To Shri Salim Haq DDG (P) Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Sir, I am in receipt of the Ministry of Urban Development Letter No. A28012/1/2010-Ptg. dated 08.09.2010 vide which APAR for the period 2009-10 has been conveyed to me in accordance to instructions contained in DOP&Ts O.M No. 21011/1/2010-Estt.-A dated 13th April 2010. 2. I had worked as Director of Printing, Directorate of Printing, Ministry of Urban Development, on deputation basis on my selection through UPSC w.e.f 09.05.2008 to 30.03.2010. As per Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, Department of Personnel & Training Letter No. 21011/8/89-Estt(A) dated 6th March 1989, I am enclosing herewith a copy of my representation dated 16th November 2010 for further necessary action.

Yours sincerely,

(Madhuri Dabral) Director (WS), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. Dated at New Delhi 18th November 2010

Enclosures : 163 pages

To The Honble President of India, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi. Subject Representation against adverse remarks in APAR 2009-10 Respected Madam, I am an Officer of 1989 Batch of the Indian Postal Service. While working as Director Postal Services, Indore, Madhya Pradesh I had applied for the post of Director of Printing in the Directorate of Printing under the Ministry of Urban Development. The post of Director of Printing had been advertised two times but no suitable candidate could be found. It was in the third attempt vide advertisement in Employment News dated 30th December 2006 to 5th January 2007, that I chanced upon the advertisement and applied for the post. The interview for the post was held by the UPSC and I was selected and appointed as Director of Printing on deputation basis for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 9.5.2008 (F/N) vide Ministry of Urban Developments Gazette Notification No.25/1/2006-A.II(vol.II) dated 27th May, 2008. As per Recruitment Rules of the post the period of deputation is prescribed as 5 years but in the instant case the period was notified as 3 years. 2. The process for filling up the post of Director of Printing had been expedited only after adverse observations of Standing Committee in its 22 nd Report and 28th Report which is cited as under :-. that the posts of the highest level i.e. Director in both the Directorate of Printing as well as the Government of India Stationery Office are lying vacant since August 2003. The absence of the heads of these institutions for such a long time reflects the lack of concern on the part of the Ministry of Urban Development in ensuring the efficient and effective functioning of the Directorate of Printing and the Government of India Printing Presses (GOIPs). The Committee are of the firm view that the keeping of senior managerial level posts vacant for long periods slackens the decision making process in any Institution or Organization. The fact that the Directorate of Printing remained without a head of the Institution, has certainly acted as a major deterrent factor in the smooth functioning of this Institution leaving it direction-less. The Committee takes a serious note of this and recommends the Ministry to take up the matter on priority basis to fill up these vacant posts in both the Directorate of Printing as well as in the Government of India Stationery Office. The Committee would like to be apprised of the action taken in this regards within two months of the presentation of the Report to the House. It was only after an assurance was given by the Ministry to the Standing Committee that the technical post of Director of Printing was filled up after a long gap of almost 5 years. 3. I joined the post on 09.05.2008 and after joining duty within a period of less than 2 months, I was given the charge of two more Departments i.e. the charge of 2

Controller of Publications, Department of Publications, Civil Lines, Delhi and Controller of Stationery, Government of India Stationery Office, Kolkata, which are both independent Departments having independent Head of the Department, by the Ministry of Urban Development vide its Office Order No.A-19011/1/2002-Sty. dated 17.6.2008 and thus I held the charge of Head of the Department of these three Departments efficiently & honestly and to the best of my abilities. Thus it is very clear that my seniors had full confidence and appreciated my working and therefore additional responsibilities were given to me. Further, while holding dual charge of the post of Controller of Stationery, I had also attended the Oral Evidence before the Standing Committee on the subject GISO, Kolkata in Room No.63 Parliament House on 12th August 2008. Subsequently the Government decided to allow the continuance of the Government of India Stationery Office which matter had been pending for more than 20 years and orders were issued vide Ministry of Finances O.M.No.1(22)E-Coord./2008 dated 10.12.2008. The initiatives taken by me and the quality of work has been of the highest order and I was able to enthuse the staff & kindle hope like never before & was credited by the staff & Workers Union for reviving a Department which was on the verge of closure and got a rousing welcome from the staff of GISO when I visited Kolkata. This was the same Office where in the past one Joint Secretary from the Ministry had been manhandled & locked in the lift by the workers Union and the kind of all round praise was not to the liking of vested interests in the Ministry who conspired and cooked up wrong facts which were unsubstantiated & out of fear my comments were not called for and orders for my premature repatriation were issued in a hush-hush manner, unilaterally vide Office Order No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg dated 17.12.2009 addressed to the Department of Posts with a copy endorsed to me regarding premature repatriation and to be relieved w.e.f 24.12.2009 (F/N) when I had completed only 1 year & 6 months as against the Gazette notified period of 3 years, without assigning any reason, but levelling false allegations in the file and obtaining orders by misrepresentation of facts in file. 4. The Director of Printing (DOP) is the Head of the Department of the Directorate of Printing. The post of DOP had remained vacant from 01.08.2003 to 08.05.2008. In order to facilitate better understanding of the circumstances and severe constraints of working in the Directorate under the Ministry of Urban Development, the brief historical note on the Department of Printing & Stationary is enclosed as Annexure-I. 5. In the Ministry of Urban Development the administrative Branch which handles the channel of submission of files is through PSP Division of Ministry of UD under the charge of Joint Secretary (UD). The background note and ground situation at the time of my joining the Directorate of Printing is enclosed as Annexure-II. A perusal of this note will help in understanding proper reference to context about the hostile work environment & consequent machinations of vested interests. 6. I was repatriated on false allegations and the officials of Ministry of UD did not even bother to call for my comments on the allegations for fear of their machinations being exposed and conspired and colluded with each other. I had no idea about the grounds on which such a drastic unilateral action was taken, therefore as per my RTI application dated 18th December 2009, I requested for providing me photocopy of entire Note sheet portion and correspondence portion of File in which my pre-mature repatriation proposal had been processed and approved, under the RTI Act 2005. 3

The relevant information was provided vide Letter No. O-17034/2/2009-Ptg. dated 15th January 2010. On perusal of File it transpired that Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) had built up a false case for my pre-mature repatriation & submitted a misleading note without even bothering to verify the facts. If the subordinate authorities submit wrong facts then the superior authorities cannot be blamed for the decision taken based on such misrepresentation of facts & thus action needs to be taken against such officers who submitted wrong facts in file. The brief reply on the false allegations leveled against me based on which the one sided arbitrary repatriation orders were issued by the MOUD are enclosed as Annexure-III. Further I had duly apprised the Secretary (UD) vide my letter dated 30.03.2010, about these false allegations vide Annexure-I and had also enclosed details of the grave lapses on the part of Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) vide Annexure-II of this letter. I have now requested for information regarding action taken on my representations/Letters vide my RTI Application dated 18th October 2010. 7. I had not been afforded any opportunity to present my case by the Ministry of UD either verbally or in writing, against these false and baseless allegations which is not in consonance with government rules. As per DoPT Circular No. 3/4/2004EO(MM.I) dated 17th August 2005 (Para-39 of Annexure-IV) on the subject Policy regarding appointment of officers at different levels under the Central Staffing Scheme. Para 15 of this circular states as under :15. The cases of lateral transfer of officers on grounds of inefficiency, incompetence, unsatisfactory performance or incompatibility with the job requirement shall be considered only after the administrative Ministry/Department has obtained the officers explanation on each alleged shortcoming. Such grounds of inefficiency etc shall not be held against the officers for imposing penalty etc. or for recording in the ACR. These grounds shall be used for the limited purpose of lateral transfer. 8. Moreover the case for premature repatriation has also not been referred to UPSC or ACC as per DOPT guidelines vide O.M. No.27/12/97-EO(ACC) dated 15.10.1997, the relevant Para 7 regarding premature repatriation states that, Power to approve premature repatriation of officers serving with the Central Government to their parent cadre/department, would continue to be with the ACC this, however, would not override the provisions in the Central Staffing Scheme which allow Cabinet Secretary and EO to approve premature repatriations in certain cases. The administrative Ministries/Departments may send their proposal in this regard to the EO who shall arrange to issue the orders with the approval of the Competent Authority. 9. Thus it is clear that the officers in the Ministry of UD had connived and conspired against me and built up false grounds on which they did not have the moral fibre to ask me to explain or to give my comments because they were aware of the false allegations. The Joint Secretary (UD), Shri A.K Mehta actually felt very uncomfortable because of fear of exposure as he was openly siding with corrupt officials and hence was in a hurry to get me out of his way. Infact the misdemeanours on the part of Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) are such that these warrant strict Disciplinary action against the officer. A compilation of some of the lapses on the part of Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) are enclosed as Annexure-IV. A perusal of 4

these lapses will throw light upon the working style of the officer. Some of the government instructions and rules violated by the officer are given in Para-40 of Annexure-IV. 10. The APAR for the year 2009-10 was submitted by me to the Secretary (UD) vide my Letter dated 2nd June 2010 with request that Shri A.K Mehta being biased should not report my APAR. The MOUD replied vide Letter No. A-28012/1/2010Admn-I. dated 24th June 2010 that, The objective of assessment of the performance of the Government servant on two levels is to ensure a greater degree of objectivity and fairness. In the event, the judgement of the immediate superior is considered too narrow and subjective to do justice to the Government servant reported upon, it is the Reviewing Officer who is enjoined to personally know and form his/her judgement of the work and conduct of the Government servant reported upon. Since Dr. M. Ramachandran, Secretary (UD) was retiring from service on 30.06.2010, & generally officers on the verge of retirement want to leave on a positive note and are thus reluctant to carry on with their prejudices, thus I believed in this assurance of the Ministry that the Reviewing Officer will take an independent, just & fair, objective view in the matter. Hope is after all a beautiful word. Moreover I had no reason not to believe and have faith because when I had called on Dr. M. Ramachandran on 30th March 2010 he gave me a patient hearing and assured me to give me a fair treatment, now that I was leaving. The Reporting Officer, Shri A.K. Mehta, Joint Secretary (UD) wrote my APAR 200910 on 30th June 2010. The Reviewing Officer, Dr. M. Ramachandran, Retired Secretary (UD) Reviewed it on 30th July 2010 i.e. last day of eligibility, because as per rules retired Officers cannot write ACRs after one month of retirement. The APAR remained unattended with the Admn. Branch of Ministry under JS (UD) for one month i.e. August 2010. The Accepting Authority, Prof. Saugata Roy, Honble MOS (UD) assessed my APAR on 3rd September 2010 and did not agree with the remarks or Grading assessed by the Reporting/ Reviewing Officers. The communication of entries in APAR as per guidelines contained in DOPT O.M No. 21011/1/2005-Estt.(A)(Pt-II) dated 14.5.2009 was sent to me vide letter No. A28012/1/2010-Ptg. Dated 08.09.2010 by the Ministry of UD. Thereafter I submitted two RTI Applications dated 9th September 2010 and 18th October 2010 requesting for information under the RTI Act 2005. 11. The examination of each point of APAR 2009-10 is submitted as under for sympathetic kind consideration :11(A). Against Para-1 of Part-II of my APAR Report regarding brief description of duties I have given following details :During the period I held the charge of three Departments i.e the Directorate of Printing, Department of Publications & Government of India Stationary Office, Kolkata. The brief description of duties of these three Organisations which I was heading is given as under :DIRECTORATE OF PRINTING, NEW DELHI

The Director of Printing is the Technical & Administrative Head of the Department. The Directorate of Printing provides technical advice to all Departments/Ministries Central & State Governments on all technical matters 5

pertaining to Printing Works. Directorate of Printing came into existence in 1863 & completes 145 years. It is an attached Office of the Ministry of Urban Development. Presently it is having 18 subordinate units under its administrative control i.e. 13 Government of India Presses, 03 Text Book Presses, Government of India Forms Store, Kolkata & Outside Printing Branch, Kolkata. The Government of India Presses are classified as Industrial Units and fall under the Factories Act. It is the responsibility of the Directorate of Printing to ensure the implementation of the statutory provisions as envisaged in the Factories Act, 1948, Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, Trade Union Act, 1926, Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Apprentices Act, 1961 etc. The Printing jobs being executed by the Directorate through the Government of India Presses include range of requirements of various Ministries/Departments of Govt. of India and Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha such as daily Bulletin Codes, Manuals, Reports, Publicity Materials and Scientific Publication, Railway Budget, Demands for Grants, Annual Report of various Ministries/ Departments, Gazette Notification, Printing requirements of UPSC etc.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICATIONS, CIVIL LINES, DELHI

The Department of Publications is a service Department established in April 1924 & is headed by the Controller of Publications. It has Sales Depots at Kitab Mahal, Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai. It also has 1113 sales agents. Its main activities include Stocking, Sale and Distribution of Government Publications and Periodicals brought out by various Ministries / Departments of Government of India; Publishing of Gazette of Government of India and Delhi Government's Gazette; Cataloguing of Publications / Periodicals, issue of Symbol, Pricing and Sales Promotional Activities; Securing advertisements for insertion in Government Publications and Periodicals; Stocking and distribution of Defence Publications; Managing a network of private agencies, Sale & Return Agents and running Department's own Sales Depots / Counters; and Exchange of publications with US Library of Congress under US Exchange Programme. The Department has the distinction of publishing over 73500 titles and there are live 12500 civil titles available in circulation excluding Ministry of Defence publications. On an average, 360 titles are published every month.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA STATIONARY OFFICE, KOLKATA

The Government of India Stationary Office with headquarters at Kolkata was established in the year 1850 & is headed by the Controller of Stationary. It has three Regional Stationary Depots at Mumbai, Chennai & New Delhi. The Government of India Stationary Office deals with the procurement and supply of stationary items to all indenting Ministries/Departments. The Controller of Stationary is not only responsible for timely supplying of stationary stores to the indenters against their respective Annual Indents but also to ensure the consumption of stationary stores in most economical way including local purchase etc. being incurred by them due to non availability of supply or otherwise from this organization. It is also responsible for standardization of Stationary items and has a Laboratory for carrying out tests of supplies and quality assurance.

I have carried out all the duties as specified therein to the best of my abilities & the Reporting Officer has not stated anything to the contrary in this regard. 11(B). During this period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, as per Para-2 of Part-II of my APAR Report, which comprises of the portion in which the Officer reported upon gives the Objectives and achievements. I have given the following achievements under this column :Though no specific targets have been assigned to me but the following targets were set by myself as under in consultation with my superiors :Directorate of Printing (i) Around 330 compassionate appointment cases had piled up over the years with 96 ongoing court cases & in 44 cases undertakings had been given in the past to the Courts. As a result contempt notices were being received & embarrassing situations caused. To find a permanent solution I set up a committee vide O.M No. 8/6/07-A-III dated 31.10.2008 & provided rulings & guidance. Thereafter the Herculean task of implementation of the recommendations of the committee examining each of the 330 case files was undertaken & a total of 264 very old waitlisted cases were deleted & the accumulated mess over the last 10-15 years was cleared in a systematic manner. (ii) During the Year 15318 Printing Works were executed against last financial years total of 15046 despite non availability of Paper supplies for 4 months & acute shortage of staff as there was 50% shortage in supervisory cadres and 50% in industrial/non industrial workers category. Out of 18 units 09 were headless & work was being managed on dual charge basis, which was also having an adverse impact on the production. (iii) During the year 2009-10 the total Production in the Government of India Presses for 08 months was 4315563792. Calculation of Production being based on A-5 size pages printed for 08 months only because for 04 months the Paper Stocks available in the Presses were below the danger mark for which the Printing machines cannot be operationalised in such large Industrial Units as volumes required are huge. The average monthly production comes to 539445474 for 08 months, which is higher then previous years average monthly production of 432885678 for 12 months. (iv) Due to large-scale irregularities & complaints the Recruitment in 11 GIPS was suspended by Ministry on 03.04.2008. One Vigilance Inquiry of GIP Ring Road was carried out by Additional Secretary & CVO of the Ministry. However the Vigilance Inquiry only examined the irregularities & did not identify officials at fault or fix responsibility. The Ministry vide ID Note No. A12031/1/2008-Ptg dated 8th June 2009 entrusted this work to the Directorate. Accordingly the job of identifying officials, fixing responsibility & preparation of draft charge sheets was completed & submitted to Ministry for issue of charge sheets for which Ministry was Disciplinary Authority & in other cases in which Director of Printing was the Disciplinary Authority charge sheets were issued. 7

(v) I headed the Technical Committee constituted vide Ministry of Information & Broadcastings letter No.EN52011/1/2005-06/Prod. dated 19.5.2009 for review & fixing the wastage percentage for printing of Employment News/Rozgar Samachar. The last Meeting of the Technical Committee was held on 22nd February 1991 i.e. almost 18 years back. The Committee comprised of Shri S.K. Agarwal, Director, M/o I&B, Shri R.K Jha, Director, Employment News etc. The Technical Committee met on 11.6.2009, 17.6.2009 & 20th July 2009. I revised & re-fixed the wastage percentage & brought it down from the previous 6% + additional 4% in the consumption formula on account of damage to reels in transportation etc to 3% & devised a simple logical calculation formula based on ground level observation of actual printing thus resulting in huge savings of 7% towards cost to the Government. (vi). The Directorate provided Technical advice in 17 cases of references received from various Ministries/Departments. 06 Appreciation Letters were received from various Departments. Prominent amongst these being D.O Letter No. 1(1)/46/2009/D(Cer) dated 8th March 2010 from Shri Upamanyu Chatterji, Joint Secretary (Trg) & CAO, Ministry of Defence & D.O Letter No. Secy(LR)/Misc./2009 dated 7th August 2009 from Ms. Rita Sinha, Secretary, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development for the timely & good quality execution of printing works at short notice. (vii) The Archaeological Survey of India introduced for the first time common entry tickets for Heritage monuments & the work of printing tickets worth more then Rs. 3 (three) Crore was executed through the Directorate of Printing. This Printing work was taken up as a challenge as it required security features & holograms. In this connection I also attended Meetings with Secretary Culture & Director General ASI on 27.08.2009 & 09.09.2009 & the Printing Work was executed timely & to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Culture. The Honble Prime Minister launched these tickets on 3rd December 2009. (viii) The Printing Work pertaining to Census 2011 with estimated business worth more than Rs.100 Crores approximately was clinched. The visit of Special Secretary & Registrar General of India, Shri D.K Sikri was organised successfully at Government of India Press, Ring Road on 23.10.2008 & personal efforts made to convince him of our capability & confidence to complete the voluminous task & was explained with live demonstration about the new technology machines installed followed up with a series of meetings with RGI on 06.03.2009, 09.09.2009 etc. The first phase of RGI Printing work was allotted in February 2010 & business in the last two months of financial Year was worth Rs 1, 36, 30,000 for Census of India which was personally monitored on day-to-day basis & successfully executed & printed works delivered timely on schedule despite time constraints. Department of Publications (i). During the year the total number of titles being handled was about 88,867 of the value of about Rs. 29 Crores approximately. The number of Periodicals handled as on 31.03.2010 was 15 and the number of subscribers including free distribution list is 1,534 & total number of subscribers 195 for Gazette of India (all parts) 8

(ii). During the current financial year the total sales of publications of the value of Rs. 2.3 Crore were sold/distributed. The Department had participated in 04 Book Fairs including World Book Fair at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi & earned Rs. 3, 00218 through sales of publications. The department released 130 publications during the year. (iii). The Department secured record advertisements valuing Rs 18.21 Crore against last years procurement of 11.99 Crore for inserting in government publications during the year. Government of India Stationary Office (GISO) The Ministry of Finance had agreed to the continuation of GISO & revival of its full functions was allowed vide O.M No. 1(22) E-Coord/2008 dated 10th December 2008. I recommended & submitted proposal for grant of Ad-hoc promotion to Shri R.K Roy, Dy Controller who was eligible for promotion to the post since November 2003 and could have easily been promoted as regular Controller of Stationary w.e.f November 2005 i.e. date from which Shri B. Tewary the then Controller of Stationary on deputation was repatriated prematurely to his parent Department. But the post of COS remained vacant from 09.09.2005 onwards & it was at my initiative that the senior most officer falling in the line of promotion was given promotion to the post of COS on Adhoc basis w.e.f 09.07.2009 & I handed over charge to the regular incumbent on 09.07.2009. 11(C). Against column-3 (A) of Part-II of my APAR Report, which comprises of the portion in which the Officer reported upon specifies the shortfalls or constraints, I have given the following major constraints in discharge of my duties as underCONSTRAINTS 1. UNPRECEDENTED PAPER CRISES IN INDUSTRIAL UNITS :- During the year 2008-2009, the total allotment of funds was Rs. 60,63,00,000 under the Head-Material and Supplies in respect of Government of India Presses. Paper is a basic raw material for running the industrial units. No Paper could be procured during the Financial Year 2008-09 due to non-receipt of approval by the Ministry. Only Rs. 23, 32, 75,000 could be utilized which was the spill over payment of last financial year 2007-08. Total funds, which remained unutilised, was Rs. 36, 90, 25,000. In the year 2009-10 I had to address an SOS D.O Letter No.Proc./249/WOPP/2008-09 dated 04.08.2009 to Secretary (UD) after which emergency supply of only 900 MTs of WOPP was allowed whereas the yearly procurement of Paper in the year 2007-08 was 9465.3 MT. On the intervention of Secretary (UD) in File related to procurement of 105 MT Strawboard which was reduced to just 5 MTs by the Joint Secretary (UD) the Secretary (UD) directed JS&FA to examine the matter as such drastic reduction would hamper work. The new JS&FA Ms. Sudha Krishnan formed a committee of 04 officers who recommended vide Minutes dated 19.11.2009 that projection of requirement as made by the Directorate of Printing with the approval of Director of Printing may be accepted which will be subject to scrutiny at the time of next procurement, this recommendation was accepted by the Ministry which ended the years of uncertainty & ambiguity & a long standing problem was resolved. The purchase files of the Directorate are most complicated as 9

various interests are involved & procurement is delayed as there is a lot of lobbying by firms. For instance, for Paper Procurement of WOPP the firm M/s Mohit had wanted to influence the tender process & the file had to be referred to DGS&D who supported the stand of the Directorate. Such delay in procurement is a major constraint in smooth running of operations & adversely affects Production in the industrial units. 2. The total funds allotted under IT Head was Rs.10040000/- (Rs. One Crore Forty thousand). Approval for purchase of computers on DGS&D Rate contract was not received from the Ministry despite timely submission. As a result Funds to the tune of Rs. 9769000/- (Ninety Seven Lakh & Sixty nine thousand) remained unutilised for the Year 2008-2009. Thus the proposal was once again moved & submitted to the Ministry in the next Financial Year 2009-10 and the approval for purchase of computers was finally achieved after pursuing the matter from 1.04.08 to 26.11.09 i.e. 1 year 8 months. Major constraints were faced by way of diverting precious time in thwarting the lobbying by agents of computer firms like VSM for LG make computers and Landmark Infonet Pvt Ltd for Dell Computers (Note of AD in File No. Proc/G-20011/2007/B&A(Part) dated 27.08.09) due to which procurement cases were delayed. 3. During my brief tenure of 22 months in the Directorate of Printing I held additional charge of two more Departments. Thus for about 20 months I held dual charge of more than one Department & was heavily overburdened during my entire tenure as I was not provided opportunity to exclusively handle & concentrate on my own work. Moreover the work pertaining to the Government Presses on the Operations side is highly technical & needs a lot of concentration & meticulous planning or else Production will be adversely affected. 4. The inherited mess & years of neglect of the technical aspects & primacy of core functions cannot be solved in such a short period. However I set up 14 (Fourteen) different Committees to examine crucial aspects like (i).Press Pool accommodation, (ii).Setting up of National Printing Museum, (iii).Productivity Linked Bonus formula, (iv).Recruitment fiasco, (v).Compassionate Appointment cases, (vi).Updating of Recruitment Rules, (vii).Tenure transfer Policy, (viii).Committee on GIFS & OP Branch, (ix).Procurement Procedure for Printing Paper, (x).Trade Test Committee, (xi).Fixing of responsibility on Vigilance Inquiry, (xii).Recasting of Annexure-D, (xiii).Workers strength in Govt. Press Shimla, (xiv).Modernisation of GIP Rashtrapati Bhawan. Out of these the reports of 03(three) Committees had been received, examined & implemented. In case the matter is pursued vigorously & the recommendations of these other committees are examined & implemented it will bring a lot of improvement in the working of the Department. Apart from these if the Vision Programme as laid down vide my Office Order No.21/2/2008-A.II, dated 7th August, 2009 and Office Order No.1/3/2009-Estt. dated 4th December, 2009 are monitored & implemented these steps will change the face of the Department. I was not allowed to complete my tenure of 3 years (36 months), which was abruptly cut short after just 22 months, or else I would have galvanised progress, but time constraint was a major impediment. 10

11(D). During this period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, against column-3(B) of Part-II of my APAR Report, which comprises of the portion in which the Officer reported upon, indicates the items in which there have been significant achievements and contribution thereto. I have given the following achievements under this column:Directorate of Printing (i) I made a presentation on 10th November 2009 before the Honble MOS (UD) Prof. Saugat Roy about the Directorate of Printing, an overview of the Department, challenges and future vision and the Honble MOS (UD) had appreciated the initiatives taken by me. Infact thereafter I had organized a very successful visit of the Honble MOS (UD) to the Government of India Press, Rashtrapati Bhawan on 13th November 2009 and the Honble MOS (UD) was satisfied with the visit & appreciated the quality of printing works being executed by the Press. (ii) In order to streamline the rotation of charge & tenure transfer in a logical free & fair manner a committee was set up vide O.M No. 21/1/2005-A-II dated 26.03.2009 & provided guidance, Court judgments, CVC, DOPT rulings etc. The Committee submitted its Report on 6th July 2009, which was examined and implemented. (iii) The Budget & Accounts monitoring system was streamlined in consultation with Chief Controller of Accounts & it was decided that all the three independent departments were to submit the accounts directly to the PSP Division of Ministry. Despite trifurcation of the Department of Printing & Stationary headed by the CCP&S in the year 1973 the compilation of Accounts was still being compiled & monitored by the Directorate of Printing. Thus while compilation of accounts was being done by the Directorate & the entire responsibility of these other two departments also fell upon the directorate without commensurate powers of monitoring or jurisdiction now this procedural shortcoming has been rectified after almost 35 years which will result in direct monitoring and increased accountability of the Department of Publications & GISO. Orders were issued on this account vide Letter No. G20015/2/2009-B&A dated 27th January 2010. (iv) The most complicated promotion case of senior most technical officer which was being dealt in 13 files, prior to my joining, was pursued. The Honble UDM had already granted approval on 18.03.2008 for Ad-hoc promotion of the senior most technical Officer (File No. 25/2/2004-A-II(Vol.), which could not materialise. Efforts were made to expedite the process to fill up on regular basis the vacant post of JD(Tech) in Pay Band-4 Rs.37400-67000 Grade Pay-Rs.8700 which was crucial technical post in second line of command. A D.O Letter was addressed to the Additional Secretary & CVO for grant of Vigilance clearance and another D.O Letter addressed to Secretary, UPSC so that selection process could be expedited. Some officers in the Ministry were not in favour of promotion of officer however I pursued the case as he was senior most, efficient in work & eligible which process took one year to materialise with the intention that by the time I complete my three years deputation the officer would become eligible for consideration to the post of 11

Director of Printing & the Department would not lapse to the same chaotic situation as prevailed from 01.08.2003 to 08.05.2008 when there was no regular incumbent & DPCs promotions etc could not take place. Such a step was taken purely keeping in view the interests of the organization. Ironically the officer took over charge on 18.12.2009 i.e. the day my repatriation orders were issued by Ministry. (v) During the year a total of 4003 files of the 03 Departments were disposed off i.e. 3244 files of Directorate of Printing & 642 Files of Department of Publications & 117 Files of GISO Kolkata were disposed off at my level & only 581 files of Printing & 6 files of Publications & 13 files of Stationary were submitted to the Ministry. 33 Promotion cases cleared. 36 VIP references, 68 Court cases were processed, around 10 detailed guidelines issued to subordinate units. Around 14 Committees were formed with detailed terms of reference in order to improve the working of the Directorate. (vi) Held regular union meetings with staff association in all three Departments & maintained cordial relations with staff unions & all justified demands which fell within my powers were processed timely. Adopted transparent & accessible management & encouraged workers participation in management & consultation with Unions was encouraged. The increase in interaction & treating the Unions & workers with respect & as partners in progress led to better work environment & increase in production levels. Department of Publications Under the modernization scheme circulated vide D.O. No. 1514/5/2004RC&IT(A) dated 3/9/2004 of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, action initiated for modernization of Department of Publications.(File No.111/Modern-Office/2005-06/G). Steps were taken to improve the filing system. AMC of computers & other machines like Photocopier, FAX etc were streamlined. Standard check list for AMC, monitoring of Court cases, RTI cases, Service Profile etc was prepared & guidance provided to the staff & rulings etc placed in files and overall working of the Office improved. Government of India Stationary office I had visited GISO Kolkata on 22nd December 2008 & laid the ground work & motivated the staff of GISO & a cleanliness drive was initiated during visit & all files & records were systematized & old obsolete articles disposed off to make the Office presentable as there was new hope in the air about the revival of the Department. As a follow up action the Deputy Secretary (Pub & Sty) was also deputed to GISO. The Honble MOS (UD) Prof. Saugat Roy visited GISO on 9th October 2009 & he was satisfied with the visit & appreciated our efforts. General During the entire period of report no Memorandum of Services was maintained thereby clearly showing that my superiors found absolutely no deficiencies in my working. In view of the voluminous work done & the initiatives taken by me, I feel that I deserve to be graded as Outstanding. 12

12. Each remarks of the Reporting Officer in the APAR for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 is analysed from Paras (a) to (i) as under :(a) 1. PART-III Nature and quality of work

Please comment on Part-II as filled by the officer and specifically state whether you agree with the answers relating to targets and objectives, achievements, shortfalls and constraints. The Reporting Officer has given following remarks, The officer has described targets and objectives from her perspective. Broader objectives have not been fully reflected. The officer was repatriated after due assessment by Secretary (UD) and MOS (UD)/Minister of Urban Development which was also upheld by CAT, Delhi. (i). Under this column the Reporting Officer was required to specifically comment as to whether he agreed or disagreed with answers relating to targets and objectives achievements, shortfalls and constraints. The Reporting Officer has not given a clear reply whether he agrees or disagrees and has been evasive. He has not given any details of what other targets and objectives were required to be given from as per his own perspective and whether these were ever conveyed to the officer reported upon. Moreover the reference numbers or letter vide which Reporting Officer has conveyed these broader targets and objectives laid down by him has also not been cited because no such targets were ever laid down or any letter issued. The Reporting Officer has also not cited what broader objectives he has in mind which has not been reflected and in accordance to which letter number these so called broader objectives had been conveyed. True fact is that the Reporting Officer, Shri A.K Mehta had created an atmosphere of intrigue and was most of the time siding with corrupt officials and was busy furthering and safeguarding their interests (AnnexureIV) and had no time for important operational issues or to issue any letters or guidelines at his own level. Hence such generalised remarks are unfounded and made merely to play down the exceptional achievements made by me. In the instructions portion of APAR as per Para-6 and 7 the following guidelines have been given:Para-6 The reporting Officer shall in the beginning of the year set quantitative/physical/financial targets in consultation with each of the officer with respect to whom he is required to report upon. Performance appraisal should be a joint exercise between the officer reported upon and the Reporting Officer. The targets/goals shall be set at the commencement of the reporting year i.e. April, in the case of All India Service Officers. In the case of an officer taking up a new assignment in the course of the reporting year, such targets/goals shall be set at the time of assumption of the new assignment. Para-7 The targets should be clearly known and understood by both the officer concerned. While fixing the targets, priority should be assigned itemwise, taking into consideration the nature and the area of the work of the officer to be reported upon. 13

Keeping in view the above instructions, I would like to make it clear at the outset that the Reporting Officer did not carry out any such consultation nor was the performance appraisal ever a joint exercise in fact it has become a one sided vilification exercise. I have clearly mentioned at Page-2(B) of my self appraisal that no specific targets had been assigned to me and therefore targets were set by myself after duly consulting my superiors. At that time neither the Reporting nor Reviewing Officer said anything and now at last moment such casual remarks are being made as an afterthought. (ii). Since I had duly consulted my superiors at the time of setting these targets therefore the observations of Reporting Officer are unfounded and baseless. The targets and objectives have been cited after due consultation. This fact has also been duly entered at page 2-B and the Reporting Officer has not denied or refuted it because truth is very difficult to negate. It is not understood what broader objectives the Reporting Officer is alluding to and the phraseology used is vague as he has failed to give any specific instance. The Directorate of Printing is a technical Directorate and controls 16 Government of India Presses located in different parts of the country. These Printing Presses are classified as Industries and fall under the purview of the Factories Act. Thus the main objectives must pertain to Printing Operations & productivity and accordingly priority has been accorded to these areas by me. There was acute shortage of staff in the Presses which was as high as 62%, many of the machines were lying idle & capacity utilization was not optimum, the PSP Dvn./JS(UD) in the Ministry did not provide any support & in fact put numerous objections & the already decided issue of sanctioned strength of GIPs was reopened & questioned, the investigation into irregularities in recruitment was delayed as in one year only two inquiries had been completed out of 6 inquiries, and the PSP Dvn./JS(UD) in the Ministry were against the idea of cancellation of all irregular recruitments or handing over the investigation to CBI. Despite strong vested interests trying to paralyse the work of the Directorate & restoration of the normal functioning of the Department, seen in this backdrop the achievements are indeed exceptional as tremendous push and drive was required to streamline the Department which I was able to achieve despite these vested interests creating hurdles at every stage. The core activities of the Directorate of Printing is to execute printing jobs through the Government of India Presses and includes range of printing requirements of various Ministries/Departments of Govt. of India and Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha such as daily Bulletin Codes, Manuals, Reports, Publicity Materials and Scientific Publications, Railway Budget, Demands for Grants, Annual Report of various Ministries/ Departments, Gazette Notification, Printing requirements of UPSC etc. all these functions have been performed satisfactorily and appreciation letters have also been received from various quarters. For example the Joint Secretary in the 13th Finance Commission had called me up and thanked me profusely as the ceremonial copies of the Report which were to be handed over by the Commission on 30 th December 2009 to the Honble President had been prepared & submitted within a record two days including the binding & outer cover. In order to ensure smooth printing of the Union Budget a total of 25 skilled workers from the Government of India Presses under the Directorate of Printing, was provided to the Budget Press under the Ministry of Finance despite acute shortage of staff and the simultaneous pressure of printing of Railway Budget, Demands for Grants etc which requires planning, skill & dexterity & deputing staff from one press to another in a systematic & logical cycle so that staff is adequately rested as per provisions of Factories Act 1948 regulating the working hours of industrial workers & there is no disgruntlement 14

so that work runs smoothly. Thus the Printing targets and objectives were fully met which is the mandate of the Department, which has been performed in an excellent manner & thus I deserve nothing less than Excellent & these remarks are unfounded & amount to deliberate attempts to belittle my achievements and contribution. (iii). As regards the remarks of Reporting Officer that, The officer was repatriated after due assessment by Secretary (UD) and MOS (UD)/Minister of Urban Development, is concerned this is not correct reflection of facts. If a wrong note based on unsubstantiated facts are submitted to higher authorities and wrong decision is arrived at based on these wrong facts and information withheld that the comments of affected officer have not been called for & these allegations are not proved then any such decision of higher authorities has been taken in good faith assuming and believing that all rules and regulations have been followed, thus Shri A.K Mehta is responsible for breach of this trust & action needs to be taken against the official and he should be held accountable for misrepresentation of facts in file note & misguiding his superiors. Unfortunately either due to lack of knowledge of rules and procedures or deliberately due to malafides, Shri A.K Mehta, Joint Secretary (UD) did not submit full facts hence the clearing of file in good faith by his superiors, cannot be cited as justification for his own wrong actions. The style of functioning of Shri A.K Mehta is such that due to his long years of having worked on deputation in the Central Ministries he has excelled the art of secretarial machinations. He directs his subordinates to prepare a note as per his bidding & openly manipulates facts & encourages giving wrong facts in the notes of his subordinates, then writes a one liner & initials & marks the file to his superior & since correct facts have not been given thus based on whatever is available on file as well as one sided oral briefing of Shri A.K Mehta the superior decides the case in good faith without delving into intricacies. Later on even if the wrong facts are somehow brought to the notice of the final deciding authority, yet Shri A.K Mehta escapes unscathed because the responsibility of submitting facts in the file noting falls on his subordinate officers who prepared the note and the responsibility of taking decision based on these wrong facts falls on the superior deciding authority & thus Shri A.K Mehta is a winner in all situations because firstly he has achieved his goal secondly the subordinate & superior authority are trapped & have no other alternative but to defend the stand taken by them notwithstanding the circumstances under which the decision was taken. Thus Shri A.K Mehta cannot cite this as ratification or justification for his own misdemeanours and high handedness. As these officials of PSP Dvn. could not implicate me in any case because my working is clean, honest & transparent and as I take decisions in the best interests of the Department, thus they had to resort to cooking up false allegations & in the process have become laughing stocks. The manner in which the false allegations have been drafted only exposes the competence & intelligence levels of these officers, as we need to first get rid of our logic & thinking ability, before embarking on to read the same. In the words of Coleridge, a willing suspension of disbelief is required to go through these false allegations which deserve summary rejection. On the directions of Shri A.K Mehta, a note in File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. was submitted by the Deputy Secretary (PSP) on 11.11.2009 for premature repatriation of the Director of Printing. The Secretary (UD) did not clear the File immediately & wrote Please discuss. The File remained under discussion from 12.11.2010 to 23.11.2010 and ultimately Secretary (UD) had to give in to the arm twisting tactics of Shri A.K Mehta. It is difficult to fathom the reasons why the then Secretary (UD) had 15

