Baseless charge sheets replied by Naresh Kadyan to Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board

7/27/2019 Baseless charge sheets replied by Naresh Kadyan to Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board

1/23

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 Bankapproved 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.


2/23

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.


3/23

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 suppliedmany 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 dutyis 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


4/23

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 thatBoard 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.


5/23


6/23


7/23


8/23


9/23


10/23


11/23


12/23


13/23


14/23


15/23


16/23


17/23


18/23


19/23


20/23


21/23


22/23


23/23

Documents

Baseless charge sheets replied by Naresh Kadyan to Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board