Sunday 2 January 2011

Ramachandran may be in trouble

Ramachandran may be in trouble


A Criminal Case Is Pending In Patiala House Court



To,

Central Vigilance Commissioner,

Railway Board

CVC, New Delhi.


The Chairman

Rail Bhawan

New-Delhi


The OSD to MR

Railway Board

New Delhi


The Secretary

Railway Board

New Delhi


Subject : (1) Damage Suit no. 17/05 before District & Sessions judge no. 2, Kota under Law of Tort for torturing and mental injury against Shri V. Ramchandran (I.R.SS) Ex EDV(S) and presently CTE/CVC

& also

(2) Pendency of Criminal Complaint under section 120A, 120B, 166, 167, 177, 182, 415, 463. 464, 470, 471, 499 before Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala house (Court no.6) New Delhi for forging and fabricating the false documents with ill intent against Shri V. Ramchandran for abusing his power with mens-rea in wrath and on account of personal vendetta against the applicant to the extent of getting the applicant eliminated from the roll of Railways.

(3) Forged document - So-called RDSO approved list of firms (pl see page-49 ), which was conveniently used behind my back at all stages of disciplinary proceeding by Shri Ramchandran to hoodwink all superior authority including CVC and get all the requisite clearance to frame me. In RTI, RDSO have categorically refused having issued any such list (pl See page -46 )- a case of criminal conspiracy between Shri Ramachandran and the then Dy CVO/stores/WR for which a criminal case is pending in court of Law and notice has been issued and next date of hearing is 8th December, 2010

Sir,

It is most disheartening to state that I was constrained to file cases referred herein above against Shri Ramchandran by name for abusing power with criminal intent in a capacity of EDV (S) under the garb of word and expression “Bonafide” discharge of duties. The facts in brief are as under-


Based on the preventive check ordered by the then EDV(S) Shri V. Ramachandran, 14 Vigilance cases were registered against me in one single day. In one case, I was served a major penalty charge-sheet. This case was investigated under his direct control without any involvement of Zonal Railway. Finally, I was exonerated. While disposing of my appeal, UPSC observed that I was framed in a false case with malafide intention. Their observation is reproduced hereunder for ready reference-


‘……..The charged officer performed an exemplary work in procuring the materials required at fast speed… The Commission observes that major penalty proceedings were launched against the C.O. with long list of serious charges in a situation, which should rather have invited appreciation of C.O.’s services. In fact, one could not altogether ignore the CO’s statement that his major penalty charge sheet was ‘managed’ for him when he was on the verge of getting promotion to a higher grade after struggling for eight years initially due to administrative delays”.


(a) The above observation of UPSC was accepted in unconditional and unqualified manner by the Ministry of Railways on behalf of Hon’ble President (the highest authority) and thus they admitted that that I was actually framed in a false case with a malafied intention to stop the promotion. In this connection, Board’s letter Railway Board letter No E (O) I -2002/AE-3/WR/86 dated 23.06.2004 refers.


(b) Behind the aforesaid action, there was a criminal conspiracy. When it was admitted at the highest level in the Railway administration that I was framed in a false case, was it not incumbent on the part of Administration to find out as to who were responsible to frame me in a false case to settle the personal score by abusing their official position? However, it wasn’t done though everyone in the Railway Board Vigilance was aware that Shri Ramachandran is responsible but no one could gather courage to lay hands on him because he was holding a key position in CVC.


(C) When I noted that Administration wouldn’t move an inch on its own to do the justice, I lodged a complaint with plethora of evidences. However, his misdeeds were brushed under the carpet for the simple reason- he is a senior functionary of the Commission. I was painfully aware that because of his position as a former Vigilance officer of Railway Board and present position as CTE/CVC, a section of officials of the commission as well as the Railway Board are dedicated towards saving Shri Ramachandran, irrespective of the gravity of his misdeeds and the facts that clearly establish his culpability. They are determined to abuse and misuse their positions in order to build a wall of protection around Shri Ramchandran, so that he does not have to face the consequences of his misdeeds. The only reason for such unwarranted protection- he is a senior functionary of the Commission.