completely surrendered & prostrated before the whims of Shri A.K Mehta who was calling the shots. The File remained with Honble MOS (UD) from 23.11.2009 to 14.12.2009 & ultimately the file had to be got cleared personally by Dr. M. Ramachandran, Secretary (UD) who it is learnt had pleaded desperately that it is very difficult for the JS (UD) to work with me around which is affecting his work also thus voicing the concerns of Shri A.K Mehta verbatim. It is surprising that an Officer who is on the verge of retirement & had barely 5-6 months left for service sounded so desperate, especially since I did not have any day to day interaction with the Secretary (UD) and had met him only during formal meetings. The fact regarding the compulsions and pressures under which the then Secretary (UD) was doing the bidding of Shri A.K Mehta needs to be enquired into because in the last months of 2009 onwards, the then Secretary (UD) appeared helpless and even the decisions in file were shaky and he would be merely endorsing & passively supporting the views of Shri Mehta, JS (UD) whereas in the past he appeared in full command. Thus it needs to be enquired as to the reasons behind such sudden rise in dominance, power and unquestioned, overbearing supremacy of Shri A.K Mehta in the Ministry. Now when the Secretary of a Ministry writes in file that he counselled the officer (without mentioning any dates) these officers had forgotten that the file can be accessed by me under RTI Act, but at that time they were oblivious to such eventualities & merrily gave one sided baseless notings in file and no one bothered to ask for specific facts. After the Secretary(UD) had cleared the file the Honble MOS (UD) Prof. Saugata Roy who had joined the Ministry only recently and was not aware of the internal politics of these Officers and their policy of siding with all kinds of corrupt officials, cleared the File reluctantly. The Honble MOS (UD) had been allotted the work of Printing & Stationary Department and orders for allocation of work was issued vide O.O No. A-22017/1/98-Admn.I dated 16th October 2009. The File was submitted to Honble MOS (UD) on 23.11.2009 and Honble MOS(UD) kept the file for more than 15 days as he was sceptical & had newly joined the Ministry and was familiarizing with the equations in the Ministry. It was at this moment that the File was got cleared by the Secretary personally on instigation & under influence of Shri A.K Mehta. Moreover the reasons cited as justification for my repatriation, only exposes the working style & calibre of these Officers, for whom now once the file had been moved it became a prestige issue to get the file cleared at all costs. Once the file had been cleared by Honble MOS (UD) who was incharge of Printing & Stationary Department, the Honble UDM also cleared it. It may kindly be noted that the Honble MOS (UD) did not agree with the remarks or Grading assessed by these Officers in my APAR because by that time he had familiarised himself about the style of functioning of these Officers. Thus Shri A.K Mehta need not gloat over the fact that he had the support of all the superior authorities because file was not cleared instantly but under pressure & through misrepresentation of facts. (iv). As regards the remarks of the Reporting Officer that the repatriation of the Officer, was also upheld by CAT, Delhi is concerned, in this regard it is to submit that the entire basis of decision of CAT rests on just one assumption i.e. the 27 baseless allegations presuming these to be correct. The CAT has not cited any other reason except this one fact which has been over emphasised. In this regard the following facts are submitted for kind consideration :(iv)(A). During the course when case was under consideration before the CAT, prior to the stage when Shri A.K Mehta was directed by the Court to file an affidavit, the Honble Judicial Member had lashed out at the Government Counsel that the more 16

evidence you provide to Court the more you will get into further trouble because you are holding an officer responsible for things she has not done & the evidence being provided by you in the Counter Reply on 6th January 2010 is going against you and had insisted that Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) submit his affidavit. It was only after Shri A.K Mehta submitted his affidavit & after I had submitted my representation dated 11.03.2010 addressed to Dr. M. Ramachandran, Secretary (UD) which contained a whole list of misdemeanors on the part of Shri A.K Mehta that he felt the heat & the fear of self survival struck him and he became proactive. Surprisingly thereafter the Honble Judicial Member fell quiet all of a sudden and took a back seat and the Honble Member (Administration) became proactive and took over, who set forth in extensively citing in the judgment by bringing on record all the 27 baseless allegations, thus providing unwarranted legitimacy to these false charges and strengthening the cause of Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) vide Para-11 running into two pages & relied solely upon it as adequate grounds & justification for my repatriation orders. The statement of Honble Member (A) thrown in as a small consolation in the Order, that these repatriation orders are not stigmatic, is of no avail nor is it of any consequence to me because the memories of the kind of treatment faced by me from some of the Officers of my own Service on rejoining my parent Department can never be washed away by any Court orders, notwithstanding the fact that the decision of CAT had only raised revulsion amongst the staff in the Printing & Stationary Department who were aware of the machinations of Shri A.K Mehta. It has become a way of life and an acceptable norm that honest and upright officers are falsely implicated & they are harassed on small issues whereas manipulative officers get support and patronage & their interests are safeguarded and eyebrows are no longer raised when such injustice comes to light nor does it create any kind of consternation. The CAT decision is thus in tune with such an unfair system. Shri A.K Mehta has misrepresented facts before the Court and needs to be prosecuted and FIR lodged against him. (Para-38 of Annexure-IV refers) But since he had the support and might of Dr. M. Ramachandran, the then Secretary (UD) to back him and an individual can not fight an unfair, manipulative system therefore he can escape the consequences. A decision cajoled out of use of influence, lobbies, batch mates & service affinities is hardly something to flaunt about as an achievement of having arrived or justification for misdemeanors of Shri A.K Mehta. (iv)(B). WRONG SUBMISSIONS IN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SHRI A.K MEHTA- Since the evidence provided by the Ministry in its rejoinder was going against the Ministry the Honble Judicial Member took a serious view and directed that Shri A.K Mehta must file separate affidavit & the officer had to submit separate affidavit in which he has deliberately given wrong facts, right from showing his age as being less (!). Some of the wrong submissions made by him are as under :(1b) Against Para-5 C&D of his reply he has stated that, He was the Officer who represented the Ministry at the UPSC. He also attached Annexure R-1 in support of his contention. In the reply submitted by the Ministry he has in Para-E submitted that, In fact Respondent No.2 took over the charge of Joint Secretary (UD) only in February 2008. He was amongst officers who participated in selection of the applicant in UPSC (annexure-R-XVI). On the recommendations of Respondent No. 2 the charge of Controller of Publications, Department of Publications and Controller of Stationary, Government of India Stationary Office was given to the applicant ..............if the Respondent No.2 had any intention to retain powers of Director of Printing and 17

the other two Departments he would have avoided selection of the applicant to man the post of Director of Printing and also giving charge of Controller of Publications, Department of Publications and Controller of Stationary, Government of India Stationary Office to the applicant. Shri A.K Mehta gave misleading information to the Court that he had participated in selection of applicant which is misconceived because nothing to this effect was submitted before the Court because Annexure-RXVI states nothing to this effect & only mentions vide Para-2 that, Shri A.K Mehta, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, represented the Department and it is presumed that he must have attended UPSC in the capacity of Ministrys representative. Shri A.K Mehta has not submitted any evidence that he was a part of the selection board in the UPSC interview and thus it is inferred that he must have gone only as Ministrys Representative which is a routine exercise. In many instances the Director of Printing has nominated the GM (Minto Road) and GM (Nasik) as Ministrys Representative to attend UPSC in several cases of appointments of technical cadres. A Ministrys Representative has no role to play in selection of candidates which is sole prerogative of UPSC. As per UPSC directives in several letters regarding nomination of Ministries Representative, The MRs role would be only to apprise/brief the interview Board about the requirements of the post, service conditions, career prospects, possible places of postings and other information as may be sought by the interview Board only on the first day of the interviews. After doing so on the first day the MR would depart before the commencement of interviews he/she need not come to the office of the Commission on the subsequent days of the interview. Thus it may kindly be noted that MR is not to participate in the interview process. The M.R may therefore be suitably briefed. Further the Commission states in its general communications that It is to inform that the responsibility for selecting candidates rests solely with the Commission Thus keeping these facts in mind Shri A.K Mehta has made contention that he would have avoided selection of the applicant to man the post of Director of Printing is actually an insult to the UPSC, which only reflects his habit of challenging & abrogating powers of other authorities. A Joint Secretary level Officer does not enjoy any such powers or authority or competence & should avoid being larger than life & trying to show he has bestowed largess upon others. The Officer has a colonial mindset and still lives in the era of mai-baap culture & wants everyone to prostrate before him & be grateful that he showered favours by selecting me which reflects his arrogance & scant regard for such highly respected constitutional authorities like the UPSC. Since Dr. M. Ramachandran, Secretary (UD) had completely surrendered & prostrated before his whims, due to his own compulsions, this further encouraged Shri A.K Mehta to impose his wrong diktats & behave in a dictatorial manner. (2b) Against Para-5H Shri A.K Mehta has submitted before the Court that, There has been no occasion when the deponent prevented in exercising the powers of disciplinary authority vested in her. Similarly there has been no occasion when the deponent interfered in day to day working of the applicant and wanted to favour Shri C.S Mehra and Shri R.K Gautam.......... Unfortunately the Court did not take into cognisance the fact that Shri A.K Mehta had deliberately questioned the statutory powers of the Director of Printing regarding exercising powers of Disciplinary authority and accepted the 27 allegations 18

as gospel truth. Allegation No.3 which reads, On a file it has been argued that Director (Printing) has powers to impose major penalty on officers belonging to CSCS whereas Director/DS, cadre controlling authority i.e. Director/DS(Admn.) in the Ministry of Urban Development is appointing authority and authority competent to impose major penalty had been raised in order to favour one tainted official & delay decision & prevent the Director of Printing from deciding the Disciplinary case of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, UDC who had a major penalty charge sheet against him based on CBI Report while working in the Directorate of Estates, Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) deliberately put numerous objections in file that Director of Printing is not competent to decide cases of CSCS officials and Shri V.K Sharma, Director (Admn.) in the Ministry is competent Disciplinary Authority for clerical staff working in the Directorate of Printing, which case has also been given in detail in Para-13 of Annexure-IV . As regards the favours bestowed upon some tainted officials like Shri R.C Gupta, Shri C.S Mehra and Shri R.K Gautam etc involved in Vigilance cases these have been given in detail in Para-1 to 12, 24, 25, and 38 of Annexure-IV in which list of grave lapses on the part of Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD), MOUD has been listed. (iv)(C). ANALYSIS OF CAT JUDGEMENT - The CAT judgement dated 25.03.2010 has been analysed as under :(1c) In Para-3 of CAT Order delivered by the Honble Member (Administration) it has been stated that, On our direction, the Counsel for the Official Respondents placed for our perusal, the File No. O-17034/8/09-Ptg on the subject-Important issues concerning Dte of Printing. (2c) The concerned File (File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg.) is the same in which a note was first initiated by the Deputy Secretary (PSP) on 11.11.2009 levelling 27 baseless allegations for premature repatriation of the Director of Printing on the directions of Shri A.K Mehta, Joint Secretary(UD). (3c) The Court took the contents of this file as gospel truth & did not provide me any opportunity to refute these false allegations. (4c) Moreover the record was called for by the Court behind my back and without my knowledge, and no opportunity was provided to me to respond to these allegations, which fact is also supported by the fact that in the judgement there is no mention about the response on each allegation. Justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. (5c) While a rejoinder to the Counter reply of the Ministry dated 6th January 2010 was allowed to be filed on 23rd January 2010 and opportunity was provided by CAT, however unfortunately no opportunity was allowed to respond to the Affidavit filed by Shri A.K Mehta & nor was I aware about calling for File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. as Court document and no opportunity was allowed to respond to these allegations & the File was called behind my back and opportunity was denied once again which led to miscarriage of justice. (6c) In Para-9 of judgement it has been stated that, The position as narrated above undisputedly brings out that the tenure of deputation can be curtailed but the settled legal position in the subject lays the ratio that the order of deputation curtailment must be simplicitor and the grounds of the curtailment 19

should not be stigmatic or punitive. If the grounds for repatriation is stigmatic, punitive the order of repatriation must precede proper enquiry and principles of natural justice more specifically audi alterem partem which means that an opportunity should be provided to the officer concerned to defend herself properly. Unfortunately the Honble Member (A), CAT did not take into cognisance the Government guidelines on deputation. As per DoPT Circular No. 3/4/2004EO(MM.I) dated 17th August 2005 (Para-39 of Annexure-IV) on the subject Policy regarding appointment of officers at different levels under the Central Staffing Scheme. Para 15 of this circular states as under :15. The cases of lateral transfer of officers on grounds of inefficiency, incompetence, unsatisfactory performance or incompatibility with the job requirement shall be considered only after the administrative Ministry/Department has obtained the officers explanation on each alleged shortcoming. Such grounds of inefficiency etc shall not be held against the officers for imposing penalty etc. or for recording in the ACR. These grounds shall be used for the limited purpose of lateral transfer. (7c) In the case of my pre-mature repatriation the Joint Secretary(UD) levelled false allegations in a most casual manner without bothering to cite violation of any rules & by withholding the fact that no opportunity was provided to me to put forth my contention. If wrong facts are submitted in file a wrong decision will be taken based on the presentation of wrong facts. Similarly if wrong facts are submitted before the Courts then there will be miscarriage of justice. Moreover the contention of the CAT that proper enquiry needs to be conducted only if the grounds for repatriation are stigmatic, punitive and that an opportunity should be provided to the officer concerned to defend herself properly is against the spirit of Natural justice. Whether the grounds for repatriation are stigmatic or not, under all conditions every officer has to be provided an opportunity to defend herself. It is only after conduct of proper inquiry or allowing an officer an opportunity to defend his/her stand that a conclusion can be arrived at whether the decision is stigmatic or not. If an officer is repatriated without assigning any reasons but in file false allegations are levelled and the fair name of the officer is tarnished & one sided picture is painted and senior Officers whose duty is to ensure fair play & impartiality instead start conspiring and concocting allegations then certainly such repatriation is stigmatic because the foundation upon which the repatriation decision was taken was false. We are living in a democratic set up and not a dictatorial set up where a person can become a judge in his own cause and act as an accuser, judge, jury and executioner. (8c) In Para-11 of CAT Order delivered by the Honble Member (Administration) it has been stated that, The Order dated 17.12.2009 assailed by the Applicant does not bring out any specific reasons. The Counsel for the Applicant contended that the background of the above order, if probed into, it would be found to be stigmatic and without giving an opportunity to the Applicant to defend herself. In this background on the basis of our directions the Respondents have furnished File No. O-17034/8/09-Ptg relating to the important issues concerning the Directorate of Printing. The Tribunal has authority to lift the veil of the order and find out whether the reasons which 20

have motivated to pass the repatriation order are stigmatic in nature, or simpliciter in nature with reference to her unsatisfactory performance, unsuitability for the job and ineffectiveness of the Applicant in carrying out her functions. Thereafter the Honble Member (A) has gone on to extensively discuss the not proved 27 baseless allegations that have been leveled and has accepted these as gospel truth. A brief reply on each of the 27 allegations is enclosed as Annexure-III; a perusal of the same will make it clear that the frivolous and casual manner in which the whole matter had been dealt so much so that the Joint Secretary never bothered to even refer to the records and rules before submitting the File. The CAT has based its judgment on this File which is the main evidence. The Honble Member (Administration) has taken pro-active interest and delivered a judgment which sounds more like a one sided soliloquy in which the procedural loose ends left by these Officials of the Ministry are being tied up & justified in order to provide legitimacy. I had gone to CAT for justice with great expectations & hope & had not expected that the Honble Member (A) would lift the veil of the order partially & selectively. Had the veil been lifted further and the Joint Secretary asked to explain the basis of these allegations or I was provided an opportunity to respond then such a fair & just initiative would have revealed the kind of highhandedness and unfair practices adopted by these Officers of the Ministry. Unfortunately the Honble Member (A) went a step further forgetting that he is no longer a part of the bureaucracy & should not take it as a simple matter of obliging his batch mate, but deciding a service matter that will have far reaching implications on the career prospects of an exceptionally competent, hard working and upright officer and as he was now occupying the high chair of a judge who are held in great veneration & highest esteem, was expected to be impartial and give a fair and equal chance to the aggrieved party which had approached him for justice instead of adding insult to injury by extensively commenting upon my competence citing each of the 27 allegations as reason and proof thereby exceeding his brief, he cannot question the selection made by UPSC regarding my suitability for the post because I have excellent technical knowledge which can be got testified from the Printing Technical officers who held me in high esteem because of my knowledge and competence in this field & I possess exceptional administrative acumen & experience of managing a large Department independently. Thus the Honble Member (A) should have exercised judicial restraint because the matter under consideration was regarding unjust orders of premature repatriation by leveling false allegations in file & without affording opportunity to the affected officer in contravention of government rules & instructions. (9c) In Para-15 of CAT Order delivered by the Honble Member (Administration) it has been stated that, The onus of proving malafide lies on the person who alleges so. Therefore, the onus lies on the Applicant to prove. There is no evidence to prove that Respondent No.2 was jealous of the post of the Applicant. It is noted that the post of Director occupied by the Applicant in the Government of India hierarchical structure is junior level and generally subordinate to the post of Joint Secretary. We wonder why and how a senior positioned officer would be jealous of his subordinates. It is not understood on what basis & under what reference to context such groundless remarks has been attributed to me and words put in my mouth by Honble Member (A). Nowhere has such contention ever been made either in written replies or verbally and this is verbatim voicing of the fears of Shri A.K Mehta, who always felt insecure due to lack of knowledge of rules. Such unfounded & uncalled for remarks in the Order by 21

Honble Member (A) are a result of newly tasted judicial power & old habit while being a part of the bureaucracy of completely decimating those, whom they consider of no consequence or position. (iv)(D). Thus the decision of CAT can not be cited as justification or ratification of the misdemeanours of Shri A.K Mehta on following grounds:(i) (ii) (iii) Shri A.K Mehta submitted wrong facts before the Court which influenced the decision & led to miscarriage of justice. Honble Member (A) called for records behind my back. Honble Member (A) did not provide equal opportunity to respond or reply to these allegations. Justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. Honble Member (A) did not allow any opportunity for argument on this new record. Honble Member (A) justified the fact that since no stigma attached to repatriation hence no inquiry or opportunity to the Officer to defend herself is required which contention is against the principles of natural justice. Honble Member (A) lifted the veil partially & did not go deeper into the correctness or check the veracity of these allegations & hence did not provide equal opportunity. This order is not the final verdict because avenues of further Appeal still existed at that point of time. Shri A.K Mehta had filed a Caveat in High Court because he lacked confidence in his own actions & the frenzied unbecoming behaviour in the last fortnight of March 2010 is an indication of the level & mind set of the official. The Order can not be taken as ratification or justification for the false allegations and system of collusion to implicate /eliminate honest officers by these officials in the Ministry. Since the subject matter of most of these 27 baseless allegations pertained to period prior to my joining & when I was not in position and a result of the accumulated past neglect & inherited mess, thus I cannot be held responsible in any way especially since the responsibility of these allegations had been suitably entered in the APAR of the concerned officers who were in position at that time i.e. the respective Deputy Secretaries & Joint Directors along with separate Secret Notes on integrity of Officers in accordance to Ministry of Home Affairs O.M No. 51/4/64-Estt.(A) dated 21.06.1965 and Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) has accepted the same in his capacity as Reviewing Authority.

(iv) (v)

(vi)

(vii)

(viii)

(ix)

(iv)(E). If Shri A.K Mehta was so confident that he has followed all rules & procedures

and his stand is correct then there was no need to have filed a Caveat in panic in the High Court without even bothering to obtain certified copy of court judgment, in a frenzied hurry he got the room of Director of Printing locked so that I could not enter the room & his action & behavior was unbecoming of a Government servant. The Officer forgets that he cannot monopolies government positions or posts & dictate his terms & incumbents will come & go & persons like Shri Mehta will get washed away in the sands of time. But times are such that honest officers are harassed & the whole system colludes with manipulative officers. But hope is a beautiful word and we want to believe in it even if there are no chances of success because hope has to be kept alive & perhaps tomorrow a time will come when honest officers will not be looked down upon as pariahs but will be given the respect & recognition they 22

deserve. Therefore I request your honour to kindly expunge unnecessary, uncalled for & unjustified remarks from the records.

these

(v) The Reporting officer had cooked up 27 frivolous allegations but not one of these allegations could be proved by him because no letter number or file number or any substantive fact has been cited in the File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. and conspired with other officers with mala fide intent. The officer did not have the nerve to provide me an opportunity and call for my explanation or comments because then his machinations would have been exposed & he would not be able to defend his dishonest intentions. In order to prove my point I am citing just two of the baseless allegations levelled against me & cited as reasons for my repatriation as under :(i) An allegation has been made in File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. that, On a file it has been argued that Director (Printing) has powers to impose major penalty on officers belonging to CSCS whereas Director/DS, cadre controlling authority i.e. Director/DS (Admn.) in the Ministry of Urban Development is appointing authority and authority competent to impose major penalty.. which is factually incorrect contention. My predecessor Shri H.A Yadav who was the last regular Director had exercised such powers & decided several Disciplinary cases and a few precedents are cited as under :Sl. No. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) File No. C-14013/12/95-AV C-14013/3/96-AV C-14013/1/97-AV C-14013/1/96-AV Name of the CSCS employee Shri R.K. Minocha, UDC Shri Niranjan Lal, LDC Shri Bhag Singh, UDC Shri S.S. Bhatia, UDC Penalty imposed Compulsory retirement Removal from service Compulsory retirement Withholding two increments with cumulative effect Date of imposition 16.10.1997 01.04.1998 06.05.1998 11.10.2000

I do not know based on what reasons Shri A.K Mehta arrived at such a conclusion. It is absolutely correct that the Director of Printing can exercise Disciplinary powers which is also supported by precedent and rules as per Schedule of CSCS Rules 1962. I would have clarified this fact if only I had been afforded an opportunity. But Shri A.K Mehta raised such unfounded objections knowingly because he was the Chairman of DPC for Assistants Grade and had dropped the name of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, UDC from the list of promotion cases due to a pending CBI case in which a major penalty charge sheet had been served upon the official & the case file was before me for decision at the stage whether to agree or disagree with the Inquiry Officers Report. The official, Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma had met me in this regard but I gave no such assurance, then he brought pressure from Shri A.K Mehta who is the messiah of all corrupt, manipulative officials but I told him I will go through all the material evidence on record & only then arrive at a decision, this had greatly irked him & he kept on insisting that when the Inquiry Officer has given the charged official (C.O) a clean chit then who am I to question it. The Inquiry Officer was one Assistant Director in my office who was an average kind of worker and had negated all the hard work done by the CBI. The impact of CBI reports however meticulously prepared & serious they may be can be easily negated & impact diluted by preparing weak charge sheets, by influencing the I.O or delaying the case & getting favourable decisions from Court on grounds of delay. It was in this context that Shri A.K Mehta raised the objection that Director of Printing cannot decide the Disciplinary cases of clerical staff working in Headquarters & that a lower 23

authority to Director of Printing i.e. either Jt. Dir. (Admn) in the Directorate or Director (Admn.) in the Ministry of UD is competent to decide such cases. If I had been provided an opportunity I would have clarified the whole matter but Shri Mehta kept the whole proposal regarding my premature repatriation a closely guarded secret & the file was moving in a sealed cover from one authority to another (!). Had these officials even an iota of grace & intimated me beforehand about their desperation to have me out of their way, I would have myself offered to write an application & voluntarily left the place because I had nothing to gain by working in this dirty quagmire. (ii) Another allegation has been made in File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. that, Number of pages printed by all Presses has declined from 8093319878 in 2001-02 to 4696659621 in 2007-08 whereas during this period modernization of Presses at a cost of about Rs.24 crores was completed. I entirely agree with this contention the Department was being managed on ad-hoc basis by the Additional Director (Admn.) and officers who had completed their deputation and had requested for fifth year extension were accommodated in Directorate & thereafter some CSS Officers worked as HOD & the Department was in a complete mess. As a result the number of pages printed declined steadily & working of the Press was at its nadir. In the year 2007-08 the figures were at its lowest and the Ministry should have taken action against the two CSS officers i.e. Shri S.K Vyawhare and Shri J.P Aggarwal who worked as Additional Directors & HOD at that time, unfortunately it did not take any action. I joined on 09.05.2008 & the production increased in the year 2008-09 & thus I am unable to understand why this allegation has been attributed to me & action needs to be taken against Shri A.K Mehta for levelling such false allegation which was of no concern to me. The complete list of frivolous allegations levelled against me & brief reply is enclosed as Annexure-III which will make it clear that there has been complete intellectual bankruptcy and application of mind in framing the allegations as the quality of allegations are so flimsy at first glance that had it not had such serious repercussions on my career I would not have bothered to respond to it. Now if such false & baseless allegations are submitted & the Secretary (UD) without so much as getting these inquired into or calling for comments or explanation of the affected officer & taken as the final word then definitely there is some thing seriously wrong in the system. A Secretary of a Ministry is not the Secretary of a handful of officials of the Ministry alone, it is not his call that he is to take sides of officials of Ministry & uphold their actions even if these are wrong on the pretext of asserting supremacy of superior office & hence its sanctity should be upheld at all costs. It is most unfortunate that Dr M. Ramachandran has sided with these dishonest officers in the Ministry, whereas the Directorate of Printing was also his own Department & he cannot treat it as a separate entity. It was his duty to safe guard the interests of this severely battered Department which was the favourite flogging horse of these officials of the Ministry for passing on the responsibility of their own inadequacies. On my joining I took decisions which were in the best interests of my Department and I did not allow any direct day to day interference in the working of the GIPs by the PSP Division & gave the Directorate a strong command & control & took steps in confidence building to restore the lost pride of the Department which was obviously not to the liking of these officials who were used to their manipulative ways because the working of Secretariat system is such that officers in Ministry are not accountable to anyone & action cannot be taken against them so they get away with all kinds of 24

misdemeanours. Had we a free & fair system in place wherein honest officers are protected & manipulative Officers are held accountable then definitely Shri A.K Mehta would have been the one to be repatriated but because we have a system where the whole administration conspires & connives & takes the side of stronger party as negative forces are always strong & resourceful thus it is the honest who are persecuted and eliminated by being implicated in false cases. The Parliamentary Standing Committee had also rightly raised the issue in their report. The Standing Committee on Urban Development took the oral evidence of the representatives of Ministry of Urban Development and the Directorate of Printing during their sitting held on 13th December 2006. As per Recommendation No.1 at page-7 of report the Committee made following adverse observations :Para 1.17 The Committee note that the Directorate of Printing had been under the administrative control of the Ministry of Works and Housing, which has been renamed as the Ministry of Urban Development for many decades. The Committee feel that the allocation of work relating to the Directorate of Printing to the Ministry of Urban Development does not appear to be quite appropriate and based on very sound principles. The Committee also feel that the Ministry of Urban Development was unable to devote adequate time to monitor and supervise the work of Directorate of Printing as the Ministry had been engaged in more or less tasks of carrying out the urban development all over the country. Since urban development was the focus area of the Ministry of Urban Development, the work relating to the Directorate of Printing and the Government of India Printing Presses remained neglected for many years and the subject did not receive the required attention unless it was a pressing problem. The Committee, therefore, recommend that due attention should be given to the works relating to the Directorate of Printing by the Ministry of Urban Development. In the past no one paid much attention to the Directorate of Printing and everyone had written it off, however after my joining and revival of its functioning many Departments and Ministries started taking interest and printing works began to pour in. The UPSC which had lost faith and gone to private printers gave a lot of examination related work of printing of answer sheets which were required to be printed on water mark paper of UPSC, the work was done successfully and we were on the verge of installing CCT Cameras in the Top Secret Wing of GIP Ring Road in order to attract more Printing works from the UPSC & there was an all round euphoria as the GIPs could have easily wiped out their losses by 2011 but the officials in the Ministry had a hidden agenda as they did not want the Department to be revived and hence wanted me to leave because they felt threatened by my presence. Thus these officers in the PSP Dvn. of the Ministry were paying too much attention to every little activity that took place in the Directorate and appeared obsessed with it. These Officers in the PSP Dvn. of the Ministry should have channelized their energies towards monitoring of the Commonwealth Games related Projects. There was so much work at hand but their priorities were misplaced, had these officers concentrated upon the working of DDA & CPWD which had made such a mess of the Commonwealth Games related projects as per negative news reports appearing in the Media both electronic & Print Media, due to delay and shoddy work, then they would have done the Nation a great service. But these officers were unfortunately busy in stalling the good work done by me & negating 25

every effort in improvement because in the past the Directorate was like a convenient flogging horse which would be flogged & battered & set up as an example for others so that the fear and authority of the Ministry can be displayed. The strategic ploy of brow beating the weak and defenceless & setting them up as an example of power and authority is generally used by insecure Dictatorial set ups as a means of self assurance of their supremacy. It breaks the spirit of others who may think of defying their dishonest intentions & since winds of change need to be stopped, hence the Department is made the flogging horse and a means of gaining publicity & displaying their own self righteous motives by levelling false accusations and have become the accuser, judge, jury and executioners without affording any opportunity and have shown utmost haste which raises doubts about their intentions. There are two different sets of rules in the Ministry one set of rules for the Ministry, CPWD, Directorate of Estates, DDA which are all holy cows to be milked as & when required and different treatment is given to them. However in the case of a dry Department like the Directorate of Printing which required too much of effort, what with workers unrest, production deadlines in the factories etc with no scope for any gains was not their priority area. Shri A.K Mehta failed to follow the proper rules & procedures. While he was wasting valuable time in referring and re-referring the case File on a settled issue regarding whether the Director of Printing has Disciplinary powers to decide cases of CSCS officials, however on such a crucial matter of repatriation of an Officer, Shri Mehta did not bother to refer the file to DOPT for fear of exposure. I had requested Dr M Ramachandran, Secretary (UD) several times that work distribution amongst Joint Secretaries may kindly be changed as work had come to a complete standstill due to lack of knowledge & casual attitude of Shri Mehta & Printing & Stationary Department be handled by some other Joint Secretary but the Secretary (UD) had expressed helplessness saying that he did not want to disturb the other branches & create instability there. Thus it was the misfortune of the Printing & Stationary Department that we were saddled with an Officer who lacked initiative, had a negative mindset & instead of reviving the Department worked at cross purposes and actively contributed in bringing the Department to a standstill. Thus keeping in view the manner of functioning and poor knowledge of rules & the casual manner of submission of case file of repatriation in gross violation of rules the wrong decision based on wrong facts being submitted in File such a decision cannot become a reason for justification of a wrong act and hence these remarks should not be entered in the APAR and need to be expunged in totality. Thus I request your honour to kindly intervene in the matter & order for expunging such baseless remarks especially keeping in view the fact that the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS(UD) has not agreed to the remarks of the reporting/reviewing authorities. (b) 2. Assessment of Work Output (Weightage to this section would be 40%)
Reporting Officer 5 5 7 4 5 Reviewing Officer 5 5 7 4 5

Sl. Qualities No. (i) Accomplishment of planned work/work allotted as per subjects allotted. (ii) Quality of Output (iii) Analytical ability (iv) Accomplishment of exceptional work/unforeseen tasks performed Overall Grading on work output

26

Under this column the attributes of Officer with regard to Accomplishment of planned work/work allotted as per subjects allotted, Quality of Output, Analytical ability, Accomplishment of exceptional work/unforeseen tasks performed was to be assessed. The Reporting Officer has given Overall Grading on work output as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. The Reviewing Officer has casually copied the grading of Reporting Officer. The Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS (UD) has not agreed to the remarks of the reporting/reviewing officers. The unjustified Gradings by Reporting/Reviewing Officers against each of the attributes are examined as under :(i) Accomplishment of planned work/work allotted as per subjects allotted :Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. While working as Director of Printing I was incharge of a technical Office which was responsible for execution of printing works of the government. Thus the core functions pertained to printing. My achievements were exceptional in this regard because I was able to show excellent results and the confidence of various Ministries/ Departments in our abilities increased after I took over charge and the number of Printing works increased. A perusal of the figures given below in Table-I will reveal that after my joining the declining trend was arrested and there was a gradual increase.
TOTAL NUMBER OF PRINTING WORKS EXECUTED

TABLE-I Sl. Year No. (i) 2007-08 Printing Works Officers holding charge executed of Directorate Shri S.K Vyawhare, Central Secretariat Service, 12011
Additional Director & HOD Shri J.P Aggarwal, Central Secretariat Service, Additional Director & HOD Ms. Madhuri Dabral, Indian Postal Service, Director & HOD, Took over charge on 09.05.2008 Ms. Madhuri Dabral, Indian Postal Service, Director & HOD, Relinquished charge on 30.03.2010 Shri V.K Sharma, Central Secretariat Service, Director(Admn) MOUD Dual charge

(ii) (iii) (iv)

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 --

15046 15318

Thus I should be judged purely on the basis of excellent results during my time. Unfortunately Shri A.K Mehta suffers from selective amnesia and has deliberately forgotten the fact that after my joining the Department the number of printing works increased. I cannot be held responsible for the inefficiency of my predecessors and I cannot help it if the Officers in the Ministry find it hard to accept that the work culture in the Directorate drastically changed after my joining and it is through habit that these Officers have not applied their mind and based on past performance and poor reputation of the Directorate have routinely judged me so harshly without taking into consideration the ground realities and facts and figures which can not be brushed aside & hence have been unfair to me due to their preconceived bias. The Reporting Officer has deliberately ignored my exceptional achievements & has not taken into account the outstanding work performed by me & 27

the constraints faced as given in my self appraisal. The Reviewing Officer has completely surrendered to the whims of the Reporting Officer & has merely copied whatever has been written by the Reporting Officer. Moreover the Honble MOS (UD) as Accepting Authority has not agreed to the grading given by the Reporting & Reviewing Officers. Therefore I request you to kindly expunge these below Benchmark remarks & to kindly upgrade the same to above Benchmark & treat the Grading of the Accepting Authority as final. (ii) Quality of Output :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. During the period under report the quality of output has been exceptional. In the case of total Production in the Government of India Presses the production increased during my period. In order to paralyze the Production in Presses, Shri A.K Mehta orchestrated numerous objections in file due to vested interests and created an unprecedented Paper crises which I have duly cited in Constraints column Para 3A of my ACR at page 3D. (Para-30 of Annexure-IV) The JS (UD) was well aware that paper was a basic raw material for the presses & so paper procurement files were not cleared & numerous objections raised to linger on the matter in order to paralyse work in the Presses. If the industrial units do not get a continuous supply of basic raw material it will have an adverse impact on the Production & the JS (UD) was desperate that production should fall so that I become a failure and he can cite it as a reason of failure against me. But unfortunately his machinations did not work for long and while there was no paper for almost 4 months however work was managed through inter-press transfer of stocks & requesting for Paper from user Departments. The figures given in Table II may please be perused which will prove the point :TOTAL PRODUCTION IN PRESSES

TABLE-II Sl. Year No. (i) 2007-08 Production in Officers holding charge Presses of Directorate Shri S.K Vyawhare, Central Secretariat 4696659621
(12 months figures)

(ii) (iii) (iv)

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

5194628133
(12 months figures)

4315563792
(08 months figures)

--

Service, Additional Director & HOD Shri J.P Aggarwal, Central Secretariat Service, Additional Director & HOD Ms. Madhuri Dabral, Indian Postal Service, Director & HOD, Took over charge on 09.05.2008 Ms. Madhuri Dabral, Indian Postal Service, Director & HOD, Relinquished charge on 30.03.2010 Shri V.K Sharma, Central Secretariat Service, Director(Admn) MOUD Dual charge

As is evident during the first year of my joining the production rose considerably & an increase of 10% in the year 2008-2009 was registered in the first year and the declining trends of previous years was arrested. However in the year 2009-10 the total Production in the Government of India Presses for 08 months was 4315563792, Calculation of Production being based on A-5 size pages printed for 08 months only because for 04 months the Paper Stocks available in the Presses were below the danger mark for which the Printing machines cannot be operationalised in such large Industrial Units as volumes required are huge. The average monthly 28

production comes to 539445474 for 08 months, which is higher then previous years average monthly production of 432885678 for 12 months. Thus despite such heavy constraints & hostile officials of PSP Division notwithstanding, still the Production percentage increased, which goes to my credit. The Reporting Officer has deliberately ignored my exceptional achievements & has not taken into account the outstanding work performed by me & the constraints faced as given in my self appraisal. Unfortunately the Reviewing Officer had completely surrendered to the whims of the Reporting Officer & has merely copied whatever has been written by the Reporting Officer. Moreover the Accepting Authority has not agreed to the grading given by the Reporting & Reviewing Officers. Therefore I request you to kindly expunge these below Benchmark remarks & to kindly upgrade the same to above Benchmark & treat the Grading of the Accepting Authority as final. (iii) Analytical ability :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as Seven (07) which is equivalent to Very Good and above Benchmark and hence is not an adverse entry. (iv) Accomplishment of exceptional work/unforeseen tasks performed :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as four (04) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to make the submission that I have accomplished all the work assigned to me on time and with perfection. During my time it was for the first time that we had taken up such voluminous time bound work of printing of entry tickets to World Heritage sites, which had been specially designed as souvenirs which could be retained by the tourists as a part of their fond memories. The Archaeological Survey of India had introduced for the first time common entry tickets for Heritage monuments & the work of printing tickets worth more then Rs. 3 (three) Crore was executed through the Directorate of Printing. This Printing work was taken up as a challenge as it required security features & holograms. Thus this unforeseen task was performed to the satisfaction of all & the printing work was taken as a means to show case our technical & professional expertise in providing inputs & suggestions in design selection & form of security features. I had attended Meetings with Secretary, Culture & Director General ASI on 27.08.2009 & 09.09.2009 & the Printing Work was executed timely & to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Culture. The Honble Prime Minister launched these tickets on 3rd December 2009. In another instance the Printing Work pertaining to Census 2011 with estimated business worth more than Rs.100 Crores approximately was clinched. The Officers of O/o RGI had cited numerous problems & timelines not being met by the Presses during last Census & were reluctant to assign this huge & prestigious printing order, however I was able to convince the RGI and the visit of Special Secretary & Registrar General of India, Shri D.K Sikri was organised successfully at Government of India Press, Ring Road on 23.10.2008 & personal efforts made to convince him of our capability & confidence to complete the voluminous task & was explained with live demonstration about the new technology machines installed followed up with a series of meetings with RGI on 06.03.2009, 09.09.2009 etc. The first phase of RGI Printing work was allotted in February 2010 & business in the last two months of financial Year was worth Rs 1, 36, 30,000 for Census of India which was personally monitored on day-to-day basis & successfully executed & printed works delivered timely on schedule despite time constraints. Thus it is unfortunate that the successful accomplishment of these exceptional tasks has been completely 29

ignored by the Reporting Officer. I request your honour to kindly expunge the adverse below Benchmark grading especially keeping in view the excellent work done & the fact that the Accepting Authority has not agreed to the grading given by the Reporting Officer, therefore it may kindly be upgraded to above Benchmark. (v) OVERALL GRADING ON WORK OUTPUT :- Against the column pertaining to overall Assessment of Work Output which includes the attributes towards Accomplishment of planned work/work allotted as per subjects allotted, Quality of Output, Analytical ability and Accomplishment of exceptional work/unforeseen tasks performed, the Reporting Officer has given Overall Grading on work output as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to submit that taking into account the facts cited by me in the above Paras against each attribute my achievements have been exceptional & I should be graded as Outstanding. The Reporting Officer has intentionally ignored my excellent work and success in the turn around of the Department especially since all factors had remained the same & my joining had galvanized the Department & changed the work culture of despair & fatalistic mindset of the workers in the field formations as I had singlehandedly ushered in a fresh impetus & positivity and the Reporting Officer has deliberately undermined my contribution. In the instructions portion of ACR as per Para-1 the following guidelines has been given:1. The Confidential Report is an important document. It provides the basic and vital inputs for assessing the performance of an officer and for his her further advancement in his /her career. The Officer reported upon, the Reporting Authority, the Reviewing Authority and the accepting Authority should, therefore, under take the duty of filling out the form with a high sense of responsibility. These guidelines have not been adhered to by the Reporting/Reviewing Officer. The tremendous amount of work done by me and the constraints faced has not been taken into account and the Reporting Officer has made Below Benchmark adverse observations without following the laid down procedure that all adverse remarks have to be preceded by warnings, memos etc issued after the officer is given opportunity to present his case & has to be recorded in the Memo of Services. Since the Reporting Officer has not followed the government instructions on the subject thus I request you to kindly expunge the unjustified & unsubstantiated grading as it is not commensurate with my achievements and the appreciation letters received from various quarters have also not been taken into account while recording the remarks. Moreover the Reviewing Officer has not applied his mind and has merely copied the gradings given by the Reporting Officer in contravention of his own assurance on objectivity & fairness as conveyed vide Letter No. A28012/1/2010-Admn-I. dated 24th June 2010, (Annexure-III(B) nor has the Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Officer ever given any guidance or advice citing any rules in file noting let alone issue Memos or advisories on these aspects being not up to the mark thus there is no basis for granting this below Benchmark Grading & hence it may kindly be upgraded to above Benchmark grading of 07 because the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS(UD) Prof. Saugata Roy has not agreed to the assessment given by these Officers and has rated my performance as 07, on a scale of 10, grading of 06 and 07 is rated as Very Good and I have been rated on the higher side of Very Good, which borders on Outstanding, by the Accepting Authority therefore the Below Benchmark grading may kindly be expunged in totality and 30

upgrade the same to above benchmark grading of 07 against each individual attribute & overall Grading on work output so that such casual & unsubstantiated remarks of the Reporting Officer do not cast a dark shadow and adversely affect my future career prospects as my work & conduct has been exceptional. (c) 3. be 30%) Assessment of functional competency (weightage to this Section would Reporting Reviewing Officer Officer 4 4

