2. He commanded his subordinate Warrant Officer xyz, to give false certificates about quality of various purchased items. Those certificates are:-
3. Various other corruptions done by the Chief Logistics Officer are:-
It may kindly be noted that, in the case titled “Group Captain SPS Raj Kumar Vs. IAF”, 2002 (6) AD(Del) 433 : 2002 (64) DRJ 839 : 2002 LE(Del) 496. Writ Petition (Civil) No.4884 of 2001, by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, on 5-8-2002 relying upon an anonymous letter, the enquiry had been initiated, resulted Court Martial and in his termination from service. Hon’ble Mr. Justices S.B.Sinha, Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi, and Justice A.K.Sikri had allowed this Writ petition on the ground of Rank of the Judge Advocate in the Court Martial, which Judgement had been appealed by IAF in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and vacated by the Supreme Court.
INJUSTICE done illegally BY IAF:- Entire proceedings in the above quoted Group Captain SPS Raj Kumar was illegal and said Anonymous letter could have been presumed to be send by some other Officer of IAF who want to delay the promotion of him, thus it could have been “filed”: kindly read three cases: S.C.Chadha and Suhas V.Purohit, Rear Admiral, Indian Navy and Jasbir Singh; quoted in this chapter.
In fact, the IAF had committed neglecting the Directions issued in the following legal principle, so as to harass SPS Raj Kumar and many other Officers: “Before parting with this case, I would take this opportunity to impress upon the Chief of the Army Staff to ensure that the officers are not harassed in such a manner. The harassment of such senior officers would have adverse impact on the services they render to the country. The nation can never get the best out of their officers unless they are protected from such harassment, humiliation, ignominy and disgrace”. Para 36 of the Judgment passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari on 21-1-1997, in the case of R.C.Kochhar Versus Union of India, reported as 1997 (65) DLT 519 : 1997 LE(Del) 82.
SPECIMEN OF DECLARATORY SUIT:- Even while doing employment, prior to even commencement of Court Martial proceedings/ Disciplinary Action, a Declaratory and Mandatory Injunction Suit can be filed before the Civil Judge/ Munisff Court or according to value of the Suit and Original Jurisdiction of the Courts. One such specimen is given in the end of this Chapter. If one such Declaratory Suit was filed by above SPS Raj Kumar, either while in Service or immediately after his termination, he might have been re-instated.
The Author’s experience is, if a person had really committed embezzlement, his Superiors can locate where that money is kept or Spend and forfeit. On the other hand, if a person is falsely charged (embezzlement, indiscipline, Official Secret Act etc), any efforts by Superiors to completely “finish/ destroy” him may result in he will put a bold fight. After-all, his life long savings is meant for his children and old age, he will not permitted that to be forfeited in a false case.
The Specimen of Declaratory and Mandatory Injunction Suit is prepared keeping the said Psychology in mind. Please note that, in Jasbir Singh’s case, the P & S Bank had failed; if in SPS Raj Kumar’s case the IAF also had filed similar Suit, the IAF too might have been failed. To enable him to write these words in this Book, the Author had filed a RTI Application to the IAF, and it did not reveal the exact amount which SPS Raj Kumar had caused loss. To ensure that, all other persons who had persuaded him to commit the Charged mistake, he will write the all Facts in the Civil Suit, as his defence against proposed Recovery.
========== ================
SAMPLE 2:- The CBI is requested to note that, following are the corrupt practices and financial irregularities taking place, by the following Officers: (1)... (2)... etc in this Office of the Railway Department....
The above sample is relying upon the case: decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as 2007 Apex Crliminal Reports page 64. Appeal (crl.) 1127 of 2006. Shashikant. VERSUS. Central Bureau of Investigation & Others.
==================================================
SAMPLE 3:- Mr.xyz, the Income Tax Officer, Address: is requested to note that, it is observed that you are openly demanding and accepting Bribe, to help defaulter Assessees. Please note, a few persons had prepared to trap you, thus please stop this habit.