(D) Fortunately, such a wall for protection can only be built by lies and reinforced by deceit. As a foot soldier of truth and justice, I am ordained to carry on my crusade to establish the truth till each such wall of lies and deceit are dismantled, brick by brick, inch by inch. Hence, I had no other option but to take the shelter of judiciary.


Damage Civil suit against Shri Ramachandran :


(i) After having an order of exoneration in the case of aforesaid major penalty charge sheet dated 22.01.2000 with admission of fact by theUPSC and also by Honble President that I was actually framed in a false case with the malafide intention to stop promotion, I filed a damage Suit no. 17/05 before District & Session Judge no. 2, at Kota against Shri Ramachandran in individual capacity for seeking damages for torturing and mental injury.


(ii) Vide order-dated 07.01.06 application of defendant (Shri Ramchandran) under order 7 Rule 11was rejected with the observation that objection in respect of not arraying U.O.I a party would be decided after taking evidence.



(iii) Issues were framed. Issue no. 4 was- whether U.O.I is necessary party?


(iv) Against the aforesaid order, a Writ Petition 1344/06 was filed by Shri Ramchandran before the Hon’ble High Court at Jaipur, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 13.12.07 with the direction to decide the issue no. 4 as referred above.


(v) Learned Trial Court heard the Issue no. 4 and decided vide its order-dated 28.03.08 against (Shri Ramchandran) the defendant. In the said order, it was held by the Hon’ble Court that Shri Ramachandran didn’t act in discharge of his official duty, and therefore, he is responsible in individual capacity and UOI is not a necessary party in this suit.


(vi) Against the said order, Shri Ramachandrankl had filed another S. B. Writ Petition no. 4807/08 which was decided vide judgment dated 27.11.09 with the direction to array U.O.I as party in suit but the main prayer of defendant (Shri Ramchandran) in both the Writ Petition for dismissing the suit was not allowed by the Hon’ble High Court. Suit will definitely be allowed in all probability because it has been held by the U.O.I per-se that charge sheet is “managed” and that is why only UOI was not arrayed as party to the suit but only Shri Ramchandran and Inspector who had started government machinery to run unnecessary behind me for settling his personal score.


Reasons for having grudge- The reasons as to why he was having grudge against me has been brought out separately in detail. It also establishes a criminal nexus between him and a private firm.


OTHER CASE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH CRIMINAL COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED:


At the outset, you may pose a question- why did I not lodge the complaint with Administration before going to judiciary?? Sir! I did, but a wall of protection was built around him by a section of officials of the Railway Board Vigilance and CVC for the simple reason - he is a senior functionary in the CVC and moreover, he has been working as ex EDVS/RB vigilance. I knocked all the doors of Administration but I didn’t get the justice. Despite agreeing that my complaint is substantiated, no action was taken against him. In this connection, I am reproducing copies of 3 letters written to AM (Vigilance) Railway Board & CVC, which is self-explanatory.


Letter dated 22.08.2006

Letter dated 19.10.2007

Letter dated 07.03.2008


Kindly peruse contents of these enclosed 3 letters and see the enormity of injustice meted out to me and unwarranted and unparallel protection/ favour extended to Mr Ramachandran. It would also reveal as to how a document (so called RDSO approved list of firms) was fabricated in criminal conspiracy to frame me.


1. Facts in brief


Based on the preventive check ordered by the then EDV(S) Shri V. Ramachandran, 14 Vigilance cases were registered against me in one single day. As regards quality and origin of the cases, which contain the observations of UPSC, GM/WR and internal noting of CVC wherein they have admitted that I was framed in many cases on account of malafide intentions . The kind perusal of the enclosed documents would go a long way in understanding the motives and real intention behind the entire exercise. Notwithstanding the above mentioned facts and cutting the story short, I would now proceed to submit additional clinching evidences against him. The sequence of events is as under-


1.1. I was served a minor charge-sheet Vide OM No E/DAR/307/9/100 dated 31.05.01.In response, I submitted my defence statement.