Sl. Functional Competency No. (i) Knowledge of Rules/Regulations/Procedures in the area of function and ability to apply them correctly. (ii) Strategic Planning ability (iii) Decision making ability (iv) Coordination ability (v) Ability to motivate and develop subordinates Overall Grading on Functional Competency

5 5 4 5 5

5 5 4 5 5

Under this column the attributes of Officer with regard to Knowledge of Rules/Regulations/Procedures in the area of function and ability to apply them correctly, Strategic Planning ability, Decision making ability, Coordination ability, Ability to motivate and develop subordinates was to be assessed. The Reporting Officer has given Overall Grading on Functional Competency as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. The manner in which the Grading has been given reflects the bias of these officers. Moreover the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS (UD) has not agreed to the remarks of the reporting/reviewing authorities. My submission on each of the points is as under :(i) Knowledge of Rules/Regulations/Procedures in the area of function and ability to apply them correctly :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as four (04) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to submit that had there been an option or provision in the rules that a written examination can be taken by any Officer to check or prove whether he has knowledge of rules or not, in order to check the veracity of assessment of the Reporting Officer & whether assessment has been done correctly or not, then I would have definitely opted for it and passed with flying colours. However there is no remedy open to an Officer except to pray, plead & quake for mercy & as a result very intelligent officers who have excellent knowledge of rules have to suffer in silence as the casual remarks of reporting/reviewing officers becomes his death knell & seals his fate for his entire career. The Reporting Officer has deliberately given very low grade as 04 against knowledge of rules and regulations whereas true fact is that Shri A.K Mehta, the Reporting Officer had very poor knowledge of rules and in order to hide his own inadequacies and incompetence and assert his power & superiority he has deliberately given a low grading but the Reporting Officer can not substantiate this because in numerous Files of the Directorate rules and regulations have not only been cited in detail but copies have been placed in File by me which made it very difficult for the officers in the PSP Dvn. of Ministry to manoeuvre decisions on file and they had to put in extra effort in their machinations to circumvent the rules, as citing of rules was construed as an impediment which he resented. In fact a perusal at the casual manner in which 31

Shri Mehta has prepared the 27 flimsy allegations to justify my repatriation case (Annexure-III) reflects his poor knowledge of rules and procedures as not a single rule has been cited in the allegations in support of his contention. Moreover I was recruited & recommended for the Technical post of Director of Printing by the UPSC after they had fully satisfied themselves about my knowledge of rules & regulations. Thus the contention of the Reporting Officer is wrong & a result of his own insecurities. It has been laid down vide Para-7 of P&T Manual Volume-III; Chapter titled Confidential record of work and conduct of officers of the Department that; Officers recording remarks must realize the importance of these entries, as their own competency will be judged partly from the confidential remarks they record about officers working under them. The remarks of the Reporting Officer are just the opposite of ground reality and his assessment of my abilities is not based on truth and his assessment is a reflection of his own incompetency. In this regard a perusal of the large number of lapses on the part of Shri A.K Mehta has been given in Annexure-IV and the list of rules violated by the officer has also been given in Para-40 of this Annexure which clearly reflects the poor knowledge of the Reporting Officer. If the Reporting Officer is competent, upright and intelligent and has good knowledge of rules then not only is there an element of joy and pride in working with such officers but they have the qualities of humility and grace and the ability to provide guidance & can appreciate the knowledge & competence of other officers but if an Officer lacks knowledge of rules & procedures & competence level is poor, such an officer can neither appreciate the knowledge of other officers, but always feels insecure & considers any citing of rules as a threat to his authority. Thus to appreciate this quality amongst other officers it is essential that the Reporting Officers possess this quality themselves because only then they can acknowledge & appreciate its presence in others. Unfortunately Shri Mehta lacks such qualities and has given me a low grading which is a reflection of his own incompetence because to judge whether an officer has knowledge of rules or not it is essential that the Reporting Officer himself has some basic knowledge, but if the Reporting Officer lacks such basic knowledge himself he will never be in a position to recognise and appreciate this quality in other officers. Further the very fact that the Reporting and Reviewing Officers have identical opinion and the Reviewing Officer has merely copied verbatim whatever was written by the Reporting Officer without application of mind and because it was his compulsion as he had actively supported these conspirators in cooking up the false case of repatriation hence these officers are forced to stick together for the sake of security & to strengthen the cause for justification of their past action. The Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS(UD) has not agreed to the assessment given by these Officers and has rated my performance as 07, on a scale of 10, a grading of 06 and 07 is rated as Very Good and hence above the Benchmark for eligibility for promotion. Shri A.K Mehta was aware that I am on the verge of promotion to SAG and has deliberately tried to damage my career prospects and due to his vindictive and biased attitude has graded me below Benchmark deliberately. As the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS (UD) has not agreed to the assessment given by the Reporting & Reviewing Officers and has rated my performance as above Benchmark for eligibility for promotion. Therefore it is humbly requested that the grading given by the Accepting Authority may kindly be treated as final.

32

(ii) Strategic Planning ability :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to state that due to my extraordinary analytical abilities to understand problems, foresight and vision my ability in strategic planning is exceptional. In order to prepare a strategy for revival of the normal functioning of the Department it is essential to study the historical perspective and background to each problem & to analyze and examine ways and means of studying the reasons and contributory factors towards the decline of the organization. Problems cannot be solved through arm chair, verbose posturing based on raising numerous queries nor can knowledge be gained by depending upon the knowledge of subordinates but one has to exert and indulge in first hand research or else we will just be busy re-inventing the wheel and reach nowhere. Thus I studied all the rule books and background history of all the three departments & gained a sweeping birds eye view of these Departments. Since I was incharge of all three Departments I was able to see the weaknesses and loopholes in the arrangement because the trifurcation of the Printing & Stationary Department had never taken off completely and since the working of these 3 Departments were closely interlinked & these were being managed in isolation without any alternative viable solution to the problem thus it was I who made efforts in trying to complete the trifurcation process and enable these Departments to run independently. As a result due to my efforts the Budget & Accounts monitoring system was streamlined in consultation with Chief Controller of Accounts & it was decided that all the three independent departments would henceforth submit their Accounts directly to the PSP Division of Ministry. In the past the CCP&S had been submitting consolidated Accounts of the Department of Printing & Stationary but now despite trifurcation of the Department of Printing & Stationary headed by the CCP&S in the year 1973 the compilation of Accounts was still being compiled & monitored by the Director of Printing. Thus while compilation of accounts was being done by the Directorate of Printing, & the entire responsibility of these other two departments also fell upon the Directorate, without commensurate powers of monitoring or jurisdiction. Thus this procedural shortcoming was rectified after almost 35 years which resulted in direct monitoring and increased accountability of the Department of Publications & GISO. Orders were issued on this account vide Letter No. G-20015/2/2009-B&A dated 27th January 2010. Since Shri A.K Mehta, Joint Secretary (UD) was the Chairman of the Steering Committee to overview the functioning of the 3 Departments and to find ways to improve performance of these Departments, thus it was actually his duty to have streamlined the functioning & suggested ways & means of strengthening the command & control structure. Unfortunately the Officer abdicated from his responsibility and instead manoeuvred & conveniently got orders issued for handing over charge of all three Departments to me & thus the PSP Division under the charge of JS (UD) whose primary duty was to co-ordinate these three Departments were left with basically no work and had ample time for indulging in secretarial machinations whereas I was heavily overburdened. I took the initiative & implemented the e-procurement system in the Directorate of Printing & studied the Procurement process to find out the reasons for delay and procedures followed in the past because the procurement process was extremely cumbersome and full of bottlenecks. As per MOF, DOE, O.M No. 8(5)/E.II(A)/2006 dated 10th January 2007, the e-procurement MMP was to be mandatory for placing of supply orders through DGS&D w.e.f 1 st April 2007 in respect of all goods covered under the rate contracts concluded by DGS&D. As 33

regards other goods as also for procurement of works and services the Ministries/Departments were to switch over to mandatory e-procurement from July 1, 2007 and manual tenders were not to be accepted. As a result none of the procurement files of the Directorate were being cleared by the Ministry & neither was any kind of relaxation allowed during transition period of switch over and work was suffering. Due to my initiative the e-procurement system was successfully implemented in the Directorate & it became the first office in the Ministry to successfully switch over to e-procurement system. Initially a lot of problems were faced as no response from vendors was being received & tendering process was not successful. Thus I called for a Meeting in the Directorate of vendors & the new procurement procedure was explained & their problems noted down & rectified. While none of the other Departments & attached Offices in the Ministry were following mandatory e-procurement system at that point of time, yet it was only in the case of the Directorate, that the Ministry was not giving approval in any of the Files on this account. Thus due to my strategic planning the Directorate was the first Department in the Ministry to successfully implement e-procurement through etendering for the first time. Paper procurement through e-tendering was successful & very competitive rates received & dependence on DGS&D reduced & assured supply to the Industrial Units was ensured as in the past the whole schedule of supplies to the Government Presses, for which Paper is an essential raw material, would be disrupted as DGS&D floated rate contract as per its own convenience & timing. Thus it is evident that my strategic planning has been excellent in core areas because no other Department in the Ministry of UD could implement e-procurement at that time & the Directorate was the first to ensure the same successfully under my guidance. The Reporting Officer has not taken into account my tremendous contribution & has casually graded me as below Benchmark due to his vindictive biased attitude. The Reviewing Officer has not displayed any independent thinking & has meekly toed the line of the Reporting Officer. Since the Accepting Authority i.e. the Honble MOS(UD) has not accepted the grading of Reporting & Reviewing Officers therefore I request your honour to kindly upgrade the same to above Benchmark & the grading of 07 as assessed by the Accepting Authority may kindly be treated as final. (iii) Decision making ability :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to submit that I am thorough in my knowledge of rules and procedures and hence have the ability to chalk out alternatives and weigh their pros and cons & take decisions promptly. During the period under report I had held the charge of three Departments and cleared all the files and had taken quick decisions. I had worked very hard & attended office on every Saturday six days a week and ensured that work of the three Departments did not suffer. During the period under review I had decided a total of 4003 files of the 03 Departments i.e. 3244 files of Directorate of Printing & 642 Files of Department of Publications & 117 Files of GISO Kolkata were finally decided & disposed off at my level & only 581 files of Printing & 6 files of Publications & 13 files of Stationary were submitted to the Ministry. I also decided the pending Promotion cases of 33 Officials which were cleared. Around 36 VIP references, 68 Court cases were processed, & detailed guidelines issued to sub-ordinate units on 10 crucial matters. An officer who has single handedly disposed off such a large number of files & not played safe & passed on the buck can only be termed as a meticulous, hard working, responsible & decisive officer & these traits need to be adequately acknowledged. The Reporting Officer has deliberately tried to belittle my achievements. I had placed photocopies of 34

numerous rulings in the file for guidance of staff so that they could re-examine the matter in the light of these rulings. In fact I am quick in decision making because of my knowledge of government rules & I am not dependent upon borrowed knowledge of subordinates or the wisdom of Dealing Assistants. All of my decisions are well balanced and in the interest of the Department & in my entire career no one has ever pointed out any shortcomings or lapses on this account. Thus it is felt that against this Para; the Reporting Officer has made a casual remark without application of mind & taking into account its wider adverse repercussions on the career advancement of an officer. Thus it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that my decision making ability is exceptional & I am confident of my decisions & hence File disposal is fast as I have very good knowledge of rules & do not put unnecessary objections in files to while away my time but instead place copies of rulings for the guidance of my subordinates and all of my decisions are judicious & fair & as per rules. Unfortunately the Reviewing Officer has not applied his mind and has merely copied the gradings given by the Reporting Officer and as neither the Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Officer has ever given any advice even in file noting let alone issue Memos or advisories that my decision making abilities are not up to the mark thus there is no basis for granting this below Benchmark Grading & hence it may kindly be expunged & upgraded to above Benchmark grading of 07 because the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS(UD) has not agreed to the assessment given by these Officers and has rated my performance as 07, on a scale of 10, and grading of 06 and 07 is rated as Very Good and hence above the Benchmark for eligibility for promotion. (iv) Coordination ability :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as four (04) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to submit that my co-ordination abilities are excellent. There is not a single comment in any file or adverse noting anywhere by the Reporting or Reviewing Officer that my co-ordination abilities are not good. In fact soon after my joining, Secretary (UD) had addressed me vide his D.O No. A-46020/02/08-PG dated 1st September 2008 regarding position of pending PG cases as on 01.07.2008. I immediately swung into action & called for all the concerned case files & streamlined the working of the PG Branch and Complaints Register was got maintained for the first time, while the consolidated data for the years prior to my joining are not available as Registers had not been maintained properly because meticulous preparation & maintenance of records leads to greater accountability and transparency and monitoring will be easy which the staff was reluctant to do because they were used to their old, easy going ways. As a result a large number of cases were closed during review & action taken note was submitted in file. Thereafter not a single reference was received from the Ministry that complaints cases were not being processed on priority basis. Similarly the coordination between the Election Commission & the Government Presses for Printing of Election related work was carried out smoothly & all works finished timely. The coordination of printing works between the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariats and the Presidents Estate & GIP Minto Road and GIP Rashtrapati Bhawan was managed smoothly. There was not a single incident of any complaint from any quarters. All ceremonial printing works of the Honble President of India and Parliament of India were satisfactorily completed & ceremonial copies of the Presidents Address to Parliament, Union Budget, Finance Ministers Speech etc were also submitted for perusal of Secretary (UD) through JS (UD) on the very next day of presentation. Thus it is unfortunate that the Reporting Officer has ignored the 35

excellent co-ordination between Offices of high Constitutional Authorities, & various Ministries/Departments & the 16 Government of India Presses and 2 subordinate units & there has been not a single instance of complaint. Thus it is requested that this unsubstantiated adverse grading may kindly be expunged and upgraded to above Benchmark Grading of 07 keeping in view the fact that the Accepting Authority i.e. the Honble MOS(UD) has not agreed to the Gradings or remarks given by these Officers & has Graded me as above Benchmark which may kindly be treated as final. (v) Ability to motivate and develop subordinates :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to make submission that I took a large number of steps to motivate and develop my subordinates. I provided guidance at every step, supported their initiatives, gave protection to honest & hard working officers & ensured a cordial free and fair work environment & encouraged the workers to give their best to the organisation. I took the initiative & ensured that all promotion cases are cleared on time because any feeling of dissatisfaction due to delay in promotions has an adverse effect on the morale of the staff & a de-motivated staff results in fall in production capacity of the Industrial Units. Thus I took the initiative and 27 Ad-hoc promotion cases of Dy. Manager & AM (Ts) were cleared. The DPC for promotion of 6 categories of posts of officers grade, totaling 47 officers were finalized & approved. In fact immediately after my joining I had vigorously pursued the Promotion cases of 6 posts of Managers and I attended UPSC as Member of DPC & vacant posts of Heads of Presses were filled up on priority basis. Such steps not only enthused & motivated the staff but ensured better administration. Similarly the technical post in the second line of command i.e. of Joint Director (Technical) remained vacant from 01.08.2004 onwards. I took initiative & pursued the Ad-hoc promotion case of the seniormost Technical officer & thereafter took up his case for regular promotion. This was one of the most complicated promotion cases, which was being dealt in 13 files, & vested interests had wanted to stall it because once the post of Joint Director(Tech) was filled up then he would be the natural claimant to the post of Director of Printing being in the line of promotion. The Honble UDM had already granted approval on 18.03.2008 for Ad-hoc promotion of the senior most technical Officer (File No. 25/2/2004-A-II(Vol.), which was being stalled by vested interests. Efforts were made to expedite the process to fill up on regular basis the vacant post of JD(Tech) in Pay Band-4 Rs.37400-67000 Grade Pay-Rs.8700 which was crucial technical post in second line of command. I addressed a D.O Letter to the Additional Secretary & CVO for grant of Vigilance clearance and another D.O Letter was addressed to Secretary, UPSC so that selection process could be expedited. The Joint Secretary(UD) was not in favour of promotion of the officer, which had demoralised the technical officers down the line, however I pursued the promotion case of the Officer selflessly, with the intention that by the time I complete my three years deputation the officer would become eligible for consideration to the post of Director of Printing & the Department would not lapse to the same chaotic situation as prevailed from 01.08.2003 to 08.05.2008 when there was no regular incumbent & DPCs promotions etc could not take place. Such a step was taken purely keeping in mind the interests of the Organization. In the Government of India Stationary Office, Kolkata the post of Controller of Stationary remained vacant from 09-09-2005 onwards. The post of Deputy Controller (Admn) also fell vacant & subsequently lapsed. I recommended & 36

submitted proposal for grant of Ad-hoc promotion to Shri R.K Roy, Dy Controller who was eligible for promotion to the post since November 2003 and could have easily been promoted as regular Controller of Stationary w.e.f November 2005 i.e. date from which Shri B. Tewary the then Controller of Stationary on deputation was repatriated prematurely to his parent Department. But the post of COS remained vacant from 09.09.2005 onwards & it was at my initiative that the senior most officer falling in the direct line of promotion was given promotion to the post of COS on Adhoc basis w.e.f 09.07.2009 & I handed over charge to the regular incumbent on 09.07.2009. The vacancy position was acute in all three departments & there was absence of a strong second line of command & centralized command & control was diluted. The constraints faced were due to inherited problems of the past & I had to put in extra hours of work & worked for six days a week continuously & worked tirelessly with full dedication & to the best of my abilities. Thus it is evident that I took all steps possible to motivate & develop my subordinates & in return they have given respect & loyalty towards the organisation. Thus the Reporting Officer should have graded me purely based on my performance & excellent results, but instead the Reporting Officer has been unfair to me & the grading only reflects his bias. Thus it is requested that this unsubstantiated adverse grading may kindly be expunged and upgraded to above Benchmark level keeping in view the fact that the Accepting Authority i.e. the Honble MOS(UD) has not agreed to the Gradings given by these Officers & has Graded me as above Benchmark which may kindly be treated as final. (vi) OVERALL GRADING ON FUNCTIONAL COMPETENCY :- Against the column pertaining to overall Functional Competency which includes the attributes towards Knowledge of Rules/Regulations/Procedures in the area of function and ability to apply them correctly, Strategic Planning ability, Decision making ability, Coordination ability and Ability to motivate and develop subordinates, the Reporting Officer has given Overall Grading on these attributes of Functional Competency as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to submit that taking into account the facts cited by me in the above Paras against each attribute my achievements have been exceptional & I should be graded as Outstanding. In the instructions portion of ACR as per Para-8, 9 and 10 the following guidelines have been given:Para-8 Although Performance appraisal is a year end exercise, in order that it may be a tool for human resource development, the Reporting Officer and the Officer reported upon should meet during the course of the year at regular intervals to review the performance and to take necessary corrective steps. Para-9 It should be the endeavor of each appraiser to present the truest possible picture of the appraisee in regard to his/her performance, conduct, behavior and potential. Para-10 Assessment should be confined to the appraisers performance, conduct, behavior and potential. However these instructions have not been followed by the Reporting Officer. The tremendous amount of work done by me and the constraints faced has not been taken into account and the Reporting Officer has made Below Benchmark adverse 37

observations without following the laid down procedure that all adverse remarks have to be preceded by warnings, memos etc issued after the officer is given opportunity to present his case & has to be recorded in the Memo of Services. Since the Reporting Officer has not followed the government instructions on the subject thus I request you to kindly expunge the unjustified & unsubstantiated grading as it is not commensurate with my achievements. Moreover the Reviewing Officer has merely copied the gradings given by the Reporting Officer in contravention of his own assurance on objectivity & fairness as conveyed vide Letter No. A28012/1/2010-Admn-I. dated 24th June 2010, nor has the Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Officer ever given any guidance or advice citing any rules in file noting let alone issue Memos or advisories on this aspect. Since the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS(UD) Prof. Saugata Roy has not agreed to the assessment given by these Officers and has rated my performance as 07, and I have been rated on the higher side of Very Good, which borders on Outstanding, by the Accepting Authority therefore the Below Benchmark grading may kindly be expunged in totality and upgrade the same to above benchmark grading of 07 against each individual attribute & overall grading on functional competency. (d) 4. 30%) Sl. No. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) Assessment of Personal Attributes (Weightage to this section would be Personal Attributes Attitude to work Sense of responsibility Maintenance of Discipline Communication skills Leadership qualities Capacity to work in team spirit Capacity to work in time limit Inter personal relations Overall Grading on Personal Attributes Reporting Officer 6 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 Reviewing Officer 6 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5

The Reporting Officer has given Overall Grading on Personal Attributes as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. The Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS (UD) has not agreed to the remarks of the reporting/reviewing officers. My contention on each of the gradings in the above cited individual traits & overall attributes is briefly submitted for kind consideration of your honour, as under :(i) Attitude to work :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as six (06) which is equivalent to Very Good and above Benchmark hence I have no issues on this aspect. (ii) Sense of responsibility :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to make submission that I have a very high sense of responsibility and I take my job very seriously. There is not a single instance that can be cited in which I have behaved in an irresponsible manner because I am aware of the tremendous responsibilities that a Head of Department has to shoulder and have executed all the duties and responsibilities with utmost 38

dedication. I revived the technical functions of the Directorate and gave it primacy. The confidence of other Departments & Ministries in our professional abilities and technical knowledge was on the rise. Since the Director of Printing is the technical & administrative head of the Directorate thus he or his nominees provide technical advice to various Ministries/Departments. The Director of Printing has nominated the Joint Director (Tech) as Technical Member in the Committees set up by the DAVP, BIS, UGC etc. All other technical committees on Printing are chaired by the Director of Printing & all Secretary level Meetings are attended by the DOP. For example the last Meeting of the Technical Committee of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting was held in the year 1991 i.e. almost 18 years back. I headed the Technical Committee constituted vide Ministry of Information & B roadcastings letter No.EN52011/1/2005-06/Prod. dated 19.5.2009 for review & fixing the wastage percentage for printing of Employment News/Rozgar Samachar. The Committee comprised of Shri S.K. Agarwal, Director, M/o I&B, Shri R.K Jha, Director, Employment News etc. The Technical Committee headed by me gave its report within record two months time which included a series of meetings and collection of data on each stage of handling through personal observation. I revised & re-fixed the wastage percentage & brought it down drastically from the previous 6% + additional 4% in the consumption formula to 3% & devised a simple logical calculation formula based on ground level observation of actual printing operations thus resulting in huge savings of 7% towards cost to the Government, which if calculated in Rupee terms will run into a few thousand Crores on recurring basis. Thus my contribution needs to be adequately appreciated and acknowledged by correctly assessing my performance as I feel that my contribution has been deliberately played down and the hard work & dedication & high sense of responsibility has been frittered away & trivialized by such irresponsible & unfounded grading given by the Reporting Officer due to his bias & personal vendetta as he wants to undermine my contribution in order to justify his highhandedness. The Reporting Officer has deliberately ignored my exceptional achievements & has not taken into account the outstanding work performed by me & the constraints faced as given in my self appraisal. The Reviewing Officer has completely surrendered to the whims of the Reporting Officer & has merely copied whatever has been written by the Reporting Officer. As the Accepting Authority has not agreed to the grading given by the Reporting & Reviewing Officers, therefore I request your honour to kindly expunge these below Benchmark remarks from the records & to kindly upgrade the same to above Benchmark & treat the Grading of 07 as assessed by the Accepting Authority as final. (iii) Maintenance of Discipline :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as four (04) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to state that after my joining I ensured that a strong, responsive & pro-active clean administration was provided. Since for about 5 years there had been no regular Director and as the officers holding dual charge in stop gap arrangement did not take much initiative as they did not want to ruffle up any feathers thus the command & control structure & accountability was poor and it was a free for all situation both in the headquarters & the 18 field units. In headquarters office I took several initiatives to tone up administration, discipline, hierarchy & centralized command was strengthened. The working of office was streamlined. For instance the Leave orders had not been issued for a long time & officials used to submit applications for leave directly to their immediate superior who would sanction it & mark it back to the officer who instead of 39

sending it to the Establishment section would retain it, then avail leave & on return check whether anyone noticed his absence & if not would keep it pending & then after a few months quietly destroy it as a result the staff in the Directorate used to remain perpetually on leave & their was a holiday mood in the Directorate with work piling up. (Enclosure-2 of Annexure-IV) All this was stopped & the entire process streamlined in such a way that there was no scope of circumventing the administration & detailed orders laying down procedure issued to this effect. As a result a massive exercise was carried out and around 700 leave orders were got issued & all service books not updated for last 3-4 years were got updated in the Directorate. This step led to a lot of resentment amongst the Secretarial staff of the Headquarters who had become used to remaining away from office as per their whims. Further the File submission was systematized & standard note sheets were prepared in order to facilitate quick submission of files & avoid repetition of preparing the note. Sevottam was introduced in the Directorate and Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) for important activities prepared and Record Management System was undertaken for the first time on a war footing & computerization of 15000 Files in Record Room completed in 1st phase out of total 25000 Files. Similarly numerous initiatives of similar nature were taken in GIPs and records maintenance was streamlined & pending issues disposed off. Rotation of charge & inter-press transfers were ordered after detailed examination of Service Profile of each Officer. All live posts in supervisory cadres were filled up through promotions so that the weak command structure in the 18 subordinate units was strengthened. All these measures ensured high levels of Discipline & better quality of work & output. Unfortunately the Reporting Officer has deliberately ignored my contribution towards bringing all round improvement and the Reviewing Officer has merely copied whatever has been written by the Reporting Officer & has not applied his mind. Moreover the Accepting Authority has not agreed to the grading given by the Reporting & Reviewing Officers. Therefore it is requested to kindly expunge these below Benchmark grading & to kindly upgrade the same to above Benchmark & treat the Grading of 07 as assessed by the Accepting Authority as final. (iv) Communication skills :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as four (04) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to submit that I have excellent communication skills both oral & written. While it is admitted that I talk very less but as & when the occasion requires I speak forcefully & to the point because I have very good knowledge of rules & their application & also because I have an exceptional understanding of my work & professional & technical competence & a person who knows more talks less because he is aware of the magnitude of a problem & thus will avoid indulging in aimless banter. Thus I am unable to understand on what basis the Reporting Officer has given me an adverse grading on this account. In the Files of the Directorate I have deeply analysed the matter under consideration and given point wise logical speaking orders and as a result the monopoly of Dealing Assistants got weakened because they were used to dealing with an HOD who would merely initial files and if any problem arose he was at the mercy of these officials to bail him out, thus the Dealing Assistants would be setting the priorities as to which reference was to be processed first however on my joining I changed the work culture & set clear priorities & instead of earlier pick & choose policy ensured uniformity in decisions. As a result I had to give detailed, analytical, logical reasoning to justify my decision and cited rules & regulations & placed copies of rules on file, which resulted in breaking the monopoly of the staff and an Officer 40

oriented system was encouraged. Thus a perusal of the Files will make it amply clear that my written communication skills are excellent. It is a fact that the JS (UD) had verbally told me on several occasions that an HOD is not expected to write long notes and that I must avoid writing long notes & should restrict my role to initialling & forwarding the files to the Ministry which I was not agreeable to because the Dealing Assistants would in many cases submit one sided selective notes based on the oral diktat of DS(PSP) which would not be in the larger interests of the Department & it was my duty to safeguard the interests of the Department. Moreover if the Ministry did not agree to the submissions of the HOD of an attached office then a superior office always has the powers to overrule & decide the matter. But the JS (UD) found it very difficult to refute the logical notes supported by rules. My oral skills are also outstanding as during the monthly Union Meetings with the various Service Unions of the three Departments of which I was holding charge I have maintained cordial relations and have explained the replies to issues raised by the Unions in simple language & have never tried to thrust my knowledge, superior position or power upon the workers and have provided copies of rules etc wherever required to keep them well informed as I believe that strong, well informed, Service Unions are as important as a strong management. In my self appraisal against the Para regarding significant achievements I have mentioned that I made a presentation on 10th November 2009 before the Honble MOS (UD) Prof. Saugata Roy about the Directorate of Printing, an overview of the Department, challenges and future vision and the Honble MOS (UD) had appreciated the initiatives taken by me. Infact thereafter I had organized a very successfu l visit of the Honble MOS (UD) to the Government of India Press, Rashtrapati Bhawan on 13 th November 2009 and the Honble MOS (UD) was satisfied with the visit & appreciated the quality of printing works being executed by the Press. Similarly in my capacity as HOD I had attended all oral evidence, parliamentary committees and all Meetings at the level of Secretary (UD), MOS(UD) and UDM were attended & all replies given satisfactorily & there is not a single adverse observation on this account. Thus as is evident from the above submissions it is clear that the Reporting Officer has intentionally ignored my contribution towards bringing all round improvement. Unfortunately the Reviewing Officer has merely copied whatever has been written by the Reporting Officer. However the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS (UD) has not agreed to the remarks or the grading given by the Reporting & Reviewing Officers. Therefore I request you to kindly expunge these below Benchmark gradings & to kindly upgrade the same to above Benchmark & treat the Grading of 07 as assessed by the Accepting Authority as final. (v) Leadership qualities :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as four (04) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to submit that I have worked tirelessly & took numerous steps in streamlining the administration of the Department & ensured accountability & responsibility & adopted a balanced just & fair approach & was able to win over the support & confidence of the technical officers, industrial workers & staff in the field formations which no other Director had been able to do so in the last 15 years prior to my joining. In fact the confidence of the staff was so much that they felt secure & had full faith in my leadership & knew that the Directorate was in safe hands because in all the decisions the guiding principle was that Organisational interests were supreme which over ride all other considerations. I made best efforts to restore the pride of the organisation & provided leadership & guidance to the staff so that they could give their best to the Organisation & feel 41

proud of being a part of it. The Directorate of Printing has a glorious history but due to some short sighted decisions, institutional decline had set in, and the staff felt insecure that the Government Presses would be closed & the Department wound up. However after my joining I gave a fresh impetus and brought in radical reforms in its manner of functioning & the staff was enthused. As a result the confidence in the professional competence of the Government Presses was enhanced & I had personally assured senior officers in other Departments & Ministries that the work will be completed to their satisfaction within time, as a result the word spread that if the Directorate gives a commitment it is fulfilled and such confidence building measures paid off and work started pouring in. Thus it was due to my excellent leadership qualities that efficiency increased in the Directorate of Printing. I would like to cite just one example, for the sake of brevity, in which I have taken the lead. On my visit to Government of India Press, Rashtrapati Bhawan, while taking a round & interacting with the workers I enquired about a huge pile of old Printing Machines stacked on one side of the open Court yard. The windows of the residential portion of the Honble Presidents private residence opens overlooking the Court yard of the Press which is on ground floor. The Manager informed me that the family members of the Honble President had asked them to remove the old machines as water was collecting & it had become breeding ground for mosquitoes. The old obsolete printing machines had been lying there for the last 5-6 years & the small expensive parts costing lakhs had been removed & kept in locker for safe custody but the problem was that since it was a high security area & everyone could not enter the premises, thus prospective bidders could not inspect & bid for the machines. I reflected on the matter & found a solution & directed the staff to obtain security clearance & requisition a crane to lift the heavy machinery & get the machines shifted to GIP Minto Road so that necessary disposal formalities could be followed & machines disposed off. The Court yard of GIP Rashtrapati Bhawan was cleaned up & decorated with plants which effort was appreciated by the Honble MOS (UD) during his visit. Thus it is unfortunate that the initiative & leadership provided by me has not been adequately appreciated or reflected by the Reporting Officer due to his biased attitude & I request you to kindly expunge the adverse grading & upgrade the same & treat the Grading of 07 as assessed by the Accepting Authority as final , especially since the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS (UD) has not agreed to either the remarks or the Gradings of the Reporting or Reviewing Officers. (vi) Capacity to work in team spirit :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as four (04) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to submit that I provided a strong centralised command and was able to bind the various units in a single thread & enthuse the workers to give their best to the Organisation. In the past the Officers, staff & workers were all preoccupied in fighting for survival of the Department & its continuance but after my joining they observed my efficient, transparent & clean working style & they felt assured that the interests of the Organisation was in safe hands & they started concentrating on the core functions & worked with a team spirit. In fact on the very first day of my reporting for joining in the Directorate, when I entered the room of DOP the scenario was that the Additional Director who was occupying the chair of HOD was shaking his hands dismissively towards another Officer who had his head bowed submissively whom I later came to know was the GM(HQ) and two officers i.e. one Deputy Secretary & one Dy. Dir were ordering the GM(HQ) in a loud voice. The GM (HQ) looked towards me in despair & asked whether he should get relieved, since I had no idea about the internal politics of that 42

