To The Hon'ble President of India, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi. resentation a iverse rem: Respected Madam, | am an Officer of 1989 Batch of the Indian Postal Service. While working as Director Postal Services, Indore, Madhya Pradesh | 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 30" December 2006 to 5” January 2007, that | chanced upon the advertisement and applied for the post. The interview for the post was held by the UPSC and | was selected and appointed as Director of Printing on deputation basis for a period of 3 years wef. 9.5.2008 (FIN) vide Ministry of Urban Development's Gazette Notification No.25/1/2006-A.II(vol.ll) dated 27" 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" Report and 28" 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 Jong 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. | joined the post on 09.05.2008 and after joining duty within a period of less than 2 months, | was given the charge of two more Departments i.e. the charge of 1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 | 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, | had also attended the Oral Evidence before the Standing Committee on the subject GISO, Kolkata in Room No.63 Parliament House on 12" 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 Finance's 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 | 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 | 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. 0-17034/8/2009-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 (FIN) when | 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-| 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-Il, 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. | had no idea about the grounds on which such a drastic unilateral action was taken, therefore as per my RTI application dated 18" December 2009, | 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. 2The relevant information was provided vide Letter No. 0-17034/2/2009-Ptg. dated 16" 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-til. Further | had duly apprised the Secretary (UD) vide my letter dated 30.03.2010, about these false allegations vide Annexure-| 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. | have now requested for information regarding action taken on my representations/Letters vide my RT! Application dated 8" October 2010. 7. | 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 Rot in consonance with goverment rules. As per DoPT Circular No. 3/4/2004- EO(MM.I) dated 17" 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 obtain icers explanation on each alle 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. 7 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-EQ(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 i 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 3