1.2. After going through my defence, GM (Acting as DA) recorded his views. The operative portion is reproduced hereunder for your ready reference-

“….There has been a calculated witch hunting against him as he is an outsider to stores Department and as a result numbers of cases have been initiated against him. I, therefore, feel that penalty of counseling would be adequate and will meet with ends of justice.”


1.3. Having recorded his aforesaid views, he sent the case file to vigilance Directorate of the Railway Board to obtain the reconsidered advice of CVC.


1.4 It is at this stage, Shri Ramachandran manipulated the facts. Instead of sending the case to CVC, he submitted a misleading note to Board (MM) and thus ‘procured’ their approval to direct the GM to impose the penalty. In this connection, kindly peruse the letter No 99/V4/WR/ST/34/PC dated 17.08.01 Written by him to GM, I now proceed to submit the manner and his manipulative skills with documentary evidences in which he misled the Board.


1.5. While submitting the case to Board, he recorded a note bringing out those allegations (altogether 3 allegations), which were not the part of the charge-sheet. These were fresh allegations and needless to mention that my defence on these points were not available on record. On receipt of his letter while offering his comments, this fact was admitted by no less than the CVO/WR. In this connection, kindly peruse a copy of the note dated 25.09.01 that was put-up by CVO/WR to GM.


1.6. These allegations that Shri Ramachandran made against me before the Board were not the part of the charge-sheet, and therefore, it was an illegal on his part to make fresh allegations against me before the Board behind my back. In this connection, kindly peruse the comments of CVO/WR. An extract of his admission of the above mentioned facts are reproduced hereunder for ready reference-


(i) while commenting on 1st allegation presented by Shri Ramachandran before the Board, he observed -……’this was not explained by CO perhaps because he was not asked…’


(ii) While commenting on 2nd allegation presented by Shri Ramachandran before the Board, he observed-


“This again is an extension to the charge-sheet and this fact was not reflected in the original charge-sheet. The CO’s explanation in this respect, therefore, is not available. It would not be proper to either modify the charge-sheet by adding this aspect or by deciding the case without giving him an opportunity”


(iii) While commenting on 3rd allegation presented by Shri Ramachandran before the Board, he observed-


“Board has observed that the purchase order was not placed on RDSO approved sources of supply. This was also not included in the original charge-sheet and hence can not be justifiably dealt with now unless the charge-sheet is modified”.

The contents related to fraud


1.7. The above mentioned facts are only a small portion of his manipulation. The biggest fraud that he perpetuated on Board to ‘procure’ their approval to penalize me ‘somehow’ at any cost is given hereunder-


1.7.1 As can be seen from the preceding Para, He leveled an allegation that stores in question was required to be purchased from RDSO approved suppliers. The verbatim remarks that he put-up to Board is reproduced hereunder for ready reference-

In Para (i) of his letter, he recorded as under


“It is noteworthy that while material was required to be procured from RDSO approved sources only, the same was ordered on a non approved source."


Again in Para (ii) (c), he went on to reiterate the same allegation before the Board in following words-


“Supplies were obtained from unapproved sources when it is stipulated that purchase should be from RDSO approved sources only”.


1.8 The truth was - this item was not required to be procured from RDSO approved sources. Infact, the so called list of RDSO approved firms was non-existent. This has been admitted by the RDSO themselves vide their letter dated 06.07.2006 (placed at Page----) obtained under RTI Act. Shri Ramachandran entered into a criminal conspiracy with the the then DyCVO/Stores and forged a list of so called RDSO approved list. The false and forged document is placed at page--------.


1.9 Thus, it is established beyond doubt that the above mentioned repeated allegations that he made against me, on the strength of a forged and fabricated document, before the Board and CVC behind my back (as this allegation was not the part of the charge-sheet) was completely false. Thus he perpetuated a fraud on Board in a deliberate attempt to mislead them to ‘procure’ their approval to penalize them.


