction.
(ii). Despite allotting work of Finance Mart to Om Construction in Ratlam SO, no work was carried out by the Contractor and there was no penalty clause.
(iii). Dewas HO work had also been allotted to Om Construction as per Tender. However the work of Dewas was allotted to Milind Construction even before opening of Tenders. Milind Construction had been allotted work in the year 2005-06 for getting work done in Ujjain HO, Jabalpur HO, Lashkar HO, Indore Nagar HO, Indore GPO. Thus Milind Construction carried out the work of Dewas HO at the old Tender Rates of the year 2005-06 which were higher than the new Tender Rates of 2006-07. Since the work had already been allotted to Milind Construction even before the Tender for the year 2006-07 was opened, therefore after tender opening it was observed that the Rates quoted by Om Construction was lower than Milind Construction for the year 2006-07. Therefore at a later date the Regional Office had to ask Milind Construction to deposit the excess amount of Rs. 72,344/-. Om Construction had also during various visits to R.O questioned that as per Tender opening the work of Dewas HO was allotted to him so how the work has been got done at higher rate from Milind Construction. As a result of such verbal objections of Om Construction the excess amount was later on got credited from Milind Construction.
(iv). The payment to the Contractors was made directly by the Head Postmasters and Regional Office issued Letters directly in some cases to the Postmasters of Head Post Offices and in some other cases to the Divisional Heads. None of the payment Orders were endorsed to Regional IFA and DDO(Drawing & Disbursing Officer). The RIFA, Shri R. Surendra had come on transfer from Hyderabad & had good knowledge of rules & was insistent upon following the rules. He had strongly objected in RO File No. BDC/2-27/06-07/II about the irregular practice of the AD (BD/Estt) R.O of issuing sanction Memos directly to the Sr. Postmaster, Indore without the knowledge of the Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and no sanction is being marked to the DDO for making payment for which one cashier is attached to RO with special pay.
(v). In File No. BDC/2-27/06-07/II, the AD (BD) vide letter No. BDC/2-27/06-07/II dated 8.5.07 placed at 239/C desired that the AO IFA& the AE (Civil) verify the Finance Mart work at 5 Post Offices including Gwalior and Guna Divisions. The A.E. (Civil) refused to attend Gwalior Division on 11.05.07 and vide his letter No. W (31)/AE/PC/IND dated 09.05.07 (240/C) intimated that he was not informed about execution of work of Finance Mart in various Post Offices. Now after completion of work it is very difficult to verify the work and requested to consult his higher authorities for verification of the works. Thus these two Officers i.e. the RIFA and the AE (Civil) Indore had refused to become a party to all such irregularities.
(vi). The Regional Office gave permission for incurring expenditure and getting the Civil Works done on 21st March 2007 (Gwalior & Indore Muffassil Dvn), 26th March2007 (Mandsaur Dvn.) and 27th March 2007 (Guna Dvn.). As per R.O. letter No.BDC/2-27/Supll./06-07 dated 11.6.2007, all the Divisional Heads were asked to give completion certificates. All the Divisional Heads gave a certificate of completion in the Month of June 2007 that the work was completed on 31st March 2007. This contention was not believable as work of Civil construction takes time and cannot be completed within three to seven days. As no work Order had been issued to the Contractor therefore there was no other option but to reject the Bills.
(vii). In the past the civil work was being got done through the Civil Wing. For example the Civil Wing had also submitted its detailed estimates for an amount of Rs.14,175 (67/C of File No.BL-02/4) (Rs. Fourteen thousand one hundred & seventy five) for laying of vitrified tiles of IQ at Morar HO. Thus it is clear that when such a small item of work of Rupees fourteen thousand can be given to Civil Wing then why there has been splitting of bills for single items of work for Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Thousand at Morar HO. (Please also refer to Para 7(iii)(d) of this report.) The work done by Contractor was of very poor quality and it was impossible to verify it because there was no work order citing details of items of work to be carried out. The Department is maintaining a separate Specialized Agency like the Civil Wing which should be the final word in all technical matters pertaining to building construction, repairs etc. The Department is incurring huge expenditure on maintaining the Postal Civil Wing thus it is imperative that its services are utilized fully and the time and energy of the Postal staff is not diverted towards such extraneous activities which can easily be carried out by the specialized Agency. The Civil Wing has never given its refusal in writing that it cannot or does not want to carry out the Civil works given to it by the Postal Administration. Thus there was no urgency that the work was given to a private contractor without even bothering to float tenders & follow proper procedure.
(viii). During the Annual Inspection of Guna Division from 07-12-2007 to 08-12-2007 carried out by the then DPS Indore, Ms. Madhuri Dabral it has been observed vide Para 22.4 and 23.2 as under:-
“22.4 It is felt that the work pertaining to Annual Repair and Maintenance as well as any additions alterations work and Modernization of Buildings should be carried out by the Civil Wing. A lot of time and attention of Divisional Heads is diverted towards getting work done which can easily be executed by the Civil Wing. The Divisional Heads should concentrate on their core activities i.e. administration and management and smooth running of Postal Operations as well as achieving targets allotted under various categories. In future no local level Building maintenance work will be carried out by the Divisional Head for an amount exceeding Rs. 10,000/-. Divisional Heads will only carry out work of petty nature below Rs. 10,000/- only.
23.2 I was informed that some construction activity had been taken up on first floor of Guna HPO for construction of additional space where the Divisional Office could be located. I have seen the construction which has been left midway and Electrical fittings and other items of work are yet not completed. Since the work has not been got done through the Civil Wing and as the local staff, Divisional Head etc have washed their hands off the whole matter and want that the entire responsibility to be taken up by the Regional Office on the pretext that it was initiated by the RO.”
7. The following action was taken :-
(i). No work Order was available in File nor could the Contractors provide copy of work order, thus the exact nature of work to be carried out was not known and hence Bills could not be verified. Since no work order had been issued for the construction works therefore the Superintendent Engineer, Ahmadabad was requested to carry out on the spot verification of work so that bills for at least that portion of work can be sanctioned which had been actually carried out. But the Superintendent Engineer had vide his Letter dated 13.11.2007 cited numerous shortcomings, “The nature of Civil works executed under supervision of the Postal authorities in the financial year 2006-07 is such that the quality of works i.e. specification of materials used, workmanship along with stages of execution cannot be verified by the civil wing at this stage. In the quotation, submitted by the contractor, the description of items executed are not in detail. The specification of works to be followed are not defined, mode of payment is also not defined. It is therefore advised, to avoid such complications, civil works may please be got done through civil wing in proper manner throughout the year i.e. all works should not be asked to carry out at the end of financial year, to avoid surrender of funds. It is surprise to note that the estimates submitted by this office, Executive Engineers office & Assistant Engineers office are not being approved & works are got done at your end.”
(ii). One investigation was carried out by Shri S.M Pingle, Assistant Director (Estt & BD) dated 19.02.2008 and Shri P.R. Deshmukh, Assistant Director (Staff & Vigilance) carried out two investigations and submitted Inquiry Report dated 11.03.2008 and 13.03.2008. In the Inquiry Reports of both of these officers, regarding construction work by these two Contractors a large number of irregularities had been pointed out.
(iii). The Chief PMG, MP Circle then referred concerned Files of Regional Office, Indore to the Director of Accounts, Shri Satish Kumar. The three page Report of DAP had been duly forwarded to Circle Office Bhopal vide DAP Letter No. Vig./12-6/2007/717 dated 11.02.2008. The list of irregularities cited by DAP in his Report are briefly given as under :-
(a). “as per rule 126(3) read with rule 123 of GF rules 2005 all original work costing upto Rs.10 lacs are required to be assigned by the Deptts. to the civil division/public works organization as defined in rule 126(2) ibid. It did not happen in this case.”
(b). “the job was not assigned to Civil Wing.”