Office I said status quo may be maintained for the next one month till I familiarise myself with the Organisation. Immediately the Dy. Secy. & Dy. Dir. pounced at me & started arguing & insisting that the officer has to leave, but one glance at the miserable, helpless Officer somehow convinced me that some injustice was being done & I reiterated that status quo be maintained. To my good fortune I later on came to know that he was the senior most technical officer who would have rightfully been sitting on the chair of the Director of Printing but due to intense machinations & internal politics of these vested interests the technical Printing officers had been completely sidelined. The Recruitment Rules of 1991 for the post of Joint Director (Tech) had been amended & increased from 3 years as General Managers in the pay scale of Rs.12000-16500 to 5 years as per revised Recruitment Rules 2004. It was the misfortune of Shri A.K Sinha, GM (HQ) that the concerned file had been shown to him, but since Technical Officers are not very aware of such administrative intricacies thus he had signed the file & as there was no Technical Director thus there was no one to safeguard the interests of the technical cadres. This one small mistake had cost the officer very dearly because at the altar of Secretarial machinations many a career has been ruined. I later on tried to rectify this injustice & tried my best that when I leave the Directorate I would handover charge to the seniormost eligible technical Officer as recommended by UPSC & thus would open up the avenues & line of promotion to the post of DOP to the technical officers, which rightfully belongs to them so that on completion of my deputation I will be able to hand over a strong vibrant Directorate to the senior most technical officer & restore the legitimate rights of the technical officers. While Officers working as Under Secretaries in the PSP Dvn. of Ministry got promoted as Dy. Secretary & joined the Directorate & also got promoted in Directors Grade within barely 2 years & continued to work in the same Office while the senior most Technical Officers line of promotion was being successfully blocked & he continued to face the humiliation of reporting to an officer in identical pay scale. Thus I had tried my best to bind the technical officers so that we could work with a team spirit which would be in the best interest of the Organisation. My efforts need to be appreciated that I had the courage to take a stand & take up the cause of those officers who were at the receiving end of the system & I had the strength of character & moral courage as well as a conscience that I did not do any injustice to any officer. Thus my qualities need to be appropriately appreciated as in todays times officers avoid to take a stand as it requires too much effort & if any injustice is seen they just walk away in disinterest as no one wants to attract attention & be placed under scrutiny, for fear of getting into trouble. If everyone walks away can improvement be brought about, Then they came for the Jews, / and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. /Then they came for me, / and by that time no one was left to speak up. Due to my excellent knowledge of rules & regulations & secretarial practices I was not dependent upon the clerical cadres of the Directorate & due to my exceptional technical knowledge of Printing Operations I was able to see through any kind of deviation from the accepted industrial norms & thus neither the technical Officers or the Secretarial Officers could take undue advantage & all decisions were taken keeping in view the best interests of the Organisation. As a result I gained the confidence of the technical Officers who in the past did not trust the officers at the helm of affairs in the Directorate & during the All India Managers Meet I gave them full opportunity to voice their concerns & made it clear that the views of the technical Officers will be given primacy. As a result there was a surge in Organisational Pride which replaced the earlier atmosphere of despair. Thus due to my initiatives I was 43

able to get the best out of the staff & work with team spirit. The inherited mess & years of neglect of the technical aspects & primacy of core functions cannot be solved in a short period. However I took steps in this regard and set up 14 (Fourteen) different Committees to examine crucial aspects like (i) Press Pool accommodation, (ii) Setting up of National Printing Museum, (iii) Productivity Linked Bonus formula, (iv) Recruitment fiasco, (v) Compassionate Appointment cases, (vi) Updating of Recruitment Rules, (vii) Tenure transfer Policy, (viii) Committee on GIFS & OP Branch, (ix) Procurement Procedure for Printing Paper, (x) Trade Test Committee, (xi) Fixing of responsibility on Vigilance Inquiry, (xii) Recasting of Annexure-D, (xiii) Workers strength in Govt. Press Shimla, (xiv) Modernisation of GIP Rashtrapati Bhawan. I provided guidance, copies of rules, held discussions with each heads of these Committees along with the members & explained to them the terms of reference, historical perspective, time frames & the expectations of the workers, staff & Service Unions & administrative priorities. Retired Technical Officers who had held senior positions in the Organisation were also made part of these Committees who selflessly contributed with their rich experience & I was able to bind the serving & retired as well as officers who had retired as Director of Printing, Joint Director (Tech), Controller of Publications etc were all invited to the Directorate & discussions held & their valuable suggestions incorporated so that the revival & normal functioning of the Directorate could be ensured & the Department could regain its former glory. All this was possible due to my abilities of being able to bind everyone & work with a team spirit & create a positive environment due to encouragement & abilities to get the best out of my staff & workers as I lead from the front & through self example & set high standards by first myself following it. Out of these 14 Committees the reports of 03 (three) Committees had been received, examined & implemented during my tenure. In case the same tempo is maintained & continued & the recommendations of these remaining committees are examined & implemented it will bring a lot of improvement in the working of the Department. Apart from these if the Vision Programme as laid down vide my Office Order No.21/2/2008-A.II, dated 7th August, 2009 and Office Order No.1/3/2009-Estt. dated 4th December, 2009 are monitored & implemented these steps will change the face of the Department. Thus due to my exceptional qualities of working in a team spirit & ability to bind the three Departments & provide them guidance & leadership all the three Departments made great advancement & I galvanised progress, due to my abilities of being able to work in a team spirit as I pass on the credit to those who deserve it & never try to undermine the achievements of my subordinates or abrogate the achievements of others & show case it as my own, thus the staff is always enthused & feel secure that their initiatives & contribution will be duly recognised & they will get a fair deal as a result the officers & staff work with selfless dedication for the betterment of the Organisation. Thus it is evident from the above submissions that the Reporting Officer has intentionally ignored my contribution towards bringing all round improvement. Unfortunately the Reviewing Officer has completely surrendered & prostrated before the Reporting Officer & has merely copied whatever has been written by the Reporting Officer. Moreover the Accepting Authority has not agreed to the grading or remarks given by the Reporting & Reviewing Officers. Therefore I request you to kindly expunge these below Benchmark grading & to kindly upgrade the same to above Benchmark & treat the Grading of 07 as assessed by the Accepting Authority as final. (vii) Capacity to work in time limit :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark 44

and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to make submission that I have excellent capacity to work within time limit and all tasks have been accomplished well on time. In fact once a commitment for any kind of printing works was given then I have ensured that these are delivered on time so that credibility, trust & faith in our working can be strengthened. The workers & technical Officers have also risen to the occasion & given their best and the work culture of the Directorate was moving towards a change. At the time of my joining the Preliminary Vigilance Inquiry reports had not been completed & I ensured that all reports are submitted to the Ministry. Due to large-scale irregularities & complaints thereof Recruitment in 11 GIPS had been suspended by the Ministry of Urban Development on 03.04.2008. I joined on 9.5.2008 & got all pending Preliminary Investigation reports completed at Directorate level & submitted to Ministry for further detailed Vigilance Inquiry by Additional Secretary & CVO of the Ministry. Thus I completed the work within a very short time. Another important area where the time lines were met was regarding promotion cases of officials of all categories which I completed within record time & all live posts were filled up. The Departmental Accountancy Examination was held in August 2008 after a gap of 12 years as last examination was held in December 1996. A total of 22 officials were selected. I also got completed the task of Training in new printing technology & operations of all officials of GIPs Temple Street, Santragachi & GIP Shimla, as a result all the officials had received training in new technology & achievement was 100%. The Seniority Lists/ inter-se eligibility list for promotions in various cadres were issued & detailed guidelines for streamlining issue of seniority list etc was prepared & circulated so that in future this important aspect was not neglected & staff did not suffer on this account. In fact there are numerous instances that can be cited in which the hitherto neglected areas were revived & work updated after carrying out a detailed analysis of past practices because years of neglect had led to the old practices being forgotten & reviving the same required a lot of study of old files to go through the rules & procedures & revive these practices. All these steps ensured better efficiency in the working of the Department because meeting of timelines & adhering to it added to enhancing the credibility in our professional attitude to work & ultimate goal of becoming the one stop destination and final solution to all printing needs of the Government. The Reporting Officer has intentionally ignored my contribution towards bringing all round improvement. Unfortunately the Reviewing Officer has not applied his mind & has merely copied whatever has been written by the Reporting Officer. Moreover the Accepting Authority has not agreed to the grading given by the Reporting & Reviewing Officers. Therefore I request you to kindly expunge these below Benchmark grading & to kindly upgrade the same to above Benchmark & treat the Grading of 07 as assessed by the Accepting Authority as final. (viii) Inter personal relations :- Against this column the Reporting Officer has given Grading as four (04) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to put forth the submission that my interpersonal relations have been excellent. This is evident from the fact that a large number of appreciation letters were received from various Departments/Ministries. Moreover the interpersonal relations with subordinates colleagues & superiors were cordial & I enjoyed a very good rapport with every one. The only problem is that I am unwilling to dilute my stand on corruption & do not take up the cause of corrupt officials. A perusal of cases listed in Annexure-IV will explain my dilemma and differences cropped up on these issues between the Reporting Officer and me. This is the main reason why the Reporting Officer was unhappy 45

because he was siding with these officials who had caused a lot of damage to the reputation & working of the Directorate. The Head of the Department has to take a tough stand & cannot afford to dilute his stand as far as corruption in any form including intellectual corruption is concerned. Thus I took upon myself the thankless task of cleaning up the Organisation which would have streamlined the system & brought about improvement. In fact if the ACR grading in my entire career is studied it will be evident that I have got along extremely well with honest officers & have been graded as Outstanding but in the case of dishonest, corrupt Reporting Officers, who have been issued charge sheets, memos & in one case even dismissed from service, all such officers have graded me as below Benchmark. If my superior officers indulge in corrupt practices I do not interfere, as long as I am not affected or forced to get involved, because it is not my job to reform anyone. Despite restricting myself to only matters which lie in my own area of charge, however conflict situation arises only when the superior officers start putting pressure upon me & want me to do things which go against principles of justice & fair play & to side with the corrupt. It is in such a situation that I am forced to take a stand & this has led to the Reporting Officers venting their ire & hitting out where it can cause maximum damage to my career but have never been able to substantiate their adverse gradings because I have always worked with selfless devotion & natural crusading spirit which I admit are not desirable values in todays times. My relations with the Service Unions were very cordial. A perusal of records will show that in the past the Service Unions would be complaining against the various officers in the Directorate but after my joining all that stopped because they knew that I would spare no one because I take decisions uniformly and do not pick and choose or favour anyone however highly placed his contacts may be and also do not buckle under pressure. However I feel that my efficiency & meticulousness with which tasks are executed and strong sense of Discipline has actually gone against me because of comparisons. For example the Secretary (UD) had taken a round of the Ministry on 02.07.2008 (Annexure-III(A)) and was unhappy at the state of affairs, he made adverse observations about CPWD, Directorate of Estates as well as JS(UD)/A. The visit to the Directorate of Printing did not attract any adverse remarks. Thus such comparatives have led to heartburn amongst many officers who would be constantly on the look out & highlight out of proportion any small incident related to the Directorate. Moreover a Directorate which in the past had a notorious reputation, had made a visible turn around, after my taking over which led to resentment amongst many officers. Thus there can be several extraneous factors not under our control which can lead to straining of interpersonal relations & which can be balanced off if the officers at the helm of affairs are mature & objective. Thus an officer has to be judged based on overall relations with superior, subordinates & colleagues & not based on subjective narrow minded attitude of 1 or 2 officers. Since I enjoyed an excellent rapport with everyone & there was not a single complaint from any quarter and as the Honble MOS (UD) in his capacity as Accepting Authority has not agreed to the grading or remarks of the Reporting/Reviewing Officer, thus it is requested that the below Benchmark grading be expunged & replaced by the final grading of 07 as assessed by the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS (UD). (ix) OVERALL GRADING ON PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES :- Against the column pertaining to overall Personal Attributes which includes the attributes towards Attitude to work, Sense of responsibility, Maintenance of Discipline, Communication skills, Leadership qualities, Capacity to work in team spirit, Capacity to work in time limit and Inter personal relations, the Reporting Officer has given Overall Grading 46

on these Personal Attributes as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to submit that taking into account the facts cited by me in the above Paras against each attribute my achievements have been exceptional & I should be graded as Outstanding. The Reporting Officer has intentionally ignored my excellent work and success in bringing about overall improvement in the working of the 03 Departments under my charge. The historical perspective as given in Annexure-I and the work environment & inherited mess of the past as given in Annexure-II may kindly be perused. Moreover a Reporting Officer who levels false allegations & submits the file in a secretive manner without following laid down rules due to lack of knowledge & bias cannot be expected to be so large hearted as to write my APAR assessment objectively. A Reviewing Officer to whom I looked up with great expectation & hope & believed in his impartiality has betrayed trust & has negated his own assurance of justice & fair assessment as intimated vide Letter No Letter No. A-28012/1/2010-Admn-I. dated 24th June 2010 placed at Annexure-III(B). Thus at that instant itself hope died & the assessment was unfair & against the principles of natural justice. Unfortunately remedies are not available if the Reporting & Reviewing Officers connive & thus the situation is full of despair. The Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Officer never provided any guidance or advice citing any rules in file noting let alone issue Memos or advisories on these aspects as not being up to the mark & these have all of a sudden been entered as adverse in the APAR & are unsubstantiated. Thus there is no basis for granting this below Benchmark Grading & hence it may please be upgraded to above Benchmark grading of 07 because the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS(UD) Prof. Saugata Roy has not agreed to the assessment given by these Officers and has rated my performance as 07, on a scale of 10 which is rated on the higher side of Very Good, which borders on Outstanding, by the Accepting Authority therefore the Below Benchmark overall grading may kindly be expunged in totality and upgrade the same to above benchmark grading of 07 against each individual attribute & overall grading on personal attributes. (e) 5. Initiative

Please comment on the capacity and resourcefulness of the officer in handling unforeseen/difficult situations on his/her own willingness to take additional responsibilities and new areas of work. The Reporting Officer, Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) has given following remarks, The Officer takes initiative areas deemed to be important by her, not necessarily as per overall priority from broader perspective. Against this column the Reporting Officer was required to comment upon the initiative & resourcefulness of the Officer in handling unforeseen/difficult situations & willingness to take additional responsibilities and new areas of work. In the instructions portion of ACR as per Para-2 the following guidelines has been given:2. Performance appraisal through Confidential Report should be used as a tool for human resource development. Reporting officers should realize that the objective is to develop an Officer so that he/she realizes his/her true potential. It is not meant to be a fault-finding process but a developmental one ...

47

These guidelines have not been adhered to by the Reporting Officer. The Reporting Officer has given very generalised casual remarks which sound contemptuous without providing any reasons or substantiating his casual remarks. In this regard I would like to submit that the core function of the Directorate of Printing is to ensure that all Printing Works pertaining to the Government are completed satisfactorily & on time. Thus my priority area was Printing Operations work which I have performed my duties with utmost dedication. Thus my initiatives in these areas must & should be the priority area. Even as per the mandate of the Directorate & the allocation of business rules Printing Operations is the first priority of the Directorate. The Reporting Officer has failed to cite what other broader perspective he is alluding to. To my mind the broader perspective also should pertain to Printing Operations Work. I revived & gave priority to the technical work of the Directorate and revived its functioning. Technical advice was provided in 17 cases of references received from various Ministries/Departments. The very fact that we were moving in the right direction is evident from the fact that 06 Appreciation Letters were received from various Departments. In the past no such appreciation letters prior to my joining were received & thus my achievements need to be adequately acknowledged & should not be trivialised. For example D.O Letter No. 1(1)/46/2009/D(Cer) dated 8th March 2010 from Shri Upamanyu Chatterji, Joint Secretary (Trg) & CAO, Ministry of Defence was received who appreciated the excellent arrangements for getting all printing works, invitation cards of different categories etc. printed at short notice relating to Republic Day celebrations. Another D.O Letter No. Secy(LR)/Misc./2009 dated 7th August 2009 was received from Ms. Rita Sinha, Secretary, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development for the timely & good quality execution of printing works at short notice. It will not be out of place to mention that the Additional Secretary (UD) Shri R.C Mishra had called me on telephone as the Land Acquisition (Amendment) and Rehabilitation & Resettlement Bills of Department of Land Resources were required to be printed on priority as the Bills were to be presented before Parliament. The Government Press, Minto Road which caters exclusively to all printing works of the Parliament of India adopts the same holiday schedule as followed by the Parliament staff & was closed on that day being a Holiday, though the Directorate & other GIPs had working day. But since AS (UD) had desired that work was to be done, thus with the co-operation of Staff Unions the Technical supervisors & Industrial category workers numbering about 50 were recalled from holiday & asked to report by 8 P.M & work was finished & delivered at 6 A.M in the morning well on time. This was possible due to cordial relations with Staff Unions and the co-operation of our dedicated industrial workers. Thus it is clear that I have excellent qualities of initiative & resourcefulness & my handling unforeseen or difficult situation is exceptional and I can rise to the occasion & inspire my staff & workers & I am always willing to take additional responsibility and new areas of work. The Reporting Officer has graded me Below Benchmark due to extraneous reasons based on unfounded surmises. It is already enough punishment to have to work with such officers like Shri A.K Mehta and tolerate their highhanded, arrogant, dictatorial behavior which is a result of their own insecurity and lack of confidence and I deserve extra sympathy instead of being further victimized on non existent grounds. The tremendous amount of work done by me has not been taken into account and the Reporting Officer has made Below Benchmark adverse observations without following the laid down procedure that all adverse remarks have to be preceded by warnings, memos etc issued after the officer is given opportunity to present his case & has to be recorded in the Memo of 48

Services. Since the Reporting Officer has not followed the government instructions on the subject & as the Accepting Authority has not agreed to the Grading or remarks of the Reporting/Reviewing Officers, thus I request you to kindly expunge the remarks in totality and upgrade the same to above benchmark grading so that I am eligible for consideration for promotion & such casual unfounded remarks do not adversely affect my future career prospects. (f) 6. Relation with public

Please comment on the officers accessibility to the public and his/her responsiveness to their needs and his/her ability in dealing with them in a proper manner. The Reporting Officer, Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) has given following remarks, Good Against this column the Reporting Officer was required to comment on the officers accessibility to the public and responsiveness to their needs and ability in dealing with them in a proper manner. The Reporting Officer has given Grading as Good which is Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to submit that the Directorate of Printing does not have any dealing with the general public. The mandate of the Directorate of Printing is to take care of all printing related needs of all Government/Departments/Ministries which are its client Department & it caters to their needs. The services provided to the client Departments were exceptional and I was accessible to all the officers of all Ministries/Departments and attended to all telephonic calls from senior officers promptly. For example the Secretary (Health) Madam Sujata Rao had called me up on telephone regarding some Gazette Notification related to AIIMS which she required urgently, I had immediately got the Notification delivered on same day through the Manager GIP Ring Road. Another example is the Defence authorities had called up regarding Printing of around 15-20 Lakh NCC Certificates, I took the initiative of getting the design of the certificate improved & better quality paper was used & on time supplies ensured. The Defence authorities were very happy at my initiative. I would like to cite another instance, the Director General, Bureau of Indian Standards had deputed the Additional DG Shri Alinda Chaudhry to sort out some Printing related problems of their priced publications who had visited the Directorate on 24.07.2009 accompanied by Shri A.K Bansal, Director (Ptg) BIS and I ensured all of their problems were sorted out to their satisfaction & all printing works delivered on time. Some days later, the Director General, Bureau of Indian Standards, Shri Sharad Gupta himself walked into my room, I immediately introduced to him all the senior technical Officers in the Directorate, who were happy to hear the praise & words of encouragement from the D.G. & assured him that they would continue similar good work in future. Similarly the Annual Report of the National Commission for Backward classes was required to be printed at a short notice & the Printing work was done within record time at minimum cost & very reasonable rates. To my surprise a few days later Madam Chitra Chopra, Member Secretary came to the Directorate and appreciated our efforts & complimented our professional attitude to work. Thus I made strenuous efforts to ensure that the Directorate of Printing becomes the final destination point for solution to all Printing needs of user Departments. Due to our quick response, the confidence in the working of the Directorate was on the rise and there was a steady increase in number of Printing works received. Due to my close monitoring, as I feel that if a commitment has been 49

made to a client Department then we have to honour it and ensure on time delivery schedule at all costs, as non adhering to time schedules bring a bad name to the Department. As a result the Officers & workers would rise to the occasion & strive to get the work completed on time. This further enhanced the faith of other Departments in our sincerity towards work. Thus based on my exceptional achievements I should be graded as Outstanding. The Reporting Officer has intentionally ignored the various appreciation letters and has undermined my achievements deliberately. Since the Accepting Authority i.e. the Honble MOS (UD) has not agreed to the remarks or assessment of these Officers therefore I request you to kindly upgrade theses remarks to above Benchmark Grading of 07 as assessed by the Accepting Authority. (g) 11. Has the officer completed APARs of Group-A and B Officers working under him/her in respect of the previous reporting year within stipulated time? The Reporting Officer, Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) has given following remarks, Not in all cases. Against this column the Reporting Officer was required to comment on whether the officer has completed APARs of Group-A and B Officers working under her in respect of the previous reporting year 2008-09 within stipulated time. The Reporting Officer has given remarks Not in all cases which is uncalled for & a casual remark as no details have been given. - In this regard I would like to submit that the Director of Printing is the Reporting Officer in the case of one Joint Director (Tech) in the Pay scale of Director & 04 Officers in the pay scale of Dy. Secretary. I had written all the ACRs on time except in the case of Shri R.C Gupta, Dy. Secy(P-II) who despite repeated reminders did not submit his self appraisal. This fact was brought to the notice of Shri A.K Mehta but he took no action & instead was protecting & furthering his cause as is evident from instances cited in Para-1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 of Annexure-IV. The Vigilance Branch sent Blank ACR Performa vide Letter No. C-36012/2/2010-AV dated 26th August 2010 for the years 2008-09 and 2009-2010 which were promptly reported upon by me duly attaching a separate Secret Note on integrity in accordance to the Ministry of Home Affairs O.M No. 51/4/64-Estt. (A) dated 21.06.1965 & sent back the same to AV Unit for onward submission to Reviewing Officer. Hence action on my part was complete & no ACRs or APARS for last year or current year are pending.
ACRS IN CAPACITY AS REPORTING OFFICER

- As regards the ACRs of Officials for whom the Director of Printing is the Reviewing Officer only 05 officials i.e. Shri L.R Gupta, Dy. Director (A-II), Shri N.K Aggarwal, Finance Officer, Shri Madanlal, F.O have not been submitted by Shri R.C Gupta, Dy. Secy (P-II) who was the Reporting Officer. Similarly the ACRs of Shri C.S Mehra, Deputy Director (B&F) and Shri Srinivasulu, Deputy Director (Procurement) have also not been submitted by Shri A.K Sinha, Joint Director (Tech) who is the Reporting Officer. I cannot be held responsible in any way because it is the duty of respective Reporting Officer to submit ACRs to Reviewing Officer because Reviewing Officer cannot initiate the ACRs and several reminders have been issued vide Letter No. ACR/Review/2010 dated 21st July 2010, Letter No. ACR/Review/2010 dated 22 nd July 2010, Letter No. ACR/Review/2010 dated 31st August 2010, Letter No. ACR/Review/2010 dated 1st
ACRS IN CAPACITY AS REVIEWING OFFICER

50

September 2010, Letter No. ACR/Review/2010 dated 3 rd September 2010 and numerous e-mails latest dated 28th September 2010, but no response has been received till date. It is the duty of administration branch of MOUD under the JS (UD) to monitor as well as take action against these officers for non completion of this work. Thus these remarks are unfounded and may kindly be expunged from the records. (h) 3. Pen picture of the officer

Pen Picture by Reporting Officer on the overall qualities of the officer including area of strengths & lesser strength, extraordinary achievements & significant failures and attitude towards weaker sections. The Reporting Officer, Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) has given following remarks, The officer is her own master, which is at times her strength and weakness at other times. Takes strong views on matters sometimes irrespective of correct position as per laid down rules etc. Against this column the Reporting Officer was required to give a Pen Picture on the overall qualities of the officer including area of strengths & lesser strength, extraordinary achievements & significant failures and attitude towards weaker sections. The Reporting Officer has not given his observation based on objective assessment & keeping in view the tremendous achievements as cited in the self appraisal & has given vent to his biased opinion. Such an uncalled for & casual remark is not based on facts & is unsubstantiated as no details have been given. In this regard I would like to submit that the Director of Printing is responsible for executing the mandate of the Directorate of Printing & I have performed my duties with utmost sincerity & shown exceptional results. I have followed all rules & regulations and there is not a single instance in which rules have not been followed. In all the files copies of numerous rules have been placed & detailed explanatory notes given leaving no place for ambiguity. In fact due to poor knowledge of rules Shri A.K Mehta, the Reporting Officer would often be taking wrong position & then would be adamant in trying to justify his stand. This will be evident from the numerous cases of lapses on the part of Reporting Officer as given in Annexure-IV. Thus it is unfortunate that the Reporting Officer has not given an honest & objective assessment. My strengths are my excellent knowledge of rules & its correct application, well Disciplined, I lead from the front & have exceptional leadership qualities, vision & foresight, self sacrificing, meticulous & hard working, if I give a commitment I stand by my word, honesty, selfless dedication, enjoy the loyalty & trust of my subordinates. My weaknesses are I am straightforward & easily believe at face value & am unable to indulge in manipulation, I also trust people very easily, rarely attend social functions and talk very less whereas gossiping & light conversations are actually good PR exercise which I need to cultivate, I keep a low profile & do not project the tremendous amount of work done by me thinking that my work will speak for itself which is not practical in todays time when we need to boast & brag & blow our own trumpet. Thus this is the correct & honest pen picture but the Reporting Officer has instead tried to show that I take strong stand irrespective of correct position as per laid down rules etc. whereas not a single instance can be cited where rules have been flouted. The File Notings of the Directorate of Printing are based on the collective wisdom of rules on Printing evolved over 145 years of its existence and are based on the references received from the subordinate units & 51

duly examined by technical & administrative Officers at four different levels before reaching the HOD & hence it is not possible that the entire hierarchy will be wrong & hence such a sweeping statement is unfounded & unsubstantiated & not based on any material evidence on record & is a result of the biased vindictive attitude of the Reporting Officer who is taking a very narrow view & under the impression that the DOP works in isolation & forgets that the decisions of DOP are backed by the collective wisdom of 145 years of practices & precedents & the assisted knowledge of 6000 officials in the operative units & 150 staff in the Headquarters. Thus it is requested that these unfounded biased remarks may kindly be expunged as these are unsubstantiated. To substantiate my contention I would like to cite one example in which the PSP Division of MOUD had failed to keep a watch over the corrupt officers in the Directorate of Printing who had themselves become interested party and got their own people recruited in the Government Presses and in return freely obliged the officers in the Ministry by getting their sifarish people recruited in the Press. Thus the personal staff like stenographers & drivers attached to VVIPs and senior officers in the Ministry got their acquaintances jobs in the Presses which in return encouraged the Press staff to get their own relatives selected and it was a free for all situation. As a result the PSP Dvn. of the Ministry had not wanted any strong action to be taken against the staff of Press because of fear of their spilling the beans. Thus these officials of PSP Dvn. in the Ministry ensured that the investigation in the irregularities in recruitment in the Government Presses remains inconclusive and an in-house activity because it is easy to manoeuvre and let the matter die a natural death through delay by allowing it to linger on for a long time and hence ensured that the inquiry should not be handed over to the CBI or carried out in a time bound manner & responsibility was also not fixed. Thus the Vigilance Inquiry of MOUD had only reiterated what had already been stated in the Preliminary Inquiry Reports of the Directorate & most crucial task of fixing responsibility was avoided. The irregularities in recruitment was a grave offence and had All India repercussions as Presses are located in different states and was a fit case to be handed over to a specialised agency which would have also fixed exact responsibility upon officials. On the other hand the Officers in the PSP Dvn. of the Ministry were in a dilemma because they could not tell the DOP to the contrary in writing but wanted me to understand the situation and allow the whole thing to die a slow death but to their dismay I was pursuing the matter on a war footing. Honble MOS(UD) Shri Ajay Maken, who was in charge of the three Departments of Printing, Publications & Stationary was aware of the problems as large number of complaints were pouring in and therefore issued orders for suspension of recruitment despite stiff opposition. Just as there was stiff opposition to the orders for stopping the recruitment process, similarly there was stiff opposition to the case being referred to the CBI because then the corrupt could not have been saved as they had only carried out the verbal orders of some of the interested officials in the PSP Dvn. of the Ministry and on the sly took advantage and had selected their own people also and had overdone the whole thing to such an extent that candidates selected on merit constituted just 40% and rest 60% were relatives & acquaintances of people in the Ministry & the Presses. For example one case pertaining to GIP Koratty had been handed over to CBI, on a small insignificant matter as compared to the grave lapses committed in the recruitment scam in GIPs. The case in GIP Koratty, Kerala was investigated by the CBI and the CBI proceeded against the Deputy Manager, AM(A) and General Store Keeper and filed chargesheet under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the 52

Court of Special Judge, CBI, Ernakulam. The details of the case have been given in detail in Para-8 of Annexure-IV. In comparison the lapses on the part of these officials found responsible for irregularities in Recruitment in the GIPs are much graver as compared to these officials of GIP Koratty. Thus when seen in this context it is surprising that such a serious criminal offence of recruiting ineligible & not based on merit and cheating the Government by way of inducting life long liabilities who will manipulate the system because if the case is handed over to CBI then case will go to CBI Court but if it remains in house then there are chances of such officials getting back through CAT as judgements of CAT have been rather liberal for example in the case of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, UDC (Para-13 of Annexure-IV) or if such officials not selected on merit continue for 2-3 years in service then it will become very difficult to terminate their services and hence the case was being pursued slowly to allow such officials this benefit. Thus such an important matter was not being handed over to CBI deliberately. Moreover the officials of GIP Koratty had been transferred whereas in the case of officers involved in irregular appointments & recruitment scam the JS (UD) Shri A.K Mehta was protecting these officers by trying to adjust & keep them posted in same station, whereas Director of Printing had wanted to overhaul & clean up the mess uniformly. Thus the contention of the Reporting Officer that, The officer is her own master, which is at times her strength and weakness at other times. Takes strong views on matters sometimes irrespective of correct position as per laid down rules etc is unfounded as I was only carrying out my legitimate duty of upholding the interests of my Department & had acted in accordance to the government rules as listed in Para-40 of Annexure-IV. Therefore these casual & baseless remarks of the Reporting Officer reflects his bias & may kindly be expunged as these are not based on true facts & are unsubstantiated sweeping statements. Moreover the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS (UD) has not agreed to the remarks or grading of the Reporting/Reviewing Officers, therefore these remarks may kindly be expunged in totality from the records and upgraded to above Benchmark. (i) 4. Numerical Grading

Numerical Grading on a scale of 1-10 as per the instructions circulated separately. The Reporting Officer, Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) has given following remarks, 5 (Five) Against this column the Reporting Officer was required to give an overall Numerical Grading taking into account all aspects and the quantum of work performed during the entire year. The reporting/reviewing officer have given Grading as 5 (Five) which is equivalent to Good which is Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. The Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS (UD) has not agreed to the remarks or grading of the reporting/reviewing authorities. In this regard the rule position is as under ::- As per DOPT O.M No. 210111112005-Estt (A) (Pt-II) dated 23rd July, 2009 on the subject, Preparation and maintenance of Annual Performance Assessment Reports, it has been laid down therein, as per Para (iii) the Numerical grading are to be awarded by reporting and reviewing authorities for the quality of work output, personal attributes and functional competence of the officer reported upon. These should be on a scale of 1-10, where 1 refers to the
RULE POSITION

53

lowest grade and 10 to the highest. The guidelines given in Annexure- I shall be kept in mind while awarding numerical gradings. As per Para (iv) The overall grade on a score of 1-10 will be based on 40% weightage on assessment of work output, and 30% each for assessment of personal attributes and functional competency. The overall grading will be based on addition of the mean value of each group of indicators in proportion to weightage assigned. As per Annexure-I to this O.M, on Guidelines regarding filling up of APAR with numerical grading, it has been laid down that (i) The columns in the APAR should be filled with due care and attention and after devoting adequate time. (ii) In awarding a numerical grade the reporting and reviewing authorities should rate the officer against a larger population of his/her peers that may be currently working under them. (iv) APARs graded between 6 and short of 8 will be rated as 'very good' and will be given a score of 7. (v) APARs graded between 4 and 6 short of 6 will be rated as 'good' and given a score of 5. The Reporting Officer has not followed the provisions of these rules and has given Grading as 5 (Five) which is equivalent to Good which is Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. The Reporting Officer has not graded me by taking into account the voluminous amount of work performed by me as given in detail in the self appraisal portion of my APAR. During my tenure the Reporting Officer did not visit any of the Government of India Presses, despite several requests, as he did not enjoy good relations with the Staff Unions due to his hostile attitude and feared workers backlash & the technical industrial category supervisory staff was disgruntled as JS(UD) had stalled all promotion cases by reversing & questioning the already decided issue of sanctioned strength of GIPs, and they had even filed a case in the Court against the Ministry, thus unfortunately the Reporting Officer was unable to get any ground level first hand experience of the tremendous amount of work done because practical first hand observation of improvements introduced can not be replaced by verbal description no matter how well written & graphic it may be. Moreover the JS(UD) lacked knowledge of rules and its application in day to day decisions and would casually brush aside the Manuals & Codes evolved over the past 145 years based on which the Operational functions of the Directorate were managed & brush these aside terming it as in house creation of the Directorate & constantly asking for proof of their validity as government rules & would trivialise the procedures & practices of the technical aspects of the Directorate as irrelevant and inconsequential and hence he is unable to appreciate the true magnitude of the statutory functions performed by the DOP and has thus deliberately undermined my achievements due to bias & malafides. My contribution has been exceptional and in such a short time I was able to solve the mess created due to years of neglect. For example around 330 compassionate appointment cases had piled up over the years with 96 ongoing court cases & in 44 cases undertakings had been given in the past to the Courts. As a result contempt notices were being received & embarrassing situations caused. I could have taken the easier option of conveniently throwing the onus upon my predecessors but instead I made efforts to find a permanent solution to the situation. I set up a committee vide O.M No. 8/6/07-A-III dated 31.10.2008 & provided numerous rulings, copies of Court decisions & guidance. Thereafter the Herculean task of implementation of the recommendations of the committee examining each of the 330 case files was undertaken & a total of 264 very old waitlisted cases were deleted & the accumulated mess over the last 10-15 years was cleared in a 54

systematic manner. Thus my contribution needs to be acknowledged & commended. Unfortunately the Reporting Officer has deliberately ignored the same. As a sharp contrast while I took pro-active action & resolved the matter with finality the Reporting Officer never processed & intimated the final decisions on the Reports of the four Committees set up of which JS(UD) himself was the Chairman in two cases, the details of which are available at Para-28 of Annexure-IV. Moreover I handled the unprecedented Paper crises in Industrial Units with a lot of maturity & patience & was able to resolve the long standing dispute to its finality despite several attempts at sabotaging by the JS (UD). During the year 20082009, the total allotment of funds was Rs. 60,63,00,000 under the Head-Material and Supplies in respect of Government of India Presses. Paper is a basic raw material for running the industrial units. No Paper could be procured during the Financial Year 2008-09 due to non-receipt of approval by the Ministry. Only Rs. 23, 32, 75,000 could be utilized which was the spill over payment of last financial year 2007-08. Total funds, which remained unutilised, was Rs. 36, 90, 25,000. In the year 2009-10 I had to address an SOS D.O Letter No.Proc./249/WOPP/2008-09 dated 04.08.2009 to Secretary (UD) (Enclosure-14 of Annexure-IV) after which emergency supply of only 900 MTs of WOPP was allowed whereas the yearly procurement of Paper in the year 2007-08 was 9465.3 MT. On the intervention of Secretary (UD) in File related to procurement of 105 MT Strawboard which was reduced to just 5 MTs by the Joint Secretary (UD) the Secretary (UD) directed JS&FA to examine the matter as such drastic reduction would hamper work. The new JS&FA Ms. Sudha Krishnan formed a committee of 04 officers who recommended vide Minutes dated 19.11.2009 that projection of requirement as made by the Directorate of Printing with the approval of Director of Printing may be accepted which will be subject to scrutiny at the time of next procurement, this recommendation was accepted by the Ministry which ended the years of uncertainty & ambiguity & a long standing problem was resolved. During my brief tenure of 22 months in the Directorate of Printing I held additional charge of two more Departments. Thus for about 20 months I held dual charge of more than one Department & was heavily overburdened during my entire tenure as I was not provided opportunity to exclusively handle & concentrate on my own work. Moreover the work pertaining to the Government Presses on the Operations side is highly technical & needs a lot of concentration & meticulous planning or else Production will be adversely affected. It goes to my credit that I handled the work of all the three Departments in a most efficient manner & did not allow work to suffer. However my greatest contribution was towards pursuing the case for the continuance & revival of the functioning of GISO. I had attended the Oral Evidence before the Standing Committee on the subject GISO, Kolkata in Room No.63 Parliament House on 12th August 2008. All preparations like studying all related files, Rule Books i.e. Rules for the Supply & use of Stationary Stores. 1924, Vocabulary of Stationary Stores etc & prepared background notes data/information prepared meticulously in a logical & simple manner for meetings with Officers of Ministry of UD & Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance agreed to continuation of GISO & revival of its full functions, revival & filling up of post of COS was allowed vide O.M No. 1(22) E-Coord/2008 dated 10th December 2008. Thereafter I took up the case of filling up the post of COS & recommended for grant of Ad-hoc promotion of Shri R.K Roy, Dy Controller who was eligible for promotion to the post since November 2003 and could have easily been promoted as regular Controller of Stationary w.e.f November 2005 i.e. date from which Shri B. Tewary the then 55

Controller of Stationary on deputation was repatriated prematurely to his parent Department. But the post of COS remained vacant from 09.09.2005 onwards & it was at my initiative that the senior most officers falling in the line of promotion was given promotion to the post of COS on Ad-hoc basis w.e.f 09.07.2009 & I handed over charge to the regular incumbent on 09.07.2009. Thus I received a rousing welcome on my visit to GISO Kolkata because the Staff, Officers & Staff Unions credited me with reviving GISO & taking up the matter on a war footing. In the past one Joint Secretary in the Ministry on his visit to GISO Kolkata had been manhandled & locked up in the lift by the workers due to his arrogant & dictatorial ways & hence it had come as a pleasant surprise for me that the staff honoured me & credited me for revival of the Department. While I had acted as a catalyst but the staff had given me entire credit which was obviously not to the liking of many people. However my efforts cannot be brushed aside as I had worked very hard & studied all the old files, records & rule books & had taken up the cause of the Department with right earnestness & sincerity which bore rich dividends & ensured that the other two Departments never had the feeling that I am holding dual charge but ensured that they had faith & confidence in my leadership & guidance. Thus I should be judged purely on the basis of the tremendous amount of work performed by me and my contribution in improving the working of the three Departments the charge of which was held by me. Unfortunately the Reporting Officer has not taken an objective view & has deliberately graded me as below Benchmark. Since the Accepting Authority has not agreed to the remarks or grading given by Reporting/Reviewing Officers therefore it is requested that the same may kindly be expunged and upgraded to above Benchmark & the grading of 07 as assessed by the Honble MOS (UD) be treated as final.
OVERALL NUMERICAL GRADING ON A SCALE OF 1-10 :- Against the column

pertaining to overall Numerical Grading which is to be awarded for the quality of work output, personal attributes and functional competence of the officer reported upon the Reporting Officer has given Overall Grading on these attributes as five (05) which is equivalent to Good and Below Benchmark and hence an adverse entry. In this regard I would like to submit that taking into account the facts cited by me in the preceding Paras against various attributes my overall achievements have been exceptional & I should be graded as Outstanding. The Reporting Officer has intentionally ignored my excellent work and success in the turn around of the Department especially since all factors had remained the same & the only change was my joining the Department which had galvanized the working of the Department & changed the work culture of despair & fatalistic mindset of the workers in the field formations as I had singlehandedly ushered in a fresh impetus & positivity and the Reporting Officer has deliberately undermined my contribution. The tremendous amount of work done by me and the constraints faced has not been taken into account and the Reporting Officer has made Below Benchmark adverse observations without following the laid down procedure that all adverse remarks have to be preceded by warnings, memos etc issued after the officer is given opportunity to present his case & has to be recorded in the Memo of Services. Since the Reporting Officer has not followed the government instructions on the subject thus I request you to kindly expunge the unjustified & unsubstantiated grading as it is not commensurate with my achievements and the appreciation letters received from various quarters have also not been taken into account while recording the remarks. Moreover the Reviewing Officer has not applied his mind and has merely copied the 56

gradings given by the Reporting Officer in contravention of his own assurance on objectivity & fairness as conveyed vide Letter No. A-28012/1/2010-Admn-I. dated 24th June 2010, nor has the Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Officer ever given any guidance or advice citing any rules in file noting let alone issue Memos or advisories on any of these aspects as being not up to the mark thus there is no basis for granting this below Benchmark Grading & hence it may please be upgraded to above Benchmark grading of 07 because the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS(UD) Prof. Saugata Roy has not agreed to the assessment given by these Officers and has rated my performance as 07, on a scale of 10, grading of 06 and 07 is rated as Very Good and I have been rated on the higher side of Very Good, which borders on Outstanding, by the Accepting Authority therefore the Below Benchmark grading may kindly be expunged in totality and upgrade the same to above benchmark grading so that such casual & irresponsible remarks of the Reporting Officer do not cast a dark shadow and adversely affect my future career prospects as my work & conduct has been exceptional. 17. As per DG Posts Letter No. 4-40/91/Vig. Dated 9th April 1996 on the subject matter maintenance of Memorandum of Services by Reporting Officers, it has been stated that .. CAT Cuttack Bench have observed in a case that these instructions are not being followed. The Central Administrative Tribunal has further directed that the instructions contained in Rule 174(7) of the Postal Manual Volume-III should be strictly followed and complied with by all the Reporting Officers and Reviewing Officers and officers superior to the Reporting Officers while inspecting the respective offices shall scrutinize if such Memo of Services are maintained and that any laches shall be met with serious consequences as clarified in these instructions. The above instructions of CAT Cuttack Bench be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance. However the Reporting Officer has flouted these instructions and has not maintained any Memo of Services & the observations and grading in the APAR are based on whims and not supported by any documentary evidence which is required to be duly entered in the Memo of Services. 18. As per provisions of P&T Manual Volume-III, Chapter titled Confidential record of work and conduct of officers of the Department Para-7 states as under :Para-7 With a view to enabling them to make correct over-all assessment of the work and conduct of their subordinates, the reporting officers are required to maintain memorandum of services in respect of each officer employed under them. All instances of good and bad work coming to the notice of the reporting officer should be promptly noted in the memo of services. The memoranda of services should invariably be consulted at the time of writing of annual reports. The memoranda of services in respect of an officer should be a complete and continuous record of his service and accordingly, it should not be destroyed after the annual report has been written. The entries in the memo of services should be based on facts and documentary evidence. For writing the annual report only those entries in the memo, which pertain to the year of the report, should be taken into account. As the memo of services is the sole basis for writing the annual reports, the reporting officer at the time of submitting reports to the countersigning authorities, if any, should make a specific mention in the 57

forwarding letters that memorandum of services have been maintained and consulted. 19. As is evident from the above provisions in the P&T Manual, Volume-III the Memo of Services is a permanent record as it is not to be destroyed. Moreover Memo of Services has to be invariably consulted at the time of writing ACR and any entries in Memo of Services should be based on facts and documentary evidence. The ACR is to be based solely on the entries made in Memo of Services. I had clearly mentioned in the last Para of my self appraisal at Page-3-D that, During the entire period of report no Memorandum of Services was maintained thereby clearly showing that my superiors found absolutely no deficiencies in my working. The Reporting and Reviewing Officers have accepted this fact & have not denied it while recording their remarks. Since during the period Memo of Services has not been maintained and no facts or documentary evidence has been cited as reason for recording below benchmark & Adverse grading in the ACR by the Reporting Officer, thus such remarks and grading is unsubstantiated and therefore it is requested that the below benchmark grading may kindly be upgraded to above Benchmark for eligibility for promotion. 20. Since neither the Reporting or the Reviewing Officers have denied any of the constraints cited by me in the self appraisal and hence these need to be taken into account while deciding my performance which was exceptional on all fronts whether it is printing operations or personnel management or any other field. Thus taking into account the tremendous constraints faced by me yet I have brought about drastic improvement in the working of the Department. Therefore since the below Benchmark & adverse entries have not been justified or reasoning given and the remarks have been made in a rather generalized casual manner as these do not have any justification & also due to fact that there is no documentary evidence to support the contention of Reporting Officer as it hinges on surmises thus I request you to kindly upgrade the grading to above Benchmark level so that I am eligible for consideration for my next promotion and it does not have an adverse impact upon my career. 21. It may kindly be kept in view that I had worked very hard in improving the working of the Department. In the instructions portion of ACR as per Para-11 the following guidelines have been given:Para-11 some posts of the same rank may be more exacting than others. The degree of stress and strain in any post may also vary from time to time. These facts should be borne in mind during appraisal and should be commented upon appropriately. The posts in field units are much more stressful as officers have to be on their toes all the time as the task of executing the policies and targets of the Government is far more strenuous, whereas posting in the Ministry is comparatively less stressful at Director level because occasions for independent decision making are much less and it is a sedentary desk job oriented, involves passive activities like submitting notes to superiors based on the information & detailed notes submitted by executing Departments. Unfortunately Shri A.K Mehta has no idea about the difference between the post of Directors in the Ministry reporting directly to him and that of the Director of Printing who is higher both in scale of Pay as well as status to that of 58

Directors in Ministries. Even in his reply & affidavit to the Court Shri A.K Mehta has equated the posts of Director of Printing and Directors in Ministry despite the fact that no Director in the Ministry has 06 GM/Deputy Secretary level Officers reporting to him nor do they enjoy statutory & financial powers & have 18 field units reporting directly to them in the capacity as Head of Department, thus the responsibilities of DOP are much higher. Unfortunately the ignorance of Shri A.K Mehta has cost me dearly as I have been placed at a disadvantage. Shri Mehta is over dependent upon the knowledge of his subordinates & lacks individual competence & knowledge as a result he tries to belittle the knowledge & achievements of other officers in order to assert his unfounded superiority. 22. My only fault is that I am too straight forward & believed at face value in the verbal postures of the Ministry as Dr. M. Ramachandran the then Secretary (UD) had encouraged & said in various meetings that full support of the Ministry will be provided to me in my efforts in streamlining the Department. In this regard Para-12 & 13 of Minutes circulated vide MOUD O.M No. O-17034/15/2007-Ptg. Dated 12th June 2008 refers as well as Meeting on Sevottam & RFD etc. I did not realise that actually the Ministry was interested in maintaining status quo & a semblance of some work being done as it was not a priority area for them. Moreover the clearing of my premature repatriation file by superiors is in no way a ratification of the unjustified action of Shri A.K Mehta because the file was cleared in good faith believing that the Joint Secretary must have followed all rules & procedures. Unfortunately Shri A.K Mehta lacks knowledge of Rules and has no idea about the working of the Printing Presses. Due to poor knowledge of rules Shri A.K Mehta had to be explained the rules on the subject during Meetings and provided a copy but he would feel exposed and vulnerable & would remain steadfast in his opinion & thus much time would be wasted in trying to convince him and explaining the obvious as a result the staff would feel exhausted because some basic knowledge of rules is essential to understand the complex recruitment process in GIPs as there are as many as 104 different trades and recruitment rules in the Government of India Presses. He also does not have the maturity & patience of listening to the technical officers and is unable to accept the fact that the Managers & supervisors working on the factory floor will have more knowledge about the Printing technology, even though junior to him, and we need to listen to their advice on important policy decisions as they are the primary stake holders and is in the habit of endlessly gloating over his own imaginary feats and eulogising his own work thus diverting attention towards himself & wasting the time of others because all his meetings remained inconclusive, evasive and nothing ever came out of these. Some examples are given as under :(i) (ii) The Committee to finalise EOI & TOR on 3 Text Book Presses remained inconclusive of which Shri A.K Mehta was the Chairman, The Steering Committee to overview the functioning of the 3 Departments and to find ways to improve performance of these Departments had been set up under the Chairmanship of Shri A.K Mehta but he avoided chairing the Meeting or taking decisions or submitting recommendations and instead wanted the Meetings to be held through rotation of file amongst various Ministries. The Committee to evaluate the cost of equipment, machinery, land and building of GIPs headed by the JS&FA was finalised and submitted to the Ministry but Shri A.K Mehta never processed the Report or conveyed decision on it. 59

(iii)

(iv)

Similarly the Committee to examine the possibility to utilise surplus land of GIPs of which the CCA was the Chairman had been submitted to the Ministry but Shri A.K Mehta neither examined & processed the report nor conveyed final decision in the matter.