1.10 The last but not the least, he presented before the Board “quantity purchased was beyond the competence of ACOS and his schedule of powers….” meaning thereby as if I have placed the supply orders. The fact was- both supply orders referred in the charge-sheet were placed by my superior officer the then DyCOS. In this connection, kindly peruse the copies of quotations (of both cases) wherein it is clearly evident that acceptance have been recorded by Dy COS and not by me. Thus, he misled the Board to an unimaginable extent to ‘procure’ their order to penalize me at any cost.


1.11 With above-mentioned facts, I lodged a complaint dated 22.08.06. When I came to know that my aforesaid complaint had been closed, in consultation with CVC, I had requested the Commission to supply the relevant file noting (of the Commission) wherein decision was taken to close the complaint. The perusal of commission’s noting reveals an astonishing fact. It has been repeatedly admitted in the aforesaid noting that my complaint stands substantiated. In this connection, I am reproducing the relevant extract of Para 4 of the noting of then Director/CVC Shri Y.P. Rai, for ready reference-


“It may be seen that RB has admitted assertions made by the complaint in his complaint dated 22.08.06…..” Similarly, it has been further admitted ...” It appears from the comments of RB that minor penalty was imposed considering alleged regularities in respect of which the Complaint was not given an opportunity to defend himself. ….It may be seen that while putting the case before the Board, it should have been brought out that complaint had initiated a proposal which was in violation of guidelines and not that he had purchased quantity beyond his competence…”.


1.12. I am surprised to see that despite agreeing to my complaint, the commission tendered its advice to close the complaint on the sole ground that “Shri Ramachandran had mentioned that complainant had not been asked to explain those irregularities”. At the risk of repetition, it is stated that this is the sole ground based on which Commission came to a conclusion that Shri Ramachandran can’t be hold responsible for irregularities. I would like to categorically state that the above assertion is THE lie, the whole lie and nothing but the lie”. So far as facts are concerned, they are as simple as this. In no file, at no point of time had Shri Ramchandran ever mentioned that complainant (i.e. myself) had not been asked to explain those irregularities (i.e. those alleged irregularities which were not mentioned in the charge sheet served to me but conveniently used by Shri Ramchandran to hoodwink all superior authority including CVC and get all the requisite clearance to frame me).


If such a “mentioning” by Shri Ramchandran does exist, in any file (or even in a paper napkin), the same should be produced before the commission and a copy provided to me. But, alas such a thing cannot be done even if all the kings’ men were to put all their heads, hearts, souls and efforts into it, only for the unkind fact that such a thing exists only in imagination and not in reality. Giving Shri Ramchandran, the benefit of exoneration based on facts that are apparently and obviously fictitious, is an act that betrays utter disregards to truth and fair play. Such blatant act of favor showed by the commission towards Shri Ramchandran, is totally unbecoming of the commission and needless to say is undeserving of Shri Ramchandran.


1.13 Now, comes the most intriguing part of the referred note of Director/CVC Shri Y.P.Rai, where an inconvenient fact was blatantly ignored simply because, it was not convenient for them to pursue such a fact. I have been shouting from rooftops that one document (i.e. the so called list of RDSO approved paint firms) was FABRICATED to frame me. I maintain that such fabrication of documents was done at the behest of Shri Ramchandran in criminal conspiracy with the then Dy CVO/WR. From the following lines of Para 4 at 79/N of the above note of Director/CVC Shri Y.P.Rai, it appears that the fact that documents were forged has been implicitly been accepted even by the commission


“Comments of Shri Ramachandran can not be considered incorrect because it was based on list of RDSO approved paint firms sent by Zonal Vigilance…comments of RB is convincing