The above sample is relying upon the case: decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as 1957 Legal Eagle(Cri) 94 : AIR 1958 SC 61 : 1958 SCR 580, the State of Madras. vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer.
================ ===================
SAMPLE 4:- To: the Government of India. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise at this Office is a Brahmin, who have only aim of spoiling the career of Lower Caste Hindus. In that efforts he get sufficient help from other Brahmin Employees. Please help by transferring him to any other office, at the earliest.
The above sample is relying upon the case: decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7308 OF 2008, Judgment dated December 16, 2008. Somesh Tiwari. Versus. Union of India and others.
==========================================================
SAMPLE 5:- To, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, place:... Information of tampering with evidence in a pending case. Please note that, the accused persons had bribed the Laboratory and got the Report changed, the details are as follows:....
The above sample is prepared relying upon the Internet page http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2007/05/942 regarding Death of a nun: Even after 15 years, a catholic nun's suspected rape and murder haunts the church and the CBI in Kerala. Three months ago the chief judicial magistrate received an ANONYMOUS LETTER stating that the chemical examination's analytical report of Sister Abhaya's body and clothes were tampered with. He handed the letter to the CBI, but they did not move. Hardnews got a copy of the original report that stated, "semen was detected in the vaginal swab and smear". But the laboratory record was tampered with and "no" was inserted in the statement that now reads "no semen was detected in the vaginal swab and smear".
================= ==========
SAMPLE 6:- To, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Delhi. Subject: Corruption at following Team of the Delhi Police. Please note that, the Team which had been formed to vacate the Foot-path Vendors at the following place, is accepting Bribe regularly to enable the illegality to continue.
The above sample is prepared relying upon the News Paper report, extract of the same reads: Yahoo India Pvt Ltd, 16-10-2009, Police action on Anonymous letter ended tout-cop nexus. "We received an anonymous letter, which mentioned the tout menace at the airport," said Joint Commissioner of Police (Operations) Satyendra Garg. To see if the claims in the letter were true, a 'discreet enquiry' was done. Senior police officers said that police observers in plainclothes were sent to the airport. "They kept a check on the activities of the police officers in the team and those posted at the Palam Police Station," said a senior police officer on the condition of anonymity, as he is not authorised to speak to the media. The police said that the whole Anti-Tout team was kept under close and discreet surveillance. The police observers collected information as well as evidence against the accused officers. "Finally, after verifying all the facts and after preliminary enquiry, we took action against all the accused police personnel," added the officer. "Yes, after enquiry, the accusations were found to be true. The police will do their departmental enquiry in due course of time," said Garg.
============== ====================
SAMPE 7:- To, (1) the Medical Supdt, Hosp...., Delhi. (2) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt of India, New Delhi. (3) the Station House Officer, Police Station...., Delhi. Sirs, at the Hospital named …., there is open nexus between Private Laboratory Agents and the Doctors. For example, for any and every illness, the Doctors are prescribing for AIDS Test, for both husband and wife. In fact, the said Test is to be conducted only when a patient is not responding to the Medicines (= his illness is not getting cured despite normal medicines are given), or loosing weight without any justification. Even poor people are compelled to spend a lot of money to perform this test. It is prayed that, visit of Private Laboratory Agents may be restrained into the said Hospital and guilty people may be investigated and punished.
==================================================
SAMPLE 8:- To, the Presiding Officer, Court No...., Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Contents of the envelop:- Photocopy of the News Report regarding punishment received by the Court-staff in a case, related to Bribe in the Court Room.
It was send to discourage the Court-Staff of the said Court, from harassing Litigants with demand for Bribe. The said News Report, without any covering letter, had given relief for a few months.
=================== ====================
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
1983 Legal Eagle (Delhi) 180 : 1984 (1) ILR(Del) 102 : 1984 (2) SLJ 392
S.C.Gupta Versus Food Corporation of India
Case No. : . Writ Petition (Civil) No… Date of Decision : 07-Jul-1983
Advocates Appeared: P.K.Agarwal : C.L.Nasimhan
Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Avadh Behari Rohatgi, Judge.
(1) THE petitioner S. C. Gupta was employed in the respondent Food Corporation of India (the Corporation). At the relevant time he was Manager (Costs). A manager is the head of his Division. So in the Cost Division he was the head. With him another officer of equal rank, one Shri. S. K. Khosla, was also working as Manager (Accounts) - He was also the head of his Division. (NOTE: Inter service jealousy and rivalry, do not permit to happen; unfortunately many persons permit, encourage and cause, it to happen, between own children and employees, because of many reasons: To get Informers/ Khabaris, Divide and Rule, etc – Author) There was inter-service jealousy and rivalry between them. The Government of Zambia advertised some posts for Group Accountant, Area Accountant, Cost Accountant, Expenditure Accountant, Financial Accountant etc. for their country. Both Khosla's and Gupta's names were sponsored for those posts. But none was taken for any of the advertised posts. Khosla, however, managed to get an assignment of Financial Controller in the National Agricultural Marketing Board of Zambia. He left India and joined the post under the Zambian Government in 1977.
(2) A letter dated 1-2-1977 purporting to be written from (the address:) l/53 Charbagh, Lucknow was received at the Indian High Commission at Lusaka. The subject-matte of the letter was S. K. Khosla. The letter reads :
(Specimen of a failed Pseudonymous letter, written by a co-worker, from the address of Family life complainant):
"1/53, Charbagh, Lucknow 1-2-77. May it please your Excellency, Re : (= Subject/ Regarding) Mr. S. K. Khosla I understand that the above named person is trying to get a job in Zambia. May I respectfully inform you that there is a warrant for arrest and he is now on a bail in a criminal case filed by me at Lucknow in the Court of Mr. S. M. Abbas, Judge, Lucknow. The warrant for arrest was issued on 26-7-76. It is now learnt that he is going to jump the bail and go to Zambia. You may like to inform Zambian Government to cancel his appointment lest it spoils the relations later. It is learnt that Shri Khosla secretly visited Lusaka towards the end of December 1976. The fact of his arrest can be verified from Shri A.P. Singh, I.A.S., Sr. Regl. Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lucknow, under whom Shri Khosla is working. With Jai Hind. Yours faithfully, Sdl- (nlegible HCD|83 8 106 .
“To The Indian High Commission, Zambia, Lusaka."
(3) THIS letter was written by the writer in his own hand. Though the address is clear, the writer's signatures and his name are wholly illegible of this later.
(4) TO resume the narrative. The letter reached the High Commission of India in Lusaka. The High Commission on 17-2-1977 addressed a letter to Shri A. P. Singh, Zonal Manager of the Corporation at Lucknow. The letter says :
"WE enclose herewith, in original, presumably an anonymous complaint against Shri S. K. Khosla of your Organisation for your information. If there is evidence of Shri Khosla's involvement, you may kindly consider requesting the High Commissioner of the Republic of Zambia, L-Hauz Khas, New Delhi, to embargo any appointment proposed to be offered to Shri Khosla or even entry to Zambia”.
(5) On 8-3-83 (sic.) Mr. A. P. Singh in his turn- forwarded this letter to the Managing Director of the Corporation at New Delhi together with the letter in original. He expressed his ignorance about the facts mentioned in the complaint except that he was aware of some litigation going on between Khosla and his relative and that warrant of arrest of Khosla had been issued. He asked the management to look into the allegations made in the complaint.
(6) It appears that a humiliated Khosla came back from Zambia to the Corporation in July 1979. At once he made a complaint to the Managing Director. He told him that some persons were writing anonymous/ pseudonymous complaints against him to the High Commission of India at Zambia which Were sent to the Corporation in India. He also told him this :
(NOTE:- Do not become a Cat which closes it’s eyes while drinking milk to think that the world is not seeing it – Author).
"A colleague of mine in the managerial cadre appeared with me for interview in the Zambia High Commission on 19th/ 20th October, 1977 and the complaints I am given to understand started immediately thereafter to the Zambia High Commission, New Delhi and Indian High Commissioner in Lusaka. ...As these complaints have caused to me irreparable damage. I request that the matter may be investigated and action, as considered appropriate, be taken".
(7) So the Corporation started looking into this matter. The Managing Director asked Brigadier Harnam Singh, Manager (Vigilance) to find out who was the author of this letter which . was supposed to have been written from 1/53 Char Bagh, Lucknow.
(8) Brigadier Harnam Singh called Khosla and enquired from him who, in' his opinion, could have written this letter. Khosla told him that he had a strong suspicion that the letter in question was written by Gupta. So Brigadier asked him to bring some file from the Finance Division from which a comparison of the hand- writing of Gupta could be made with the letter dated 1-2-1977. Khosla gave him one file which contained extensive notings in the handwriting of Gupta. He asked Khosla whether he was prepared to get a report from a private handwriting-expert on the question whether the writer of the letter is the same man who had written notes on the office file. Khosla agreed. He engaged a handwriting expert. The expert gave his opinion that the same person who had written office notes had written the letter in question. With this preliminary investigation report Brigadier sent the matter to the Managing Director for further orders.
(9) On 30-1-1980/1-2-1980 a memorandum was issued to Gupta Informing him that it was alleged that he had written a Pseudonymous Letter to Indian High Commission in Lusaka dated 1-2-1977 making wild allegations against Khosla. As a result of expert investigation, the memorandum said, it is believed that the letter in question was written by him, that is, S.C. Gupta. This act was thought to be a violation of the Regn. 32 of the Staff Regulations, 1971 of the Corporation inasmuch as it amounted to a conduct "unbecoming of a corporation employee". Gupta was asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the violation of the Staff Regulations.
(10) On 15-2-1980 Gupta sent his reply. He denied the authorship of the letter and claimed that someone had forged his writing and this forgery had been done "in such a cleaver manner that even an handwriting expert cannot detect the same". Not only did he repudiate the authorship, he invited the Corporation to make a full investigation into the matter and to bring the person responsible for maligning him to book.
(11) The Corporation did not know what to do unless they get the opinion of an independent expert. So they decided to send this letter to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory and asked the Government expert, Mr. M. K. Jain, to give his opinion on the authorship of the letter. Mr. Jain sent his report dated 31-3-1980. He was of the opinion that the writer of the office notes and the letter was the same person. On the signatures which appear at the end of the letter he was unable to give any definite opinion on the basis of the material placed before him.
(12) Armed with this opinion of the Government expert the Managing Director decided to launch disciplinary proceedings against Gupta. The following article of charge was framed :
(Disciplinary Action’s specimen Charge for writing a Pseudonymous Letter:)
"SHRI S. C. Gupta, while functioning as Manager (Cost) in the Head Office of the Food Corporation of India at New Delhi, addressed a Pseudonymous Letter on 1-2-1977 to the Indian High Commission in Lusaka (Zambia) making certain allegations against Shri… India, New Delhi, with the sole and malafide intention of causing annoyance and injury to the officer of the same rank in the Corporation. Shri S. C. Gupta by his above action, has involved himself in an act unbecoming of a Corporation employee thereby violating Regulation 32 of the Food Corporation of India, Staff Regulations, 1977."
(13) It is pertinent at this stage to notice Regulation 32. Regn. 32 is one of the Staff Regulations framed in 1971 by the Corporation in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 45 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. The regulations therefore have statuory force. Regn. 32 says' :
"Every employee shall serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully and shall Endeavour his utmost to promote the interest of the Corporation. He shall show courtesy and attention in all transactions and not do anything which is unbecoming of a Corporation employee."
(14) This was the charge which Gupta was asked to face in the departmental inquiry. Shri Davender Singh, Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer.
(15) Before the inquiry officer the Corporation examined two witnesses. One of them was Mr. M. K. Jain, Senior Scientific Adviser of the C.F.S.L., New Delhi. On behalf of Gupta nine witnesses were examined. One of them was a handwriting expert. After recording the evidence the enquiry officer made his report on 24-11-1980. He held that the article of charge against Gupta was proved. 'The inquiry report was submitted to the Board of Directors of the Corporation. They are the highest body in the corporate structure. They met on two days, 18th and 19th March, 1981. They agreed with the inquiry officer that Gupta had written the pseudonymous letter dated 1-2-1977 to the Indian High Commission in Lusaka continuing allegations against Khosla. They were also "CONVICTED (sic convinced) that this letter had been written by Shri S. C. Gupta with the sole and mala fide intention of causing annoyance and injury to another officer of the same rank in the Corporation".
They passed a resolution imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement on Gupta.
(16) After this resolution was passed, the Managing Director of the Corporation made a formal order dated 19-3-1981 saying that "THE Board of Directors of the Corporation, after having agreed with the inquiry officer to the effect that the said Shri Gupta made motivated allegation against Shri Khosla to gain undue advantage for himself in service, have come to the conclusion that the said Shri Gupta has behaved in a manner unbecoming of a senior officer of the Corporation".
"NOW, therefore, the Board of Directors do hereby impose on the said Shri S. C. Gupta the penalty of compulsory retirement from service of the Food Corporation of India."
(17) SO this was the outcome of the inquiry. Gupta brought this petition on 25-3-1981 impugning the decision of the Board of Directors compulsorily retiring him from the service of the Corporation.
(18) Mr. P. K. Aggarwal on behalf of Gupta has raised substantially two points before me: (1) on the findings of the inquiry officer in the report and (2) as to the competence of the authority of the Managing Director to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against Gupta. On the first point he has challenged the inquiry proceedings mainly on three grounds. Firstly, he says that the letter was not an anonymous letter nor pseudonymous because the address of the writer is given at the right hand corner of the document, that is, 1/53, Char Bagh Lucknow. Secondly, he says that the best evidence of the occupant of the Char Bagh has been withheld by the Corporation. Thirdly he submits that the uncorroborated testimony of the Government handwriting expert cannot be the sole basis of an adverse finding against Gupta (= the delinquent employee also had produced his own Handwriting Expert, eventhough his evidence is not quoted, it can be presumed that, he might have given opinion that, Pseudonymous Letter was not in his client’s handwriting, thus the testimony of Govt expert is not corroborated, is the defence of delinquent – Author), and more so when a contrary opinion had been given by another expert before him. Elaborating the first ground counsel says that when the letter was sent from the High Commission in Lusaka to Mr. A. P. Singh it was referred to as an 'anonymous' letter and it is only later on that in the correspondence it is referred to as a 'pseudonymous' letter. On this basis he submitted that the letter which was produced before the inquiry officer was a 'planted' letter because the original letter along with the notings of Gupta was handed over by Brigadier to Khosla for obtaining the opinion of a handwriting expert.
(19) Much capital was sought to be made of the expressions 'anonymous' and 'pseudonymous' as have been used in the correspondence. The High Commission while sending this letter to Mr. A. P. Singh has referred to it as "presumably anonymous". In the charge it is referred to as 'pseudonymous'. (Held:) I do not think there is much difference between the two terms so far as this Letter is concerned. The fact remains that the name of the author of the letter remains unknown because the signatures which he has put at the end of the letter cannot be deciphered.
(Definition of Anonymous and Pseudonymous Letter:)
(20) The word 'anonymous' means that the writer is unknown or unrevealed. There is a complete absence or lack of identification of the man. Because he is name-less. There is no indication of name or insignia of the writer. 'Pseudonymous' means that the writer has assumed a false or fictitious name in so far as his individuality or personality is concerned. But if the writer of the letter scribbles some words purporting to be his signatures which no one can decipher it must