Está en la página 1de 23

To, The Chief Executive, Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board, Panchkula.

Subject: Statement and reply from Naresh Kadyan, Technical Supervisor (Leather) under suspension, Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board, Panchkula against baseless charges leveled against me vide letter No. HRB /Admn /EA-1/12363 dated February 24, 2010 Sir, It is humbly submitted that I have worked in good faith, trust and performed my official duties with honesty and dedication. All charges framed against me are baseless, not based on facts, point wise reply along with proof already submitted to the Board many times, information required under RTI Act, 2005 not supplied to me till date because I wanted to know about proper processing of my replies in question, I have moved protest petition against appointment of retired officers, nominated for A and B category by the Govt. of Haryana, special agenda was placed before Board and my revision application was turn down by the senior officers. It is further submitted that Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board issued charge sheet with out providing opportunity to explain and all allegations are baseless and not true, I denied all allegations because I have performed my duties as assigned to the post of DKVIO at Faridabad, in the interest of Board and income was generated for my Department. It would be pertinent to mention here that marketing was extra burden and work assigned to us with out proper training and sufficient subordinate staff. I have replied many times in past, where as Board is not manufacturing any items to supply, it was service against 5% service charges and all transactions were made out through cheque and Bank approved by the Board.

M/s National Enterprises signed MoU with the Chief Executive of the Board and supply orders were executed as per terms and conditions metually agreed between said supplier and Board, the said party procured the supply orders and as per past practice, party was asked to supply as per satisfaction of the purchaser, proper permission was obtained from then CE telephonically because there was competition amongst Board and Super Bazzar and my action was totally in the interest of Board., hence denied the charges.

The Director of Education Department never passed any orders or directions, undersigned was not aware about and supply orders were executed through the authorised supplier, approved by the Board, undersigned was duty bound to execute the supply orders through approved supplier not from the open market, rates were intimated by the purchaser, I have not seen and varified the materials, in case any sub standard materials was supplied then purchaser should informed to the Board, no objections had been received, it was the responsibility of the supplier to replace the objectionable goods or to reimburse, as per MoU signed between supplier and Board. In fact Education Department hold guilty then purchaser DEEO, Gurgaon, excess payments were recovered from her, where as Board has received 5% service charges on total amount, information obtained through RTI Act, 2005 along with the copies of recovery orders attached here with and zero FIR has been lodged with the Faridabad Police, copies also attached, hence charges denied.

As per set procedure and past practice, principal of business as well, orders were executed as per terms and conditions mutually agreed between Board and supplier and purchaser was duty bound to accept the materials after satisfaction about cost, quantity and quality, it was her duty, RTI reply and Faridabad Police report may kindly be seen, where as after satisfaction of the purchaser, she issued goods receipt along with the payment, after processing these papers along with the bill of supplier, after deduction of 5% service charges, balance amount was released to the supplier through Bank, proof attached, hence charges denied.

The supply orders were executed on February 27, 2007 and said instructions were issued on November 16, 2007 then how it could be possible to comply with, when materials were supplied many months before?, supply orders were executed in the interest of Board and payment were released as per set procedures and past practice after obtaining goods receipt, payment and supplier bill, nothing was concealed and supply was regularized, quarterly report was accepted by the Board, hence charges denied.

Not true and denied because there was not any instructions at the time of execution of supply orders, every thing was done in the interest of Board, as a part of duty. And performance of duty is not an offense.

Not true and denied, when supply orders were executed many months before on February 27, 2007 then it was not possible to obey the orders passed after many months on November 16, 2007, then CE was informed about during each and every step taken by me. It would be pertinent to mention here that M/s National Enterprises had supplied same items with same cost to the DEEO, Jhajjar and orders were executed through Super Bazaar, matter was investigated by the State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak and billing Authority Super Bazaar was proved innocent, copy of charge sheet attached here with because same procedure was adopted by undersigned, like wise in other supply order, payment was received along with goods receipt then purchaser asked to stop payment to the supplier and after proper inspection

at the level of purchaser, when material found in order then after obtaining proper release orders, payment was released at the level of Head Office because at this time said orders were received in the District office. If any objections were received then definitely sub standard materials would have been replaced by the supplier, as per MoU signed. Keeping in view, position explained as above, all charges may kindly be dropped for natural justice because there is no loss involved to the Government at this stage. Hence personnel hearing may kindly be provided to explain in person, if you are not satisfied with the position explained and evidences provided by me, which are attached here with, where as supplier and purchasers are accountable for any sub standard material supply. Sincerely yours, Naresh Kadyan, Technical Supervisor (L) under suspension, Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board, Panchkula. Cc for information and necessary action to: 1. Honble Chairman, Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board, Panchkula with request that Board decision about appointment of A and B class inquiry officer may kindly be reviewed in the interest of natural justice because no service rules and regulations can impose on a retired person. 2. Shri V.K. Verma, Inquiry officer.