Before getting ‘convinced’, didn’t it strike anyone’s mind in the Commission and also in Board Vigilance, even for a fraction of second , that when RDSO have patently and latently refused having issued any such list, how could anyone ‘create’ such list?? Obviously what was sent by the Zonal Railway Vigilance was a FABRICATED document. Who was caught with his hands in the till? Surprise, surprise!!! One innocent Shri Ramchandran, then ED/VS/RB, who had called this forged and fabricated list on telephone from his subordinate officer on Zonal Railway and placed it on record to strengthen his plot, and that too, behind my back right from the stage of investigation till finalization of the disciplinary case. “Elementary, my dear Watson!” Sherlock Holmes would have said had he been called upon to investigate such a simple fact. Unfortunately, such cerebral brilliance is hardly required in the circumstances where it is apparent and obvious that an act of FABRICATION and FORGERY has taken place. Once, the fact of FORGERY has been established, any man of ordinary prudence using good old plain common sense in his possession, would have asked for an investigation to trace the root and beneficiary of such FORGERY, as the same is a CRIMINAL ACT which is punishable under the Indian Criminal laws. Unfortunately, it appears that high officials of the commission like Shri Rakesh Aron the then EDVS/RB & the then Director/CVC Shri Y.P.Rai are exempted from the onerous responsibilities of being “ordinary” and the duty of a common citizen and public servant of this country to report for investigation when criminal acts are discovered.


1.14. It is the conclusion and recommendation of Director/CVC Shri Y.P.Rai at Para 5 (80/N) that is the most baffling and outrageous. If there is any thing close to the example of “headless body” or a “bodyless head” in the case of an official note, than this has to be it. It takes the cake, the bakery and the bakers’ daughter with it. Having several times agreed to the facts and substance of my allegation (of my complaint dated 22nd August 2006) against Shri Ramchandran, It is here that a fast U turn is taken by Director/CVC Shri Y.P.Rai that could give severe inferiority complex to Michael Schumacar and his ilk. Suddenly, without any rhyme or reason, logic or reasoning, it is recommended that both my complaint against Shri Ramchandran be closed. This after having substantially agreed to the facts of my complaint dated 22nd August 2006 as brought out in the preceding paragraphs and WITHOUT even discussing the contents of my complaint dated 08th September 2006. If this is to be dished out as justice, then it is neither rational nor poetic nor reasonable.


1.15. Subsequent developments clearly prove that facts were distorted to an unimaginable extent by way of misrepresentation of facts and even went on to make plethora of false & misleading statements and has also deliberately chosen to rely upon a fabricated document resulting into my genuine complaint illegally and arbitrarily closed. This has been brought out in detail in the enclosed letters written to AM/V/RB and CVC.


1.16. Though, I was sure that then EDV/S and others in the CVC (the then Director Y.P.Rai) have misled to Concerned Authorities by producing and referring the false evidences, even then I wanted to get it proved by the RDSO and other Concerned Authorities to say that reasoning advanced by Shri Rakesh Aron to support the false statement of his predecessor, is again a bunch of lies. The position that has now emerged is a classic example of an old adage saying “To conceal one lie, you have to tell hundreds of lies. But in the instant case, Ex EDV/S didn’t remember the aforesaid old dictum and in the process have also exposed himself.


1.17 In order to substantiate my above mentioned statements, I would like to offer my comment on each and every sentence recorded by him that he had submitted before AM/V &CVC recommending closure of my complaint. I am of the firm view that after going through the truth, both AM/V & CVC would also be stunned to see the extent to which they have been misled by Mr Rakesh Aron to suppress the misdeeds of Mr. Ramchandran.


1.18 Observation no-1 of Railway Board Vigilance ( i.e Rakesh Aron)


“….Paint procured in 1997 in this case was ready mixed paint to IS-124. However, it has been checked up that this IS-124 was withdrawn sometime in 1991 and new specification 13607 was introduced in its place in 1992. Paints to IS-13607 are in the approved list of RDSO...”