(c). “According to Rule 126(1) GF rules 2005, such maint. repair works estimated to cost Rs. 10 lacs can be undertaken directly by the Deptt. without assigning the civil/public works Deptt. subject to formalities to be observed under rule 132 ibid. Rule 132 provides for limited tenders for the maintenance work for the amount less than Rs. 05 lacs. Further, it provides for the personal certificate of the officer-in-charge of execution of work (here, Divisional Heads) in the following format as prescribed under sub Para (vii) of the said rule-
Executing officer of (Name of the work) am personally satisfied that the work has been executed as per the specifications laid down in the contract agreement and the workmanship is upto the standards followed in the Industry.
On examination of the cases in hand, it is found that the prescribed certificates are still wanting in all of them which should be insisted upon.”
(d). “Further, we have not been provided with file no. Tech mod/2-1/06-07-Morar and other related files in which the PMG accorded approval for the jobs undertaken otherwise, we could know something more in the matter.”
(e). “III(b) of IR – Bills verified placed at P/30/C of the aforesaid file. Amts. Don’t tally. One bill is for Rs. 801935/- and another is for Rs. 20811 Total Rs. 322746/-.”
(f). “(iv) Civil work is to be dealt with in accordance with provisions contained in Rule 126, Rule 129 and Rule 132 of GF Rules 2005.”
(iv). As per Member (Finance) P&T Bd. Letter No. 16-64/69-B dated 27.2.1970, “Full responsibility for a decision taken in exercise of the delegated Financial powers rest on the Head of Circle or Directors whether such a decision is taken in accordance with the advise of the IFA or by over ruling him. Where the advise of the IFA is over-ruled, it should be done by a written order recording reasons.”
(v). The Chief PMG, MP Circle got three Circle level Committees set up to enquire into the matter. The Circle Office set up two committees vide CO Memo No. VIG/12-6/2007 dated 26.11.2007 (First Committee) and CO Memo No. VIG/12-6/2007 dated 27.2.2008 (Second Committee). But these two committees never submitted any report despite issue of R.O Letter No. Vig./01/Misc/08, dated 24th April 2008, subject regarding maintenance Work of Guna HO, Morar HO and Mandsaur HO. Thereafter, as per CO Memo No. AD (BLDG)/FM/2007-2008 dated 13.03.2008 a Third Committee was formed. This Committee had submitted only one report dated 25.03.2008. This four Member Committee comprising of Shri D.C Bhavsar, AD(Building) Circle Office, Bhopal, Shri R. K Shrivastava, Asstt. Chief Accounts Officer of DAP Office, and Shri Brajendra Kumar, Assistant Engineer Postal Civil Division, Bhopal, along with concerned Divisional Head had as per their Report clearly stated the flouting of rules and inability to verify the quality of work, specifications of work /material used and workmanship etc because in the bills description of items has not been explained and given in half or single line, the rates are also more than DSR Rates.
(vi). The P&T Audit vide their Letter No. O.A.D/IR/PMG IND/07-08/194 dated 26.04.2007 forwarded the Audit inspection Report of the O/o PMG Indore conducted from 03.04.2007 to 13.04.2007. As per Para-7 it was recorded as under :-
7. Unauthorized expenditure worth Rs.9.10 Lakh on execution of work on quotation basis.
According to GFR 2006 Rule 145 purchase/work up to Rs.15000/- can be done on Single Quotation basis and rule No. 146 ibid purchase/works up to Rs.100000/- can be done through formation of local committee.
On scrutiny of purchasing file and other associates records it was noticed that purchasing/execution of work has been carried out by splitting Single Quotation basis or formation of local committee to avoid obtaining the prior approval of higher authorities total expenditure worth Rs.9,10,751/- as detailed in Annexure-III was incurred on said purchasing.
Civil work also executed at various post offices even though the postal civil wing is available with the department. Execution of civil work without getting consultation with specialized agency was also not in order, civil work also got splitted on the basis of sub office or on one office itself. Reasons of the same may be intimated.
The stated figure indicate that the purchasing/execution of work was beyond the GFR 145 and 146 for which open tender was essential, further most of expenditure was incurred on closing of year to exhaust the available funds in which rules and instructions were not followed and expenditure incurred in splitting the expenditure. Reasons of the same may be intimated.
In reply it was stated that the expenditure was as per rule and construction work has been carried out at Gwalior R.K Puri Sub office through forming of local purchase committee and on its recommendation, all other purchasing were approved well in time. The reply was not acceptable, all the expenditure of similar nature may be merged together and combined approval of competent authority may be obtain for regularization of expenditure as expenditure was beyond the limit fixed for Quotation/ and committee.
Shri Gauriar relinquished charge on 02.06.2007 and the draft Audit Inspection carried out from 03.04.2007 to 13.04.2007 had been shown to him before issue but he was unable to seize the opportunity and convince the Audit to drop the Para at draft stage itself.
8. Since the matter was got enquired into by officers of Circle Office, Postal Civil Wing as well as Regional Office and these Bills of contractors were not found justified therefore file was submitted to Shri B.B Dave (IPoS-1986), who had joined as PMG Indore on 17.4.08 and these bogus bills of contractors were rejected by the PMG Indore. The charge of DPS Indore was relinquished by Ms. Madhuri Dabral, on 08.05.2008. However soon after Shri B.B Dave was also transferred and relinquished charge on 29.08.2008 after just 3-4 months in office. Thereafter Smt Indu Gupta (IPoS-1979) joined as PMG Indore and Shri V.C Roy (IPoS-1992) the then DPS Indore Region sanctioned these already rejected Bills. In the meanwhile the RTI activist had filed a criminal case in the Court based on information provided under RTI Act on the ground that already rejected bills of contractor had been sanctioned irregularly despite work not being carried out by the Contractors causing loss to the Government.
9. Thereafter to justify their wrong action of sanctioning the irregular Bills of contractor which went against the interests of the Department, Shri V.C Roy took following steps :-
(i). Shri V.C Roy the then DPS Indore then indulged in unethical practice of creation of false evidence at a later date i.e. one letter dated 04.05.2009 of Shri S.M Pingle the then A.D(Bldg) with reference to RO Indore Letter No. DPS/CON/2009 dated 04.05.2009 which was part of a larger conspiracy and had been created at a later date at the behest of Shri Santosh Gauriar in order to implicate Ms. Madhuri Dabral. The Letter is reproduced below:-
The Postmaster General,
Sub: Inquiry in the case of Finance Mart at Dewas HO.
Reference: R.O Indore Letter No. DPS/CON/2009 dated 04.05.2009
Queries of Hon’ble PMG regarding visit to decide taking technical/financial expert assistance and scope of inquiry, I have to mention following facts,
On receipt of some bills from the SPOs Mfl. Dn. Indore, I had examined all the case files and observed that no any written approval was given by the RO for execution of some of the works at Finance Mart at Dewas. I submitted my report to the then DPS Ms. Madhuri Dabral. She did not accept my report and she herself prepared an Inquiry Report, called me in her chamber and asked to sign the report she prepared in an abusive words. I refused to sign and immediately proceeded to Bhopal to apprise of the matter to CPMG.
Mrs. Madhu Narayanan, the then CPMG was told of the matter verbally. She assured me that even if I sign the report the entire case would be investigated into on Circle Level and only then proper decision would be taken. On this assurance from her I came back to Indore and when again the then DPS forced me to sign the report, I signed it under duress as I knew that the CO would be making detail inquiry into the matter. Though I signed it I was not given any opportunity to go through the report.
In view of the above facts, I have to mention that I did not visit the site, did not make any technical or financial assistance as the report was not prepared by me. The scope of inquiry was not known to me.
Dated at Indore Asstt. Director (Estt. & BD)
4th May 2009 R.O Indore
(ii). It is felt that the very fact that Shri S.M Pingle brought this matter on record after such a long gap of one year two months after submission of inquiry report, as his report is dated 19.02.2008, it is evident it was an afterthought & this letter dated 04.05.2009 had been written under duress as Shri S.M Pingle retired on 30.06.2009 & had just 01 month left for retirement & therefore succumbed to the pressure tactics of Shri V.C Roy, the thenDPS Indore, who acted at the behest of Shri Santosh Gauriar. Thus Shri V.C Roy, has gone to the extreme extent of building false evidence at a later date in violation of Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false.
(iii). Shri Gauriar made all out efforts to make this Criminal case filed by a private party against him, appear as if the Department was defending his case whereas the State was not a party in this case. In a way his presumption was also correct, because he enjoyed massive support as almost all the officers were supporting him. Thus Shri Gauriar orchestrated the 39 page reply dated 16.09.2009 signed by Shri S.R Meena and filed by him in his capacity as PMG Indore which included the Letter dated 4th May 2009 vide which Shri Pingle had disowned his own Inquiry Report dated 19th February 2008. Since Shri P.R. Deshmukh, Assistant Director (Staff & Vigilance) had expired by this time therefore the two Inquiry Reports submitted by him dated 11th March 2008 and 13th March 2008 were clandestinely brushed aside. Thus Shri Gauriar wanted to prove that the Department has given him a clean chit as he has got two promotions from 2007 to 2012 and hence no irregularity has been committed by Shri Gauriar. It is not understood how and why then PMG Indore, Shri S.R Meena had filed an official reply on behalf of the Department, in support of such willful creation of false evidence and then surreptitiously included it in the reply filed on behalf of the department in a case in which the State was not a party.
10. In the 39 page reply filed by Shri S.R Meena then PMG Indore on 16.9.2009 incorrect and wrong facts were submitted before the Court. A brief analysis of his reply is as under :-
ANALYSIS OF SHRI S.R MEENA, PMG INDORE LETTER DATED 16.09.2009
No. Reference Brief Analysis 1 Letter dated 16.09.2009 of Shri S.R Meena, then PMG Indore addressed to Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore.
Page – 1 (a). Content – Covering Letter.
(b). Shri Gauriar made all out efforts to mislead the Hon’ble Court & make this Criminal case filed by a private party against him, appear as if the Department was defending his case whereas the State was not a party in this case. Thus Shri Gauriar through active connivance of Shri S.R Meena, orchestrated the 39 page reply dated 16.09.2009 filed by PMG Indore. Shri S.R Meena then PMG Indore had filed an official reply on behalf of the Department in support of such willful creation of false evidence and then surreptitiously included it in the reply filed on behalf of the department in a case in which the State was not a party. Thus Shri S.R Meena has fabricated evidence at a later date. Action under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code needs to be taken against these officers i.e. fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false. 2 Annexure-I – List of records & documents produced before the Hon’ble Court
Pages – 2 (a). Content – List of 6 (six) files & Inquiry Report of Committee constituted by CPMG, Inquiry Report of Shri S.M Pingle, P&T Audit Report for period from 03.04.2007 to 13.04.2007.
(b). The two investigation Reports dated 11.03.2008 and 13.03.2008 submitted by Shri P.R. Deshmukh, Assistant Director (Staff & Vigilance) have not been mentioned.
(i). One investigation was carried out by Shri S.M Pingle, Assistant Director (Estt & BD) and submitted his Inquiry Report dated 19.02.2008.
(ii). Two investigations were carried out by Shri P.R. Deshmukh, Assistant Director (Staff & Vigilance) and submitted two Inquiry Reports dated 11.03.2008 and 13.03.2008.
(iii). The Chief PMG, MP Circle got three Circle level Committees set up to enquire into the matter. But the two committees set up vide Memo dated 26.11.2007 and 27.2.2008 never submitted any report. Only the Third Committee set up vide Memo dated 13.03.2008 submitted only one report dated 25.03.2008. The details have been given in Para-11, Page-18 below. 3 Annexure-II – Summary Note September 2009.
Pages – 3-4 (a). Content – Comprises of six Para’s
(b). Para-1 – The Prime Ministers Office never directed that rules need not be followed.
Para-2 – The PMGs Financial Powers have not been questioned. The Rules flouted have been listed in Para-5 of this Report.
Para-3 – As regards floating of Tenders The irregularities have been given in Para-6 of this Report.
Para-4 – The post of PMG Indore was vacant from 02.06.2007 to 16.4.2008 i.e. for about 11 months, & CPMG was holding dual charge of Regional Office. Therefore all the case Files were sent to CPMG MP Circle Ms. Madhu Narayanan for granting approval in the respective Files of Regional Office. But the Files were returned by CPMG to Regional Office without approval. It was later on that separate Letter No. VIG/12-6/2007 dated 29.4.2008 issued under signature of Shri G.R Dhote, APMG(Staff&Vig.) conveying approval were received without Photocopy of Notesheet of File in which approval of CPMG had been obtained nor was the copy of CIFA Report or remarks of CIFA in File. In the meanwhile Shri B B Dave who was working as DPS(HQ) from 05.09.2006 to 16.4.2008 in Bhopal under Smt Madhu Narayanan was promoted and posted as PMG Indore & joined on 17.4.2008. Shri B B Dave, PMG Indore Region was aware of the background of Shri Dhote’s Letter dated 29.4.2008 but gave orders for rejection of irregular Bills of Contractors. On perusal of CIFA Report it is observed that CIFA in his report dated 11.02.2008 has cited large number of irregularities as mentioned in Para-7(iii) of this Report & has not given remarks anywhere in the Report that irregular Bills may be sanctioned or advised for release of payments.
Para-5 – Shri V.C Roy had obtained Letter dated 4th May 2009 from Shri S.M Pingle then AD(Bldg/BD) disowning his own Inquiry Report dated 19.02.2008. The details have been given in Para-9 of this Report.
Para-6 – The P&T Audit has cited irregularities in detail vide Para-7 of Audit inspection Report dated 26.04.2007 as mentioned in Para-7(vi) of this Report. 4 Annexure-III – Detailed Note September 2009.
Pages – 5-8 (a). Content – This Annexure comprises of Five (5) points.
(b). Point-1 – All ARMO & petty Civil works are to be got done through Postal Civil Wing. As per details at Para-6(vii) of this Report the Civil Wing has carried out petty works of even Rs.14,175 in IQ at Morar HO. The Committee comprising of Sub Divisional Inspector, Head Postmaster, Public Relations Inspector, Marketing Executive & APM is a very junior level Committee comprising of Non-Gazetted Staff & not covered under the rules. As per DG Posts Letter No.48-1/03/Tech dated 22.10.2003, the Directorate had issued guidelines that in every Circle/Region a three Member Committee will be formed comprising of DPS, Divisional Head and A.E (Civil) who will submit joint report after visiting the concerned Post offices selected by Circle/Region for modernization. The CPMG had not granted any approval in the respective Files of Regional Office. Shri B.B Dave was fully aware of the doubtful background for issuing the Circle Office Letter No. VIG/12-6/2007 dated 29.4.2008 and 19.5.2008 and rejected the Bills.
Point-2 – It is wrong to presume that Postal Civil Wing was facing acute shortage of staff. The Civil Wing floats Tenders & moniters work. Being technical wing on civil works it is fully competent & has the required expertise & domain knowledge. The Civil Wing exists so that attention of Operative Staff is not diverted towards such works, as they need to focus on core activities of Postal operations.
Point-3 – The Letter dated 4.10.2006 (page-37) has been cited as Work Orders for carrying out civil works in Dewas HO, which cannot be termed as Work Order as the Civil Wing Work Orders contain exact measurements, DSR Rates & Quality specifications along with Penalty clause on Contractor & other terms & conditions. There is a difference between Work Orders & Administrative Orders & the two should not be confused. This is nothing but to create confusion & divert attention from main issue. It has further been alleged that Ms. Madhuri Dabral harbored ill will & forced Shri S.M Pingle to sign his Inquiry report dated 19.02.2008. He has enclosed as proof The Statement dated 04.05.2009 was obtained under pressure by Shri V.C Roy, after one year two months from submission of Inquiry Report & just 01 month before retirement of Shri Pingle. The details are available in Para-9 of this Report. The so called report to this effect purported to have been made to DG Department of Posts, New Delhi, has not been seen by Ms. Madhuri Dabral and the DG Posts has not called for any comments nor has anyone asked the officer to respond in this matter. Thus it is presumed this fabricated false report has been closed & filed by DG Posts as such flimsy and baseless reports do not warrant even the action of calling for comments/report of the officer
Point-4 – The details of irregularities have been given in Para-4,5,6 & 7 of this Report.
Point-5 – The details of irregularities pointed out by P&T Audit have been given in Para-7(vi) of this Report. Details of petty items of purchase have been cited to divert attention from core issue. 5 PMO ID Note No. 170/31/C/4/2005-ES I dated 6.12.05.
Pages – 9 (a). Content – Letter from Prime Ministers Office addressed to Secretary(Posts). It has no relevance to the irregular Bills of Contractors which were rejected but later on got sanctioned illegally to favor the Contractors & cause loss to Govt.
(b). Prime Ministers Office has not given any directions not to follow rules. PMG Indore is trying to intimidate by names dropping of highest authority. 6 Extract of Schedule – II
Pages – 10 (a). Content – Contains List of Posts categorized as Head of Department.
(b). Reference has no relevance to the case. The powers of Head of Department have not been questioned. It is non following of correct procedures & irregularities in charging Bills for work not carried out, causing loss to Govt. 7 Extract of General Financial Rules
Pages – 11 (a). Content – Rule 129(2), Rule 146 have been cited.
(b). These rules are not relevant or applicable & have been cited to divert attention. These rules are not applicable for Civil Construction work but for petty day to day office purchases. There is no provision of executing the civil wok under the supervision of a committee. A committee can be appointed for purchase of goods costing above Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only and up to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only on each occasion under Rule 146 of GFR. 8 Letter No. Vig./12-6/2007/717 dated 11.2.2008 from Shri R.K Shrivastava, ACAO, o/o DAP, Bhopal.
Pages – 12-15 (a). Content – Enclosed 3(three) page Report of Director of Accounts Postal.
(b). In the Postal Circles the O/o Director of Accounts (DAP) reports to the Chief PMG. DAP looks after all accounting matters of all offices in the Circle. The DAP also discharges functions of Circle Internal Financial Adviser to CPMG. While discharging duties of DAP the DAP office assists the DAP but in capacity as CIFA the DAP accords advice in his individual capacity & examines files, puts remarks and marks file to CPMG. The ACAO has forwarded the Report of DAP. The irregularities have been mentioned in Para-7(iii) of this Report. 9 Circle Office Letter No. VIG/12-6/2007 dated 29.4.2008.
Pages – 16 (a). Content – Regarding payment of pending Bills of Civil work at Guna HO and Morar HO setting up of Finance Mart.
(b). The post of PMG Indore was vacant from 02.06.2007 to 31.03.2008, & Smt Madhu Narayanan, CPMG was holding the charge of PMG Indore. All the case files had been sent to Circle Office for according approval in Regional Office Files but CPMG returned all files without approval. Instead approval was being conveyed through secondary sources without enclosing the copies of relevant extracts on which approval was being conveyed. The approval in File of R.O was required to be accorded, which was proper procedure. Smt Madhu Narayanan had a doubtful style of functioning and was known not to take responsibility. The Department of Posts has duly acknowledged this fact in File No. 28-24/2009-SPG. Later on when regular PMG Shri B B Dave, DPS (HQ) Bhopal joined on promotion he examined and rejected the Bills in those very Files of R.O which had been returned by Smt Madhu Narayanan. 10 Circle Office Letter No. VIG/12-6/2007 dated 19.5.2008.
Pages – 17 (a). Content – Regarding payment of pending Bills of Civil work at Guna HO and Morar HO setting up of Finance Mart.
(b). No approval was granted by Smt Madhu Narayanan in Regional Office files sent to her. It needs to be checked whether concerned C.O Files which are crucial evidence have been destroyed because Smt Narayanan style of functioning is such she keeps such files in her personal custody & then destroys the same before demitting office. Since those officers have been hand picked & posted as Head of Circle of MP Circle who are sympathetic to cause of Shri Gauriar & Smt Narayanan, thus destruction of evidence is important point for consideration. 11 Memo No. AD BLDG/FM/2007-08 dated 3.3.2008.
Pages – 18 (a). Content – Memo regarding setting up of Circle level Committee by CPMG.
(b). The Chief PMG, MP Circle got three Circle level Committees set up to enquire into the matter.
(a). First Committee vide CO Memo No. VIG/12-6/2007 dated 26.11.2007.
(b). Second Committee vide CO Memo No. VIG/12-6/2007 dated 27.2.2008.
But these two committees never submitted any report despite issue of R.O Letter No. Vig./01/Misc/08, dated 24th April 2008, subject regarding maintenance Work of Guna HO, Morar HO and Mandsaur HO.
(c). Third Committee vide CO Memo No. AD (BLDG)/FM/2007-2008 dated 13.03.2008 was formed. This Committee had submitted only one report dated 25.03.2008. This four Member Committee comprising of Shri D.C Bhavsar, AD(Building) Circle Office, Bhopal, Shri R. K Shrivastava, Asstt. Chief Accounts Officer of DAP Office, and Shri Brajendra Kumar, Assistant Engineer Postal Civil Division, Bhopal, along with concerned Divisional Head had as per their Report clearly stated the flouting of rules and inability to verify the quality of work, specifications of work /material used and workmanship etc because in the bills description of items has not been explained and given in half or single line, the rates are also more than DSR Rates. 12 Letter No. AD(BLDG)/FM/2007-08 dated 25.03.2008.
Pages – 19-21 (a). Content – Report of Circle level Committee on work done under Finance Mart at Dewas HPO.
(b). The four Member Committee comprising of Shri D.C Bhavsar, AD(Building) Circle Office, Bhopal, Shri R. K Shrivastava, Asstt. Chief Accounts Officer of DAP Office, and Shri Brajendra Kumar, Assistant Engineer Postal Civil Division, Bhopal, along with concerned Divisional Head had as per their Report clearly stated the flouting of rules and inability to verify the quality of work, specifications of work /material used and workmanship etc because in the bills description of items has not been explained and given in half or single line, the rates are also more than DSR Rates. 13 Shri S.M Pingle Letter dated 4th May 2009 w.r.t R.O Indore Letter No. DPS/CON/2009 dated 4.5.2009.
Pages – 22 (a). Content – Shri S.M Pingle then AD(Bldg/BD) disowning his own Inquiry Report dated 19.02.2008.
(b). Shri S.M Pingle has given this written Statement on 04.05.2009 after a long gap of one year two months after submission of inquiry report, as his report is dated 19.02.2008. This Statement dated 04.05.2009, has been written under duress as Shri S.M Pingle retired on 30.06.2009 & had just 01 month left for retirement & therefore succumbed to the pressure tactics of Shri V.C Roy, the then DPS Indore, who acted at the behest of Shri Santosh Gauriar. The details are available in Para-9 of this Report. 14 R.O Indore Letter No.B/1-1/Guna HPO dated 3.8.95.
Pages – 23 (a). Content – Letter addressed to Contractor Shri Sanjay Kumar Jabulkar regarding Annual Repair & maintenance of HPO Building at Guna. It is not clear from the letter as to whether the work had been allotted to Contractor through Postal Civil Wing or directly by the Regional Office. In case the work was allotted by Civil Wing then the Regional Office was required to address the Assistant Engineer who had awarded work to Contractor and can levy penalty as per tender clause. The Letter regarding unsatisfactory work of Contractor has not even been endorsed to the Postal Civil Wing who might have awarded the work. In case the Regional Office had awarded the work to Contractor directly then they should have stopped this practice & allowed Postal Civil Wing space & freedom to carry out its duties.
(b). The Department is maintaining a separate Specialized Agency i.e. Postal Civil Wing which should be the final word in all technical matters pertaining to building construction, repairs etc. The Department is incurring huge expenditure on maintaining the Postal Civil Wing thus it is imperative that its services are utilized fully and the time and energy of the Postal staff is not diverted towards such extraneous activities which can easily be carried out by the specialized Agency. The Civil Wing has never given its refusal in writing that it cannot or does not want to carry out the Civil works given to it by the Postal Administration. Thus there was no urgency that the work was given to a private contractor without even bothering to float tenders & follow proper procedure. 15 SPOs Guna Letter No. D-2-1/98-99 dated 24.4.98.
Pages – 24-25 (a). Content – Regarding vertical extension of Guna HO Building for construction of Divisional Office Building Guna with reference to telephonic talk dated 24.4.98.
(b). Irrelevant Reference.
The O/o PMG Indore had vide their telephonic talk on 24.4.98, called for proposal from Superintendent of Post offices Guna Division. It has not been questioned why work at Guna HO was carried out thus justification is unnecessary. The question is why proper procedure was not followed, work order not issued as per rules or why work was not assigned to Postal Civil Wing. 16 DO No. B-1-1/Guna dated 2nd Sept. 2004 from Shri J.P Bajaj addressed to Shri B.L Mehra, E.E (C) PC Dn. Bhopal.
Pages – 26 (a). Content – Letter dated 02.09.2004, Regarding submission of Estimates for repair to approach road of Guna HPO, Boundary wall, office accommodation for SPOs Guna in existing HPO Guna, by the Executive Engineer, Bhopal based on Visit Remarks dated 22.06.2004.
(b). The Superintendent Engineer had vide his Letter dated 13.11.2007 cited numerous shortcomings. The details have been given in Para-6(v)&(vii) and Para-7(i) of this Report. 17 SPOs Guna Letter No. D-2-86/2000 dated 9.8.2000
Pages – 27 (a). Content – Regarding request for construction of Divisional Office in Guna HPO.
(b). Irrelevant Reference. It has not been questioned why Divisional Office has been shifted to Guna HO. Thus justification is unnecessary. The question is why proper procedure was not followed, work order not issued as per rules or why work was not assigned to Postal Civil Wing. 18 Visit Report of Divisional Office, Guna dated 29.07.2004 carried out by Shri L.N Sharma, then Director Postal Services, Indore Region.
Pages – 28-29 (a). Content – This is the Visit Report of then Director.
(b). Irrelevant Reference. It has not been questioned why Divisional Office has been shifted to Guna HO. Thus justification is unnecessary. The question is why proper procedure was not followed, work order not issued as per rules or why work was not assigned to Postal Civil Wing. 19 Regional Office Letter No. VR-01/D.O Guna/DPS/06 dated 21.06.2007.
Pages – 30 (a). Content – The Regional Office Indore vide their Letter No. VR-01/D.O Guna/DPS/06 dated 21.06.2007, addressed the SPOs Guna w.r.t Divisional office Guna Letter No.VR/1-1/Guna/173 dated 03.01.2007.
(b). Irrelevant Reference. It has not been questioned why Divisional Office has been shifted to Guna HO. Thus justification is unnecessary. The question is why proper procedure was not followed, work order not issued as per rules or why work was not assigned to Postal Civil Wing. 20 C.O Letter No. Tech/24-02/72/II dated 26.05.2006.
Pages – 31 (a). Content – C.O Letter No. Tech/24-02/72/II dated 26.05.2006 regarding Selection for setting up of Postal Finance Marts during the current year 2006-07 has been enclosed.
(b). For the Financial Year 2006-07, the Directorate had allotted targets and funds to all Circles vide DG’s Letter No. 113-15/2004-FS dated 28.04.2006. The Circle Office further allotted target and funds to Indore Region vide its Letter dated 26.05.2006.
(i).There was ample time from 26.05.2006 to 31.03.2007 to complete the work. The Circle Office had in its Letter dated 26.05.2006 further stated that, “Kindly utilize the Plan funds after observing due formalities before 31.1.2007 and report compliance. A monthly report on the targets achieved and funds utilized during the particular month may be furnished in the prescribed Proforma enclosed along with DG’s Letter No.113-15/2004-FS dated 28.04.2006.”
(ii). Thus urgency, rush of work, paucity of time cannot be cited as reason for non adherence or non following of rules. Let alone Prime Ministers office , even DG has insisted on observing due formalities. 21 R.O Letter No. BDC 2-27/F Mart/06-07 dated 7/8 June 2006.
Pages – 32-34 (a). Content – Six Divisional Heads have been allotted Targets for Setting up of Postal Finance Mart during the year 2006-07.
(b). Irrelevant Reference. The allotment of Target for setting up of Financial Marts has not been questioned. Thus justification is unnecessary. The question is why proper procedure was not followed, work order not issued as per rules despite allotment of Targets in the month of June 2006 & ample time of 9 months of the Financial Year were available & why the work was taken up only in the fag end of Financial Year. 22 Extract of File Noting 32/N
Pages – 35 (a). Content – This is page 32/N of some File of which the File Number has not been mentioned nor the name of office where the proposed expenditure is to be incurred has been mentioned.
(b). The Assistant Director Shri R.C Borkhadia has submitted proposal in File. Assistant Director is technically not qualified to prepare and submit estimates for civil construction work. This is required to be done by Postal Civil Wing which alone has the expertise & technical knowledge. 23 Extract of File Noting 34/N dated 28.9.06.
Pages – 36 (a). Content – This is page 34/N of some File of which the File Number has not been mentioned nor the name of office where the proposed expenditure is to be incurred has been mentioned.
(b). The Assistant Director belonging to PSS Group-B Service, is technically not qualified to prepare and submit estimates for civil construction work. Moreover then PMG Indore Smt. Indu Gupta had raised Queries regarding visit to decide taking technical/financial expert assistance and scope of inquiry. To which Shri S.M Pingle then AD had vide his Letter dated 4th May 2009 given in Para-9(1) of this Report & also at Sl No-13 above, that he did not visit the site, did not take any technical or financial assistance. Extract of File Noting 34/N dated 28.9.06 is the proposal prepared in file by Assistant Director has been prepared without any assistance from technical or financial experts.
(c). Therefore we cannot follow two different yardsticks. The Assistant Director, Shri R.C Borkhadia, had prepared proposal in File Note at 32/N & 34/N dated 28.9.06 without any technical help. On the same analogy the Assistant Director, Shri S.M Pingle, also prepared Inquiry Report dated 19.02.2008 without technical help. 24 R.O Letter No.BDC/2-27/PURAK/06-07 dated 4th October 2006.
Pages – 37 (a). Content – This is Letter from Assistant Director to Divisional Head conveying approval for getting work carried out by inviting tenders and on quotation basis.
(b). The approval was granted on 04.10.2006 with specific instructions to complete the work by December 2006. However several irregularities were noticed as per details given in Para-6(iii) of this Report.
25 Postmaster Dewas HO Letter No. H-2/ Financial Mart/06-07 Dewas dated 15.05.2007 addressed to SPOs Indore Muffassil Division.
Pages – 38 (a). Content – The Postmaster has conveyed that the Committee has certified the work carried out in Dewas HO.
(b). The Four (4) Member Committee comprises of –
Postmaster Dewas HPO, Assistant Supdt of Post Offices, Dewas, Deputy Postmaster Dewas and Postal Assistant Dewas HPO. Formation of such junior level Non-Gazetted officials from Postal Operations side to certify Civil Construction work is not covered under the rules.
26 Karyavrit dated 2.3.06 signed by Shri R.C Borkhadia, AD(Estt), Shri A.K Dube, A.E(Civil), Shri H.P Vishwakarma, Accounts Officer.
Pages – 39 (a). Content – This is copy of Karyavrit dated 2.3.06 signed by Shri R.C Borkhadia, AD(Estt), Shri A.K Dube, A.E(Civil), Shri H.P Vishwakarma, Accounts Officer. The Committee gave its approval to rates of Milind Construction after negotiation. The Committee has stated that rates of contractor are higher than approved DSR Rates fixed by CPWD & followed by Postal Civil Wing. Shri L.N Sharma, then Director Postal Services has accorded approval on 3.3.06 for amount of Rs. 9,83,806/- on the ground that, “In view of above & approaching financial year end, the rates of 11 items negotiated by the Committee are approved. The payment will however be made after verification & certification of amount/quantity of work, under each item by Divisional Head.” If a wrong procedure was being adopted in the past it cannot become grounds to justify continuing the same irregularity.
(b). In Financial Year 2005-06, last minute approval has been granted on 3.3.06, for civil construction work, which is not possible to complete within that financial year which ends on 31.3.2006. It needs to be ascertained on what date the Directorate allotted funds and why work has been awarded at last moment. Shri Santosh Gauriar had joined Indore Region as PMG on 30.01.2006, his predecessor Shri O.S Veerwal had relinquished charge on 23.11.2005 and post of PMG Indore was vacant for just 67 days.
(c). As per DG Posts Letter No.48-1/03/Tech dated 22.10.2003, the Directorate had issued guidelines that in every Circle/Region a three Member Committee will be formed comprising of Director Postal Services, Divisional Head and Assistant Engineer (Civil) who will submit joint report after visiting the concerned Post offices selected by Circle/Region for modernization. Thereafter once the Report is accepted by HoC or HoR the Civil Wing will carry out all work of Civil nature and the Divisional Head will purchase other items like furniture etc as per recommendations of Committee after taking due approval and following proper procedure. Such Committees headed by DPS had been formed to ensure cohesion, proper monitoring and avoid delay caused by calling for reports, raising queries and back references etc. Thus wrong procedure was adopted in Year 2005-06 and DPS should have submitted proposal to PMG, who is competent authority. Therefore this evidence does not hold ground and can be rejected.
11. Shri Gauriar worked as CPMG Rajasthan Circle from 02.06.2007 to 11.04.2010 and thereafter posted as CPMG Madhya Pradesh Circle from 12.04.2010 to 03.11.2011 and then as Member(Operations) Postal Board from 04.11.2011 to 31.05.2012, date of his retirement. This conspiracy would never have been known to Ms. Madhuri, except as a matter of sheer chance, as she had applied under RTI for copy of documents which were provided vide SPG File No. 24-32/2013-SPG. While examining these documents she came across these deceptive Letters.
(a). Soon after Ms. Madhuri (IPoS-1989) attended the Court at Indore on 20.04.2011 in her official capacity, the then Member (PLI), Maj. Gen. V Sadashivam, under pressure from Shri Alok Saxena (IPoS-1989), who was operating at the behest of Shri Santosh Gauriar, recalled the Tour file and irregularly withdrew his earlier approval after the tour had been completed. Maj. Gen. V Sadashivam, marked the file to Shri Alok Saxena (IPoS-1989), Secretary (PSB) who conspired with Shri Gauriar and created evidence at a later date to build a false case against Ms. Madhuri Dabral (IPoS-1989).
(b). Thereafter Ms. Madhuri Dabral, Director(Work Study) was irregularly transferred from the Directorate within 5 months of posting and she relinquished charge on 06.06.2011. The Administration Branch at the behest of Shri Saxena addressed Letter No. TAA-14/2011-12/C&A/PB dated 10th June 2011, calling for clarification from Shri Santosh Gauriar, the accused officer against whom the criminal case had been filed, regarding tour performed by Ms. Madhuri Dabral (IPoS-1989), Director(WS) on 20th April 2011 to attend summons by Hon’ble Court at Indore. Shri Gauriar, instead of recusing himself from the matter due to conflict of interest, submitted his reply on expected lines downplaying the seriousness of the charges leveled against him in the criminal case lodged against him. He addressed Shri Alok Saxena (IPoS-1989), Secretary (PSB) vide his Letter No. CPMG/MP/Conf./2011-12 dated 20.6.2011. In this Letter dated 20.6.2011, Shri Santosh Gauriar has stated as under:-
Shri Alok Saxena
DDG(Tech.) & Secretary PSB CONFIDENTIAL
Office of DG, Department of Posts
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg
No. CPMG/MP/Conf./2011-12 dated 20.6.2011
Subject : Tour performed by Ms. Madhuri Dabral, Director(WS) on 20th April 2011 to attend a summon by Hon’ble Court, Indore – Reg.
Reference : DG Posts No. TAA-14/2011-12/C&A/PB dated 10th June 2011
As the matter pertains to the Court in Indore, report of the PMG Indore was obtained which is enclosed for perusal. It is added that Ms. Madhuri Dabral was well aware that it was a private case as she had received summons earlier too and had been in regular touch with the complainant Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar and her ex PA Shri S.K Saha. She was required to put these facts before the competent authority, sought leave and attended the Court at Indore in a private capacity as a witness of the complainant. It is clear from the Courts order sheet dated 12.7.2010 and 12.8.2010 (photocopy enclosed with PMG letter) that the travelling expenses to be paid to a private witness was to be deposited in the Court by the private complainant. To help the complainant, Ms. Madhuri Dabral misinterpreted it as a departmental case and obtained TA advance from the department and made her visit as on Govt. duty. Copy of her letter to PMG Indore and her tour programme will reveal this (copy enclosed). The Asstt. Govt. counsel who was available in the Court has also informed that when the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate First class enquired about the travelling expenses, she informed the Court that she was on Govt. Duty. Thus Ms. Madhuri Dabral not only helped the private complainant financially at the cost of the Department of Posts but also gave a false and misleading statement on oath to the Magistrate in the Court of Law. The amount of Rs.200/- deposited by the complainant is only a token amount to initiate the procedure.
At present the matter is only at the stage of complaint and the complainant has to produce evidence and witnesses at his own expense. As the case has not been registered by the Court and no summons issued to the officers complained against, there is no scope for defending the case. Details of the case as to how Ms. Madhuri Dabral was involved in the complaint case was sent to Hon’ble Secretary to GOI and DG department of Posts through my confidential letter dated July 9, 2009. This report is being sent for taking necessary action by the appropriate authority against Ms. Madhuri Dabral for misrepresentation and obtaining TA on false ground with an intention to cheat the Government and help a private individual.
Chief Postmaster General
Encl: As above 20.06.2011.
(c). Shri Gauriar got his subordinate, the then PMG Indore, Shri S.R Meena to support and endorse his conjectures and assist him in building up the case vide his Letter No. AD(E)/Con/CC(BD)/09 dated 16.06.2011. In this Letter dated 16.06.2011, Shri S.R Meena, PMG Indore who was the subordinate of the accused officer, gave unsubstantiated false information as under:-
Shri Santosh Gauriar
Chief Postmaster General
MP Circle, Bhopal-462012
No.AS(E)/Con/CC(BD)/09 dated at Indore the 16-06-2011
Subject : Tour performed by Ms. MadhuriDabral, Director(WS) on 20th April 2011 to attend a summon by Hon’ble Court of Indore – regarding.
Ref : Your No. TAA-14/2011-12/C&A/PB dated 10-06-2011
With reference to above referred letter the required information is as under :-
A private complaint has been submitted by one Shri Ravikumar Potdar in the court of Hon’ble CJM Indore under 0/2007 against Shri Santosh Gauriar, the then Postmaster General Indore and three other officers namely Shri R.C Borkhadia, AD (BD) RO Indore, Shri A.K Tomar, AD(S) RO Indore and ShriS.M Gupta, SPOs Indore Mfl. Dn. about repairs and maintenance work and expenditure under finance mart. The maintenance and civil work was carried out in Mandsaur, Guna, Gwalior, Dewas etc. for finance mart purpose during the period of Shri Santosh Gauriar the then Postmaster General, Indore (30-01-2006 to 02-06-2007)
It is further stated that the case has not been registered so far and nobody is defending the case either from the Deptt. side or from Shri Santosh Gauriar, and others. Smt. Madhuri Dabral, Director(W.S) was summoned by Hon’ble Court of Indore for giving primary evidence from the applicant side as a witness as ordered by the Hon’ble Court. Copy of order sheet dated 12-07-2010 & 12-08-2010 is also enclosed, from which it is clear that Ms. Madhuri Dabral was witness from applicant side and the expenses of witness attendance are to be borne by the applicant. It is also clear from summon issued from Hon’ble Court to Ms. Madhuri Dabral that payment of Rs.200/- has been deposited in the court against attendance of witness by the applicant. The expense will be paid to witness on her attendance in the court.
It is learnt that the applicant Shri Ravi Potdar met Ms. Madhuri Dabral and briefed about his case.
Indore Region, Indore.
(d). Due to unethical practices adopted by Shri Santosh Gauriar and his supporting officers, of attempting to influence Court staff and obtain copies of uncertified confidential Court records, Ms Madhuri took up the matter vide her Letter dated 17th July 2013, with the Hon’ble First Class Judicial Magistrate, District Court Indore. Shri Gauriar had attached uncertified confidential Court records obtained clandestinely, with his Letter dated 20.6.2011 and addressed to Shri Alok Saxena, in order to falsely implicate Ms. Madhuri. The Criminal Case was later on transferred to the Hon’ble Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who after examining the records of the case, ordered for registering a criminal case under Section 409, 420 and 120 B IPC and issued summons to the accused, to be present in the Court on 28.4.2014.
(e). Armed with these two Letters cited above, Shri Alok Saxena (IPoS-1989), Secretary (PSB) illegally forwarded the TA Bill File No. TAA-14/2011-12/C&A/PB of Administration Branch of Directorate, to then CPMG Punjab Circle, Late Shri K.L Khanna who marked the File to Smt Ranju Prasad. Smt Prasad, PMG (Region), Punjab was not the competent authority to take decision on a matter decided/retracted by an officer of the level of Member of Postal Services Board. However the reason for forwarding the file to Punjab Circle was due to mala-fides. Thus based on just three letters from the accused officer i.e. Shri Gauriar, ignoring his conflict of interest and treating these as evidence i.e. confidential letter dated July 9, 2009 and Letter No. CPMG/MP/ACRs/2010-11 dated 16th November 2010 and Letter No. CPMG/MP/Conf./2011-12 dated 20.6.2011; a false case was opened at the behest of Shri Gauriar by Shri Alok Saxena. Ms. Madhuri had forwarded to the Administration Branch an Appeal dated 8th January 2013 addressed to Shri Kapil Sibal, Hon’ble MOC & IT regarding irregularly denying her TA claim for appearing as witness in Court in a criminal case filed against Shri Santosh Gauriar, Rtd. Member (O) P.S.B and thereafter falsely implicating her in a Vigilance case of bogus TA claim. The Administration Branch in the Directorate refused to handle the representation and therefore the matter was referred to DDG(Vig.). No response or reply has been received from Vigilance branch till date despite lapse of more than one year.
12. Thus the sequence of events of this conspiracy orchestrated at the behest of Shri Santosh Gauriar is briefly given as under :-
No. Sequence Dates 1 Filing of criminal complaint in Court at Indore by an RTI activist. Year 2007 2 During the period from 09.05.2008 to 31.03.2010, when Ms. Madhuri was on deputation in the MOUD, Shri Gauriar brought pressure through Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) and thus spoiled the working relations. Shri A.K Mehta belonged to the same hometown in Bihar, hence was close to Shri Gauriar. Shri Mehta used ACR as a means of bargaining to favour Shri Gauriar. The Details have been given in Para 20. (c) of her representation dated 24.09.2010, She has given facts regarding pressure put by Shri Gauriar from officers in the Department and Ministry of UD where she was on deputation. In this regard Para-3(vi) at Page-13 of her Appeal dated 29th July 2011 and Memorial to the President dated 16.11.2010 also refers. 09.05.2008 to 31.03.2010 3 Shri V.C Roy then Director Indore vide his Letter No. DPS/CON/2009 dated 04.05.2009 called for explanation of Shri S.M Pingle, A.D (BLDG.) who replied vide his letter dated 04.05.2009 disowning his own Inquiry Report dated 19.02.2008. 04.05.2009 4 Shri Gauriar addressed DG Posts vide his Letter dated 9th July 2009. This fact has been mentioned in his Letter No. CPMG/MP/Conf./2011-12 dated 20.6.2011 that, “Details of the case as to how Ms. Madhuri Dabral was involved in the complaint case was sent to Hon’ble Secretary to GOI and DG Department of Posts through my confidential letter dated July 9, 2009.” 09.07.2009 5 Shri S.R Meena then PMG Indore, filed a 39 page reply vide Letter dated 16.9.2009 before the Court containing unsubstantiated wrong facts. Shri S.R Meena had filed an official reply on behalf of the Department in support of such willful creation of false evidence and then surreptitiously included it in the reply filed on behalf of the department in a case in which the State was not a party. 16.9.2009 6 Summons issued to Ms. Madhuri Dabral for attending Court as witness on 28.07.2010. Officer could not attend due to pressure exerted by Shri Gauriar from all sides to give Statement that the Bills had been rejected due to error in understanding the matter. Ms. Madhuri came under extreme tension and fell ill & did not proceed to Indore. 28.07.2010 7 A second summons was delivered through Delhi Police and after taking approval of Tour Program and advance amount for tickets Ms. Madhuri Dabral proceeded to Indore and recorded her Statement on 20.04.2011 20.04.2011 8 Soon after her proceeding on Tour, Shri Alok Saxena pressurized Shri Sadashivam, Member to withdraw permission for tour at a later date & thereafter addressed Shri Gauriar, the accused officer & then CPMG Madhya Pradesh Circle (12.04.2010 to 03.11.2011) to send travel details of Ms. Madhuri to Indore vide his Letter No. TAA-14/2011-12/C&A/PB dated 10-06-2011. In order to strengthen the case & create supporting documents, Shri Santosh Gauriar further called for report from Shri S.R Meena, PMG Indore. 10.06.2011 9 Shri S.R Meena, PMG Indore submitted reply to Shri Gauriar vide Letter No. AD(E)/Con/CC(BD)/09 dated 16.06.2011 enclosing uncertified confidential Court papers he was not authorized to possess. 16.06.2011 10 Shri Santosh Gauriar addressed to Shri Alok Saxena, DDG(Tech.) & Secretary PSB, Postal Directorate vide his Confidential Letter No. CPMG/MP/Conf./ 2011-12 dated 20.6.2011. 20.6.2011 11 The Statement of Shri S.R Meena, PMG Indore was recorded on 23.08.2011, before Indore Court, in which he has clearly cited irregularities & named Shri V.C Roy. 23.08.2011 12 The Statement of Shri B.B Dave, then PMG Indore was recorded on 10.10.2011 before Indore Court. 10.10.2011 13 Since Shri Gauriar was about to join Directorate therefore Ms. Madhuri had to temporarily be sent away from Directorate. Therefore Shri Alok Saxena illegally abolishes Work Study Branch & Ms Madhuri is irregularly transferred to Punjab Circle on 03.06.2011 within just one year of posting in Directorate. Shri Saxena sends the concerned TA File of Directorate to Punjab Circle. Shri Gauriar joins Directorate on 04.11.2011 on his promotion as Member(Operations) & continued as such till 31.05.2012 i.e. his date of retirement. Ms Madhuri was reposted to the Directorate and rejoined on 02.07.2012. 03.06.2011
02.07.2012 14 Case registered by the Court vide its Order dated 19th February 2014, that there was sufficient evidence to Register a Criminal case against Shri Santosh Gauriar and proceed against him under Section 409, 420 and 120 B IPC and issued summons to the accused to be present in the Court on 28.4.2014. 19.2.2014
13. After filing of criminal complaint in Court by the RTI activist, Shri Gauriar embarked on his mission of revenge, targeting each officer one by one who did not side with him in cover up of these irregularities as cited in this Report.
(i). Shri B.B Dave, the then PMG Indore (from 17.4.2008 to 29.08.2008) who rejected the irregular Bills was unceremoniously transferred to Karnataka Circle within just 3-4 months of his joining in Indore as Postmaster General.
(ii). Ms Madhuri Dabral, the then DPS Indore who had submitted Note in File to the then PMG Indore Shri B.B Dave recommending rejection of irregular Bills was also harassed and frequently transferred as the officer has been transferred four (4) times in the last three (3) years. She was intentionally posted to Punjab Circle under Smt Ranju Prasad who held a grudge against Ms Madhuri as FIR No. 13 dated 01.03.1996, had been lodged against against Smt Ranju Prasad by the CBI as Principle Offender being accused number one under Section 120-B r/w 420,467,468, 471 of the Indian Penal code and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The Department placed Smt Ranju under suspension and charge of office was taken over by Ms Madhuri who was directed to hand over records of the case & assist the CBI. The details of persecution and harassment of Ms Madhuri Dabral, is available in DG File No. CS/APARs/2011-12/Instns.(Pt.)/Punj. and DG File No.7-2/2012-Bldg. The Officer was harassed in Punjab Circle and an attack was orchestrated causing injury and the officer was forced to seek protection of Court vide her Letter dated 16.11.2011. She was further persecuted and a bogus case created regarding submission of Bogus TA Bill pertaining to her Court attendance for appearing as a witness in the Court at Indore. The details of persecution are contained in the 11 Appeals addressed to Hon’ble Minister of Communications. The DDG(P) Shri V.P Singh in connivance with Shri Alok Saxena has refused to submit the Appeals before the Minister. Ms Madhuri filed case in CAT vide OA No-2201/2013 on 02.07.2013 requesting Court to give directions to submit her Appeals before the Minister. The CAT upheld the rights of officer and gave directions accordingly. Contempt Petition was filed by the officer on 22.04.2014 vide No. CP/177/2014 in OA No. 2201/2013, however still no action was taken.
(iii). Shri R.K Raghuvanshi was posted as SSPOs Gwalior vide CO Memo No. STA-1-790/Gr.A dated 27.07.2006. However he had initially refused to give completion certificate and become party to all this haphazard construction activity. He was transferred as SSPOs Jabalpur vide CO Memo No. STA 12-1/Gr.-A/2007 dated 5.7.2007. But he was unable to withstand pressure from Smt Madhu Narayanan, CPMG and therefore took voluntary retirement from service under severe pressure and due to intimidation and being transferred to Jabalpur because he was reluctant to become a part of this gross violation of rules. Shri Raghuvanshi preferred voluntary retirement notice vide No. SSP/PF/RKR/07 dated 6.7.2007 which was accepted vide DG Posts Letter No. 13-21/2007-SPG dated 28.9.2007.
(iv). The promotion of Shri R. Surendra the then RIFA, Regional Office, Indore was delayed and was given promotion after submitting several representations and after his juniors had already been promoted. The RIFA, Shri R. Surendra had come on transfer from Hyderabad & was insistent upon following the rules. He had strongly objected in RO File No. BDC/2-27/06-07/II about the irregular practice of the AD (BD/Estt) R.O of issuing sanction Memos directly to the Sr. Postmaster, Indore without the knowledge of the Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and no sanction is being marked to the DDO for making payment.
(v). Shri Brajendra Kumar, Assistant Engineer Postal Civil Division, Bhopal, was persecuted so much that he sought transfer from MP Circle.As per CO Memo No. AD (BLDG)/FM/2007-2008 dated 13.03.2008 a four Member Committee which included Shri Brajendra Kumar, Assistant Engineer Postal Civil Division, Bhopal as one of its Technical Member had been constituted. Shri Brajendra Kumar was pressurized to give report in favour of the Contractors. The Committee submitted its report dated 25.03.2008 and clearly cited the flouting of rules and inability to verify the quality of work, specifications of work /material used and workmanship etc because in the bills description of items has not been explained and given in half or single line, the rates are also more than DSR Rates.
(vi). Shri S.K Saha, Steno to Shri S.M Pingle the then Asstt. Director (Estt.& BD) was placed under suspension and issued 3-4 charge sheets in quick succession and pressurized to withdraw his statement before the Court that the disowned Inquiry Report dated 19.02.2008 of Shri Pingle had been typed by him. Due to recording of correct Statement in Court by Shri Saha, the ulterior action of Shri V.C Roy stood exposed as Shri Roy had created false evidence at a later date. Shri Gauriar also lodged a Police Complaint against Shri S.K Saha, vide his Letter No.PMG/IND/CONF/GENL/07-08 dated 11 April 2007 at Sanyogitaganj Thana vide their Diary No.S.P/Sanyogitaganj /II/793/07/26.4.07.
(vii). Shri B.S Patel, APMG(Staff), R.O Indore was entrusted with a Preliminary Inquiry into an pseudonymous complaint against Shri S.K Saha. Since Shri Patel did not carry out the orders of Shri Gauriar to give a conclusive report clearly implicating Shri Saha, thus Shri Gauriar the then Chief PMG M.P Circle cancelled the Ad-hoc promotion of Shri Patel from APMG, JTS Group-A to Assistant Director-III, Group-B thus causing lifelong financial loss as his Pension was adversely affected. Still not satisfied and full of vengeance and revenge, Shri Gauriar, the then CPMG M.P Circle dug out an old Inquiry in which some administrative lapses had been fixed upon a large number of officers, but singled out Shri Patel and issued him a charge sheet under Rule-16. Later on the next CPMG MP Circle, Shri A. Tripathi let off Shri Patel with a Censure.
14. Thus officers who had sided with Shri Gauriar were rewarded and officers who did not side with him were persecuted and implicated in false cases. Since Shri V. C Roy had sanctioned the already rejected Bills of Contractor and had also created false evidence by forcing Shri Pingle to give a Statement in writing disowning his own Inquiry Report, thus Shri Gauriar took care to protect his interests and reward him for his loyalty. Thus Shri Gauriar with the active connivance and support of Shri Salim Haque, the then DDG(P) ensured that the decisions on the various representations submitted by Ms. Madhuri Dabral are dumped. Thus these representations were intentionally kept pending and all of a sudden after a long gap of 9-10 months these were got hurriedly rejected on the ground that DG Posts Rule 174(7) of the Postal Manual Volume-III need not be followed. The representation of Ms. Dabral against the below Benchmark ACR for the year 2006-07 written by Shri Gauriar was submitted in File and unauthorizedly decided by Smt B.P Sridevi, then Director(Staff) at her own level on 11.07.2011. In the concerned File no written orders of the then Secretary Posts exist. Moreover the negative contents of noting of Smt B.P Sridevi had already been rejected in File No. 28-41/2010-SPG by the then Secretary Posts, yet she repeated the same by misrepresenting facts. Smt B.P Sridevi also did not bother to show the draft rejection orders before issue to the DG & Secretary Posts and issued orders at her own level. Moreover on submission of Appeal against rejection of first representation by the officer, Shri Salim Haque the then DDG(P) knowingly misrepresented, and gave false information in File that DOP&T has opined that no further Appeal can be submitted by officers. The DOPT vide its RTI reply dated 5th November 2012 provided copies of its File Noting to Ms. Madhuri Dabral, in which it had clearly stated that the earlier provision for a Memorial to the President against the decision of the competent authority still existed and would remain. These two Officers had the temerity to reject the Rules of Postal Manuals issued under the authority of DG Posts as well as overrule DOP&T Orders and therefore exceeded and misused their powers. Thus jeopardizing the very integrity of the institution.
15. The brazenness with which these officers were plotting and fearlessly implementing their nefarious designs only shows that they have no fear of authority or any future repercussions or possibility of accountability for their acts. The strategy of Shri Salim Haque was to delay the holding of DPC on one pretext or the other so that the number of vacancies in SAG swells and covers Shri V.C Roys Batch also. Thus the fear raked up by Shri V.C Roy who acted victim, would be taken care of, that he did not want to do anything against Ms. Dabral as she is senior to him and may face problem in future, as these two officers promised him that Ms. Dabral will anyway be dropped and he will be promoted before her and thus will become senior and hence had nothing to fear These officers succeeded in their dangerous endeavors of revenge and teaching Ms. Dabral a lesson, thus Shri V.C Roy enthused and assured of his interests being taken care of, willingly and boldly carried out a massive cover up operation and got the unfinished construction work of contractors completed at a later date i.e. the unfinished work of private contractors for the year 2006-07 was got completed in the year 2007-08 during his tenure which was camouflaged and expenditure as well as the old items of work got re-booked and included in the new work which was mixed up with old items of work to make it difficult to differentiate. Thus if the Court at Indore chose to get the work verified then the old work could be exhibited as being completed. Thus the Government faced double loss as it had to incur expenditure twice by getting the unfinished works completed and expenditure re-booked under the guise of new work. Thus Smt Madhu Narayanan, Shri V.C Roy, Smt Indu Gupta, Shri S.M Pingle and Officers of SPG Branch in the Directorate have aided and abetted the criminal act of falsely implicating an honest officer and building false evidence at a later date and therefore by virtue of their complicity have become equally responsible as abettors in this criminal act.
* * * * * * * *