Thus Shri A.K Mehta lacks confidence and avoids decision making due to poor knowledge of government rules and habitually passes on his inadequacies upon others who have nothing to do with the matter. The manner in which the Officer prepared the repatriation case clearly reflects his low calibre and lack of knowledge of rules and procedures & the superior authorities cleared the file in good faith under the impression that taking into account the long years of service of Shri Mehta he must have followed all rules. Unfortunately the following steps were not followed :(i) (ii) To list out lapses of an officer citing the exact government rule flouted along with placing copies of documentary evidence on record. Calling for Comments/explanation of officer on each of the points & providing adequate opportunity to refute each charge in accordance to DoPT Circular No. 3/4/2004-EO(MM.I) dated 17th August 2005 (Para-39 of Annexure-IV). Conduct of independent inquiry into each allegation levelled & allowing access to records. Consultation with UPSC & referring the File to UPSC being the recruiting authority for the technical post of DOP. Consultation & referring the matter to DOPT as per DOPT guidelines vide O.M. No.27/12/97-EO(ACC) dated 15.10.1997.

(iii) (iv) (v)

23. I had submitted the APAR for the year 2009-10 vide Letter dated 2nd June 2010 with request that Shri A.K Mehta should not report due to bias. The Link Officer who was aware of my working could have written the APAR or the Reviewing Officer could have himself become the Reporting Officer but these aspects were not examined at all and instead as per reply received vide Letter No. A-28012/1/2010Admn-I. dated 24th June 2010 (Annexure-III(B)). I was assured that, The objective of assessment of the performance of the Government servant on two levels is to ensure a greater degree of objectivity and fairness. In the event, the judgement of the immediate superior is considered too narrow and subjective to do justice to the Government servant reported upon, it is the Reviewing Officer who is enjoined to personally know and form his/her judgement of the work and conduct of the Government servant reported upon. Thus I was given to understand that the Reviewing Officer would rise to the occasion & ensure a level playing field & would arrive at an independent judicious view on the matter. Unfortunately the Reviewing Officer failed in his duties & since he had retired from service thus for fear of incurring the displeasure of Shri A.K Mehta, he merely copied the grading of the Reporting Officer verbatim and played safe without any judicious application of mind and completely surrendered before the whims of the Reporting Officer giving primacy to his own compulsions and interests. Unfortunately in the present system of APAR writing there is no provision of safeguarding the interests of upright & hard working officers in the eventuality when the reporting and reviewing officers conspire and collude to safeguard each others interests. In such circumstances the Reporting Officer gets away with his highhandedness and does not write the APAR honestly and writes unsubstantiated observations or gradings which are not commensurate with the actual performance 60

and achievements of the Officer, then there is no way for officer to prove that the grading is biased & not commensurate with the quantum of work performed because even if he submits representation, as was the case in several instances while working in the Ministry of UD, the chances are slim of gaining sympathy of higher authorities because generally a pre-conceived negative view is adopted by officers falling in the chain who are processing & submitting the representation & everyone looks down upon such officers who submit representation as being on the wrong side of the establishment & brand them as a nuisance because they are unable to adjust within the given system, even if it is manipulative, because compromises have to be made, and such officers are branded as problem officers and other officers with very average caliber who have never shown any initiative in their life feel vindicated and strut around with an air of self righteous superiority as if they have arrived and actively contribute in decimating whatever little chances such officers may have of being heard and given a fair chance. Thus the system itself conspires with like forces to break the morale of such officers so that they also fall in line & confirm with the prevailing system as values of honesty, dedication and hard work have become words to be taken with contempt. The system is so much balanced against an officer and rests on the fragile string of discretion of the Reviewing Officer who weighs the pros & cons to see from where he can gain maximum mileage by siding with which party and the consideration of achievement of targets, exceptional work, results etc are not taken into account and the Officer is trapped and his fate is sealed. In case the appeal / representation is to be handled & processed by these very officers, as was the case in the Ministry of Urban Development, then an officer who is an accuser, co-conspirator and judge cannot be expected to do justice. There is no remedy against such an unfair system and thus these Officers play with the inherent weakness in the system & milk it to their advantage and get away with it. 24. Therefore in the light of above detailed reasons I request your honour to kindly decide the matter dispassionately, keeping in view the exceptional achievements listed by me in Part-II, and to step up my APAR to above Benchmark grading so that I can be eligible for consideration for my next promotion, on the following grounds :(i) The targets and achievements given in Part-II of my APAR are exceptional and the Reporting Officer has deliberately not taken into consideration these achievements due to vindictive attitude. The Reporting Officer has also not been able to give any disagreement on these aspects and has accepted the achievements and this fact also needs to be taken into account. (ii) My working has been exceptional and 98% of Files were finally disposed off by me single handedly in respect of all the three Departments the charge of which was held by me and neither the Reporting Officer nor the Reviewing Officer ever gave me any advice or guidance citing violation of any government rule either verbally or in writing in any of the files of these three Departments. (iii) There is not a single case of complaint from any quarters regarding my work & conduct while holding the charge of Director of Printing, Controller of Publications and Controller of Stationary. I maintained cordial relations with the Staff Unions and workers associations due to my exceptional abilities in Personnel management. The numerous appreciation letters received from various Ministries/Departments have not been taken into account and have been deliberately ignored in order to trivialize 61

my exceptional achievements and I have been selectively targeted & victimized as I was the only Officer working as HOD in the Ministry of Urban Development who has been given adverse below Benchmark grading despite tremendous work out put of exceptional quality & conditions created to deny me promotion & to ruin my career due to my attributes of honesty, straightforwardness, natural crusading spirit and selfless devotion to duty. (iv) The Reporting Officer has deliberately based his remarks which are just the opposite to ground reality, unsubstantiated, not supported by facts & based on his biased attitude and given adverse below Benchmark grading against all the Paras in a most casual and irresponsible manner due to his vindictive attitude which had repeatedly been brought to the notice of the Reviewing Authority. (v). The Reviewing Officer has not applied his mind and has merely copied the gradings given by the Reporting Officer in contravention of his own assurance on objectivity & fairness as conveyed vide Letter No. A-28012/1/2010-Admn-I. dated 24th June 2010 (Annexure-III (B). (vi). Neither the Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Officer have ever given any guidance or advice citing any rules in any file noting let alone issue Memos or advisories that any of the attributes are not up to the mark thus there is no basis for granting this below Benchmark Grading & hence it may please be upgraded to above Benchmark grading. (vii) I have been repatriated on the basis of false allegations concocted by Shri A.K Mehta which are not substantiated as Shri Mehta wanted me to be out of his way so that he could benefit corrupt officials. The brief details of the lapses of Shri A.K Mehta had been intimated vide Annexure-II of my Letter dated 30.03.2010 addressed to Dr. M Ramachandran, Secretary (UD) and I had personally apprised him, however he has deliberately shielded and played down the lapses of Shri Mehta & has violated the provisions of MHA OM No. 41/2/55, dated 23.04.1955 and DOPT OM No. 11013/10/93-Estt. (A), dated 6th October, 1993 cited at Point-(ii) & (iii) of Para-40 of Annexure-IV. The details of the grave lapses on the part of Shri A.K Mehta have been given in Annexure-IV. (viii) No Inquiry was conducted nor adequate opportunity provided to me or my comments or explanations called for due to machinations of Shri A.K Mehta as these flimsy allegations are not supported by facts as is evident from details given in Annexure-III & suitable action needs to be taken against Shri Mehta for placing wrong facts on record due to malafides. (ix) Keeping in view the Historical Perspective given in Annexure-I and the background Note on the situation at the time of my joining as given in brief in Annexure-II I had become a victim of circumstances and have been held responsible for matters not of my making & for which I had nothing to do and which were an inherited problem of the past and Shri A.K Mehta deliberately created hurdles & impediments so that the normal functioning of the Department could not be revived and the hold upon the Directorate, of a handful of corrupt officials who were at his beck and call, remained intact. (x) I had submitted a total of five representations addressed to Secretary (UD) on various accounts, however since Shri A.K Mehta was incharge of administration in 62

the Ministry hence he monopolized on the disposal of references & surreptitiously ensured that no decision is taken or speaking orders issued as Shri Mehta had become a law unto himself. I have now applied for information under the RTI Act 2005 vide my application dated 18th October 2010 for intimating me the decision along with providing copy of speaking orders on each of these representations. Thus Shri A.K Mehta was biased against me & misused his power & position to block important correspondence. (xi) Shri A.K Mehta had submitted wrong facts in File No O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. pertaining to pre-mature repatriation and also before the Court due to malafide intentions and suitable action needs to be taken against Shri Mehta for manipulation of government records & violation of Conduct Rules. (xii) The remarks of Reporting Officer i.e. Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) against the various columns have been made without any basis and in contravention of the instructions given towards the end of APAR at page-14 & the entire APAR grading & remarks may kindly be expunged in totality & set aside on the grounds of malafides. (xiii) I had requested the Secretary (UD) on numerous occasions that the work of PSP Branch which deals with Printing & Stationary Department be changed & attached with another Joint Secretary because Shri A.K Mehta was biased & had no knowledge of rules & did not understand the subject and refused to visit any of the field units to gain first hand knowledge of the problems in the field formations despite several requests as he was afraid of workers backlash and the work atmosphere was not congenial & was adversely affecting the smooth running of day to day work. However the Secretary (UD) had expressed his helplessness on this account & took no action to resolve the conflict situation & allowed matters to escalate deliberately. (xiv). The Memo of Services has not been maintained; which has also been mentioned by me at Page 3-D of my self appraisal & this fact has been accepted by Reporting/Reviewing Officers, even otherwise nothing adverse has ever been conveyed as being entered therein. The memo of services is the sole basis for writing the annual reports and is a permanent record as it is not to be destroyed. The entries in the memo of services should be based on facts and documentary evidence. The Reporting Officer has not cited any facts or documentary evidence as reason for recording below benchmark grading in the ACR. Thus the government instructions have been deliberately violated. (xv). The Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS(UD) Prof. Saugata Roy has not agreed to the Grading or remarks in assessment given by the Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Officer and has rated my performance as 07, on a scale of 10, grading of 06 and 07 is rated as Very Good and I have been rated on the higher side of Very Good, which borders on Outstanding, by the Accepting Authority therefore the Below Benchmark grading may kindly be expunged in totality and upgrade the same to above benchmark grading so that such casual & irresponsible remarks of the Reporting Officer do not cast a dark shadow and adversely affect my future career prospects as my work & conduct has been exceptional. 25. It is humbly submitted that I cannot be penalized and my next promotion withheld for having worked hard and with utmost honesty and dedication and to the best of my abilities and for my outstanding achievements as listed in Part-II of my APAR. Therefore I request your honour to kindly consider my representation 63

favourably and to upgrade my APAR to above Benchmark level so that it does not cloud my future career prospects & cast an adverse shadow on it and to expunge all the below Benchmark gradings & remarks and simultaneously upgrade the same to above Benchmark as no justification or reason or documentary evidence has been cited as adequate reason in support of such casual writing of APAR in gross violation of government instructions on the subject especially since the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS(UD) Prof. Saugata Roy has not agreed to the gradings or remarks of the Reporting/Reviewing Officer as Honble MOS(UD) had visited the Government Presses & seen the results of my hard work & had interacted with the Officers & ground level factory workers & was aware of their praise of my initiative & excellent work and therefore the Grading may kindly be upgraded to above Benchmark grading of 07 as assessed by the Accepting Authority i.e. Honble MOS(UD). Thanking You Yours Sincerely

Dated 16.11.2010

Madhuri Dabral Director (WS) Department of Posts Ministry of Communications & IT Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001

Enclosures : 100 pages

64

ANNEXURE-I BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PRINTING AND STATIONARY UNDER THE CHARGE OF CHIEF CONTROLLOR OF PRINTING AND STATIONARY Sl. Brief Facts No. THE PERIOD OF GROWTH & EXPANSION In 1863 the Government of India decided to establish in Calcutta a Central Press in which administrative reports, codes and miscellaneous work could be printed. For this purpose the Military Orphan Press located at 5, Bankshall Street was taken over by the Government in October 1863 and the post of Superintendent, Government Printing, India was created. In addition to the work specified at sl.1 above the Army List and Military forms formerly printed at the Military Orphan Press was transferred to the Central Press. In 1864 the Printing Offices attached to the Finance Department and the Controller Generals Office were abolished & the work of these Offices was transferred to the Government of India Central Press. In October 1884 the Foreign Department Press was abolished & the work was transferred to the Central Press In June 1885, the Presses of the Home & Public Works Department were amalgamated with the Central Press. The expansion of the Central Press from a strength of 109 employees in 1863 to that of 2114 in 1899 necessitated the provision of additional accommodation. Pending the building of the Secretariat the Press was located from 1882 to 1885 at 166 Dharamtalla Street. On completion of the Secretariat Building were removed to 8-Hastings Street in 1886. As a measure of immediate relief from the acute congestion in the K.S Roy Road Press, Calcutta the Press was shifted to Santragachi complex in 1959 and also has a housing colony of 630 quarters. The Government of India Stationary Office, Kolkata (GISO) was transferred to the Central Government in 1904 under the charge of the Controller of Printing, Stationary & Stamps which was under the charge of the Department of Finance & Commerce. As per the India List & India Office List 1905 Mr. M.J Cogswell was appointed as the Controller of Printing and Stationary in the Government of India. On 12th December, 1911, George V the then Emperor of India made an announcement during Coronation Darbar held at Delhi that the capital was to be shifted from Calcutta to Delhi. By the announcement at the historic Coronation Darbar held in Delhi in 1911 Delhi became the capital of India & some of the Central Secretariat Departments were transferred from Calcutta to Delhi in 1912. A portion of the Government of India Press at Calcutta was also moved to Delhi that year to deal with the urgent requirement for printing at the Headquarters of Government in 1923, on the general re-organization of the Government of India presses the Delhi Press was separated from its head office at Calcutta & made an entirely separate Press. The development of Govt departments in New Delhi resulted in greater demands for printing work being placed with the Delhi Press. In 1931 it was transferred to New Delhi in a newly constructed building at Minto Road. The Government of India, Publications Branch, was set up in Kolkata in April 1924 under the Manager of Publications and was shifted in 1932-33 to Delhi and is presently located in its own premises in Civil Lines, Delhi. As per Report of the Departmental Committee for Stationary & Printing Department, in 1950 Mr Gregory was the Controller of Printing & Stationary As on 27th May 1969 Shri P.K Sen was the Chief Controller of Printing and Stationary (CCPS) who relinquished charge in 1973 and was the last CCPS.

1 2

3 4

5 6 7

9 10 11

12

13

14 15

65

THE PERIOD OF DECLINE & FIGHT FOR SURVIVAL 16 The Department of Printing & Stationary was trifurcated in the year 1973 & the post of CCPS was abolished and one post of Joint Secretary created in the Ministry to co-ordinate and manage the three newly created Departments i.e. the Directorate of Printing an attached office under the Director of Printing at Nirman Bhawan, The Government of India Stationary Office (GISO), a sub-ordinate office under the Controller of Stationary, later on GISO headquarters was shifted to Kolkata and the Department of Publications, a sub-ordinate office under the Controller of Publications, Civil Lines, Delhi. Within just 12-13 years after trifurcation, the Directorate of Printing was greatly weakened & proposals for closure of its various offices were mooted by the Ministry from 1986 to 2006. The next 20 years were spent in fighting the battle for survival. Similarly in the case of Government of India Stationary Office (GISO) within just 12-13 years of its existence as an independent Department a resolution was issued on 16th October 1987 for winding up of GISO. The next 20 years were spent in fighting the battle for survival. Finally orders were issued vide Ministry of Finance O.M No. 1(22)E-Coord./2008 dated 10th December 2008 for continuation of GISO. The post of Director of Printing & Head of the Department remained vacant from 01.08.2003 to 08.05.2008. Similarly the post in the second line of command i.e. of Joint Director (Tech) remained vacant from 01.08.2004 to 16.12.2009. The powers of Disciplinary & Appointing Authority were being exercised by the Joint Secretary in the Ministry. In the Government of India Stationary Office, Kolkata Shri B. Tewary worked as Controller of Stationary on deputation basis from 16-07-2002 and was repatriated pre-maturely to his parent Department on 08.09.2005 by the MOUD. The post of COS remained vacant from 09.09.2005 to 08.07.2009 despite fact Shri R.K Roy Dy. Controller being eligible for promotion w.e.f November 2003. The post of Deputy Controller (Admn) also fell vacant. The vacancy position was acute in all three departments & there was absence of a strong second line of command & centralized command & control was diluted. In the Department of Publications the post of Controller of Publications remained vacant from 01.01.2006 to 08.12.2009 and the crucial post in the second line of command i.e. Deputy Controller of Publications along with one post of Assistant Controller of Publications was abolished vide office Order No. A-11015/1/92-PBN dated 4th May 1994 to facilitate up gradation of post of AD (OL) to that of Deputy Director (OL) and the Disciplinary powers were being exercised by the Under Secretary in the PSP Division of Ministry of UD. The Government of India Presses had been fighting for survival & continuance for 20 years from 1986 to 2006 & the number of Presses was reduced from 21 Government of India Presses to 12 & two other offices i.e. AD(OP) & GIFS Kolkata as per Gazette Notifications in the year 2002 & 2006. Now the matter regarding continuation of three Text Book Presses is to be decided. All the three Departments remained headless for long periods & being managed on dual charge basis. At the time of joining of regular Director of Printing the position as on 01.05.2008 in the three Departments was as under :i) Director of Printing & HOD- Post vacant from 01.08.2003 to 08.05.2008. Charge held by Shri J.P Aggarwal, Additional Director, DOP, CSS cadre. ii) Controller of Publications & HOD- Post vacant from 01.01.2006 onwards. Dual Charge held by Shri G Ganesan, Dy. Secy. DoP, CSS cadre. iii) Controller of Stationary & HOD- Post vacant from 09-09-2005 onwards. Dual Charge held by Shri G Ganesan, Dy. Secy. DoP, CSS cadre. Thus the trifurcation of the Department of Printing & Stationary and placing the three closely interrelated departments as independent units directly under the charge of a Joint Secretary in the Ministry has been a failure as it has led to the gradual decline of the organization.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

66

21 22

THE PERIOD OF SLOW RECOVERY & STRUGGLE AGAINST ODDS The charge of technical post of Director of Printing & Head of the Department was taken over by Ms. Madhuri Dabral, the regular incumbent on 09.05.2008 on selection through the UPSC.

The position in the three Departments as on 30.06.2008 was as under :i) Director of Printing & HOD- Post filled up on regular basis w.e.f 09.05.2008. ii) Controller of Publications & HOD- Post held on dual charge basis by the Director of Printing w.e.f 17.06.2008 vide O.M No. A-19011/1/2002-Sty dated 17.06.2008. iii) Controller of Stationary & HOD- Post held on dual charge basis by the Director of Printing w.e.f 17.06.2008 vide O.M No. A-19011/1/2002-Sty dated 17.06.2008. After joining the DOP held DPC for promotion to all cadres for which the Director of Printing is Chairman on priority and all live posts were filled up. The technical post of Joint Director (Tech) was filled up after facing a lot of resistance from officials in the Ministry & senior most technical officer in the line of promotion Shri A.K Sinha, was selected on promotion after UPSC interview on 08.12.2009 & joined on 17.12.2009. The post of Controller of Stationary was filled up on ad-hoc basis after the matter was pursued & on the recommendation of the Director of Printing cum Controller of Stationary on 09.07.2009 and Shri R.K Roy, Deputy Controller (Inspection) was handed over the charge of COS by Ms. Madhuri Dabral, Director of Printing cum Controller of Stationary. (Dual charge from 09.06.2008 to 09.12.2009). The post of Controller of Publications was filled up through selection by UPSC and Shri R.K Chopra, had been selected in the month of October but the Officer did not join. The Ministry issued orders for holding of independent charge by Shri Surendra Kumar, Deputy Secretary in the Ministry and thereafter regularly appointed Shri C.S Mehra, Dy. Dir (B&F) in the Dte of Ptg, who was the Principle Offender in the irregularities in recruitment in Nilokheri Press in which Vigilance Inquiry had been conducted by CVO & AS (UD) & who had not been granted Vigilance clearance by the Director of Printing & HOD. Efforts were being made to revive & ensure the normal functioning of the Department & the Government of India Presses as the core technical functions of Dte. had remained neglected & taken a back seat as the post of Director of Printing (DOP) remained vacant for about 5 years (01.08.2003 to 08.05.2008) when all of a sudden the orders for repatriation of Ms. Madhuri Dabral, the Director of Printing was issued leveling 27 false allegations by Shri A.K Mehta, Joint Secretary(UD), MOUD in File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. without affording any opportunity to the incumbent to submit comments or explanation in contravention of Government rules. Shri V.K Sharma, Director (Admn.) of CSS cadre in the Ministry was given charge of the Technical Directorate and the senior most technical officer in the line of promotion to the post of Director of Printing, i.e. Shri A.K Sinha, the Joint Director (Tech.) in the scale of Director was not given charge. As on date the Joint Director (Tech) drawing scale of Director, in the Pay Scale of Rs. 14300-400-18300/-(Pre-revised), is reporting to another Director level Officer of CSS cadre in the same pay scale. Thus the systemic humiliation & annihilation of an entire Department, its history and pride by the officials of the PSP Division of the Ministry of Urban Development is now complete. The position as on date is as under :i) Director of Printing & HOD- Post vacant from 30.03.2010. Dual Charge held by Shri V.K Sharma, Director (Admn) CSS cadre. ii) Controller of Publications & HOD- Shri C.S Mehra, Printing Technical Service, Officer Not clear from Vigilance angle. iii) Controller of Stationary & HOD- Shri R.K Roy joined on 09.07.2009. Has been promoted on Ad-hoc basis on the recommendation of DOP. Officer is eligible & in the regular line, feeder grade for promotion as COS.

23

24

25

26

27

28

67

ANNEXURE-II BACKGROUND NOTE 1. The post of Director of Printing (DOP) remained vacant w.e.f. 1-8-2003 to 8-52008. The previous incumbent Shri H.A Yadav had worked as Director of Printing from 22.01.1991 to 31.07.2003 i.e. 12 Years and 6 months, till his retirement on 31.07.2003. Prior to this Shri H.A Yadav had worked as Joint Director (Tech) from 31.03.1982 to 21.01.1991 i.e. 8 Years 10 months and was promoted to the post of Director of Printing. The PSP Division of the Ministry of UD had kept some flimsy corruption cases against Shri H.A Yadav lingering on till his retirement so that these could be used appropriately to keep him under leash. As a result Shri H.A Yadav could never show any boldness in decisions & was forced to be servile, and at the complete mercy of the officials of PSP Division of the Ministry & was at their beck and call who would give verbal directions & file would be submitted accordingly & these officials in the Ministry enjoyed all the powers but never held responsible & are accountable for nothing and the DOP shouldered all responsibility & accountability but no powers. This situation continued as there are very few officers who have the courage to take a stand as questioning vested interests & especially coming from a superior office leads to one sided harassment & persecution & eventual stress & adversely affects health. Thus these officers at the helm of affairs in the Directorate had completely surrendered in helplessness before the domineering, scrupulous officials in Ministry who would habitually be indulging in endless intrigues & machinations. Thus the tradition was established & further strengthened and the relationship between the PSP Division & the Directorate of Printing was that of a Master and Servant. In return, Shri H.A Yadav was allowed to retire honourably & the so called corruption cases were buried conveniently and no action was taken against him and in fact he was also offered post of technical consultant by the Ministry as a reward for his servility, which could not materialize due to stiff resistance from staff & Service Unions. 2. The Standing Committee on Urban Development on the Directorate of Printing under the Chairmanship of Honble Shri Mohammed Salim in its 22 nd Report which was presented to Parliament on 14.5.2007 had made several scathing remarks regarding institutional decline of the Directorate of Printing. As per the 22 nd Report the Standing Committee had made following observations :Para 3.5 When the Committee pointed out to the witnesses that senior level posts in the Directorate of Printing are being kept vacant for long period and this shows the lack of concern of the Ministry of Urban Development on their part, the Secretary (UD) admitted during the course of oral evidence: Sir, the UPSC could not locate a suitable candidate. The process did not go smoothly. There is something missing which needs to be attended. I will have to look at it. The Standing Committee reiterated these adverse observations in its 28 th Report, which was the action taken report on the 22nd Report, which was presented to Parliament during the Budget Session on 4.3.2008 and gave several adverse observations regarding delay in filling up the post of Director of Printing & HOD and 68

consequently the Ministry of UD expedited the process for filling up of post of Director of Printing & advertised the post. The officials in the PSP Division had developed strong vested interests and had wanted continuance of a weak Directorate but had to reluctantly give in to the directions of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. The post of Director of Printing is a promotional post for the Joint Director (Tech), however this crucial post in second line of command was also lying vacant & filling up this post was also another battle. The UPSC held interview and recommended the name of Ms. Madhuri Dabral who was an outsider candidate working as Director Postal Services, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. 3. Ms. Madhuri Dabral joined the Directorate of Printing as Head of the Department on 9.5.2008. She was unaware of the past happenings & messy background. The name of Shri R.C Gupta, belonging to CSS cadre & working as Deputy Secretary (P-II) in the Directorate of Printing had been under active consideration of the PSP Dvn. at one point of time for the post of Director of Printing on local basis but could not be appointed due to stiff opposition from technical line officers from the GIPs. Shri R.C Gupta, DS(P-II) and Shri L.R Gupta, Dy. Dir(A-II) had also called up Ms. Madhuri Dabral while working as Director Postal Services, Indore Region & tried to dissuade the officer from joining the post. This aroused curiosity and the officer was resolute to join the post. However as later events will prove Curiosity kills the cat! Finally the officer took over charge under hostile conditions from Shri J.P Aggarwal an Officer of CSS cadre. 4. At the time of joining of regular Director of Printing, the situation in the Department, briefly, was as under:(a) In the Directorate of Printing, the post in second line of command i.e. Joint Director (Tech.) was vacant w.e.f. 1-9-2004 onwards and the senior most officer of technical cadre, Shri A.K. Sinha, General Manager, GIP Minto Road, was looking after the work on dual charge basis. His case of ad-hoc promotion as Joint Director (Tech.) had been approved by the MOS (UD) and Honble UDM but orders were not being implemented due to delay on the part of the Joint Secretary (UD). About 8 posts of Heads of Presses/Units out of total 18 were lying vacant. There was 62% shortage in supervisory cadres both Industrial and nonIndustrial & workers & staff in Operative offices. Due to large number of irregularities in recruitments in Group C & D posts, the recruitment had been stalled in the Government Presses and as a result there was acute shortage of operative staff and machines were lying idle. The Vigilance Inquiry into irregularities in recruitment in the Government Presses had been ordered by the Ministry of UD. Some of the officials in the Ministry of Urban Development, the Directorate of Printing & the officers in the Government of India Presses along with some Staff Unions had all connived & got their relatives selected but due to infighting amongst these vested interests, there was a fall out, which led to large number of complaints, allegations & counter allegations. The MOS (UD) Shri Ajay Maken issued orders to suspend the on-going recruitment process on 1-4-2008, received in 69

(b) (c)

(d)

(e)

the Directorate of Printing & PSP Division of Ministry on the same day. The PSP Division was initially not in favor of suspending the recruitment process but after pressure from MOS (UD) was forced to issue orders vide its O.M No. A-12031/1/2008-Ptg dated 3rd April 2008 and issued orders for suspension of the Recruitment/filling up of posts & called for a compliance report by 04.04.2008. The Addl. Director of Printing issued further directions to all GIPs vide O.M No. 23/1/2008-A-I dated 3rd April 2008. (f) The PSP Division in the Ministry used to dictate terms & even suggest technical specifications for machines & would be repeatedly referring back the file endlessly until the Technical Committee bowed before its diktat regarding large procurement of machines, raw material like Paper & other important procurement cases etc. The specifications of products would be dictated despite resistance from user department & names of firms to be favored for procurement conveyed through oral orders. In case the technical officers did not agree then vigilance cases would be built up against them. In the Department of Publications, the post of Controller of Publications was lying vacant w.e.f. 1-1-2006 till date. The post in second line of command i.e. Deputy Controller stood lapsed and abolished and post of Asstt. Controller (Admn.) was vacant due to retirement of incumbent. In the Government of India Stationery Office, the post of Controller of Stationery was lying vacant w.e.f. 9-9-2005. The Deputy Controller (Admn.) retired on 30.6.2008 & post remained vacant thereafter.

(g)

(h)

5. The Directorate of Printing is an executing Office and the Director of Printing gives technical advice on all printing related matters to all Government Departments. Thus it directly executes the Printing works through the operative offices under its charge. For example the CPWD has a large number of supervisory posts in Civil, Electrical, Architectural and Horticulture Departments but the core functions of construction works is got done through contractors by floating tenders and the CPWD does work of supervision and monitoring and not direct execution. However in the case of Directorate of Printing, it does not get its printing work done by private printers by floating tenders and restrict itself to supervision and monitoring but it gets the printing works executed directly through its own 16 Printing Presses which are classified as Industrial units and fall under the Factories Act and carry out printing operation work which is core function of the Department. Thus the Directorate of Printing has to procure raw material like paper, oil, lubricants, ink, film rolls, plates etc. to carry out the production activity in the 16 Government of India Presses (GIPs). It has to allocate printing jobs to the 16 GIPs and monitor timely execution. Thus the day to day operational bottlenecks require full time attention of a technical head. 6. The Government Presses fulfill the statutory functions of printing all Parliament related printing works & Gazette notifications (all parts) apart from printing of Railway Budget, Annual Reports, Demands for Grants etc. The working scenario in the Headquarters office at the time of joining of regular DOP & HOD was as under :-

70

(a) The Directorate of Printing is managed by two categories of staff, the first category is the Technical cadre officers from the Printing Presses cadre and the second is the Secretariat staff of Ministerial Cadres. Since the Directorate of Printing is a technical Directorate therefore such an arrangement has been devised that the technical cadres are heading & hold all crucial posts to run the Directorate but are assisted by the Secretariat cadres uniformly upto the level of Assistant Directors/Section Officers so that there is uniformity of procedures in file submission due to existence of Single File System between the Ministry & attached Office because the Technical cadres are experts in technical aspects of printing operations work and in the Printing Presses the File system is different from the Secretariat system, thus the services of Secretariat cadres have been provided to facilitate the technical cadres & assist them in smooth running of administration & maintaining uniformity between the Ministry & Directorate being an attached office. At the level of Deputy Director/Under Secretary there are 2 CSS cadre and 3 technical cadre posts & above Under Secretary there is no CSS post & there are only Technical cadre posts & one General Central Service post to be filled up through Central Staffing Scheme of DOPT. However this balance was toppled when the Technical posts either remained unfilled or abolished due to reasons of negligence in timely & forcefully taking up the cause of technical posts by the secretariat services who handle the case files in the Directorate and also because at one time the Secretariat services were working against the technical posts as the posts were vacant & even exercising Disciplinary powers of Managers of the Government Presses thus the secretariat services thought that there was nothing technical involved & work can be easily managed by them because familiarity breeds contempt. As a result the technical functions of the Directorate took a back seat & institutional decline started. The post of Joint Director (Norms) was abolished which was a very crucial post as it monitored the production in the Presses & Productivity Linked Bonus, Costing etc. The posts of senior/junior analyst was also abolished on the pretext that there are orders of the government that in all Ministries the SIU Branch is to be abolished and no one took up the cause of the Department that these orders apply only to the Ministry because Ministries are monitoring Offices & the Directorate was an executing Office & without yearly assessment of Production or continuous review of norms the Printing operations work will be adversely affected and calculation of Bonus & Costing will be difficult to monitor as it is a yearlong exercise & Production in Presses will fall. The technical cadres have less knowledge of rules & procedures of the Secretariat & the Secretariat services have no knowledge of the complexities & technical aspects of printing operations & the secretarial cadres apply the rules applicable in the Secretariat verbatim without exerting their mind & analyzing its implications on the working of the field units under the Directorate in order to be on the safe side, instead of apprising the Ministry of ground realities as it requires effort which is best avoided as their own interests are not at stake. (b) Moreover the secretariat staff posted in the Directorate considers itself as mere representatives of the Ministry & there is a lack of organizational loyalty as is the case of the staff & workers in the Government Presses. The Secretariat Services feel that their onerous task is to keep watch upon & monitor each activity of DOP & HOD and scrutinize every order it passes and anything not to their liking is reported faithfully to the ever willing officials in the Ministry who are eagerly waiting for any small matter which they can take advantage of in their arm twisting tactics to ensure DOP carries out their verbal bidding or else threat of action of implicating in false cases always hangs before DOP like a Damocles sword. Due to non transfer of 71

officials of Secretariat services between different Ministries & their being posted in same office & in some cases even same seat for last 25 years, thus many officials of Secretariat services are part time property dealers & act as touts for assisting in house allotments & striking deals in transfer/postings of technical cadres in the Directorate of Printing & have scant regard for the authority of DOP. In case punctuality & discipline is enforced they unite & raise bogey of being victimized as all have common interest of doing minimum government work & are involved in private work & it is impossible to catch them because collecting evidence is difficult task & diverts the attention of administration from other more pressing problems. Thus these officials take advantage of the isolation of DOP & HOD in such matters & target it constantly to weaken its position & dilute its authority. Due to close nexus it is very difficult to take action against the officials of Secretarial Service as they connive with each other with active support from Ministry officials & take advantage of service affinities, with a herd mentality and safeguard each others interests. In this regard the case mentioned in Para-13 of Annexure-IV is a classic example of the might and clout of these officials in which even the file is not submitted for decision despite clear orders of HOD & they take advantage of the fact that HOD cannot remember everything & has to rely on the assistance of the entire staff of Headquarters. There is resistance to change & no one wants to be disturbed from slumber & is happy in maintaining status quo. In such a scenario the officials incharge of administration in the Ministry also fully backs them & hence the contention of the Joint Secretary(UD) who has put words in the mouth of DOP & claimed, that every time some clarification is sought, it is furni shed within a day which is allegation No-21 in File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg., full details given in Annexure-III, is an impossible proposition & reflects the complete bankruptcy of intellect & commonsense of these officials in the Ministry. (c) In the Directorate, as on date, there are more number of Secretarial general line officers who have little work because the requirement is for Technical Officers thus they are actually swamping the functioning of technical head because being idle they are having lot of time to indulge in machinations in connivance with officials of the PSP Division of the Ministry due to service affinity. At present there is only one technical post of Joint Director & three Deputy Secretary Level posts whereas requirement is for three Joint Director (Tech) and one Joint Director (Admn) of GCS as originally envisaged. Moreover all the three Deputy Secretary level posts have been filled up from CSS cadre & even the single GCS post to be filled up through Central Deputation has been filled up by CSS officers along with the post of Director of Printing & several efforts in the past had been made to convert the post of Director of Printing into a CSS post on the pretext that suitable candidates are not available & amendment in Recruitment Rules was required. In this context they ensured that the technical post in second line of command was never filled up or else it would have opened up a regular stream of eligible officers & widened the scope for availability of claimants to the post of DOP & HOD. To ensure the technical cadres get their due, efforts were made by newly joined officer to the post of DOP & HOD to push through the promotion case of the senior most technical officer. This is allegation number-10 in File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. cited in Annexure-III. The officials in secretariat services repeatedly made attempts for amendment of Recruitment Rules for the post of Joint Dir (Tech) & for broadening the field of selection by relaxing the requirement & reframing the same in order to further delay filling up of the post. The UPSC vide its Letter No. 3/11(2)/2007-ADT.1 dated 16.09.2008, as per Para (B) has stated that As regards the proposal of the Ministry to treat the post as a tenure post is 72

concerned, the Commission is of the view that the proposal for converting the post of Joint Director (Tech) into a tenure post will not only block the promotional avenue to the feeder grade officer but will also result in the abolition of the feeder grade for the next higher post of Director (Printing). Moreover the post of General Manager, Joint Director (Tech) and Director of Printing are technical posts as per the educational qualifications prescribed in the Recruitment Rules in respect of the said posts. It is therefore not considered advisable to agree to the proposal for converting the post of Joint Director (Tech) into a tenure post. Had the UPSC not intervened then such change would have resulted in cause of injury to the rights of the entire Printing cadre (Technical Line) though the matter was again resumed in File No. 25/2/2006-A.II. (Para-14 of Annexure-IV) As a result the number of technical officers in the Directorate is less & they are overburdened because they are responsible for managing the core functions of the Department. Since technical officers are less in number and hence over burdened and are swamped by these idle general line officials for whom some work has to be generated to keep them occupied as the HOD has to simultaneously ward off their machinations and hence gets little time for core functions and concentrating on its problems and if core technical work is not done DOP and other technical officers get the flack and these general line officers get away on the pretext that they are not technocrats & hence not responsible & enjoy the humiliation of technical officers, for which the occasion has been of their making. On the other hand each of the individual 18 subordinate offices of the Directorate also function like independent offices & have their own set of inter-press rivalries & DOP has to counter the politics, internecine rivalry, animosity in individual presses/offices & think of ways & means to bind them in one thread and quell rebellious voices and infighting. Thus DOP has a thankless job with a powerful but hostile CSS cadre within the Directorate who lose no opportunity to question the authority of DOP & HOD & always searching for some weak points to report back to their masters in the Ministry on the one hand & a handful of scrupulous, crafty officials in the Printing Presses who cultivate the Secretarial cadres in the Directorate and angle for favorable transfer/postings etc & to top it the hostile officials in PSP Dvn. of Ministry, who are constantly comparing, targeting & eyeing the small facilities of DOP & HOD & searching for ways & means to brow beat, humiliate & weaken the authority of HOD & discourage a strong centralized command. While it is the duty of the Ministry to safe guard the interests of this severely battered Department but since the situation was peculiar & as it was a classic case of the fence eating the grass & as the Directorate was the favorite flogging horse of these officials of the Ministry, who were passing on their own inadequacies & giving vent to their frustrations, thus there was no one to take up the cause of this hapless Department & no authority available to turn to, for protection from machinations. 7. In this turf war, an outsider walks in unaware & oblivious of the pitfalls & landmines laid down by these officials of the PSP Division in the Ministry with active connivance of Secretariat staff of the Directorate of Printing who resented the fact that now they were unable to convert the post of HOD into general line secretarial post & their hegemony has been broken. As a result these scheming, manipulative officials in the Ministry cooked up no less then 27 frivolous, false allegations, which effort was unnecessary & not required at all, had they the grace and refinement to have asked the DOP just once, before this conspiracy of leveling false allegations was hatched, the Officer would have happily obliged them & left the Directorate of Printing on her own. However this was not to be and the machinations continued & 73

fructified in ouster of DOP. The case went to Court in search of justice but in vain. It was a lucky coincidence that the Honble Member (Admn.) CAT, Dr R.C Panda and the then Secretary (UD) Dr. M. Ramachandran happened to be batch mates. While a rejoinder to the Counter reply of the Ministry dated 6 th January 2010 was allowed to be filed on 23rd January 2010 and opportunity was provided by CAT to the Officer, however unfortunately no opportunity was allowed to respond to the Affidavit filed by Shri A.K Mehta & nor was the officer aware about calling for File No. O17034/8/2009-Ptg. as Court document and no opportunity was allowed to respond to these allegations & the File was called behind the back of the Officer and opportunity was denied once again. Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) misrepresented facts before the Honble Member (Admn.), CAT as the JS (UD) had the support and might of the Ministry of Urban Development to back him and an individual can not fight an unfair, manipulative system. Thus the unjustified repatriation orders based on false allegations was a decision cajoled out of use of influence, lobbies, batch mates & service affinities & was hardly an achievement to flaunt about or justification for hiding misdemeanors of Shri A.K Mehta. However the scars left behind by such a legacy of half truths & conspiratorial alignments have scarred the psyche of an entire Department and the matter is best left to history, the great leveler which alone will judge them.

74

ANNEXURE-III

BRIEF COMMENTS ON THE 27 FALSE ALLEGATIONS GIVEN AS JUSTIFICATION FOR PRE-MATURE REPATRIATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING Sl. No. 1. Allegations cited by PSP Dvn. of Ministry of UD in File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. A wrong statement that Secretary is competent to approve revival and filling up of posts lying vacant over one year was made in meeting held in chamber of Secretary (UD) on 28-10-2009. In fact all such cases require approval of D/Expenditure. A wrong statement that Director (Printing) had full statutory powers to procure paper was made in the meeting held in chamber of Secretary (UD) on 28-10-2009. Correct rule position is that full powers to incur contingent and miscellaneous expenditure vest in Ministries/Departments which are required to be exercised in consultation with Financial Advisers. Powers can be delegated to Heads of Departments in consultation with Financial Advisers. On a file it has been argued that Director (Printing) has powers to impose major penalty on officers belonging to CSCS whereas Director/DS, cadre controlling authority i.e. Director/DS(Admn.) in the Ministry of Urban Development is appointing authority and authority competent to impose major penalty. Brief Comments

Denied. Rule position :Ministry of Finance OM No. 2(1)/E.Coord.I/2003 dated 9.9.2003 refers.

2.

Denied. Rule position :The Compendium of Administrative & Financial powers of officers in the Directorate of Printing, Presses & Branches (July 2002) full powers is given under the Head (15) Stores (a) Stores required for the working of an Establishments instruments, equipments & apparatus (e.g. consumable stores) refers.

3.

Accepted Rule position :- Copy of Schedule of CSCS Rules 1962 refers. A list of four (4) cases decided by my predecessor Shri H.A Yadav, are as under :i) File No. C-14013/12/95-AV, Shri R.K. Minocha, UDC, dated 16.10.1997, Penalty of Compulsory retirement. ii) File No. C-14013/3/96-AV, Shri Niranjan Lal, LDC, dated 01.04.1998, Penalty of Removal from service. iii) File No. C-14013/1/97-AV, Shri Bhag Singh, UDC, dated 06.05.1998, Penalty of Compulsory retirement. iv) File No. C-14013/1/96-AV, Shri S.S. Bhatia, UDC, dated 11.10.2000, Penalty of Withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) wanted to favor Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, UDC & hence objected to exercise of Disciplinary powers by Director of Printing.

4.

Director (Printing) had been arguing that Department of Publication has patent to all Government publications but has failed to link supporting order.

Denied. No such statement given. The Department of Publications does not deal with Patents. Patent, is a legal document granted by the government giving an inventor the exclusive right to make, use, and sell an invention for a specified number of years. However violation of Copyright was discussed

75

5.

Director (Printing) opposed the decision of Cabinet for handing over of GIP, Sikkim to the State Government and the process of handing over of the Press is not being expedited despite signing of MoU relating to transfer of the Press.

6.

Director (Printing) chose to submit a proposal for retention and modernization of Text Book Presses in connection with review of decision of Cabinet for privatization of these Presses notwithstanding that Cabinet did not earlier approve retention of these Presses and instead approved closure and subsequently privatization of these Presses.

7.

Director (Printing) reversed the decision of Secretary (UD) for uploading of e-gazette from various Presses and has not yet sent progress in regard to uploading.

8.

Director (Printing) chose to attempt a disagreement note despite the fact that the proposal to procure computer had approval of Secretary (UD).

9.

In contempt case filed by Shri R.K. Gautam regarding non-compliance of orders of CAT for his promotion as Manager and posting nearby compliance of orders of Secretary (UD) is still awaited despite reminders.

10.

In case of promotion of Shri A.K. Sinha as JD (T), Director (Printing) kept insisting that Shri Sinha can be promoted as JD(T) in

in Review Meeting held by Secretary (UD) on 27.8.2007 & 2.6.2008. Only request for review was submitted for further consideration. File was seen by Secretary (UD) & Honble MOS(UD) & no adverse observations made. In the past decision in Gazette Notification issued vide No. O-17034/2/86-Sty. Vol. VIII dated 30.9.2002 had been reviewed by Government vide Gazette Notification No. O-17034/2(B&F)/CM/ Status Report dated 24.7.2006. Only draft proposal for review was submitted as per directions of MOUD. (a) The 22nd Report & 28th Report on the Directorate of Printing of the Standing Committee on Urban Development refers. (b) The Honble MOS (UD) Note No. D-1095/ MOS/UD/08 dated 05.09.2008 refers. (c) The decision of JS (UD) at p-23/N of File No. O-17034/11/B&F/2007 on 31.12.08 as Chairman of TOR & EOI Committee on Text Book Presses refers. (d) Monthly reports in File No.O-17034/2/2002/ B&F/CM/Status Report w.r.t MOUD O.M No. O16013/3/2004-PSP dated 5.01.2007 refers. Denied. A representation was submitted vide No.A46020/1(E)/2005-PBN dated 26.02.2009 to Secretary (UD) against this unsubstantiated allegation who deliberately avoided deciding the matter as it was a false allegation. No speaking orders on each point raised therein have been issued till date. 15/N, 16/N & 17/N of PSP Dvn. File No. C-11013/1/2008-Ptg. refers. The proposal for procurement of HCL computers was based on advice of National Informatics Centre (NIC). The Officials of PSP Dvn had wanted to purchase LG make & later on Dell make computers but IFD & Secretary (UD) gave approval to the Directorates proposal on 26.11.09 for purchase of HCL Computers. File No. Proc/G-20011/2007/B&A refers. An official against whom Disciplinary action is contemplated based on Vigilance Inquiry by AS & CVO of MOUD cannot be given Vigilance clearance & thus cannot be promoted. The PSP Dvn. raised frivolous objections to delay case & the Disciplinary case File No. C-13019/5/2009AV was delayed by Shri P.K Verma US (Vig.-I) deliberately from 30.09.2009 to 14.01.2010 to favour the official or else charge sheet would have been issued much earlier. The JS (UD) deliberately inter-mixed two separate issues of regular promotion & Ad hoc promotion cases of Officer to create confusion.

76

disregard to advice of DoPT to consult UPSC and the fact that UPSC did not approve his promotion in relaxation of the rules.

11.

Director (Printing) did not submit self appraisal in connection with ACR for the year 2008-09 despite directions.

12.

13.

Directorate was advised by Finance Division to invite fresh bids in connection with purchase of paper because downtrend in prices was noticed. Directorate contested that there was no downtrend in price and insisted that orders be placed at old rates. It is learnt that rates now quoted by bidders are lower than the earlier quotation thus establishing downtrend in prices. It was claimed that there is acute shortage of paper in Presses in February, 2009. Approval for procurement of 50% quantity was granted. Directorate kept insisting that the Presses are out of stock of paper. Review undertaken in August, 2009 revealed that Presses had stock of Rs.2456.63 MT as against average monthly consumption of 520 MT. Only few Presses were out of stock.

In File No. 25/2/2004-A-II(Vol.) the Honble MOS(UD) Shri Ajay Maken had taken up the case for Ad-hoc promotion and the Honble UDM had approved the proposal for Ad-hoc promotion of officer on 18.03.2008. Shri A.K Sinha had been looking after the work of Joint Director (Tech) in the headquarters on dual charge basis since 30.08.2004. Thus I had only carried out the orders of Honble UDM. The reasons had been duly brought to the notice of Secretary (UD). My Letter No.A46020/1(E)/2005-PBN dated 26.02.2009, Letter No.DOP/ACR/2009 dated 11.03.2010 & Letter dated 30.03.2010 addressed to Secretary (UD) refers. The rates of tender have been approved by MOUD. Factual position of apprehension was brought to the notice of Ministry for further consideration & decision by my office.

14.

During her tenure as Director (Printing), the position of recoveries by Presses has declined. As against recoveries of Rs.120.02 crores in 2007-08 recoveries declined to Rs.119.29 in 2008-09. It is likely to go further down during 2009-10 because the amount recovered up to August, 2009 is reported as Rs.52.63 crores only. Net budgetary deficit has increased to rs.70.05 crores in 2008-09 from Rs.35.06 crores in 2004-05. Number of pages printed by all Presses has declined from 8093319878 in 2001-02 to 4696659621 in 2007-08 whereas during this period modernization of Presses at a cost of about Rs.24 crores was completed.

15.

Factually incorrect. Government Presses are industrial units & cannot function without Paper as it is raw material. This fact was brought to notice of Ministry who have also admitted that few Presses were out of stock. Moreover the 4 Member Committee set up by JS&FA has recommended in its minutes dated 19.11.2009 & Ministry has accepted these recommendations that, projection of requirement as made by the Directorate of Printing with the approval of Director of Printing may be accepted which will be subject to scrutiny at the time of next procurement. The reasons regarding non action on recoveries front was brought to the notice of JS(UD) on 13.3.09 in File No. 5/DD(B&F)/ATR/2009 & extracts of my note dated 31.1.2009 in File No. O-16016/4/2008-CDN. However the JS (UD) did not take any action & instead protected Shri R.C Gupta, DS (P-II) inadequacies. At my own initiative I had launched an incentive scheme for staff. Action was also initiated against the concerned DS (P-II) who had been divested of this important work vide my Order No.1/3/2009Estt. dated 4th December, 2009. Responsibility needs to be fixed upon Shri S.K Vyawhare & Shri J.P Agarwal who are responsible for the decline in the year 2007-08. I joined in May 2008. In year 2007-08 it was 4696659621 prior to my joining & was

77

16.

17.

18.

Director (Printing) has not been able to instill concept of accountability as is evident from one contempt case of Sabita Rani Mazumdar wherein despite orders of Secretary (UD) to fix responsibility for mishandling of the case, she continued to maintain that none can be held responsible. While recording notes on various occasions, Director (Printing) has not maintained office decorum despite displeasure expressed by Secretary (UD). Director (Printing) has all along been agitating shortage of staff and at times made mention of the post of JD (Norms) which was abolished long ago.

increased to 5194628133 in the year 2008-09, thus I should be commended for the excellent work done, despite negative attempts to demoralize the organization by Shri A.K Mehta, J.S (UD). Factually incorrect. Responsibility was fixed on officials of headquarters. The matter was being inquired into by Vigilance Wing of MOUD & Vigilance Report was not received till 30.03.2010.

The remarks of Secretary (UD) if any were due to incorrect projection of facts by Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD). This has been done in the interest of Organization as this is a technical Directorate, which has to manage 16 Industrial Units. Para12 & 13 of Minutes of Meeting circulated vide MOUD O.M No. O-17034/15/2007-Ptg. dated 12th June 2008 refers. Denied. It was a routine Meeting called for vide Meeting Notice No. GM/DOP/2009/1735(Pt) dated 23.10.2009 on subject review function of Government of India Press, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi to be held on 28.10.2009 at 4.00 P.M in Chamber of Secretary (UD) to discuss the issues relating to working of GIP, R.P Bhawan, New Delhi. No specific incident has been cited. Denied. No such statement was made.

19.

Interventions of Director (Printing) in chamber of Secretary (UD) in a meeting held on 28th October, 2009 were unexpected of an officer of Directors level.

20.

21.

22.

23.

In the meeting held in chamber of Secretary (UD) on 28th October, 2009 Director (Printing) mentioned that capacity of Presses on acquisition of machines under modernization programme is required to be assessed in consultation with Unions which is not an acceptable proposition. Director (Printing) stated in the meeting that every time some clarification is sought, it is furnished within a day. This is not borne out of fact because we have been repeatedly asking the Directorate to rectify mistakes pointed out in Office Order dated 18th May, 2007, ever since March, 2008 and necessary action in this regard is still awaited. There are many such instances. Director (Printing) failed to devise and submit report for daily monitoring of Presses indicating order position, output, working status of machinery & equipments, stock position etc. Despite repeated reminders, Director

Denied. No such sweeping statement has ever been made. As regards O.O dated 18.5.07, I joined on 9.5.08 & can not be held responsible for past mistakes of other officers. Action should be taken against Shri R.C Gupta, DS (P-II) who issued the orders without application of mind.

Suitable directions had been given to Shri R.C Gupta, DS (P-II) in relevant case file. The case for suitable action against DS (P-II) was also submitted to Shri A.K Mehta,J.S (UD) who was protecting the officer & took no action. Action Plan had been submitted.

78

24.

25.

(Printing) has not attempted action plan for pending issues. Statement indicating improvement in order position post modernization of Presses has not been submitted despite repeated reminders. Progress in regard to introduction of commercial accounting system has not been reported despite repeated reminders.

26.

Director (Printing) has not attempted and sent action plan for making Government of India Presses as profit making centres.

27.

Follow up action on the report submitted by AS & CVO pointing irregularities in connection with recruitment in Government of India Press, Mayapuri is yet to be received.

Difficult to reply because no specific reference has been mentioned & it sounds incoherent & merely thought up at the spur of the moment to add to the number of false allegations. The system was first initiated way back in 1983 & as per Letter No. G-25027/1/76-B&A/Ptg dated 16.12.1982 the Commercial Accounting System (CAS) was to be introduced w.e.f 01.04.1983. Since then the MOUD has been making concerted efforts for the last 25 years to implement CAS. However the Accounts of 5 GIPs had been submitted to CCA, MOUD for approval & had not been received back till 30.03.2010. The progress in the case has been duly intimated to the PSP Division of the Ministry from time to time. Denied. i) In year 2007-08 Work Plan issued vide PSP Dvn. No. G-20017/4/2007-Ptg. dated 16.5.2007. ii) In 2008-09 draft Work Plan was duly submitted to PSP Dvn. but no orders were issued. iii) In the year 2009-10 the targets for Results Framework Document (RFD) was submitted which was approved & received from the Ministry. The Report of two member committee for fixing responsibility was submitted to AV Unit, MOUD on 25.09.2009 but File No. C-13019/5/2009-AV was delayed by Shri P.K Verma US (Vig.-I) deliberately from 30.09.2009 to 14.01.2010. All Disciplinary cases had been initiated & charge sheets issued. Draft charge sheets in remaining cases submitted to MOUD. Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) has been protecting the Principle & Subsidiary offenders & hence the delay. Now when Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) is directly managing the Dte of Ptg. yet despite lapse of 08 months no responsibility could be fixed in the case of GIP Nilokheri which goes to prove that passive, armchair criticism & fault finding exercise is much easier then actually doing the work & action needs to be taken against these officials for delay & poor handling of matter.

79

ANNEXURE-IV LIST OF GRAVE LAPSES ON THE PART OF SHRI A.K MEHTA, JS (UD) MOUD The PSP Division in the Ministry of UD is the administrative Branch which handles all the files of the three Departments of Printing, Publications & Stationary. Shri A.K Mehta had been working as Director (JNNURM) in the Ministry of Urban Development when he was promoted as Joint Secretary and re-allotted to the Ministry of UD. He was assigned the work of Administration Branch of Ministry & Printing, Publications & Stationary (PSP) Division vide Office Order No. A22017/1/2005-Admn.I dated 02.04.2008. Shri A.K Mehta had acquired expertise in Ministerial machinations due to his long years of familiarity with Secretarial practices and procedures as he had worked on deputation as Director in the Ministry of Environment & Forests from 29.06.1998 to 28.06.2003 and had spent 50% of his service career in Delhi on deputation basis and hence had more than 10 years exposure to Ministerial practices. He had very little experience of managing large Departments independently and had little field experience & had worked mostly in the comfortable environment in subordinate capacity in which responsibility would always be collective & no independent decision making was required & he could get away with his inadequacies.
Shri A.K Mehta belongs to J&K cadre and as per newspaper reports which appeared in the Times of India dated 8th June 2003 the Chief Minister of J&K in a written reply in the State Assembly had given statement that Reiterating his stand to provide clean administration, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed said 17 Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers are facing corruption charges in the State............ Corruption cases against a retired IAS officer Mohammad Amin Khan were under investigation. Corruption and misappropriation of funds cases are pending against Abdul Qayoun Khan and Sarvesh Roy, both IFS, D K Nargotra, N K Verma, Ajit Kumar, A R Mubarki, Suresh Kumar, Sushma Choudhary, Mehboob Iqbal, Mohahhad Yehya Teli and A K Mehta, all IAS officers, the chief minister added. (Enclosure-1) As a result of machinations of Shri A.K. Mehta, he got his superior officer into trouble as the then Financial Commissioner (Finance) in the pay grade of Chief Secretary of J&K, Shri Ajit Kumar had to seek bail from the High Court of J&K which was dismissed by the Honble Mr Justice V.K Jhanji despite the petitioner being represented by an Advocate of the calibre of Shri Ram Jethmalani (Bail application No. 65/2004 dated 22nd September 2004). Shri A.K. Mehta escaped unscathed and put his superior officer into trouble. Shri A.K Mehta has made good use of this experience because despite having a case of corruption & misappropriation pending against him while working in the Grade of Director he got his promotion as Joint Secretary because no charge sheet had been issued to him. Thus the same analogy was applied by him to clear cases of Shri R.K Gautam & Shri C.S Mehra, who had been found responsible for the irregularities in Recruitment, by delaying Disciplinary action against them. Thus when such an officer openly takes up the cause of officers having doubtful working & clear vigilance cases against them it also raises several doubts. As Shri A.K. Mehta had worked as Director (JNNURM) in the Ministry of Urban Development from 5.12.2005 to 18.02.2008 and thereafter as Joint Secretary in the same Ministry from 18.02.2008 onwards he had developed close relations with Shri R.C Gupta, Shri L.R Gupta, Shri C.S Mehra, Shri R.K Gautam etc. The Lapses on the part of Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) are cited as under :-

(1) Irregularities in purchase of Computers & UPS in the Directorate of Printing :- Shri R.C Gupta was entrusted work of Establishment Branch vide Office Order No. 3/1/2007-Estt. dated 26.06.2007. The Ministry of Urban Development 80

vide its confidential O.M No. MOUD/PSP/ADS/Vigilance (Computers) dated 17.03.08 & 13.05.08 regarding irregularities in purchase of Computers, Printers & UPS had desired the re-allocation of work amongst Deputy Secretaries & Deputy Directors & that Shri R.C Gupta & Shri L.R Gupta are divested of work relating to purchase of goods & or award of service contracts. Shri S.M Acharya, Chief Vigilance Officer & Additional Secretary, MoUD had ordered on file that there are gross irregularities & action needs to be taken against these officials. The explanation of the officials were called for & examined & draft charge sheets along with recommendations of Director of Printing & HoD were submitted in File No. C-13011/14/2007-AV & case submitted to the Ministry of UD along with purchase File No.35/1/2002-Estt. of the Dte of Ptg. Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) who operates his machinations through his subordinates delayed the case file by putting some objection or the other so that the matter lingers on & never provided any guidance to the Directorate. The matter regarding doubtful integrity of these officers was also brought to the notice of the Vigilance Branch of the Ministry of Urban Development vide O.M No.C31019/1/2003-AV dated 09.12.2008 on the subject regarding scheme for preparation, maintenance and custody of list of public servants of Gazetted status of doubtful integrity for the year 2008 with reference to MoUD O.M No.C31020/1/2008-AV-II dated 2nd December 2008. (2) Case regarding divesting of work and re-constitution of Purchase Committee in the Directorate of Printing :- The Ministry of Urban Development vide its confidential O.M No. MOUD/PSP/ADS/Vigilance (Computers) dated 13.05.08 regarding irregularities in purchase of Computers, Printers & UPS had desired the re-allocation of work & that Shri R.C Gupta & Shri L.R Gupta are divested of work relating to purchase of goods & or award of service contracts & also to review orders dated 8.5.07 relating to constitution of new purchase committee. Thereafter these officials were divested of work relating to purchase & award of service contracts & the purchase committee was reconstituted by excluding these officers. The work allocation of officers was changed vide Office Order No.-1 of 2008 vide No. DP/O&M/2008 dated 09.06.2008. The officer had resented that he has been divested of the lucrative branches. In this regard Note dated 31.12.2008 also refers. (Enclosure -2) The Service Profile of Shri R.C Gupta is enclosed as (Enclosure 2(a) & the Service Profile of Shri L.R Gupta is placed at (Enclosure -2(b). But later on these officers were favored & let off lightly as the case was hushed up. Due to unsatisfactory working of Shri R. C Gupta some of the Branches were taken away & assigned to other officers vide Office Order No.21/2/2008-A.II dated 7th August 2009. Thereafter Shri R. C Gupta was divested of all work & given work of Official Language vide this Office Order No.1/3/2009-Estt. dated 4th December, 2009. The post of Joint Director (Admn.) was a GCS post to be filled up through Central deputation under Central Staffing Scheme so that there is impartiality in decisions & regular change of incumbents & flow of fresh talent is maintained. But the J.S(UD) deliberately favoured Shri R.C Gupta who was re-designated as Jt. Dir. (Admn) despite protests/objections by the Directorate of Printing keeping in view the past track record of the official & orders issued by the PSP Division vide Office Order No. A-12011/2/2008-Admn.I dated 01.12.2008, however the move of granting any more powers to the officer was strongly resisted as he did not enjoy the trust of the HoD & thus his getting back the so called lucrative branches was stalled. Thus Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) is responsible for encouraging such corrupt officials & granting them protection. 81

(3) Surreptitious removal of Vigilance Case File :- In the Vigilance case File No. C-13011/14/2007-AV regarding irregularities in purchase of Computers in the Directorate of Printing, the explanations of all the Officers had been called for & examined in the year 2007 in File No. C-13011/14/2007-AV, the Director of Printing re-examined the matter in detail & recommended for Disciplinary action against Shri R.C Gupta & Shri L.R Gupta etc & file was sent to Vigilance Branch of Ministry for submitting to the CVO & Addl. Secretary, who conveyed approval for taking Disciplinary action against these officers. Accordingly the Charge sheets were at finalization stage & under process of submission to the competent authority when the main file & linked file i.e. File No. C-13011/14/2007-AV & File No.35/1/2002-Estt. of the Dte of Ptg. were surreptitiously removed from the room of Shri G Ganesan, DS(P-I) & despite repeated search operations the file could not be traced. Internal notes had been circulated several times within the Directorate & search Memos issued but file was not traceable. A search Committee was also formed but it could not locate the file despite physical search of each Section/Branch in the Directorate. The loss of the File had been brought to the notice of the AV unit of Ministry vide Letter No. C.31019/1/2003-AV dated 17.12.09. The PSP Division was also intimated about loss of File vide Letter No. DS(P-I)/2009 dated 3rd March 2010 (Enclosure 3) & permission for lodging FIR was requested along with suitable Disciplinary action against Shri R.C Gupta & Shri L.R Gupta as needle of suspicion pointed towards these officials as they were the only ones who would have benefitted from such action. Most shockingly on receipt of Letter No. 35/1/2002-Estt. dated 3rd March 2010 of PSP Division it transpired that the files had somehow come into possession of the Ministry by doubtful means. Thus Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) is responsible for orchestrating the removal of file & taking up the cause of these corrupt officials.
(4) Case of submission of ambiguous & evasive note & obtaining ex-post facto approval through misrepresentation of facts by the PSP Division of MOUD :- The File No. C-13011/14/2007-AV regarding irregularities in purchase of Computers in the Directorate of Printing in the year 2007 in which draft chargesheets for issue were under submission to the competent authority, when the file was surreptitiously removed from the room of Shri G. Ganesan, DS (P-I) and the loss of the File had been brought to the notice of the AV unit of Ministry vide Letter No. C.31019/1/2003-AV dated 17.12.09 and the Ministry of UD vide Letter No. DS(P-I)/2009 dated 3rd March 2010 & permission for lodging FIR was requested along with suitable Disciplinary action against Shri R.C Gupta & Shri L.R Gupta as their conduct appeared doubtful. Surprisingly, after issue of this Letter No. DS(P-I)/2009 dated 3rd March 2010 an endorsement of PSP Divisions Letter No. 35/1/2002-Estt. dated 3rd March 2010 from Shri K.L Bhatia, US(Ptg) addressed to Shri K.G Mohanta, US(Admn.) was received from the Ministry in which photocopies of extracts of lost File in File No. 35/1/2002-Estt. of Directorate of Printing in which the ex-post facto approval for irregular purchase had been orchestrated by the Joint Secretary (UD) Shri A.K Mehta by rotating the File between officers junior to him i.e. Deputy Secretary/Director level officers in Finance and Vigilance Branch and the File was not submitted to the Chief Vigilance Officer & Additional Secretary (UD) & even the JS(Mission) Shri P.K Srivastava who is the link officer, did not clear the file & asked PSP Division on 30.12.2009 to submit file to JS(UD) on his return from leave. The ex-post facto approval was obtained through misrepresentation of facts as the Secretary (UD) gave ex-post facto approval with remarks, O.K. But Dir. should be advised not to repeat this. Thus Secretary (UD) actually gave approval thinking Director had committed the lapse & hence was lenient because an ambiguous & evasive note was deliberately submitted in File & the fair name & reputation of honest officers was misused & sullied once again. Shri A.K Mehta had been conveniently passing on all the lapses & corrupt practices of his favoured officials as well as those lapses committed in the past upon the DOP during his oral briefings to Secretary (UD). The file had

82

also not been shown to CVO & AS (UD) deliberately. Thus Shri A.K Mehta has once again furthered the cause of an official of doubtful integrity as Shri R.C Gupta has managed with the connivance of officials of PSP Division in suppressing & misrepresentation of facts & also instrumental in removal of file from the custody of Shri G. Ganesan as he alone would be the direct beneficiary of such action. (5) Unilateral Vigilance clearance and relieving orders of Shri R.C Gupta, DS(P-II) :Shri R.C Gupta had joined as Deputy Secretary, DG(W) CPWD, New Delhi on 07.09.2005 & worked there till 31.01.2007. Due to some vigilance related problem he was all of a sudden shifted from CPWD & transferred from O/o DG CPWD vide MOUD Office Order No. A22017/1/2005-Admn. I dated 6th September 2006 vice Shri I.C Kamboj working in Dte of Ptg who was transferred to CPWD. But since Shri I.C Kamboj was to retire from service on 31.01.2007, he resented the transfer. Thereafter as per Ministry of UD Office Order No. A22017/1/2005-Admn. I dated 3rd October 2006 it was decided that Shri I.C Kamboj will continue to draw his salary from the Directorate of Printing till his retirement while Shri R.C Gupta was to draw his salary from DG CPWD till 31.1.2007 to avoid dislocation of pension case of Shri I.C Kamboj. Thus Shri R.C Gupta formally joined Directorate of Printing on 01.02.2007. The fact regarding doubtful integrity of Shri R.C Gupta & other officers was also brought to the notice of the Vigilance Branch of the Ministry of Urban Development vide O.M. No. C-13019/4/2008-AV dated 26.11.2009 and also this office O.M. No. C-31019/1/2003-AV dated 17.12.2009 on the subject maintenance and custody of list of public servants of doubtful integrity for the year 2009. The Director of Printing & HoD had not granted the officer Vigilance clearance & a Secret Note has been enclosed with his ACR for the year 2008-09 & APAR for the year 2009-10 as per provisions laid down in Ministry of Home Affairs O.M No. 51/4/64-Estt.(A) dated 21.06.1965, which has been accepted & agreed to by the JS(UD) in his capacity as Reviewing Officer. Thus it is surprising that Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) granted Vigilance clearance to the official. Shri R.C Gupta got himself unilaterally relieved from the Directorate of Printing with the backing & support of Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD).

(6) Irregularities in fixing of Sanctioned Strength in Government Presses :The sanctioned strength of Government Presses was issued & signed by Shri R.C. Gupta vide Office Order No. 20(5)/2002-A.III dated 18.5.2007 & he failed to verify & check the contents of these Orders before issue. The Ministry of UD pointed out large-scale discrepancies in February 2008 in File No.20/5/2002-A.III (Vol.III) dated 6.2.2008 & various other files & called for explanation vide letter No.A-12030/1/2008Ptg. dated 27.10.2008 & D.S (P-I) submitted detailed explanatory note in File No. 20/5/2002-A-III (Vol.III) the Ministry of UD conveyed displeasure vide its Memorandum cum ID Note No.12030/1/2008-Ptg. dated 9.1.2009. Thus Shri A.K Mehta, Joint Secretary (UD) was able to successfully deflect attention from the lapses of Shri R.C Gupta and diverted focus from the Officer and laid the entire blame upon other officers who were not even in position at that time. Despite such favouritism by the JS (UD) the draft charge sheets under Rule-16 (Minor penalty) in respect of all the officials including Shri R.C Gupta was submitted to the Ministry of UD in File No. C.13019/2/2008-AV for irregularities in issuing O.O dated 18.5.2007. But the PSP Dvn. of Ministry took no action deliberately & delayed the case file with the intention of favouring & protecting the vested interests of these Officers.
(7) Irregularities in recruitment & filling up of posts in Government of India Presses :- In File No. 20(5) 2002-A-II dated 27.6.07 action was initiated for recruitment & filling up of all the posts in Government of India Presses. Shri R.C Gupta was overall incharge of the Recruitment process at Headquarters & a large number of irregularities & complaints of favouritism were received & Shri Ajay Maken, Honble MOS (UD) vide Note

83

No. D-373/MOS (UD)/2008 dated 01.04.2008 desired that due to large scale complaints of irregularities in the Recruitment process it needs to be stopped with immediate effect. The PSP Division vide its O.M No. A-12031/1/2008-Ptg dated 3rd April 2008 issued orders for suspension of the Recruitment/filling up of posts & called for a compliance report by 04.04.2008. Thus Shri R.C Gupta was found responsible for mishandling the entire Recruitment process in the Headquarters office & for encouraging favouritism & corruption as a result in GIP Nilokheri the Manager took interview of 208 candidates for the post of Labourer on 2.4.2008 and 151 candidates on 3.4.2008 & 33 candidates joined the Press on the same day i.e. 3.4.2008 i.e. date on which orders for stopping Recruitment had been issued. The JS (UD), Shri A.K Mehta, allowed these officers a free hand & did not take any strong action. (8) Vigilance Inquiry into irregularities in Recruitment in various GIPs by CVO & AS (UD) :- The CVO & Additional Secretary (UD) carried out Vigilance Inquiry into the irregularities in Recruitment in the various GIPs and had cited large-scale lapses for which officials working in Headquarters including Shri R.C Gupta are also responsible. For instance in File No.C-13019/2/2008-AV the Inquiry Report of CVO in respect of GIP Ring Road has been examined. In the Investigation Report of CVO & Additional Secretary vide Para-2 (a) has mentioned that Posts advertised by GIP Mayapuri in December 2007 was in excess of approved number of posts essentially required to be filled as per Directorate of Printing Office Order No. 20(5)/2002-A.III dated 18.05.2007. As per Para-9(f) of MOUD ID No. A12031/1/2008-Ptg dated 8th June 2009 it has clearly been mentioned that Majority of appointments made were relatives of existing employees of the Press which could not be on merit alone and nepotism and favouritism cannot be ruled out. As per Para-(v) the CVO has mentioned in findings that 61 out of 110 appointments made were relatives of existing employees of the Press which could not be on merit alone and nepotism & favouritism cannot be ruled out. The Vigilance Inquiry of the Ministry did not fix responsibility & merely endorsed & built upon what had already been stated in the Preliminary Investigation Reports of the Directorate. Such an important case having far reaching implications & All India repercussions was unfortunately not handed over to the CBI & investigation kept in-house, whereas a comparatively insignificant case of GIP Koratty regarding sale of waste paper, the case had been investigated by the CBI in which it was alleged that the Manager, GIP Koratty had unauthorisedly released the Security Deposit amount of Rs.64, 000/- in respect of a Waste Paper Contract given to Shri P.S. Rajan for the year 1999-2000. The subsequent Contractor had quoted lower rate and the difference between the two rates was a mere Rs.12, 920/-. The Manager had contended that since Rs.23, 369/- had been recovered as penalty for godown charges from the previous Contractor for non-lifting of waste paper thus there was no loss as recovery was more. However the CBI proceeded against the Deputy Manager, AM(A) and General Store Keeper and filed charge-sheet under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Ernakulam. The case is still going on for the last 10 years in the CBI Court in Koratty & the Officers involved are suffering for no fault of theirs as they could not get promotion or ACP whereas the case is of a petty nature & a result of staff rivalry. In this case the JS(D&L), who was exercising statutory powers of Director of Printing as post of Director of Printing & HOD was vacant, had decided that these officials of GIP Koratty should not continue in the same place and should be transferred. Thus transfer of officials is an important preventive vigilance measure and is required to be strictly enforced uniformly but Shri A.K Mehta circumvented the transfer/posting orders of Shri C.S Mehra & Shri R.K Gautam by taking up their unjustified cause. The lapses on the part of these officials found responsible for irregularities in Recruitment in the GIPs are much graver as compared to these officials of GIP Koratty, but a very lenient view has been selectively taken in the case of recruitment irregularities. Thus the entire Recruitment process was vitiated for which Shri R.C Gupta & other officers in the Headquarters were responsible & whose interests were being protected by Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) by diverting attention from the main issue.

84

(9) Case of issue of irregular dual charge arrangement of Manager, GIP Nilokheri, Haryana under the Directorate of Printing :- The post of Manager GIP Nilokheri fell vacant due to retirement and Shri S.R Bodra, Manager GIP Ring Road, Delhi was given dual charge vide O.M No.21/2/2006-A-II(Pt) dated 1.2.2007. The Recruitment process in GIP Nilokheri was commenced on 17.12.2007 and he had fixed date of interview for 03 category of posts i.e. Offset Machineman, Offset Machine Assistant and Offset Machine Attendant on 27.01.2008. Shri R.C Gupta in order to favour Shri C.S Mehra abruptly changed the dual charge arrangement midway at crucial stage of Recruitment & issued orders for holding of additional charge of GIP Nilokheri to Shri C.S Mehra, Dy. Dir (B&F) at headquarters vide Order No.40/1/2005/A-II dated 25.01.2008. Shri C.S Mehra had previously worked as Manager GIP Nilokheri from 29.04.2003 to 03.03.2005. The PSP Division of Ministry of UD vide Confidential Note No. A-36019/1/2008-Ptg dated 25.2.2008 asked the Directorate to cancel the orders of dual charge arrangement of Shri C.S Mehra and it was also directed that the Additional Director, may examine & take necessary action for regularization of valid actions without any infirmity taken by DD (B&F) in terms of the said office orders. Since the post of Director of Printing had remained vacant for a long time therefore as per Gazette Notification No. SO 1982(E) dated 23rd November 2007 the Joint Secretary (UD) was the appointing authority in respect of Group-B and C posts in the Dte of Prtg & GIPs. It was also stated therein that the Additional Director cannot exercise powers of transfer of officials as statutory powers are vested with JS (UD) & that the transfer of Shri C.S Mehra & Shri Q Mohiuddin is not correct. Shri R.C Gupta failed to take immediate action & delayed orders for relieving of Shri C.S Mehra. Shri C.S Mehra relinquished charge of GIP Nilokheri on 23.04.2008 i.e. after two months of the issue of Ministries Orders dated 25.2.2008. Later on Shri A.K Mehta sided & protected Shri C.S Mehra & trivialised his serious lapses by deliberately playing them down. (10) Irregular appointments made by Shri C.S Mehra, Dy. Dir. (B&F) in the Directorate of Printing :- Shri C.S Mehra, Deputy Director (B&F) in headquarters, was the principle offender & had been found responsible for gross irregularities in recruitment in GIP Nilokheri as per the Preliminary Inquiry Report as well as Vigilance Report of CVO & Additional Secretary. His holding of dual charge of GIP Nilokheri was found irregular, as per PSP Division Note No. A-36019/1/2008-Ptg dated 25.2.2008 in which the Directorate was asked to cancel the orders of dual charge arrangement of Shri C.S Mehra. The explanation of Shri S.R Bodra was called for vide O.M No. 40/1/2005-A-II dated 8th February 2008 that during the period of his holding additional charge of post of Manager GIP Nilokheri a large number of irregularities were noticed. But the explanation of Shri C.S Mehra was not obtained. Shri J.P Aggarwal, Additional Director (Admn) & HOD issued orders of cancellation of dual charge arrangement 4 days after the Recruitment process had been suspended i.e. on 07.04.2008 and after a period of more than two months from the date of receipt of PSP Divisions Note No. A-36019/1/2008-Ptg dated 25.2.2008 & orders of cancellation of dual charge arrangement was deliberately clubbed with the promotion/posting & general posting orders & issued vide O.O No. 21/2/2008-A-II dated 7.4.2008, but Shri C.S Mehra relinquished charge of GIP Nilokheri only on 23.04.2008 after he had irregularly appointed & hurriedly allowed joining of candidates despite the fact that orders for suspension of Recruitment had been issued vide O.M No. 23/1/2008-A-I dated 3rd April 2008 following receipt of orders of Honble MOS (UD) Shri Ajay Maken vide Note No. D-373/MOS(UD)/2008 dated 01.04.2008 . 85

(11) Officer of doubtful integrity appointed as Controller of Publications :- In the case of Shri C.S Mehra, Deputy Director (B&F) in headquarters, he was the principle offender & had been found responsible for gross irregularities in recruitment in GIP Nilokheri as per the Preliminary Investigation Report dated 5.4.2008 in File No.C-13019/2/2008-AV & Vigilance Report of CVO & Additional Secretary dated 8.06.2009 received as per MOUD ID Note No. A-12031/1/2008-Ptg dated 8th June 2009. The Vigilance Inquiry file in which issue regarding fixing of responsibility & issue of charge sheet to various officers including Shri C.S Mehra was to be examined was got delayed & the file regarding deputation for the post of Controller of Publications was first got cleared despite the fact that the CVO had not granted Vigilance clearance in file regarding promotion case of officer in General Manager grade. Moreover in the ACR of year 2007-08 the integrity of the officer was not clear and shown as under observation. In retaliation Shri C.S Mehra had refused to submit his ACR for the year 2008-09 and APAR for the year 2009-10 and his ACR & APAR were not initiated by the Reporting Officer Shri A.K Sinha out of fear due to the clout enjoyed by him as he had the backing of Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) & the then Secretary(UD). The Vigilance clearance certificate is valid only for three months & has to be obtained afresh, which was not done. Thus Shri C.S Mehra whose integrity was doubtful & who had not been granted vigilance clearance by the HoD on previous occasion, as the Director of Printing is the cadre controlling authority & later on the CVO & A.S (UD) did not give clearance for promotion in GM grade & the officer was posted as Controller of Publications & HoD on deputation basis as the selected officer, Shri L.K. Chopra had not joined the post (PSP Letter No. A12025/1/2007/PBN dated 01.12.2009). The name of Shri C.S Mehra had also been intimated to Vigilance Branch vide O.M. No. C-13019/4/2008-AV dated 26.11.2009 and O.M. No. C-31019/1/2003-AV dated 17.12.2009 on the subject maintenance and custody of list of public servants of doubtful integrity for the year 2009. The Vigilance Branch was also conducting inquiry into disproportionate assets case of Shri C.S Mehra & matter was examined in File No.C-29011/3/2005-AV and File No.C13019/4/2008-AV of the Directorate with reference to O.M.No.C-13015/9/2009-AV.I dated August 27, 2009 from US(AV.I), Ministry of Urban Development. (12) Court Case of Shri R.K Gautam, AM(T) Government of India Press, Ring Road, Directorate of Printing :- Similarly Shri A.K Mehta, the Joint Secretary (UD) had gone out of his way to grant promotion to Shri R.K Gautam despite issue of two Rule-16 charge sheets to the official in connection with irregularities in recruitment in GIP Ring Road & based on Vigilance Inquiry Report of CVO & AS(UD). In File No. C 13012/9/2008-AV the matter regarding pending FIR No. 726/06 at P.S Dabri U/s 498-A IPC by the ASJ New Delhi dated 8.8.2006 against Shri R.K Gautam was also examined as the official had not intimated the Department regarding this case. Shri R.K Gautam had also brought pressure upon the DOP & HOD through his elder brother Shri Ram Kumar a PCS Officer from UP & a habitual names dropper who had incidentally also worked under Dr. M Ramachandran while posted in UP cadre. Shri Ram Kumar had been dismissed from service in the year 2000 on charges of corruption & possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The CAT had later ordered his reinstatement in 2003 and he retired from service in 2008. Thereafter it is learnt he became politically active & had joined the BSP. (File No. C13012/9/2008-AV) Moreover in an unprecedented move, the PSP Division filed a separate reply on behalf of the Ministry in the CAT case of official & returned the draft reply of Directorate of Printing without approving it. The Secretary (UD) later 86

remarked In F.No.17/9/2008-A.II, Saw this today on return from leave. Someone should carefully go through all this and in the process avoid any contradiction and keep time lines in view Accordingly the matter was examined to compare the contradictions in the two replies, & several inconsistencies in reply of the Ministry had been found & put up for information in File No. 63/2/2009-A-II (Vol.II)(Pt.II). However the Secretary (UD) ignored the grave lapses on the part of JS(UD). Later on the JS (UD) brought pressure & insisted that Shri R.K Gautam be posted as Manager GIP Aligarh & orders had to be issued accordingly vide Order No. 17/9/2008-A-II(Pt.) dated 5th March 2010, despite the fact that the official had been held responsible for irregularities in recruitment in GIP Ring Road based on the Vigilance Inquiry Report of CVO & AS(UD) which was received vide MOUD ID Note No. A-12031/1/2008-Ptg dated 8th June 2009 & the Directorate of Printing was asked to fix responsibility. However the entire effort was wasted as already issued charge sheets to Shri R.K Gautam became inoperative & Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) became successful in his machinations. (13) Case of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, UDC in the Directorate of Printing :- In the case of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, UDC in the Directorate of Printing, while working as Enforcement Inspector in the Directorate of Estates was issued a major penalty charge sheet after the CBI found him guilty. The case was at crucial decision stage & the Disciplinary Authority was to consider as to whether to agree or disagree with the findings of the I.O. The official filed case in CAT. The Joint Secretary (UD) raised certain objections in File that the Director of Printing is not competent to decide the Disciplinary case of the official & said that either Shri V.K Sharma, Director (Admn) was the competent authority or Shri R.C Gupta, DS (P-II) redesignated as Jt. Dir(Admn.) specifically for this purpose, was the competent authority. This is allegation No.-3 in File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. & MOUD File No. A-28012/1/2010-Admn.-I & PSP Dvn. File No. 28012/1/2010-Ptg. also refers. He refused to accept the fact that in the past Shri H.A Yadav the regular Director of Printing had decided the Major penalty disciplinary cases of Shri SS Bhatia, UDC in file No. C-14013/1/96-AV, Shri Niranjan Lal, LDC in file No. C-14013/3/96-AV, Shri Bhag Singh, UDC in file No. C-14013/1/97-AV, Shri R. K Minocha, UDC in file No. C-14013/12/95-AV & numerous other cases & Shri A. K Mehta, JS (UD) repeatedly put objections in file & referred & re-referred case file to DoPT & delayed decision in the matter till CAT quashed the charge sheet on the grounds of delay in decision in the case. (Enclosure-4) The case file was being prepared for further appeal in High Court against unjustified orders of CAT as Disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature & courts do not normally interfere in such matters & first allow the Disciplinary Authority to take decision. As a result Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) was desperate to get rid of the Director of Printing, who had been selected by the UPSC specifically for this technical post, & was keen to replace the legitimately appointed Officer with his own person & give charge of office to Shri V.K Sharma, an Officer of Central Secretariat Service & working as Director (Admn), in the Ministry of UD so that he could favour corrupt & manipulative officials. (14) Orders of Honble UDM flouted :- The Honble Urban Development Minister (UDM) had approved the proposal moved by the Honble MOS(UD) regarding Ad hoc promotion of Shri A.K Sinha vide 103/N of File No. 25/2/2004-A-II(Vol.) dated 18.03.08 (Enclosure-5) and (Enclosure-5a). However the officers in PSP Division deliberately inter-mixed the two separate issues regarding Ad-hoc promotion & regular promotion of the officer & created confusion & the orders of Honble UDM 87

were not carried out on the pretext that DOPT & UPSC had not given approval which was actually regarding regular promotion and thus stalled Ad-hoc promotion also. Detailed note dated 15.5.2009 from 49/N to 51/N in File No. 25/2/2006-A.II refers. Thus the orders of Honble UDM were overruled by Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) deliberately, for which he was not competent. (15) Orders of Honble MOS(UD) challenged :- In the case of construction of Samaj Sadan in GIP Ring Road the Honble MOS (UD) had taken a meeting on 13.10.2008 and given clear written orders in meeting and also conveyed vide Letter No. D-1236/MOS/UD/08 dated 13.10.08 (Enclosure-6) & accordingly administrative clearance was given by HOD & CPWD addressed to obtain Expenditure sanction. However the JS (UD) called for explanation (File No. 3/23/2007-T&P) of DOP knowingly & it was only on the intervention of Honble MOS (UD) tha t the matter was settled. Thus the orders of Honble MOS (UD) were challenged by Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) knowingly. (16) Reversal of already decided issue :- Shri A.K Mehta, Joint Secretary (UD) brought the entire Department to a standstill by reversing and questioning the decision of the Ministry which had been approved by his predecessor Shri M. Rajamani Joint Secretary (UD) (under whom Shri A.K Mehta had worked as Director (JNURM)) and raising numerous questions about the sanctioned strength already fixed vide Office Order No. 20(5)/2002-A.II, dated 18.5.2007 which was issued in consultation with Ministry of Finance vide I.D. No.-911/E.Coord.I/2003 dated 14.5.2003 and I.D. No. 158/Dir.(Pay)/E.Coord.I/2007 dated 14.2.2007 and with the approval of the Ministry of Urban Development. The Ministry of UD had in its submissions before the Parliamentary Standing Committee intimated that the revised sanctioned strength has been issued on 18.05.2007 & action for filling up of posts is likely to be completed by December 2007 (Page-16 of 28th Report). The Work Plan for implementation of O.O dated 18.05.2007 had also been conveyed by the Ministry vide O.M No. G-20017/4/2007-Ptg dated 16th May 2007. The discrepancies if any were of very minor nature and did not warrant the stalling of all promotion cases and revival of lapsed posts. Moreover it is the duty of the MOUD to issue Gazette Notification which is also one of the flimsy objections raised as an afterthought. The Joint Secretary (UD), Shri A.K Mehta is therefore responsible for demoralising the whole Department by creating avoidable & unnecessary hurdles in promotion cases of officials in the Presses in violation of DOPT O.M No.11013/2/2004-Estt(A) dated 16th February 2004. As a result the Technical Officers had also filed a case in CAT regarding delay in promotion cases.
(17) Case of purchase of Rota Binder machine :- The matter regarding purchase of Rota Binder machine was examined in File No.C-13011/9/2007-AV but technical advice of the Director of Printing & HoD was overruled without citing any technical justification & the senior most Officer from technical line was issued Memo vide No. MOUD/PSP/ADS/Vigilance (Computers) dated 5th December 2008 against the advice of the technical head of the Directorate & despite the fact that the machine had not been purchased at all. The Director of Printing to the Government of India provides technical advice to all Departments/Ministries on all matters related to Printing. The Director of Printing or his nominees are members of various committees & provide technical expertise & advice. For example the Director of Printing was nominated as Chairman of the Technical Committee constituted vide Ministry of Information & Broadcastings letter No.EN52011/1/2005-06/Prod. dated 19.5.2009 for review & fixing the wastage percentage for printing of Employment News/Rozgar Samachar. The Ministry of Information &

88

Broadcasting accepted the recommendations of the Committee headed by the Director of Printing. There are numerous instances in which technical advice has been provided by the Directorate, but ironically the Ministry of UD is the only Ministry which does not accept the technical advice of the Directorate of Printing & routinely over rules it on purely non technical considerations. To cite an example in 2005 the technical cadre officers i.e. Deputy Director (Ptg.) and Deputy Director (B&F) had submitted their application resigning from the technical committee. (Enclosure-7). In fact everyone else i.e. the General line Officers in the Ministry, the Finance Wing and the Procurement Officer of India Supply Service of DGS&D all interfere in the technical specifications which have led to clashes because the ultimate responsibility falls upon the technical officers & these other officers who take proactive interest in interfering in specifications & technical matters later on get away by saying that they are not technocrats. Thus the high handed attitude of these Officials has led to a lot of frustration & demoralised honest technical officers. Thus Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) is responsible for issue of unjustified & baseless Memo as a pressure tactic so that he can impose his unjustified diktat. (18) Case of Shri G Ganesan, DS (P-I) in the Directorate of Printing :- Shri G Ganesan, Deputy Secretary (P-I) was issued a warning vide O.M No. O-17034/9/2009-Ptg dated 1.12.2009 by the JS (UD) on flimsy grounds despite the fact that the Ministry had itself noted in a file on 24.3.2004 that, with no technical expertise available with the Ministry of UD & PA the advice of the Technical Committee headed by the JD(T) on technical matters is being taken as final verdict (Enclosure-8) because the Director of Printing to the Government of India is the technical adviser to all Ministries/Departments on all Printing related matters and the post was lying vacant & hence the second senior most technical officers advice i.e. that of JD(Tech), was being taken as final opinion. Thus Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) is responsible for issuing Memos on flimsy grounds in order to throw his weight around & misuse his position & authority. (19) Case of Shri P.K Kailasa Babu, DS (Pub.& Sty.) in the Directorate of Printing :Shri P.K Kailasa Babu was posted in the Directorate of Printing vide Ministry of U.Ds Office Order No.A-22017/1/2007-Admn.I(Pt.) dated 23.6.2008, and further assigned work of Department of Publications & Government of India Stationary Office vide Office Order No.25/3/2008-A.II dated 25th June, 2008. However Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) objected to his exercising statutory & financial powers & insisted that independent charge is not to be given & thus Corrigendum of even no. dated 27.6.2008 had to be issued that he will assist the Director of Printing who will exercise all statutory powers. Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) has been selectively victimizing & targeting honest officers and has given protection to corrupt officers despite the fact that the work & conduct of these officers appeared doubtful to the HOD. He has falsely doubted the integrity of Shri P.K Kailasa Babu without any evidence & no information was provided by the Ministry of UD. Since Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) was taking up the cause of all kinds of tainted officers & furthering their interests, thus it was felt that there should not be any problem in handing over charge of COP & COS to Shri P.K Kailasa Babu & Shri R.K Roy, especially since nothing adverse came to notice regarding their work & conduct. Thus an Office Note dated 08.06.2009 (Enclosure-9) was submitted to Shri A.K Mehta, JS (UD) with reference to O.M No. A-19011/1/2002-Sty dated 17.6.2008 vide which dual charge of Controller of Publications & Controller of Stationary was assigned to me & requested that I had been holding the dual charge of two more Departments for last one year & was overburdened & requested that charge of these two Departments could be given to Shri P.K Kailasa Babu & Shri R.K Roy respectively. However the JS (UD) said it is not possible to agree to hand over independent charge to Shri P.K Kailasa Babu for reasons best known to him. Nothing adverse came to notice during the period and he was given a clear integrity certificate in his ACR for the year 2008-09 & APAR for the year 2009-10 as per provisions laid down in Ministry of Home Affairs O.M No. 51/4/64-Estt.(A) dated 21.06.1965 regarding recording of a separate Secret Note. Ironically Shri A.K Mehta furthered the cause of Shri C.S Mehra who was not given a clear Vigilance Certificate and

89

he was appointed as the Controller of Publications, thus misusing the government provisions in rules by delaying the case file of issue of charge sheet due to extraneous considerations.

(20) Misrepresentation of facts regarding delegation of powers of HOD :- As per Extraordinary Gazette Notification {Part-II Section 3 Sub-Section(ii)} No.S.O.1982(E) dated 23.11.2007, the Joint Secretary in the Ministry was exercising the powers of Director of Printing because the post of Director of Printing was lying vacant. As per Ministry of UD letter No.A-36019/1/2008-Ptg. dated 25.2.2008 vide Para 4, it has been stated therein that It is clarified that the Delegation of Financial Powers Rules (DFPR), 1978 provides that an officer in the scale of pay equivalent to Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India can be conferred powers of HOD. Director of Printing, being head of an attached office, has been included in Schedule-I of DFPRs. The powers vested in HOD in terms of DFPR/FRs/SRs have been conferred upon Additional Director (Admn.). Govt. of India vide Notification dated 23.11.2007 has conferred statutory powers of Appointing Authority vested in Director of Printing on JS(UD). Therefore, it is not correct that officer conferred powers of HOD in terms of DFPRs/FR/SR has full power to transfer officers upto the rank of GM. The administrative powers vested in Director of Printing can be exercised by JS(UD). However these orders were later flouted & powers were given to Director (Admn) in the Ministry of UD in the Pre-revised Pay Scale of Rs. 14300-400-18300. The delegation of powers should have been issued in favour of the Joint Director (Technical) in the Pre-revised Pay Scale of Rs. 14300-400-18300, who is the senior most technical officer and in the direct line of promotion to the post of Director of Printing. The post of Director (Admn) in the Ministry of UD is a general line post which is a lower post to the Director of Printing in the Pre-revised Pay Scale of Rs. 16400-450-20,000, & thus such delegation of powers was in gross violation of rules. (21) Abrogation of powers of Appointing Authority :- In file No.20/5/2002-A.III (Vol.III), the PSP Division had been stressing that one representative from the Ministry should also be included in the recruitment to the post of Group D and it was with great difficulty that the officials of PSP Division were restrained from interfering in the powers of the Appointing Authority and it was clarified that the Managers are the Appointing Authority & no extraneous authority can abrogate powers of Appointing Authority & interfere in the recruitment process. (Enclosure-10) (22) Delegation of Powers to lower authority in contravention of Ministry of Law & Justice & DOPT advice :- As the post of Director of Printing, (Chairman of DPC as well as Appointing Authority), and the post of Joint Director (Technical) (Member-I of DPC) remained vacant on the retirement of last regular incumbents w.e.f 01.08.2003 and 1.8.2004 respectively, DPC had not been held for years in the Directorate of Printing. In the absence of appointing authority for Group 'B' posts in GIPs, the powers of Appointing Authority had been delegated to the Joint Secretary (UD) in consultation with the Ministry of Law & Justice, vide Gazette Notification No.15/9/2006-A.II dated 23.11.2007. Thereafter the proposal for constituting ad-hoc DPC comprising of JS (UD) as Chairman; Addl. Director (Admn) DOP, as Member-I and General Manager posted at HQ as Member-II, was referred to DOP&T and Ministry of Law, Legal Affairs well before approval for delegating powers of appointing authority to JS (UD), in the month of October 2007. The Department of Legal Affairs opined that since there is no such provision in the Recruitment Rules for delegation of powers of appointing authority to another officer, amendment in the Recruitment Rules have to be made. The DOP&T opined that even though any 90

change in DPC composition require amendment in RRs, but since JS (UD)/JS (H) have been notified as competent authority for appointment/disciplinary cases etc, they may not have any objection to notified authorities discharging statutory function of Director of Printing which is vacant. This is subject to concurrence of Ministry of Law. As such no cases for promotion could materialize even though proposals were ready for consideration of DPC. The JS (UD) has now got the statutory powers delegated to a lower authority i.e. the Director (Admn) in the Ministry who is not even eligible to hold the post of Director of Printing & HOD, by suppressing these facts. (23) Deliberately stalling the Ad-hoc promotion cases in GIPs :- Since the already decided case of sanctioned strength of Government of India Presses was reopened & questioned by Shri A.K Mehta, Joint Secretary (UD) & continuance of posts placed under dispute, it was decided to process the Ad-hoc promotion cases so that crucial operative posts in the GIPs could be filled up & normal functioning of the Department could be restored & Printing Operations work did not suffer. In the case of Ad-hoc promotions the Ministry of UD was competent authority. However the JS (UD) refused to process the Ad-hoc promotion cases. The Staff & Service Unions were very much agitated at such step motherly treatment as the JS (UD) had cleared Ad-hoc promotion cases of Group-C staff of CSS working in the Directorate & in the Ministry of UD and the Service Unions had approached the Honble MOS (UD) Shri Ajay Maken. The MOS (UD) called for first meeting to discuss the issue of promotion in GIPs on 21.11.2008 vide Meeting Notice No. Addl. PS/MOS (UD)/08/1360 dated 19.11.2008 which was not attended by the JS (UD) deliberately on the pretext that he was busy. The Honble MOS discussed the matter with Director of Printing, General Manager(HQ), Deputy Secretary(P-I) & Service Unions and seeing that the Director of Printing was keen to clear all the Ad-hoc promotion cases & regular promotion cases and delay was on part of Ministry the Honble MOS (UD) again called for meeting on 01.12.2008 vide Meeting Notice No. Addl. PS/MOS (UD)/08/1372 dated 28.11.2008 but the Joint secretary sought exemption again & later in file the Ad-hoc promotion cases of officials were not cleared & file returned. Such arbitrary action & deliberate stalling of Ad-hoc promotions also resulted in filing of case in CAT by the Technical Officers Association. Thus the Joint Secretary (UD) deliberately flouted the orders of Honble MOS (UD). (24) Resistance to steps taken for transparency & routing out corruption :Shri A.K Mehta, Joint Secretary (UD) felt that I was upsetting the invisible chain painstakingly nurtured by these officials in the Ministry & formed over the years in respect of all purchase orders and was unable to adjust to the work environment because I had ordered that all sanction memos of bills should be stamped prominently DO NOT PAY BRIBE. The JS (UD) felt uncomfortable as being a lady officer the Joint Secretary could not directly ask me to favour certain firms in procurement matters & operated through Shri R.R Sharma, Dy. Secy (PSP) & Shri Srinivasulu, Dy. Dir.(Proc.). The JS (UD) felt uncomfortable with my honesty and transparency and leveled false allegations in an attempt to find justification for his machinations. In the year 2008 Diwali was celebrated on 28 th October and in 2009 on 17th October. It will be seen that the Joint Secretary stepped up the number of explanations which would increase all of a sudden nearabouts Diwali as he was obliged to justify and show results to various vested interests which had been thwarted due to my transparent working style. Explanations and Memos had become routine and were being issued on frivolous grounds & only the honest officers were being targeted & dishonest & corrupt officials were being protected. 91

For example Shri A.K Sinha, General Manager has been issued a Memo vide Memo No. MOUD/PSP/ADS/Vigilance (Computers) dated 5th December 2008 (Enclosure11) regarding purchase of Rota Binder Machine which was actually not purchased at all, Shri G. Ganesan, Deputy Secretary had also been issued a O.M No. O17034/9/2009-Ptg dated 1.12.2009 (Enclosure-12). As Shri A.K. Mehta had worked as Director (JNNURM) in the Ministry of Urban Development from 5.12.2005 to 18.02.2008 and thereafter as Joint Secretary in the same Ministry from 18.02.2008 onwards he had close relations with manipulative & corrupt officials like Shri R.C Gupta, Shri L.R Gupta, Shri C.S Mehra, Shri R.K Gautam, Shri L.N Aggarwal etc and provided them protection, but on the other hand he would be persecuting honest officers and would level false allegations against them so that they were all the time occupied in submitting replies & explanations & be on the defensive for no apparent fault. (25) Delay tactics to stall the Vigilance Inquiry :- The Director of Printing recommended for handing over the vigilance case of irregularities in recruitment in the Government Presses to the CBI as it is a specialised Agency. However the Joint Secretary was in favour of keeping the matter in-house & getting it inquired internally as there is lot of scope available for Ministerial manoeuvring, in order to save his favoured officers i.e. Shri C.S. Mehra, Shri S.R Bodra, Shri R.K. Gautam etc & officials in headquarters i.e. Shri R.C Gupta, Shri L.R Gupta etc who had been found responsible for the gross irregularities in the Departmental Investigation carried out by the Directorate of Printing into the irregularities in GIPs, Ring Road and Nilokheri. Had the case been given to CBI, which is a specialized agency and has full time experienced investigating officers who would have conducted the inquiry in a time bound manner, the case would have reached its finality in all the six inquiries conducted in the GIPs within 6 months time and Charge sheets would also have been issued to all the Principle and Subsidiary Offenders. However, in order to delay the case so that the promotion cases of these officials are processed first, the Vigilance Inquiry was kept in house & without any specific terms of reference or fixed time frame. As a result, only two inquiries i.e. Inquiry Report of GIP Ring Road, Delhi and GIP Minto Road, Delhi were conducted in the course of one year. The fact that the AS&CVO had been entrusted with the Vigilance Inquiry was first intimated to the Directorate of Printing vide Office Note dated 24.12.2008 received from P.S to JS(UD) & the terms of reference of Vigilance Inquiry were not known (Enclosure-13) and neither the purpose or logic as to why the most crucial task of fixing responsibility was not entrusted & the Vigilance Inquiry was allowed to remain inconclusive. In the last one year, the inquiry in only 2 Presses has been completed and inquiry into 4 Presses is yet to be carried out which will roughly take two more years and by that time Shri C.S. Mehra and Shri R.K Gautam etc would have retired and got away lightly. Thereafter in order to expedite the inquiry, the CVO had requisitioned the services of Shri Anil Kumar, Deputy Director (Vigilance) of the Directorate of Printing to assist him in the inquiry as per intimation received vide Order No. A-12031/1/2008-Ptg dated 23rd July 2009 addressed to the AS&CVO and copy endorsed to Shri Anil Kumar in order not to further delay the inquiry Shri Anil Kumar was directed to proceed on tour on 23 rd September in the interest of service. Since Shri Anil Kumar, Dy. Dir.(Vig) was conversant with the rules regulations applicable to the Government of India Presses as there are more than 98 different category of workers & supervisory cadres in the Government of India Presses which are classified as Industrial Units and come under the purview of the Factory Act 1948, thus he should have been allowed to continue & assist till completion of 92

inquiry. However in order to slow down the process, the Joint Secretary, who is also incharge of Administration and controls the internal transfer/postings of officers of CSS cadre, abruptly transferred Shri Anil Kumar, Deputy Director(Vigilance) of this office midway at most crucial & advanced stage of inquiry which step only facilitated in causing further delay. Thus Shri A.K Mehta deliberately tried to slow down the pace of enquiry by transferring the officer, who was assisting in conduct of Vigilance Inquiry, at most crucial stage. (26) Delaying Disciplinary case files to benefit corrupt officials :- As per MOUD ID Note No. A-12031/1/2008-Ptg dated 8th June 2009 the Vigilance Inquiry Report conducted by CVO & AS (UD) in the irregularities in recruitment in GIP Ring Road was forwarded & the Directorate of Printing was asked to fix responsibility. Accordingly a two Member Committee was set up vide O.M No. C.13019/5/2009-AV dated 08.09.2009. The draft charge sheets were prepared & file submitted to PSP Division which questioned the decision of Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Director of Printing and stated that the AS & CVO had not named anyone in his Vigilance Report. This created a dilemma because the terms of reference for Vigilance Inquiry to CVO were not known to the Directorate & the Ministry had itself asked the Directorate to fix responsibility. Thus question was if CVO does not fix responsibility & the Directorate also does not fix responsibility or the report of the Directorate fixing responsibility is questioned then how can responsibility be fixed & Disciplinary action taken. As a result it was decided to get the recommendations of Directorate accepted by the CVO so that the JS could not question the decision of Disciplinary Authority. The report was submitted to the AS (UD) & CVO for acceptance on 29.09.2009. The reminders were issued vide No.C.13019/2/2008-AV dated 05.11.2009, 16.11.09,10/14.12.09 and 15.12.2009 but no response was received from Vigilance Branch of Ministry. The File remained pending with Under Secretary (Vig) Shri P.K Verma from 30.09.2009 to 14.01.2010 and was put up to CVO only on 14.01.2010 which was cleared on same day. Thus instead of pulling up Shri P.K Verma for deliberately withholding file for no apparent reason which benefitted the culprits the JS (UD) laid blame upon the Director of Printing so that the Directorate remains busy in giving explanation on something it had not done and their attention is diverted & the corrupt officials can take advantage. This is allegation No.-27 in File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. in which Shri A.K Mehta has cunningly held the Director of Printing responsible for delay in processing the case file. Actually Shri A.K Mehta had been buying time by putting objections & questioning the decisions of the Director of Printing in numerous files as he had already initiated case for repatriation of the Director of Printing on false grounds & was hopeful that it would materialise. Since Shri Mehta was incharge of Administration in the Ministry which is a powerful post as everyone in the Ministry has some work or other with administration, therefore no one would dare to go against his verbal directions. As a result at his behest he got the Vigilance file delayed at lower level as he enjoyed a lot of clout, by virtue of the position he occupied, with all officers junior to him i.e. up to the level of Director, Deputy Secretary and hence all these references of Directorate remained unattended as all these officials were waiting for the relieving of the Director of Printing & thus conspired & connived to shield corrupt officials. (27) Abrupt transfer of Shri Anil Kumar, DD(Vig.) :- As per MOUD ID Note No. A-12031/1/2008-Ptg dated 8th June 2009 the Ministry forwarded the copy of Vigilance Inquiry Report of CVO & AS(UD) in respect of irregularities in recruitment in Government of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi and requested the Directorate 93

of Printing to fix responsibility. Accordingly a two Member Committee comprising of Shri Anil Kumar, Deputy Director (Vig.) and Ms. Sarita Nair Assistant Director (Vig) was set up vide O.M No. C.13019/5/2009-AV dated 08.09.2009. The two member Committee fixed responsibility upon five (5) officials, i.e. (i).Shri S.R Bodra, Manager, (ii).Shri K Mohan Rao, AM(A), (iii).Shri R.K Gautam, AM(T), (iv).Shri Satish Chandra, Dy Manager, (v).Shri J.K Singh, AM(T). But Shri A.K Mehta Joint Secretary (UD) had wanted the name of Shri R.K Gautam to be dropped from the report and was pressurising the Directorate in this regard, but Shri Anil Kumar did not bow to pressure and gave his report based on documentary evidence available on record. In retaliation Shri A.K Mehta JS (UD) who was incharge of administration in the Ministry abruptly ordered for transfer of Shri Anil Kumar, Deputy Director (Vigilance) in the Directorate of Printing to Land & Development Office (L&DO) midway at most crucial & advanced stage of inquiry vide O.M No. A-22017/1/2006-Admn-I(Pt) dated 2nd December 2009. Shri Anil Kumar was reluctant to be transferred within such a short time as he had barely worked for 1 & 1/2 years in the Directorate of Printing after his transfer from the Ministry of Labour but Shri Mehta got his representation rejected. Thus the transfer of Shri Anil Kumar at most crucial time was not only deliberate but also vindictive in nature because in the L&DO Office there are about 10 Under Secretary posts and 15 Section Officers & a shortage of one post would not have made much difference but in the Directorate of Printing there were only 2 posts of Under Secretary in CSS cadre and 16 posts of Section Officers & out of 2 posts of Under Secretary one post was lying vacant for the past one year and now the single filled up post of US also became vacant and hence uncertainty had been created which was deliberate. (28) Non submission of Report by EOI & TOR Committee under Chairmanship of JS (UD) :- The Ministry of UD had constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of JS(UD) vide O.M No. O-17034/2/2002-B&F(Part-I) dated 11.9.2007 for finalizing the Terms of Reference(TOR) for privatisation of the three Text Book Presses & to prepare Expression of Interest (EOI) document for appointment of Consultant. A meeting was fixed on 13.8.2008 by JS (UD) regarding finalisation of EOI & TOR, which was subsequently postponed due to pre-occupation of JS (UD). The meeting was again fixed for 11 th September 2008. Another meeting was fixed for 23.12.2008 which was postponed & file submitted to JS (UD) who desired draft cabinet note be submitted. As per Note at p-24/N of File No. O17034/11/B&F/2007 dated 30.01.2009 the JS (UD) was requested to apprise of the status of the Committee constituted under his Chairmanship. The JS (UD) observed on 2.2.2009 that, In the absence of title of the land, it appears very difficult to prepare TOR, since the value of other assets is too low for fulfilling other conditions of privatisation i.e. absorption of staff and payment of statutory liabilities in view of above we intend to go back to Cabinet for review of decision relating to privatisation which has already been agreed to. Thus the EOI & TOR Committees findings were never concluded and the Chairman of the Committee i.e. Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) did not submit any report despite the fact that draft of TOR & EOI had been prepared & submitted by the Directorate which had also been circulated amongst the Members. (i) (ii) The Committee to finalise EOI & TOR on 3 Text Book Presses remained inconclusive of which Shri A.K Mehta was the Chairman. Similarly, the Steering Committee to overview the functioning of the 3 Departments and to find ways to improve performance of these Departments had been set up under the Chairmanship of Shri A.K Mehta but he avoided 94

(iii)

(iv)

chairing the Meeting or taking decisions or submitting recommendations and instead wanted the Meetings to be held through rotation of file amongst various Ministries (!). The Report of the Committee to evaluate the cost of equipment, machinery, land and building of GIPs headed by the JS&FA was finalised and submitted to the Ministry, but Shri A.K Mehta never processed the Report or conveyed decision on it. Similarly the Committee to examine the possibility to utilise surplus land of GIPs of which the CCA was the Chairman had been submitted to the Ministry but Shri A.K Mehta neither examined & processed the report nor conveyed final decision in the matter.

Thus Shri A.K Mehta is habitual of avoiding decision making & taking on responsibility, due to poor knowledge of government rules and is adept at passing on his inadequacies upon others who have nothing to do with the matter. (29) Irregular allotment of Press land in contravention of Cabinets decision :The Government of India decided that the three Government of India Text Book Presses at Mysore, Bhubaneswar and Chandigarh would be transferred to the respective State Governments. This decision was notified vide Gazette Notification No. SO 1048(E) dated 30.9.2002 (File No. O-17034/2/86-Sty. Vol. VIII). The matter was again resubmitted for review of this decision and the Government decided that the three text book presses would be privatised along with reasonable land area with condition that the employees will continue to be in service till completion of their balance service period. Excess land of the Presses would be developed, if necessary, in collaboration with State Governments. The decision was notified vide Gazette notification No. GSR443(E) dated 24.7.2006 (File No. O17034/2(B&F)/CM/Status Report).The Standing Committee on Urban Development in its 22nd Report on the Directorate of Printing & 28th Report which is action taken Report had desired that the Government have a fresh look into privatisation of 3 Text Book Presses. A note No. O-17034/Standing Committee/Review Note/(B&F)/2007 dated 10.04.2008 was submitted to Ministry of UD that draft proposal to review the Government decision for privatisation of 3 Govt. Of India Text Book Presses was submitted to Ministry in File No. O-17034/Standing Committee/Review Note/(B&F)/2007 on 14.8.2007 & that the decision in this regard has not been received. The PSP Division intimated that the File had been referred to UDM on 01.10.2007 vide MOS Dy No. 753 & decision is awaited. The Honble MOS (UD) vide Note No. D-1095/MOS/UD/08 dated 05.09.2008 again submitted to the UDM for considering to go to the Cabinet to review the decision of privatisation of 3 text book presses. The Ministry of UD vide O.M No. O-17034/2/2002-B&F(Part-I) dated 11.9.2007 had constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of JS(UD) for finalizing the Terms of Reference(TOR) for privatisation of the three text book presses & to prepare Expression of Interest (EOI) document for appointment of Consultant. The JS (UD) decided at p-23/N of File No. O-17034/11/B&F/2007 on 31.12.08 that, (i) We may await outcome of proposed r eview of Cabinet regarding privatisation of three text book presses. (ii) Draft Cabinet Note may be submitted for above at the earliest, preferably by 5th. Accordingly draft Cabinet Note for retention of three text book presses was prepared & submitted to Ministry on 09.01.2009 & this has been mentioned in all the monthly reports regarding implementation of the decision of the Cabinet submitted in File No.O-17034/2/2002/B&F/CM/Status Report w.r.t MOUD O.M No. O-16013/3/2004-PSP dated 5.01.2007. The Ministry 95

never raised any objections or returned the draft Cabinet Note for resubmission. It was for the first time that this fact appeared as allegation No.-06 in File No. O17034/8/2009-Ptg. in which Shri A.K Mehta has cunningly held the Director of Printing responsible for submitting a proposal for retention and modernization of Text Book Presses in connection with review of decision of Cabinet for privatization of these Presses notwithstanding that Cabinet did not earlier approve retention of these Presses and instead approved closure and subsequently privatization of these Presses. Since the matter regarding either privatisation or retention of the text book presses was still under active consideration, the Joint Secretary gifted Press land to other organisations in gross violation of the Cabinets decision & without waiting for final outcome of decision of Government. Moreover the views of the Head of the Department were completely ignored that the land is required for setting up of National Printing Museum and the National Print Media Academy and unless the matter regarding finalisation of location where these two units will be set up the available land of the Presses should not have been squandered away and allotted to other Departments in gross violation of the interests of the owner Department. (30) Steps to paralyze the Printing Operations which is core function of the Department :- In order to paralyze the working of the GIPs, the Joint Secretary charted a strategy to starve the Presses of raw material and manpower. This would adversely affect the production in GIPs and the core activities of the Directorate of Printing i.e. smooth execution of printing works of Government would be stalled and this would bring a bad name to the Department and the responsibility would be fixed upon the Head of the Department. As a result the Joint Secretary took following negative & self destructive steps:(a) Raw Material :-

Paper is a primary raw material for the Printing Presses which are industrial units. Procurement of paper became very difficult. In the year 2008-09, there was no procurement of paper and the entire amount of Rs.70 crores under the Head Materials & Supplies lapsed except for the amount of Rs.21.36 crores which was residual spill over payment of supplies of year 2007-08. In the year 2009-10, with great difficulty and after writing an SOS D.O. letter to the Secretary (UD) vide No.Proc./249/WOPP/2008-2009 dated 4.8.2009, Enclosure-14 some procurement of paper was allowed. Thereafter when the new JS&FA, Smt. Sudha Krishnan joined the Ministry, the Director of Printing personally called on the officer and explained the whole matter. Thereafter the JS&FA set up a Four Member Committee which gave its recommendation vide Minutes dated 19.11.2009 & Ministry has accepted these recommendations that, projection of requirement as made by the Directorate of Printing with the approval of Director of Printing may be accepted which will be subject to scrutiny at the time of next procurement and thereafter all the files pertaining to paper procurement were cleared by the Ministry, after a delay of more than one year. This had greatly irked the Joint Secretary. (b) Manpower :-

(i) The Printing Presses are labour intensive industrial units. Since the post of Head of the Department was lying vacant for a very long time i.e. about 5 years, the entire recruitment process was handled very badly and there was no uniformity of application of rules, merit of candidates was not considered and there was a free for 96

all situation. Thus due to large scale irregularities and involvement of officers working in the Headquarters Office i.e. the Directorate of Printing as well as PSP Division of Ministry, the recruitment process was stopped on receipt of a note from Shri Ajay Maken, MOS (UD) dated 1.4.2008. (ii) The sanctioned strength of GIPs had been fixed vide Office Order dated 18.5.2007 which had been approved by the Ministry. However, surprisingly, after the joining of Shri A.K Mehta as JS (UD), the PSP Division of the Ministry started questioning & raising numerous objections. As a result the sanctioned strength of GIPs, which had been fixed after hanging in balance from 2002 to 2006, again became disputed. This resulted in the Ministry not allowing promotions and filling up of posts. As a result candidates selected by UPSC and SSC could not join. This added to the acute shortage of staff. The Joint Secretary did not approve the ad-hoc promotion cases of 27 officials of Deputy Manager and AM (T) which are technical supervisory posts which further added up to the posts lying vacant for more than a year. The Joint Secretary also did not allow these posts to be revived at the level of Secretary despite clear orders of Ministry of Finance that posts in which matching savings have been given can be revived in accordance to Ministry of Finance OM No. 2(1)/E.Coord.I/2003 dated 9.9.2003 delegating powers to the Ministries/Departments to consider and decide, in consultation with Internal Finance Division, revival of posts/vacancies that fall under deemed abolished category. (File No. 20(1)/2009-A.III and Staff Selection Commission Letter No. 3/10/2006P&P(Vol.III) dated 22nd October 2009 refers). Thus Shri A.K Mehta, Joint Secretary (UD) brought the entire Department to a standstill by reversing the earlier decision of the Ministry regarding sanctioned strength of GIPs which had been approved by his predecessor Shri M. Rajamani Joint Secretary (under whom Shri A.K Mehta had worked as a Director (JNURM)) and raising numerous questions about the sanctioned strength already fixed vide Office Order No. 20(5)/2002-A.II, dated 18.5.2007 which was issued in consultation with Ministry of Finance vide I.D. No.911/E.Coord.I/2003 dated 14.5.2003 and I.D. No. 158/Dir.(Pay)/E.Coord.I/2007 dated 14.2.2007 and with the approval of the Ministry of Urban Development. (31) Selectively favouring the interests of Firms in contravention of technical advice of NIC :- The facts in Brief are that the fresh proposal for purchase of computers for the year 2008-09 had been submitted to the Ministry for approval. The Directorate had referred the case File to NIC who are the technical advisers in such matters and based on opinion given by the Senior Technical Director, NIC the proposal was submitted for purchase of HCL make computers. However the Joint Secretary wanted that LG make computers from VSM should be purchased (which brand was perhaps also purchased by Administration Branch of MOUD). Since the Directorate of Printing did not agree to purchase of LG computers & gave detailed reasons in File, therefore the purchase proposal was delayed by the Officers of PSP Division on one pretext or the other & purchase could not take place and funds to the tune of Rs. One crore approx. lapsed. Thereafter in the next Financial year 2009-10 the proposal was again submitted for purchase of computers and this time the Joint Secretary desired that Dell Computers from Landmark Infonet Pvt Ltd should be purchased but due to strong opposition the Joint Secretary had to finally agree to purchase of HCL computers. It is a well known fact that the representatives of various firms try to influence officers to decide in favour of their products and therefore all such representatives & touts freely roaming in the corridors of Nirman Bhawan had been denied entry into the Directorate. Since they were denied access 97

thus they were approaching the officials in the Ministry who were divulging the details of proposals/recommendations submitted in file of Directorate of Printing. Infact Landmark Infonet Pvt Ltd the representative of Dell Computers addressed the Director of Printing vide his Letter dated 21 st August 2009 and the AD (Procurement) submitted Note in File No. Proc/G-20011/2007/B&A(Part) dated 27.08.09 stating that it is not understood how this firm has come to know that their R/C is not being considered, when our case is under process & this needs to be examined. This is allegation No.-08 in File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. in which Shri A.K Mehta has tried to successfully camouflage his manipulations & depict these as if he is safeguarding Government interests. Moreover the Ministry of UD referred the Computer procurement file twice to DGS&D on 10.11.2009 which was returned on 11.11.2009 & the File was again referred & returned back on 23.11.2009 with remarks to refer to website www.dgsnd.gov.in, the Ministry of UD was left with no option but to give its approval for procurement after taking a record 20 months from 1.04.08 to 26.11.09 i.e. 1 year 8 months. Thus a lot of avoidable delay & wastage of time & energy were faced by way of diverting precious time in thwarting the lobbying by agents of computer firms like VSM for LG make computers and Landmark Infonet Pvt Ltd for Dell Computers due to which procurement cases were delayed. (32) Furthering the cause of certain firms in Paper procurement & influencing tendering process :- In the case of Paper Procurement of WOPP the firm M/s Mohit had wanted to influence the tender process in File No. Proc/249/WOPP/2008-2009 & the PSP Division of Ministry was in its favour and matter had to be referred to DGS&D who supported the stand of the Directorate. Thus these officials in the Ministry would deliberately put numerous objections & delay the procurement if the firm recommended by them was not favoured by the Directorate of Printing. Such delay in procurement was a major constraint in smooth running of operations & adversely affects Production in the industrial units. Due to non supply of Paper which is a basic raw material for the Printing Presses there was an unprecedented Paper Crises in the Industrial Units. During the year 2008-2009, the total allotment of funds was Rs. 60,63,00,000 under the Head-Material and Supplies in respect of Government of India Presses. Paper is a basic raw material for running the industrial units. No Paper could be procured during the Financial Year 2008-09 due to nonreceipt of approval by the Ministry. Only Rs. 23, 32, 75,000 could be utilized which was the spill over payment of last financial year 2007-08. Total funds, which remained unutilised, was Rs. 36, 90, 25,000. In the year 2009-10, the DOP had to address an SOS D.O Letter No.Proc./249/WOPP/2008-09 dated 04.08.2009 to Secretary (UD) (Enclosure-14) after which emergency supply of only 900 MTs of WOPP was allowed whereas the yearly procurement of Paper in the year 2007-08 was 9465.3 MT. The purchase files of the Directorate became very complicated as various vested interests got involved & procurement was delayed as there is a lot of lobbying by firms and the Joint Secretary (UD) wanted to influence the choice of firms, but faced a stiff opposition from the Director of Printing. In fact due to easy access and frequent entry of firms representatives/touts roaming freely in Nirman Bhawan a proposal was also submitted to the Ministry vide Letter No. 14/5/2005Estt(Pt) dated 22nd August 2009 regarding introduction of Smart card/Swipe Card System in the case of visitors and a Visitors Management System introduced and the visitors return the Swipe Cards at the time of leaving the building as these Swipe Cards are reusable. This will minimize manual intervention and ensure convenience to visitors and will also ensure that the movement of visitors and backup records are 98

available on computer and the hours spent in the office, frequency of visitors, purpose of visit etc. is also available on computer. (33) Abrogating powers of superior authorities & blocking files deliberately :The Committee of Parliament on Official Language, was to visit Mysore in connection with inspection of implementation of Official Language in Government of India Text Book Press, Mysore on 06.02.2010. The Government had decided as per Gazette notification dated 24.7.2006 that the three Text Book Presses would be privatised. As Shri A.K Mehta, the Joint Secretary (UD) avoids taking responsibility & a Joint Secretary level Officer has to attend to Parliament Committee on behalf of Ministry and because the CCA was nominated as a substitute who does not handle administrative matters pertaining to Directorate of Printing in the Ministry, thus File was submitted to intimate latest position in the matter as draft Cabinet Note had been submitted to the Ministry on 09.01.2009 and thereafter nothing further was heard from the Ministry. Moreover the Joint Secretary had kept it a closely guarded secret and even the HOD was not aware what matter was finally submitted to Cabinet because rumours were heard that the Cabinet Note had been circulated to other Ministries & Departments and certain objections had been raised by the Ministry of Finance. It was also felt that in case the Journalists interviewed the Members of Parliament and they asked for clarification then HOD should be fully aware of latest position in the matter. Moreover this was also allegation No.-06 in File No. O-17034/8/2009-Ptg. in which it was alleged that Director of Printing chose to submit a proposal for retention and modernization of Text Book Presses in connection with review of decision of Cabinet for privatization of these Presses notwithstanding that Cabinet did not earlier approve retention of these Presses and instead approved closure and subsequently privatization of these Presses. Thus a note was submitted to the Ministry of UD in File No.11015/3/2009-Hindi(Part-I) on 21.1.2010 and marked to the DS(PSP) who further submitted file to the Joint Secretary (NURM), Shri P.K. Srivastava, and the DS(PSP) had also marked in advance the downward movement of file to the Director of Printing. The Joint Secretary (NURM), Shri P.K. Srivastava who was the Link Officer decided to further mark the file to the Secretary (UD), instead of initialling and sending file downwards as already indicated in advance by DS(PSP). But in the meanwhile Shri A.K. Mehta was back from leave and he surreptitiously intercepted the file and disposed it off on behalf of Secretary (UD) as he did not want the Secretary (UD) to come to know of correct facts as his machinations would be exposed. (34) M/s N.C Mittal & Co consultants for implementation of Commercial Accounting System :- M/s N.C Mittal & Co were appointed as consultants for implementation of Commercial Accounting System in the Government of India Presses on 06.04.2005. The Consultant M/s N.C Mittal submitted 5 volumes which was examined by the Expert Committee in its meeting on 27.10.2006 & rejected on various grounds & the contract was terminated on 24.01.2007. The Consultant went for arbitration claiming Rs. 23 Lakh as damages. Shri S.M Acharya, Special Secretary, MOUD was appointed as Sole Arbitrator. M/s N C Mittal submitted a representation dated 31.1.2008 stating that they are willing to take up the job on the conditions specified therein. The Sole Arbitrator permitted the Directorate of Printing to consider the representation & fixed next date of hearing as 12.05.2008. The expert Committee met on 08.05.2008 under the Chairmanship of Shri A.K Mehta, JS(UD) & it was decided to give the Consultant a hearing before the Expert 99

Committee gives final decision. The Expert Committee met on 21.05.2008 but nothing conclusive was arrived at. In the meanwhile the arbitration case hearing continued. Efforts at reconciliation were also made, however, Shri A.K. Mehta, JS(UD) had been very rude to the Consultant in the presence of his wife who was also his partner in his Firm and feeling offended he abruptly left and sent letter No.NCMC/08-09/DOP dated 9th June, 2008 stating that we regret to submit that we will not be able to recommence the work of implementation of Double Entry Accounting System & that our partners of the firm had in detail discussed over the views expressed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development. The comments of the Joint Secretary shows no confidence in our firm and our partners have resolved that now the committee of Partners and Directors of the firm appointed shall decide on taking up of the assignment after taking into cognizance the language and other details of the letter for recommencement of the work. This fact was also brought to the notice of Shri S.M. Acharya, Additional Secretary & Sole Arbitrator. Thus due to autocratic and authoritarian approach of Shri A.K. Mehta, this opportunity was lost. This is allegation No.-25 in File No. O17034/8/2009-Ptg. in which it was alleged that progress in regard to introduction of commercial accounting system was not reported.
(35) Dissent Note of Director of Printing on Corporatisation of GOI Presses :- A committee was constituted vide Ministry of Urban Development OM No. O-17034/15/2007Ptg. Dated 11.9.2007 under the Chairmanship of Chief Controller of Accounts, MOUD to examine the possibility of utilising the surplus land available with Government of India Presses for creating a corpus to be retained as Revolving Fund for augmenting the service delivery by Directorate of Printing & Government of India Stationary Office. Since the post of Director of Printing had remained vacant for last more than 05 years officers of CSS cadre held the post of Additional Director & were managing the work. In the meanwhile the regular incumbent Ms. Madhuri Dabral joined the post on 09.05.2008 and the minutes were submitted for signature but the Director of Printing cited several reasons for not signing the minutes. The CCA decided that as Director of Printing has recorded her comments which are at variance with the proceedings of the Committee, thus another meeting to finalise the report and recommendations for Corporatisation of Government of India Presses on the pattern of Currency Note Presses was to be held on 3.10.2008. Accordingly one last meeting was held on 3.10.2008 and Director of Printing reiterated her reservations on Corporatisation of GIPs and recorded her dissent note citing detailed reasons. The Director (F) took a long time in signing the minutes of meeting held on 3.10.2008 and finally minutes were issued vide No. 111/67-11/2008-09 dated 24.12.2008. The Joint Secretary(UD) was keen that the Committee recommend for Corporatisation of the Department & Government Presses whereas the Director of Printing was of the view that the Department was greatly weakened due to years of neglect & its working needed to be streamlined & strengthened because the first exercise in 1973 in re-organisation of the Department of Printing & Stationary was a failure as it had led to the situation of closure of several Government Presses and Government of India Stationary Office & it took almost 20 years of struggle to ensure their retention and continuance and a second attempt at re-organisation at this stage would lead to collapse as the system was very weak & would not be able to bear the burden of change and needed to be strengthened first to be able to withstand the stress of change. The dissent Note of the new Director of Printing sent shock waves in the Ministry as generally the verbal directions of the Ministry would be faithfully endorsed by rubber stamp Committees set up for the purpose of providing legitimacy & justification to its diktat and also the Ministry would be obtaining recommendations to absolve itself from direct responsibility by throwing the onus upon Consultants or Committees. But the working style of new Director of Printing was found to be too unconventional & bold which required some quick steps in taming so that the officer falls in line, but the officer with the support of technical officers, industrial workers and staff unions, withstood pressure stating that Organisational interests need to be

100

upheld at all costs. Moreover it has been stipulated vide MHA, OM No. 14/9/66-Ests.(A)-II, dated 03.08.1966 that, .. the desirability of granting complete freedom to Government officers to express their differing views, they would also like Government to act in their capacity of loco parentis to the public services and shield them against all unjustified attacks from whichever source they are launched. In the opinion of the Committee, nothing can weaken the morale of the public services more than a general feeling that, in a certain set of circumstances, they may be subjected to harassing enquiries with no prospect of any protection from any quarter, for whatever they might have done in good faith. (Point No. ix of Para-40 of Annexure-IV) Thus Shri A.K Mehta took upon himself the onerous task of trying to browbeat the morale of the Director of Printing through the time tested method of implicating honest officers, by using such pressure tactics of cooking up false allegations, to show his power & reach.

(36) Revival & continuance of GISO but Department at standstill due to lack of initiative :- As per Govt. Resolution No. A-27023/4/85-Sty dated 16.10.1987 Government of India Stationary Office (GISO) & its 3 Regional Stationary Depots (RSDs) were to be closed down. As per Resolution No. O-17034/3/87-Sty (Vol VI) dated 27.02.1991 as an interim measure its operations were ordered to be resumed. The charge of GISO was held by DOP who attended the Oral Evidence before the Standing Committee on the subject GISO, Kolkata in Room No.63 Parliament House on 12th August 2008 in her capacity as Controller of Stationary (COS). All preparations like studying all related files, Rule Books i.e. Rules for the supply & use of stationary Stores. 1924, Vocabulary of Stationary Stores etc & prepared background notes data/information prepared meticulously in a logical & simple manner for meetings with Officers of Ministry of UD & Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance agreed to continuation of GISO & revival of its full functions, revival & filling up of post of COS was allowed vide O.M No. 1(22) E-Coord/2008 dated 10th December 2008. The case of the Dy. Controller Shri R.K Roy was taken up by the DOP for promotion on Ad-hoc basis as COS vide Note dated 08.06.2009. Shri R.K Roy, Dy Controller had been promoted as Dy. Controller (I) on 25.11.1997 and as per Recruitment Rules of the post of Controller of Stationary (COS) the eligibility condition for promotion to the post of COS is 5 years as Dy. Controller and thus Shri R.K Roy was eligible for promotion in November 2003 and could have easily been promoted as regular Controller of Stationary w.e.f November 2005 when Shri B. Tewary who was working on deputation basis was repatriated pre-maturely to his parent Department on 08.09.2005 by the MOUD. But the Ministry kept the post of COS vacant from 09.09.2005 to 08.07.2009 and it was only at the initiative of DOP that the seniormost officer falling in the line of promotion was given promotion to the post of COS on Ad-hoc basis w.e.f 09.07.2009 & the DOP handed over charge to the regular incumbent on 09.07.2009. The Ministry of Finance had agreed to the continuation of GISO & revival of its full functions was allowed vide O.M No. 1(22) ECoord/2008 dated 10th December 2008. The Ministry of UD constituted a Committee on the subject Government of India Stationary Office to examine the optimize staff strength etc in view of functional necessity of GISO under OM No. G-17014/1/2005Sty. dated 02.03.2009 under the Chairmanship of JS&FA. However till date the Staff Strength has not been fixed which is hampering the normal functioning of the Department. Thus the Joint Secretary in order to avoid decision making & take initiative deliberately allowed the matter regarding fixing of staff strength of GISO to remain undecided & passing on the buck, in the same manner as was the case of Government of India Presses. Thus the functioning of two Departments had been brought to a standstill due to procrastination & putting numerous objections by JS 101

(UD) so that the matter lingers on till he completes his deputation period & can avoid putting in effort & responsibility.
(37) Blocking submission of Files regarding printed works :- In a number of files some of the printing works of exceptional quality done by the different Govt. of India Presses were being submitted to the Secretary (UD) for his information & he had appreciated the good work done in several Files. However Shri A.K. Mehta due to his insecurities & fear of comparison started blocking submission of printed works. The example of GIP Coimbatore is enclosed as an illustrative example as Enclosure -15. Since the channel of submission of Files was from DOP to JS(UD) & then to Secretary (UD) thus Shri A.K Mehta misused his position & deliberately blocked submission of files as he did not want Secretary (UD) to know about the various appreciation letters from other Departments & Ministries as well as excellent results shown by the workers in the Government Presses, despite tremendous operational constraints & instead wanted to malign the Department that no work was being done & hence blocked all such files deliberately with ulterior motive.

(38) Dishonestly making false claim in Court :- Shri A.K Mehta has also misled the courts & submitted wrong facts deliberately. Just two instances are being cited. (a) In the court case of one Shri R.K Gautam it has been submitted before the CAT by the Ministry that the Director of Printing is not competent to refer matters to the Ministry of Law whereas as per the Ministry of UD letter No. A-18018/1/2008Admn.I dated 11.12.2008 the Head of the Department is competent to make such references. In fact the long list of wrong facts submitted before Court at the behest of Shri A.K Mehta have been discussed in detail in the Directorates File No. 63/2/2009A-II(Vol.II) (Pt.II). (b) The Second case is the CAT case in O.A No. 3704/2009 in which the vital fact has been withheld from the Court that these 27 false allegations, based on which unilateral decision for my premature repatriation had been taken, have not been investigated or opportunity provided to the officer and are based on conjectures. Shri A.K Mehta misled the Court & submitted wrong information regarding these 27 allegations with malafide intent. Shri A.K Mehta knew that he was on a weak wicket & had got away by suppressing true facts & felt so insecure that he filed a Caveat in the High Court of Delhi, without even bothering to first obtain the certified copy of judgment. As a result of wrong submission of facts an FIR is required to be lodged against Shri A.K Mehta for deliberately submitting wrong facts before the court, and misusing his government position which directly led to the miscarriage of justice, in violation of Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code which states as under :Section 209 of IPC Dishonestly making false claim in Court Whoever 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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine. (39) Building up a case for re-patriation of the Director of Prining based on false allegations with malafide intent :- Shri A.K Mehta built up a false case for repatriation of the Director of Printing without following any rules or regulations and deliberately not allowing the officer an opportunity to present her case with the 102

dishonest intent of furthering the cause of corrupt officials involved in the Recruitment scam in the GIPs. Unfortunately the following steps were not followed :(i) (ii) To list out lapses of an officer citing the exact government rule flouted along with placing copies of documentary evidence on record. Calling for Comments/explanation of officer on each of the points & providing adequate opportunity to refute each charge in accordance to DoPT Circular No. 3/4/2004-EO(MM.I) dated 17th August 2005 (Enclosure-16). Conduct of independent inquiry into each allegation levelled. Consultation with UPSC & referring the File to UPSC being the recruiting authority for the technical post of DOP. Consultation & referring the matter to DOPT vide Para 7 of O.M. No.27/12/97EO(ACC) dated 15.10.1997.

(iii) (iv) (v)

Shri A.K Mehta failed to follow the proper rules & procedures. While he was wasting valuable time in referring and re-referring the case File on a settled issue as given in detail in Para-13 above regarding whether the Director of Printing has Disciplinary powers to decide cases of CSCS officials, however on such a crucial matter of repatriation of an Officer, Shri Mehta did not bother to refer the file to UPSC or DOPT for fear of exposure. Shri A.K Mehta has mastered the art of manipulation & distortion of facts & action needs to be taken against him for concocting facts and manipulation of official note-sheet by misrepresentation of facts and lack of knowledge of Central Government rules & violation of the Conduct rules. Thus it is essential that strict action be taken against Shri A.K Mehta as he has been shielding corrupt officials and has encouraged corrupt practices & mismanaged the PSP Division. He has tried to influence the procurement files of the Directorate by openly siding with particular firms and delaying the purchase in order to pressurise the Directorate. He has given Vigilance clearance to corrupt officials by manipulation & suppression of facts. The matter may be referred to ACC for permanently debarring Shri A.K Mehta, Joint Secretary (UD) from deputation to any central government organisation and to recommend for taking Disciplinary action against him based on these 39 charges against him and for violation of various Government rules cited in brief in Para 40 given below. (40) Based on the detailed reasons cited in this report the list of government rules violated by Shri A.K Mehta are given as under :(i) Violation of MHA OM No. 41/2/55(II)-Ests.(A), dated 23.04.1955, on subject Integrity of officers appointed to responsible posts Reputation regarding honesty, which states as under:In Para 7 of Chapter VI of the First Five Year Plan, the Planning Commission have observed that no officer who does not have a reputation for honesty should be placed in a position in which there is considerable scope for discretion. The Government of India fully agree with this observation. While there is no intention that an officer should be penalized or condemned merely on hearsay evidence, it is necessary that all recommending authorities should, before recommending officers for responsible posts where there is considerable scope for discretion; take into account all relevant factors regarding their integrity and

103

reputation for honesty and impartiality. This is, of course, not an entirely new principle and it has always been expected that the authorities concerned with posting and promotions should observe it in the ordinary course. In view, however, of the importance which both public opinion and Government attach to the maintenance of a high standard of integrity by Government servants, the Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring this principle specifically to the notice of such authorities under them. (ii) Violation of MHA OM No. 41/2/55, dated 23.04.1955, on subject Integrity of Government servants holding responsible posts Independence and impartiality in the discharge of their duties, which states as under:Both the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1954 and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 lay down inter alia that Government servants should, at all times, maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. It is, in fact, axiomatic that Government servants especially those holding positions of trust and responsibility, should not only be honest and impartial in the discharge of their official duties but also have the reputation of being so. The Planning Commission have also referred to this matter in Chapter VI of the First Five Year Plan. They have observed that in their social relations and dealings, those holding responsible posts should ensure that there is no ground or occasion to suggest that some individuals have greater access or influence with them than others. Government have no doubt that their officers fully appreciate the need for maintaining a high standard of integrity and impartiality and ensuring as far as it lies in their power that their behaviour gives no room for any possible suggestions to the contrary. It is however, requested that these observations should be specifically brought to the notice of all concerned and steps should be taken to include them in the teaching given at training institutions under the Ministry of Finance etc. (iii) Violation of DOPT OM No. 11013/10/93-Estt. (A), dated 6th October, 1993 which states as under:-

.. Despite these instructions, it is not uncommon that complaints of favouritism or ill will shown by officers in supervisory positions towards their subordinates or other members of public are received every now and then. . it is again stressed that a Government servant must be impartial and must not show undue favour or ill will in his official dealings. If a Government servant is found to misuse his official position or to abet and connive at improper and illegal acts, he would render himself liable for disciplinary action for violation of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
(iv) Violation of Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel OM No. 25/2/72-Ests. (A), dated 10.01.1973 on subject Duty of Supervisory Officers for ensuring the integrity and devotion to duty, which states as under:Under Rule 3 (2) (i) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, "every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Government servants for the time being under his control and authority". 2. The National Council set up under the Machinery for Joint Consultation and Compulsory Arbitration in its meeting held on 28th July, 1972 adopted a recommendation of the committee set up by the Council to consider the item "Amendment of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, to the effect that clarification may be issued that sub-rule (i) of rule 3 (2) is intended to be invoked only in cases where there has been a failure on the

104

part of supervisory officer concerned to take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of Government servants under his control and authority. (v) Violation of MHA, DP&AR OM No. 11013/12/78-Ests.(A), dated 01.08.1978 on subject Oral instructions by Superior Officers to be avoided, which states as under:(i) Oral instructions should not, as far as possible, be issued by senior officers to their subordinates; (ii) if the oral instructions are issued by any senior officer they should be confirmed by him in writing immediately thereafter; (iii) if a junior officer seeks confirmation to the oral instructions given by the senior, the latter should confirm it in writing whenever such confirmation is sought. (iv) a junior officer who has received oral orders from his superior officer should seek confirmation in writing as early as practicable; (v) whenever a member of the personal staff of a Minister communicates an oral order on behalf of the Minister, it should be confirmed by him in writing immediately thereafter;

(vi) Violation of DOPT OM No. 11013/4/88-Estt.(A), dated 19.04.1988 on subject Role of oral instructions in the transaction of Government business, which states as under:Attention is invited to the provisions of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Paras 25 to 25-C of Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure (Paras 31 to 34 of eleventh edition 1996) which define the scope and role of oral instructions in the transaction of Government business and also lay down the detailed procedure to be followed whenever it becomes necessary to give oral directions by a higher officer to a subordinate or when a member of the Personal Staff of the Minister communicates an oral order on behalf of the Minister. Instances have come to notice where the above provisions have not been followed. 2. The purpose for keeping a proper written record of policy decisions taken by the various Government functionaries, when action in this regard is to be initiated on the basis of oral instructions given by senior officers, is to ensure proper accountability of the decisions taken on important matters and have a record of the considerations leading to the decision. It is, therefore, reiterated that the procedure prescribed in the Manual of Office Procedure and the provisions of the Conduct Rules referred to above should be scrupulously followed at all levels in order to avoid ambiguity or doubts and to specify responsibility when important decisions are taken. It is clarified that these provisions apply equally to matters, which may be considered sensitive or secret. In such cases of sensitive nature, adequate care should however be taken to accord proper security classification to the relevant papers and to ensure their safe custody as envisaged in the Manual of Departmental Security Instructions. (vii) Violation of DOPT OM No. 11013/6/94-Estt.(A), dated 27.05.1994 on subject Implementation of prescribed procedure, rules, orders etc. on service matters, which states as under:The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions and the Ministry of Finance are the nodal Ministries responsible for formulating policies and framing rules and regulations relating to service conditions and other aspects of personnel administration of Government servants. The administrative Ministries/Departments are responsible for considering individual cases of Government servants and issuing appropriate orders thereon in accordance with the rules and instructions on the subject.

105

2. Complaints have been received in this Department that litigation on service matters is on the increase due to non-implementation or incorrect implementation of laid down policies and rules. Every Government servant is required to maintain at all times devotion to duty. Every Government servant is also required to act in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties or in exercise of powers conferred on him. It is thus enjoined upon all Government servants that they should faithfully implement the laid down policies, rules and regulations, etc. in service matters. If the prescribed policies, rules, orders etc. on service matters are adhered to and implemented properly by administrative authorities etc., litigation on service matters would be considerably reduced. (viii) Violation of DOPT OM No. 11013/2/2004-Estt. (A) dated 16.02.2004 on subject Accountability for delay in decision making, which states as under:No Government servant shall (a) in the performance of his official duties, act in a discourteous manner; (b) in his official dealings with the public or otherwise adopt dilatory tactics or wilfully cause delays in disposal of the work assigned to him. 3. Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that the penalties (ranging from censure to dismissal) mentioned therein may be imposed on a Government servant for good and sufficient reasons. Thus any Government servant violating the provisions of Conduct Rules can be proceeded against as it will form good and sufficient reasons for imposing the penalties prescribed in Rule 11. In other words, disciplinary proceedings could be initiated if an officer adopts a dilatory attitude, leading to delay in decisions making and/or harassment of the public. (ix) Violation of MHA, OM No. 14/9/66-Ests.(A)-II, dated 03.08.1966 on subject Estimates Committees recommendation for giving freedom to officers to express their differing views, which states as under:The Estimates Committee in Para 20 of their Ninety-Third Report on public Services have made the following recommendations :"As regards the obligations of the ruling party towards the permanent services, the Committee can do no better than to quote from a speech delivered by the late Prime Minister Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri during the course of discussion in Lok Sabha (on 01.04.1963) relating to demands for grant to the Ministry of Home Affairs of which he was then the Minister in charge :the services, if their morale has to be kept up, must be given full freedom to express their differing views. It is entirely for the Minister to accept the view of the officers or not. If they are made to do things, then the morale of the services will go down and the administration will suffer and I personally think that ultimately, the people will also suffer." While the Committee endorse the forthright view expressed by the then Home Minister regarding the desirability of granting complete freedom to Government officers to express their differing views, they would also like Government to act in their capacity of loco parentis to the public services and shield them against all unjustified attacks from whichever source they are launched. In the opinion of the Committee, nothing can weaken the morale of the public services more than a general feeling that, in a certain set of circumstances, they may be subjected to harassing enquiries with no prospect of any protection from any quarter, for whatever they might have done in good faith.

106

2. The above recommendations of the Committee are brought to the notice of the Ministry of Finance etc., for information and guidance.

(x) Violation of MHA Order No. 25/30(i)/65-Ests.(A), dated 6th October, 1965 on subject Delegation of Powers to Heads of Departments which states as under:In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 24 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby directs that the powers exercisable by it under sub-rule (4) of Rule 13 and clause (i) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 of the said rules shall, subject to any general or special instructions issued by Government in this behalf, be exercisable also be Heads of Departments in respect of Class II, Class III and Class IV Government servants under their control.

(xi) Violation of DoPT Circular No. 3/4/2004-EO(MM.I) dated 17th August 2005 on the subject Policy regarding appointment of officers at different levels under the Central Staffing Scheme. Para 15 of this circular states as under :15. The cases of lateral transfer of officers on grounds of inefficiency, incompetence, unsatisfactory performance or incompatibility with the job requirement shall be considered only after the administrative Ministry/Department has obtained the officers explanation on each alleged shortcoming. Such grounds of inefficiency etc shall not be held against the officers for imposing penalty etc. or for recording in the ACR. These grounds shall be used for the limited purpose of lateral transfer. (xii) Violation of Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code which states as under :Section 209 of IPC Dishonestly making false claim in Court Whoever 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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine. (xiii) Violation of G.I.M.H.A., O.M. No. 7/14/Estt. (A), dated 24 th January 1963, regarding exercise of powers while holding dual charge. The relevant portion is cited as under :The Law Ministry has advised that an officer appointed to perform the current duties of an appointment can exercise administrative or financial powers vested in the full-fledged incumbent of the post but he can not exercise statutory powers, whether those powers are derived direct from an Act of Parliament, e.g., Income Tax Act or Rules, Regulations and By-Laws made under various Articles of the Constitution, e.g., Fundamental Rules, Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, Civil Services Regulations, Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, etc. (xiv) Violation of G.I. Dept. of per. & Trg. O.M. No. 4/2/89-Estt. (Pay-ii) dated 11th August 1989, guidelines have been issued regarding procedure to be followed while considering the question of entrusting additional charge of another post to an officer. The relevant extract is cited as under :(i) When an officer is required to discharge all the duties of the other post including the statutory functions. e.g. exercise of power derived from Acts of Parliament such as Income Tax Act or the Rules, Regulations. By-Laws made under 107

various Articles of Constitution such as FRs, CCS (CCA) Rules, CSRs., DFPRs., etc., then steps should be taken to process the case for getting the approval of the Competent Authority and formal orders appointing the officer to the additional post should be issued. On appointment the officer should be allowed the additional remuneration as indicated in FR 49. (ii) Where an officer is required only to attend to the usual routine day-to-day work of non-statutory nature attached to the post, an office order may be issued clearly stating that the officer will be performing only the routine day-to-day duties of non-statutory nature and that he would not be entitled to any additional remuneration. The office order should also specify what duties he would be discharging or what duties he would not be discharging. (xv) Violation of various provisions of GFRs regarding lands & Buildings of the Government of India-GFR-2005, Chapter-12, Miscellaneous subjects, V Transfer of Land & Buildings and Appendix-11, Provisions governing surplus land & market value. (xvi) Violation of Central Vigilance Commission Letter No. 002/VGL/61 vide Office Order No. 20/05/10 dated 19.05.2010 on subject adherence to time limits for investigation of complaints regarding (xvii) Violation of Central Vigilance Commission Letter No. 000/VGL/18 vide Office Order No.51/08/2004 dated 10th August, 2004 on subject, Adherence to time-limits in processing of disciplinary cases which states as under:It has been observed that the schedule of time limits in conducting investigations and departmental inquiries laid down in Commissions letter of even number dated the 23rd May 2000 are not being strictly adhered to. In this context, attention is invited to Department of personnel & Training O.M. No. 11013/2/2004Estt.(A) dated the 16th February 2004 regarding accountability for delay in decision making. 2. Delay in decision-making by authorities in processing of vigilance cases would also be construed as misconduct under the relevant Conduct Rules and would be liable to attract penal action. All administrative authorities are requested to take note and strictly adhere to the prescribed schedule of time-limits in dealing with disciplinary cases. (xviii) Violation of various provisions of the CCS Conduct Rules & for his unbecoming behaviour for (a) (b) Shielding corrupt officials & falsely implicating honest Officers. Submitting misleading, evasive, ambiguous notes in File & withholding complete information deliberately & giving impractical verbal directions but avoiding confirming the same in writing. Delaying files to benefit others by putting numerous objections.

(c)

(xix) Violation of Section 186 of IPC for willfully obstructing the Director of Printing from discharge of public functions and disrupting a government officer in performing his legitimate duties 108

Section 186 of IPC Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions :- Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

109

DIRECTORATE OF PRINTING

SERVICE PROFILE (Position as on 01.01.2010)

PROFILE AND PAST SERVICE RECORD OF SHRI R.C GUPTA DESIGNATION DEPUTY SECRETARY P-II TABLE-A 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Birth Date of entry in the service Date of Retirement Date of last Promotion Basic Pay Date of next increment 25.09.1951 10.02.1970 30.09.2011 13.09.2005 as Deputy Secretary Rs.12,000-15,200 01.01.2009 TABLE-B Sl. No 1 2 Post Held & station Stenographer in O/o AG P&T Delhi. Stenographer Grade-II, Personal Assistant) Department of Personnel, New Delhi. Stenographer Grade-II, Department of Personnel & Admn. Reforms (Cabinet Sectt.), New Delhi. Controller of Imports & Exports O/o Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, New Delhi. Section Officer, Ministry of Commerce. Under Secretary Ministry of Environment & Forests. Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty alleviation, Nirman Bhawan. Deputy Secretary, DG(W) CPWD, New Delhi, Nirman Bhawan. Deputy Secretary, Directorate of Printing, Nirman Bhawan. TENURE From To 10.02.1970 11.08.1971 12.08.1971 06.02.1973 PERIOD Months 6 5

Years 1 1

Days 2 26

07.02.1973

16.01.1981

11

10

17.01.1981

31.12.1985

11

15

5 6 7 8

1.01.1986 25.11.1993 28.02.2001 24.08.2004

24.11.1993 27.02.2001 23.08.2004 06.09.2005

7 7 3 1

10 3 5 --

24 3 27 14

07.09.2005

31.01.2007

25
(as on 01.01. 2010)

10

01.02.2007

Till date

110

DIRECTORATE OF PRINTING SERVICE PROFILE

PROFILE AND PAST SERVICE RECORD OF SHRI L.R GUPTA DESIGNATION DEPUTY DIRECTOR (A-II)

TABLE-A
1 2 3 4 5 6 Date of Birth Date of entry in the service Date of Retirement Date of last Promotion Basic Pay Date of next increment 04.10.1957 02.01.1982 31.10.2017 28.06.2000 as Under Secretary Rs.12925/01.10.2008

TABLE-B
Sl. No 1 Post Held & station Assistant, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan. Section Officer, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan. Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Land & Development Office, Nirman Bhawan. Under Secretary, M/o Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan. Under Secretary, M/o HUPA, Nirman Bhawan. Deputy Director A-II, Directorate of Printing, Nirman Bhawan. Works Division, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan. TENURE From 02.01.1982 To 27.10.1988 Years 06 PERIOD Months Days 09 25

28.10.1988

09.06.1998

09

07

11

10.06.1998

27.06.2000

02

00

17

28.06.2000

17.05.2003

02

10

19

18.05.2003

09.04.2007

03

11

21

10.04.2007

28.11.2008

07

20

01.12.2008

Till date

111