Facts-

At the outset, I would like to mention that the aforesaid statement is completely false. This is an example of pure, naked and blatant lie. This has been confirmed by none else but by the RDSO themselves under RTI Act. The information sought and reply received from RDSO is reproduced hereunder for ready reference-



Information sought

Reply received from RDSO

Is it true that as a policy, procurement to IS 124 was withdrawn sometimes in 1991 and new specification IS 13607 was introduced in its place in 1992? If yes then kindly inform whether Zonal railways were advised to switch over from IS-124 to IS-130607. A copy of the said letter may be supplied.

Not true



1.19. Observation no-2 of the then EDV(S)

EDV/S had further stated before AM/V & CVC that “Paints to IS 13607 are in the approved list”.


Facts-


(1) This was again a misleading and misrepresentation of the facts in as much as at the relevant point of time (in year 1997) when the purchases in both cases were made, Paints to IS 13607 was not in approved list of RDSO and it was brought on the RDSO approved list in August 1998.


(2). Moreover, IS 13607 was brought on approved list by superseding IS 127 & IS 128 and not IS 124 to which procurement was made. This has been confirmed by none else but by the RDSO themselves under RTI Act. The information sought and reply received from RDSO is reproduced hereunder for ready reference-



Information sought

Reply received from RDSO

Kindly inform the year in which Paints to IS 13607 was brought on approval list by the RDSO

IS 13607/92 was brought on approval list vide this office circular letter No M&C /PCN/VI/14/POl dated 28.08.98 by superseding IS-127 & IS 128.



In order to prove the malafide intention of EDVS (Mr Rakesh Aron) , I demanded to know under RTI Act as to whether EDVS had checked up the above mentioned aspects before recording and submitting his observations before AM/V and CVC. I was informed that no such information is available on records, meaning thereby, that EDVS didn’t bother to check the complete facts because he was fully aware that whatever he is recording on case file, are totally false. However, he did so in order to mislead AM/V and CVC just to ‘procure’ their approval to somehow suppress the misdeeds of his predecessor. The information sought from Vigilance Directorate/Railway Board and reply received is being reproduced hereunder for ready reference-



Information sought

Reply received

Kindly inform whether stores in question i.e. golden yellow paint either to IS 124 or Is 13607 as mentioned by the EDVS in his note was figuring in any of the RDSO approved list prevailing in 1997 or in the list provided by SDGM /WR in year 2000. If so, list may be supplied.

This information is not available on concerned file.



Notwithstanding the above mentioned false statements made by EDV/S Shri Rakesh Aron in order to mislead AM/V & CVC, the moot issue is- the reasoning (of change in specification), which the EDVS Mr Rakesh Aron has advanced at this stage, was never discussed by Shri Ramachandran at the relevant time while leveling allegation of procurement from unapproved sources.


It is only after the RDSO denied the existence of any approved list of suppliers for the aforesaid item and I lodged the complaint, EDVS found that Mr Ramachandran has been caught completely to be swimming in the pool of guilt from one corner to another and on surface to fathom, he as an afterthought, cleverly introduced a new element of ‘change in specification’ to justify fraud of Mr Ramachandran, which has also proved to be another false statement. And here, the old adage saying “To conceal one lie, you have to tell hundreds of lies has come into play for rightly exposing both the Ex EDV/S involved in this case for their unprecedented and unethical conduct in the case in hand.


1.20. EDV/S was fully aware that his above-mentioned afterthought explanation & reasoning with regard to change in specification was full of lies, and therefore, may not stand to reasons, if subjected to close scrutiny. Hence, he further made a statement, which is reproduced hereunder-


Observation no-3 of the then EDV(S)


“……..Shri Ramachandran has based his comments regarding procurement of paint from RDSO approved source, on the list of RDSO approved paint firms sent by the then SDGM/WR in August 2000. Therefore, Shri Ramachandran’s comments in Board’s analysis can not be treated as incorrect….”


