- Bribe Fighter
- 11 years ago
- 7826 views
The report is on the subject of promoting to the post of superintendent,…
The report is on the subject of promoting to the post of superintendent, central excise for shri Yeshwant Sadashiv Hotkar who is presently working as inspector, central excise at Aurangabad, maharastra state. This I have to mention here because this options are not given in the site.
Shri Y S Hotkar was given chargesheet because :-
1. he reported to the Commissioner regardng different irregularities in his office
2.and when this officer became the obstacle in their roads of earning extra
money of his senior officers
3.and for not following the instructions of collecting money from the factories of jurisdiction for a south based institution as directed by Mrs Janaki Arunkumar, now commissioner, Tirupati which was collected to the tune of lacs of rupees in the year 2006-07.
4.and resisting for already purchased plot in the Central Excise society of Central Excise Officers, Aurangabad to be given to Mrs Janaki Arunkumar which was snatched by altering the original constitution of the society
5. And for reporting to SC Commission, New Delhi for atrocitic words used against him by Shri. Anil Mukunddas Malu, Superintendent, Central Excise now working in Pune Central Excise Commissionerate
6. And for not agreeing to sign on export documents under PHYSICAL SUPERVISION by sitting in the office and keeping Sealing Plier in the custody of Trade
7. For pointing out irregularities in the transfer orders by fifteen officers of thia office and sixteenth officer was my husband shri Y . S . Hotkar
8. And for pointing out of irregularities of revenue loss in crores of rupees and and etc...etc;
After being assured in the vigilance awareness week that whistle blowing persons will be protected.
In order to spoil the career of my husband CBEC didnot find anything wrong :-
1.to raise the issues of 2005,2006 and 2007 representation in a chargesheet on 10.6.2008 and that to even after giving ACP in August 2007 after due DPC.
2. The act of issuing chargesheet without proper preliminary inquiry as per the CBEC MANUAL by Mrs Janaki Arunkumar.
3. The act of issuing chargesheet by a officer against whom there allegations and who is the main witness of charged officer that is my husband.
The CBEC DIDNOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG OF THE ACT OF SIGNING
LETTERS UPTO TWELVE DAYS AFTER RELIEVED FROM THE POST OF COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD as back dated on 13.6.2008 on 25.6.2008.
The CBEC didnot find anything wrong :-
1. In not subjecting to forensic test the letter of Mr Vatan Kamble, General Secretary of the union,
2.in not subjecting to forensic test the letter of 13.6.2008 signed on
25.6.2008 by Mrs Janaki Arunkumar and
3.in not subjecting to forensic test the letter signed by sixteen GROUP B
Officers of the Central Excise Office of Aurangabad saying that the union headed by Mr Vatan Kamble and administration Including the Commissioner are doing irregularities in the posting.
The CBEC didnot find anything wrong in the acts of Commissioner:-
1. In not considering the requests for various information by my husband for filing reply to the chargesheet uptill the date I.e from 10.6.2008 to till date.
2.to appoint a inquiry officer after 2 years and eight months of issue of
chargesheet I.e on 14.2.2011 and for the issues as early as 2005 I.e after six years.
3.to start inquiry procedings after 9 months of appointment by the inquiry officer.
4. In submission of inquiry report by a inquiry officer after 1 and half years after his appointment as the inquiry officer.
5. Dillydallying of the inquiry officer for 4 hearings including two of
preliminary hearing of average span of 45 minutes each for which total time eaten by the inquiry officer is 9 months when there are instructions that day to day hearings continuosly are to be conducted and when the charged officer that is my husband didnot absented a none hearing and for
expediting the inquiry process he didnot called yhe witness even.
The CBEC didnot find anything wrong with the administration of aurangabad:-
1. For serving zerox copy of inquiry officer report dtd. 9.7.2012, unsigned tentative decision report dtd 17.8.2012 with the forwarding letter bearing
inked signature of Additional Commissioner Mr Dinesh Pangarkar.
2.for giving personal hearing by Mr Kumar Santosh when not demanded by the charged officer.
3. For serving zerox copy of disciplinary order dtd 28.9.2012 and a single
page letter dtd 20.11.2012 and afterwards falsifying about this consequent to filing RTI by my husband on 21.12.2012.
4. Of the fishy acts of destroying inward/outward of accounts section I.e the UOR, the serving of Punishment pay order dtd 21.11.2012 on 7.1.2013., drawing revisef pay of my husband at the reduced rate w.e.f January 2013 by skipping the month of November and December 2012, Obtaining VRS
letter from the Group B officer Mr Patel at the young age and accepting the VRS Iimmediately and giving sendoff.
LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST THE CBEC DIDNOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG OF HOLDING PROMOTION OF MY HUSBAND ON THE NULL AND VOID CHARGESHEET HAVING NO CONTRAVENTION CLAUSE, REDUCING PAYMENT WITHOUT SERVING THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER DTD 16.11.2012 NOR SHOWING THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THIS DISCIPLINARY ORDER AS RECEIVED ORDER NO SO AND SO.
The CBEC APPROVES creating fabricated records for corruption purpose and revenge purpose.
THE CBEC IS BEHIND THE OFFICERS WHO LOOT THE PROPERTIES OF THE JUNIOR OFFICERS BY THE SENIOR OFFICERS IS WHAT CAN BE PROVED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE I.E the records speaking which is available with my husband.
Height to this is that the CBEC didnot find anything wrong for initiating inquiry for filing RTI INSPITE protection provided under Section 21 and 22 of the RTI ACT 2005; plus CBEC DIDNOT FIND ANY CONTEMPT OF THIS SEVTION FOR PLAYING WITH THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER DTD 28.9.2012 AND CHANGING IT WITH ORDER DTD 16.11.2012 FOR REVENGE PURPOSE.
THE CBEC DIDNOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG IN HARRASSING A EMPLOYEE SINCE LAST 15 MONTHS AND FROM LAST 5 AND HALF YEARS BY SWINGING OVER THE DEMOCLES SWORD OF THE CHARGESHEET/ENQUIRY.
However CBEC VERY WELL KNOWS THAT THE CHARGESHEET OF MINOR PENALTY HAVING NO REVENUE LOSS ARE TO BE DECIDED WITHIN SIX MONTHS AS PER THE VIGILANCE MANUAL.
For details pl go through my post on www.ipaidabribe.com as below:-
1.69592- bribe fighter post and
2.72042-bribe hotline
With all above details and other facts I have posted online complaint on PUBLIC GRIEVANCES PORTAL OF THE DAPRG site of Government of India the complaint no's are:-
1 . CBOEC/E/2013/01650 &
2 . CBOEC/E/2013/01657.
On the above complaint i have received the BESHRAM REPLY from the CBEC INDICTING THE ANSWERS AS ABOVE BECAUSE CBEC APPROVES THE ACTION OF SNATCHING THE PLOTS, MONEY ON THE GUN POINT.
The report is on the subject of promoting to the post of superintendent, central excise for shri Yeshwant Sadashiv Hotkar who is presently working as inspector, central excise at Aurangabad, maharastra state. This I have to mention here because this options are not given in the site.
Shri Y S Hotkar was given chargesheet because :-
1. he reported to the Commissioner regardng different irregularities in his office
2.and when this officer became the obstacle in their roads of earning extra
money of his senior officers
3.and for not following the instructions of collecting money from the factories of jurisdiction for a south based institution as directed by Mrs Janaki Arunkumar, now commissioner, Tirupati which was collected to the tune of lacs of rupees in the year 2006-07.
4.and resisting for already purchased plot in the Central Excise society of Central Excise Officers, Aurangabad to be given to Mrs Janaki Arunkumar which was snatched by altering the original constitution of the society
5. And for reporting to SC Commission, New Delhi for atrocitic words used against him by Shri. Anil Mukunddas Malu, Superintendent, Central Excise now working in Pune Central Excise Commissionerate
6. And for not agreeing to sign on export documents under PHYSICAL SUPERVISION by sitting in the office and keeping Sealing Plier in the custody of Trade
7. For pointing out irregularities in the transfer orders by fifteen officers of thia office and sixteenth officer was my husband shri Y . S . Hotkar
8. And for pointing out of irregularities of revenue loss in crores of rupees and and etc...etc;
After being assured in the vigilance awareness week that whistle blowing persons will be protected.
In order to spoil the career of my husband CBEC didnot find anything wrong :-
1.to raise the issues of 2005,2006 and 2007 representation in a chargesheet on 10.6.2008 and that to even after giving ACP in August 2007 after due DPC.
2. The act of issuing chargesheet without proper preliminary inquiry as per the CBEC MANUAL by Mrs Janaki Arunkumar.
3. The act of issuing chargesheet by a officer against whom there allegations and who is the main witness of charged officer that is my husband.
The CBEC DIDNOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG OF THE ACT OF SIGNING
LETTERS UPTO TWELVE DAYS AFTER RELIEVED FROM THE POST OF COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD as back dated on 13.6.2008 on 25.6.2008.
The CBEC didnot find anything wrong :-
1. In not subjecting to forensic test the letter of Mr Vatan Kamble, General Secretary of the union,
2.in not subjecting to forensic test the letter of 13.6.2008 signed on
25.6.2008 by Mrs Janaki Arunkumar and
3.in not subjecting to forensic test the letter signed by sixteen GROUP B
Officers of the Central Excise Office of Aurangabad saying that the union headed by Mr Vatan Kamble and administration Including the Commissioner are doing irregularities in the posting.
The CBEC didnot find anything wrong in the acts of Commissioner:-
1. In not considering the requests for various information by my husband for filing reply to the chargesheet uptill the date I.e from 10.6.2008 to till date.
2.to appoint a inquiry officer after 2 years and eight months of issue of
chargesheet I.e on 14.2.2011 and for the issues as early as 2005 I.e after six years.
3.to start inquiry procedings after 9 months of appointment by the inquiry officer.
4. In submission of inquiry report by a inquiry officer after 1 and half years after his appointment as the inquiry officer.
5. Dillydallying of the inquiry officer for 4 hearings including two of
preliminary hearing of average span of 45 minutes each for which total time eaten by the inquiry officer is 9 months when there are instructions that day to day hearings continuosly are to be conducted and when the charged officer that is my husband didnot absented a none hearing and for
expediting the inquiry process he didnot called yhe witness even.
The CBEC didnot find anything wrong with the administration of aurangabad:-
1. For serving zerox copy of inquiry officer report dtd. 9.7.2012, unsigned tentative decision report dtd 17.8.2012 with the forwarding letter bearing
inked signature of Additional Commissioner Mr Dinesh Pangarkar.
2.for giving personal hearing by Mr Kumar Santosh when not demanded by the charged officer.
3. For serving zerox copy of disciplinary order dtd 28.9.2012 and a single
page letter dtd 20.11.2012 and afterwards falsifying about this consequent to filing RTI by my husband on 21.12.2012.
4. Of the fishy acts of destroying inward/outward of accounts section I.e the UOR, the serving of Punishment pay order dtd 21.11.2012 on 7.1.2013., drawing revisef pay of my husband at the reduced rate w.e.f January 2013 by skipping the month of November and December 2012, Obtaining VRS
letter from the Group B officer Mr Patel at the young age and accepting the VRS Iimmediately and giving sendoff.
LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST THE CBEC DIDNOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG OF HOLDING PROMOTION OF MY HUSBAND ON THE NULL AND VOID CHARGESHEET HAVING NO CONTRAVENTION CLAUSE, REDUCING PAYMENT WITHOUT SERVING THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER DTD 16.11.2012 NOR SHOWING THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THIS DISCIPLINARY ORDER AS RECEIVED ORDER NO SO AND SO.
The CBEC APPROVES creating fabricated records for corruption purpose and revenge purpose.
THE CBEC IS BEHIND THE OFFICERS WHO LOOT THE PROPERTIES OF THE JUNIOR OFFICERS BY THE SENIOR OFFICERS IS WHAT CAN BE PROVED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE I.E the records speaking which is available with my husband.
Height to this is that the CBEC didnot find anything wrong for initiating inquiry for filing RTI INSPITE protection provided under Section 21 and 22 of the RTI ACT 2005; plus CBEC DIDNOT FIND ANY CONTEMPT OF THIS SEVTION FOR PLAYING WITH THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER DTD 28.9.2012 AND CHANGING IT WITH ORDER DTD 16.11.2012 FOR REVENGE PURPOSE.
THE CBEC DIDNOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG IN HARRASSING A EMPLOYEE SINCE LAST 15 MONTHS AND FROM LAST 5 AND HALF YEARS BY SWINGING OVER THE DEMOCLES SWORD OF THE CHARGESHEET/ENQUIRY.
However CBEC VERY WELL KNOWS THAT THE CHARGESHEET OF MINOR PENALTY HAVING NO REVENUE LOSS ARE TO BE DECIDED WITHIN SIX MONTHS AS PER THE VIGILANCE MANUAL.
For details pl go through my post on www.ipaidabribe.com as below:-
1.69592- bribe fighter post and
2.72042-bribe hotline
With all above details and other facts I have posted online complaint on PUBLIC GRIEVANCES PORTAL OF THE DAPRG site of Government of India the complaint no's are:-
1 . CBOEC/E/2013/01650 &
2 . CBOEC/E/2013/01657.
On the above complaint i have received the BESHRAM REPLY from the CBEC INDICTING THE ANSWERS AS ABOVE BECAUSE CBEC APPROVES THE ACTION OF SNATCHING THE PLOTS, MONEY ON THE GUN POINT.