Facts-



After going through the aforesaid reasoning, I was surprised for the simple reason that when RDSO themselves had categorically confirmed that they had never approved any sources for golden yellow paints to IS-124, how could SDGM/WR create any list said to be a list of RDSO approved suppliers. And then under RTI Act, I demanded the copy list of RDSO approved suppliers said to have been sent by SDGM/WR. The information sought and reply received is reproduced hereunder for ready reference-Information sought

Reply Received

Kindly supply the list of RDSO approved paint firms said to have been sent by the then SDGM /SWR in Aug 2000 & referred by the EDVS in his above ID note. This is very significant because RDSO has categorically confirmed that there was no approved sources list for golden yellow paint to IS-124 in year 1997 to which procurement was made.

Copy of the fax from office of the SDGM/Western Railway No.E.161/8/29/99 (V) dated 10.08.2000 in regard to the list of RDSO approved firms for paint is enclosed.

Kindly inform whether the said list was valid in 1997 when the procurement was made?

This information is not available on the concerned file.



1.21. The so- called list of RDSO approved sources said to have been sent by the then SDGM/WR is a fabricated document as far as this specific issue is concerned. When RDSO themselves has categorically confirmed that they never approved any source for golden yellow paint to IS-124, any document produced or obtained to prove contrary to it, would only be fake, forged or fabricated. And hence, this was a fabricated document to the extent that it was not the list of RDSO approved firms for the stores in question. Moreover, the so-called list of approved sources sent by the then Dy CVO/stores/WR is neither in the prescribed format nor contains the specification or validity periods, which are essential ingredients of the RDSO published list.


In this connection, for the benefit of all concerned especially for CVC, I am enclosing the format in which RDSO publishes the list of approved firms at interval of every 6 months indicating the specification and validity period of the published list. Shri Rakesh Aron , being a senior stores officer is fully aware of these basic facts but instead of examining the validity of this document on merit especially when RDSO has patently and latently refused of existence of approved sources of the stores in question, choose to rely upon it, conveniently to ‘somehow’ suppress the illegal action of his predecessor.


1.22. Incidentally, if one closely examines the so-called list of RDSO approved sources, which was ‘MANUFACTURED’ & FABRICATED by Mr Ramachandran & the then Dy CVO/S as a part of criminal conspiracy, it indicates that the aforesaid document was faxed to Mr Ramachandran as per his telephonic instruction by the then Dy CVO/S (another IRSS officer). It was containing 2 pages. But what is available on record or what has been supplied to me, is only the 2nd page (see the top of the page wherein it shows P-2). I don’t know what was the content of the first page, which is neither available on record nor has been supplied to me. Mr Ramachandran alone, to whom the fax containing 2 pages were sent, can explain whereabouts and the contents of the first page. But in any case, it is fabricated evidence and provides enough room to entertain the doubts about the entity and sanctity of this document especially keeping in view of the fact that RDSO have categorically & repeatedly denied the existence of any approved sources.


1.23. Observation no-5 of the then EDV(S)


“….Moreover, this charge was not included in the charge sheet and decision taken by DA and later by UPSC was not based on this charge


Facts –

It appears from the aforesaid comment that EDVS has already kissed on the lips of the venom woman. By stating himself that the charge in question defined in my complaint was not the part of the formal charge-sheet and hence big question arise here as to why the then EDVS Shri Ramachandran had put forth the same false allegation before the CVC and Board at the time of seeking the 1st stage advice and later on before the Railway Board for getting theirs approval to dictate the DA for inflicting the penalty, respectively. It is esoteric as to how Shri Rakesh Aron can think that the aforesaid false but serious allegations put forth by Mr. Ramachandran before CVC and Board didn’t make negative influence and impact on the mind of both the Authorities for me? I am harping on the same stings only because such a false and serious allegation had become the prime factor against me in the present disciplinary case as far as CVC and Board was concerned. The very averment by which he has tried to counter my complaint for saving Mr Ramachndran infact goes against him and prove my point to which I have been trying to prove throughout in my present voluminous complaint – a case of poetic justice.


1.24. In response to my complaint that I had not purchased or decided the quantity to be purchased which was evident from the record itself at the time of preventive check. In both cases, tender was accepted by my superior officer i.e. Dy COS, who was the competent Authority. Before accepting, he even consciously reviewed the quantity to be purchased and reduced the quantity. Even then, Mr. Ramachandran put forth this aspect in terms of allegation against me that I had ‘purchased’ the quantity beyond my competence, though it was not true. In this connection, I am reproducing his verbatim remarks that Mr Ramachandran had put-up before the Board in following words “Quantity purchased was beyond the competency of the ACOS and his schedule of powers but the official …..” .


1.25. However, Shri Rakesh Aron had tried to give a different color to counter my complaint by using his own vocabulary like use of word initiated” rather than ‘purchased that was actually used and put forth as an allegation by Mr Ramachandran before the Board, which is clearly evident from his remarks mentioned above. In this connection, kindly peruse the observation of ex-EDV/S Shri Rakesh Aron, which he had made before AM/V & CVC to counter my allegation against Shri Ramachandran.


Observation no-5 of the then EDV(S)


“Regarding Para 4.11 of his complaint, Shri D.K.Srivastava as ACOS ‘initiated’ the procurement for one year’s requirement whereas only three months quantity was allowed to be procured. He, therefore, exceeded his powers in ‘initiating’ this emergency procurement of the stock items.


Facts –


Now after going through the contents of above mentioned Para, it is established beyond doubt that Mr Ramachandran had projected before the Board as if I had ‘purchased’ the stores while the fact was otherwise. He did so to make a negative impact and influence to vitiate the mind of Board. When I tried to prove it, the then EDVS has brought in his own vocabulary by saying that I was charged for “initiating’ and not for “purchasing”. I can only express my sympathy for him, who couldn’t make the hiatus between the expression “purchased” and “initiated” as it appears from the plain reading of his comments. But I can’t believe that the man of such a high echelon and status can’t distinguish and differentiate between both the expressions noted above. It was all again done by him for suppressing the misdeeds of his predecessor. Though it is out of context at this stage, I would like to mention that the

aforesaid charge couldn’t survive and was dropped by the DA.


Conclusion and prayer-

  1. In view of the foregoing, you would agree that despite repeated submission of clinching proofs of evidences against him, I found that a section of officials of the commission as well as the Railway Board Vigilance are dedicated towards saving Shri Ramachandran, irrespective of the gravity of his misdeeds and the facts that clearly establish his culpability. And, they are determined to abuse and misuse their positions in order to build a wall of protection around Shri Ramchandran in their campaign “save Shri Ramachandran” so that he does not have to face the consequences of his misdeeds. The only reason for such unwarranted protection- he is a senior functionary of the Commission. Fortunately, such a wall for protection can only be built by lies and reinforced by deceit. As a foot soldier of truth and justice, I am ordained to carry on my crusade to establish the truth till each such wall of lies and deceit are dismantled, brick by brick, inch by inch. In such a situation, I had no other option but to knock the doors of judiciary and that is what I have done in my last attempt to get the justice. As a consequence, as of now-

(A) One Civil Suit is pending against him in which lower Court has already upheld that he didn’t act in bonafide discharge of his official duties.


(B) One Criminal Complaint is pending before Court of law under relevant sections of IPC for criminal conspiracy and fabrication of false document.


Notwithstanding the above, I once again request your honour to order re-opening my all complaints and order investigation by any independent body. Needless to say that as per the spirit and provisions of article 311(2) of the constitution, no person can be judge in his own case. My apprehensions, which have now been culminated into reality that my all complaints against Shri Ramachandran dealt with either by Railway Board Vigilance or by CVC totally in contravention/transgression/violation so as to protect the guilty from the eventuality of the departmental/criminal action deserve to be taken against him. And thus, it is required that matter should be enquired afresh by totally independent body or person, who can not be influenced by Authorities involved in this matter.


With regards


Yours Faithfully


D.K.Srivastava, IRSS 86

Presently on deputation to state of Bihar

No comments: