Date : 26.11.2018
Place: Bangalore
To
The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
New Delhi.
Dear Sir,
Sub:
Victim IRS Officer Seeks justice through an independent inquiry: -Reg
Ref-1:
CVC OM No. 015/ITX/011/301272 dated 03.12.2015
Ref-2:
F. No C – 14011/5/2016- V&L dtd 04.03.2016
Ref-3:
DGIT(V)SZ/COM/18/8dtd 05.08.2015
Ref-5:
F.No: DGIT(V)/DP/573/4898 dated 12.11.2018.
I am Sanghi Sri Hari Rao; from
1999 Batch of Indian Revenue Service belonging to Scheduled Caste -Mala
community. My story is an experience of continued harassment and victimization
at work place by certain group of officers. The story is going to bring vividly
how authorities at top have silently displayed all kinds of bias which has made
an outstanding officer to get totally disillusioned in the institutional means
of seeking justice as an IRS Officer.
The most interesting part is that
the victimized officer rather than getting depressed, worked in unrelated area
by putting resignation thrice and became the one and only civil servant in
India to win a DST-Lockheed Martin’ India Innovation Growth Programme - GOLD
Medal (2015) and several other medals including international acclaim for his innovation
in Energy Efficient Gas Fuel Burner System. Today, I am one of the leading
thermodynamics gas fuel scientist on radiant heat despite being a commerce
student. The present gas fuel burner system has a thermal efficiency under IS
14612 between 36-45%, whereas my innovation has created a new world record
between 65-68.9%.
I feel proud that The President
of India’s Kitchen, The kitchen of Prime Minister’s Office, ITC Hotels,
Infosys, Indian Army, Akshayapatra and host of other premium user is powered by
my innovation titled as “AGNISUMUKH”. Please log on to “YouTube & Google”
to see “Agnisumukh”, where you will find that today I am the United Nations -
International Ambassador for Clean Energy for SDG-7 for UN Agenda 2030 in
“Transforming our World”. I am expressing these achievements only as a
precursor that victimized officer was not only outstanding while working in
Income-tax but became a Global Brand in totally unrelated area even out of
work. If the victimized officer could rise in the unknown terrain then what he
would have done in his core domain where the Government of India selected him
as a civil servant through a competitive exam. So it is a real loss to the
Income-tax Department that an ASSET to the Department is being treated shabbily
like LIABLITY. Definitely the officer deserves all the respect and dignity
through an independent probe where institutional mechanism in the entire
Income-tax Department has miserably totally failed.
Let me share the story from the
beginning. I joined Indian Civil Service on 20th September, 1999
with great degree of enthusiasm. Every batch mate from 66th
Foundation Course and 53rd Batch of IRS, like me not only as an
affable officer and a great friend but remember me as an amazing cook, as I
have cooked food for all and served in not only in LBSNAA but also in NADT. At
work I was outstanding officer right from the probationary days till the year
2005-06.
The entire environment changed in
the year 2006-07 as three officers Shri A K Agarwal, the then CIT (Central), Bangalore, Shri D K Jha, the
then Additional CIT (Central) Range -1, Bangalore, Shri Anurag Sahay, the then
Additional CIT (Administration), Bangalore, decided to destroy my career. A detailed story is available vide link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-story-my-truth.html.
As I seek justice let me explain in sequence what all happened in my life leading
to victimization and undue harassment for more than a decade. The details are
as under:-
1.
Spoiling
of my Annual Confidential Report for the
year 2006-07:- Shri A K Agarwal, the then
CIT (Central) Bangalore, Shri D K Jha, the then Additional CIT (Central)
Range -1, Bangalore, Shri Anurag Sahay, the then Additional CIT (Administration)
colluded with Shri Narender Kumar the then Additional CIT (Central) Range -2 ,
Bangalore, downgraded my ACR from “Outstanding to Adverse” on frivolous grounds that too without
ever issuing a single memo despite doing outstanding work done during the year.
A detailed report of representation is available vide link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2014/12/basis-of-spoiling-my-acr-by-ak.html
a.
Going through the above link will highlight that
the half of the adverse remark was on frivolous ground that ACR form was not
correctly filled. The entire coterie of immoral men can stoop down to such a
level because the filling of ACR form was not my responsibility but the
responsibility of “The Chief Commissioner of Bangalore-I” who was the in charge
of Administration. Which means the Shri A K Agarwal was writing adverse remark
of CCIT-1 in my ACR. The mood clearly shows that all the officers with
questionable morality had decided to harass and victimize me.
b.
There various instance of bias at work place including
caste bias is openly reflected by Shri A K Agarwal, the then CIT (Central) is very
much part of the ACR representation.
c.
The irony is that the Administration under
CCIT-1, Bangalore was silent all along when this crime was being committed.
d.
I fought the case bravely and the “Adverse
Remarks” of the Reviewing Officer (Shri A K Agarwal, the then CIT (Central),
got expunged.
e.
I sought assistance from The Chairman, CBDT to
do inquiry on the harassment vide letter dated 11.05.2009. A copy of letter is
available vide link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2018/11/letter-to-chairman-cbdt-seeking-justice.html
but little I realised that I was dealing with deaf and dumb senior authorities.
2.
Initiation
of a False Vigilance Case: Shri A K Agarwal, the then CIT (Central) Bangalore, Shri D K Jha, the
then Additional CIT (Central) Range -1, Bangalore & Shri Anurag Sahay, the then
Additional CIT (Administration), Bangalore. When the above inhuman officers
realised that I have come out unscathed and clean from the ACR issue they
created and orchestered the false Vigilance Case.
a.
When the false case was being orchestered, I
approached Shri B R Sudhakara, The Director General of Income-tax
(Investigation), to protect me form the incoming harassment. I also pleaded to
him that let any vigilance case be created against me by any authority but not
again by the same officer who attempted to spoil my ACR with malicious intent. The
letter dated 05.11.2007 is available vide link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2014/12/letter-to-br-sudhakara-pleading-not-to.html.
But the DGIT(Inv), Bangalore instead of becoming vigilant and protecting an innocent
direct recruit young officer also became party to the crime as the false case
of Vigilance was created subsequently.
3.
Background
of the immoral Officers:-
a.
Shri A K Agarwal, the then CIT (Central)
Bangalore & Shri D K Jha, the then Additional CIT (Central) Range -1,
Bangalore are the same officers who destroyed the crucial evidence in M/s
Oxford Case and subsequently were covered by CBI. Poor colleague U A
Chandramouli, the then DCIT got entangled as he took all the blame onto himself
on the instruction of AK Agarwal and assurance from Shri Anurag Sahay, was
under the strong illusion that the men with questionable morality will save
him.
b.
Whereas Shri Anurag Sahay, the then Additional
CIT (Administration), Bangalore was unceremoniously removed from Range-6
Bangalore, on the charge of corruption and was shunted to non assessment area.
But Anurag Sahay masterminded his entry back to administration where he cleared
his name not only from Vigilance but also protected unscrupulous officers and
troubled innocent officers. The link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-story-my-truth.html
will bring out his role and attitude.
c.
Shri A K Agarwal, the then CIT (Central) Bangalore & Shri D K Jha,
the then Additional CIT (Central) Range -1, Bangalore compromised with a case which caused revenue
loss of Crores of Rupees. I brought this matter to respective authorities the
detailed letter is available vide link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2018/11/vigilance-silent-on-unscruplous-officers.html.
d.
It is my intervention in the case on the request
of the new incumbent assessing officer in central circle the case could be
salvaged. My effort itself deserves another GOLD Medal from the Income-tax
Department as no assessee will come and file voluntary disclosure letter, when Shri
A K Agarwal, the then CIT (Central)
Bangalore & Shri D K Jha, the then Additional CIT (Central) Range -1 has
already approved the draft assessment on file reducing the effort of
investigation to ZERO undisclosed
income. It is a very interesting case and classic case of COLLUSIVE CORRUPTION by immoral men, where I even offered my
assistance to vigilance, but till date all relevant authorities are silent and
have not contacted me to put the crook officers on check.
4.
Launching
of a Vigilance Case: On 14.03.2016 I received a communication from the
office of PCCIT-Karnataka that a vigilance case initiating major penalty has
been launched based on CVC letter vide CVC OM No. 015/ITX/011/301272 dated
03.12.2015 based on the recommendation of CBDT vide DGIT(V)SZ/COM/18/8dtd
05.08.2015.
The excerpts of the letter are as under
Sub: Case against Shri
S S Hari Rao, DCIT - reg
1.
CBDT may refer to their F.No. DGIT(V)
S/COM/18/08 dated 05/08/2015 on the subject cited above
2.
Considering the facts & circumstances of the
case, the Commission in agreement with the CVO and Member (P&V) would
advice ‘intitation of major penalty
proceedings against Shri S S Hari Rao, the then DCIT.
Further, the Commission observations are
as under:
i.
The officer did not complete the assessment in
search cases as per the instructions of the CBDT and in the best interest of
Revenue. While some of the allegations are in the nature of what should have
been done and what was not done, there is no specific requirement by way of any
instructions of the CBDT for making such mandatory requirements before the
conclusion of the assessment. However, it suffices to state that the
assessments were not done appropriately. According to the Commission the most
serious misconduct was relating to the issue of refunds in respect of taxes
paid on regular assessments by determining lower income in the search
assessments.
ii.
Even though the provisions relating to approval
of the assessment statutorily u/s 153D came into force w.e.f 1.07.2017, there
are instructions of the CBDT that the assessment in the Central Circles and in
particular assessments were to be completed with the prior approval of the
Additional Commissioner, who in fact is supposed to be associated with process
of assessment to initiation to completion. The officer does not appear to have
followed the said practice.
iii.
The role of the Additional Commissioner/Joint
Commissioner, the immediate administrative superior Sh. S S Hari Rao, the then
DCIT Central Circle II also needs to be examined from the point of view of the
failure to ensure proper assessments in these search cases. As mentioned above,
there are instructions of the CBDT in this regard and apart from the
instructions whether or not there are instructions, it is fundamental duty of
an Additional Commissioner of the Central Range to monitor and supervise the
assessment being made by the assessing officer working under him. Prima facie
the Additional Commissioner failed in performing such duty and guiding the AO,
resulting in these poor assessments. Further the refunds incorrectly issued on
account of determination of lower income in the assessment u/s 153A/153C
compared to original assessments must
have been approved by the Additional CIT/CIT concerned. CBDT may identify the
person concerned, call for his explanation and take the matter to a logical
conclusion.
iv.
The case brings out the classical defect in CBDT
Vigilance administration on inordinate delays.
v.
The irregularities in the assessment completed
in February 2007 by the accused officer were brought to the notice of the DG
Vigilance/CVO as early as on 03.03.2008. Agreeing with the DG (Inv) that there
was gross irregularities in the assessment, CVO opened a common file and called
for a further vigilance report. The matter took 7 ½ years to the FSA stage. In
fact the last report of the field authorities/Zonal Vigilance to the CVO does
not bring anymore new facts that there were originally brought out on
03.03.2008 except updates in the matter of remedial action. Thus the delay in
handling the matter apart from failure to handle misconduct enabled the officer
to be promoted. There is a need to fix responsibility for the delays in the
vigilance set up.
5.
The
actual truth behind the false vigilance case: The present case was orchestered by the same
group of officers with questionable morality who first spoiled my ACR 2006-07
and then initiated false vigilance case. The prosecution witnesses are Shri D K
Jha, the then Additional CIT (Central) Range -1 (who was covered subsequently
by CBI and in the destruction of crucial evidence and may be about to be
dismissed from service), Bangalore, Shri Narender Kumar the then Additional CIT
(Central) Range -2 (he is the same reporting officer against whom CVC gave a
serious finding & charge in the above Para for failing to carry out the
fundamental duty as a Additional Commissioner of Central Range doing Search
Assessments), Bangalore and Mr. Ajit Korde. The detailed explanation filed in
response to charge is available vide link: https://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2018/11/denial-of-articles-of-charge-vide.html
a.
The story
behind the main charge leveled by CVC: A real estate entity was searched where the
search proceedings revealed that income in the hands of partner (HR
Ravichandra) was wrongly assessed over the number of years as the individual income
instead of income assessed in the hands of partnership firm. The same mistake
was corrected during search assessments as revenue gain was observed by me. So
it is incumbent that the income in the hands of individual has to be adjusted
against the partnership by giving refunds and then adjusting with the
partnership firm. Even the statutory procedure is to give refunds in the hand
of individual and adjust against the partnership as the same was requested by
the assessee. So a natural practice in the Income-tax department the same was
followed.
i.
The prime
allegation in Vigilance: The prime
allegation in vigilance is of under assessment. It is stated that the original
income of H R Ravichandra as an individual was Rs. 67,75,690/-. The search
assessment assessed by me is in the hands of three partnerships ( i) M/s Royal Shelters, ii) M/s Royal Park
Residency iii) Royal Habitat, for the assessment period 2000-01 to AY
2003-04 was Rs. 49,06,370/- which led to
a Revenue Loss of Rs. 18,63920.
H R Ravichandra
|
||
A.Y
|
Original Return
|
Search Assessments
|
2000-01
|
554803
|
554810
|
2001-02
|
791118
|
1966120
|
2002-03
|
1211471
|
2183972
|
2003-04
|
4218298
|
755278
|
Total
|
6775690
|
4906370
|
Search
Assessment leading to a Revenue Loss of Rs. 18,63920/-
|
||
* The DGIT(Vig)/CVO even after having the
file for more than 7 ½ years has done totaling mistake as the above total of search
assessment in the Articles of Charge-1 comes to Rs. 54,61,180. Therefore,
apparently revenue loss has came down to Rs. 13,14,150/- instead of Rs.
18,63,920/-.
ii.
The
actual reality of the case is in favor of Revenue: The net impact of assessment proceeding
done by me was reducing the income in the hands of H R Ravichandra and
assessing the income in the hands FIVE partnership
firms and not THREE partnership firms as
alleged in the Articles of Charge-1. The details are:- ( i) M/s Royal Shelters,
ii) M/s Royal Park Residency iii) M/s R S Constructions, iv) Royal Habitat, and
v) M/s R S Developers for the assessment period 2000-01 to AY 2003-04 has
led to enhancement of Revised income by Rs. 9,90,508 thereby bringing
additional revenue of Rs. 31,47,213/- in the form of enhanced Income-tax and
Interest under Section 234 B & C.
iii.
This fact will clearly bring out that the DGIT
(Vig) has falsely framed the charge by suppressing the income assessed in the two partnership firms namely: M/s R S Constructions, and M/s R S Developers
and sinisterly taking the income of only
three firms (i) M/s Royal Shelters,
ii) M/s Royal Park Residency iii) Royal Habitat, to create a revenue loss
so that “a major penalty can be initiated despite doing an excellent work in search assessment.
H R Ravichandra
|
||
A.Y
|
Original Return
|
Search Assessments
|
2000-01
|
554803
|
554810
|
2001-02
|
791118
|
766120
|
2002-03
|
1211471
|
2224488
|
2003-04
|
4218298
|
4195780
|
Total
|
6775690
|
7741198
|
Search Assessment leading
to a Revenue Gain of Rs. 9,65,508/-
|
||
Outcome of Search Assessment done by me
|
||||
Description
|
Income Returned
|
Tax
|
Interest
|
Benefit to IT Dept
|
Original Return Tax @ 30%
|
6775690
|
2032707
|
2032707
|
|
Revised Return @
35%
|
7741198
|
2718169
|
2461751
|
5177020
|
Income enhanced by
|
965508
|
685462
|
2461751
|
3147213
|
iv.
It should
be noted that even a kindergarten child knows that total of three entity will naturally
appear to be revenue loss as against the total of five entities actually having
revenue gain. This becomes a classic
case and rare in a vigilance proceeding of harassment and victimisation in the hand of a GATEKEEPER. The
irony is that the DGIT(Vig)/CVO sought time from Commission and spent more than 7 ½ years and still fail to discover
the real truth despite having all the material in their possession. This definitely raises the credibility
issue of CVO handling my case all along.
v.
Fudging the facts and doing the totaling mistake
even after having the files for more than a decade gives me strong reason to
believe that DGIT (Vig)/CVO has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion
to duty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant thereby
contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules,1964.
vi.
I am writing these line very vividly and
strongly as I have been indicted for no fault of mine and the same above lines
have been written against me from past ten years. I want the unscrupulous officers down the line
to HEAR, ENJOY and EXPERIENCE these lines in my letter directly alleging
them as a corollary to poetic justice. I know the blood will rush throughout
the body for them and then these men with questionable integrity will realise
the pain and personally experience of what I and my family felt for a decade.
b.
Relevance
of Vigilance proceedings: With the primary charge getting explained it will
be difficult for the proceedings to sustain the other charges as all other
charges are trivial.
i.
On the day of creating vigilance the charged officer
had a complete clean record and devoid of any vigilance angle born out of any
complaint.
ii.
Many of the charges are baseless as it is
leveled without any substance which can be evidenced from the fact that the
doubts are being raised without any order getting reviewed under section 263.
iii.
There are some orders undertaken under section 263
to hook my case but all assessments were bonafide. The difference of opinion may
exist as the Constitution of India provides for application of individual mind
in each case. But the fact remains that there is absolutely no vigilance angle
to it.
iv.
The vigilance proceedings will find tough to
justify when the independent inquiry will link the background of the officer being
outstanding ever since he joined the service till he came into contact with inhuman
officers till the year 2006-07. The wisdom of the proceedings will become
difficult when it will be discovered that during the year the charged officer
was never issued a memo for any slippage in action for the present proceeding
or as an officer.
6.
Rebuttal
of CVC findings point by point: - The CVC has indeed become part of a classic and rare case, where the good
work of an outstanding officer has been sidelined and has been victimized for
more than a decade.
i.
The CVC has itself stated that the major penalty
was initiated against the charge officer based on the Article of Charge - 1.
Once the Article of Charge has been proven wrong, then what is the remedial
action is guaranteed to the innocent officer who has suffered for more than a
decade?
ii.
What action the CVC will take against the unscrupulous
officers who have deliberately falsified the case by suppressing a portion of
the crucial facts which made an excellent search assessment done by the officer
to appear as a case of revenue loss to the department and also doubting the
officer’s caliber pertaining to character, integrity and devotion to duty?
iii.
What will CVC do to its nominee DGIT(Vig)/CVO in
the Income-tax Department for becoming party to crime and twisting the truth
and crucial facts for more than a decade for not only dragging the case without
any new finding for 7 ½ years?
7.
Farce
Vigilance Proceedings under the Inquiry Officer:- The administration at Bangalore intimated the
appointment of Inquiry Officer Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT(A-3), Bangalore. During
the course of the inquiry proceedings over a year I found the Inquiry Officer
has been biased right from the beginning of the proceedings. For any vigilance
case it is the statutory responsibility of the Inquiry Officer to provide for
the defence documents to properly defend the officer under the charge. But in
my case the story was totally opposite. The details are as under:-
a.
The Inquiry officer denied the defence documents
four times and again violating the provision 3.5 of Chapter XI of the
Vigilance Manual (1991 Ed)
which reads as under:
Denial of access to documents which have a relevance to the case will
amount to violation of the reasonable opportunity mentioned in Article 311 (2)
of the Constitution. Access may not, therefore, be denied except on grounds of
relevancy or in the public interest or in the interest of the security of the
state. The question of relevancy has to be looked at from the point of view of
the Government servant and if there is any possible line of defense to which
the document may be in some way relevant, though the relevance is not clear at
the time when the Government servant makes the request, the request should not
be rejected. The power to deny access on the grounds of public interest or
security of State should be exercised only when there are reasonable and
sufficient grounds to believe that public interest or security of the State
will clearly suffer. Such occasions should be rare. A copy of the
letter is available vide link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2018/11/farce-vigilance-proceedings-under.html
b.
As there was no light at the end of the tunnel
for obtaining defence documents to properly defend myself, a request for the
change of officer was written to the disciplinary authority. A copy of the letter is available vide link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2018/11/change-of-inquiry-officer-letter-dated.html
c.
To the utter surprise communication was received
from DGIT(Vig)/CVO through a non-speaking order rejecting the change in officer.
The attitude of the disciplinary authority is definite display of bias and openly
showing contempt not only to the to rule based Vigilance Proceedings as
mentioned in the Para 3.5 of Chapter XI
of the Vigilance Manual (1991 Ed) but also the Apex court Judgment (Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment Travancore
Rayon Lt. Vs Union of India 1971 AIR 862).
d.
The DGIT (Vig)/CVO toeing the same line of
action of the inquiry officer without a speaking order and rejecting the
request of defence documents makes it apparently clear that both the
authorities have joined to fix me by conducting a farce vigilance proceeding.
e.
In the letter the DGIT (Vig)/CVO after rejecting
my request for defence documents expressed me to cooperate with finishing the
vigilance proceeding at the earliest. I
was laughing on the attitude of the authority as everyone is more bothered
about statistical number of cases for disposal rather than actually bringing
out the truth so as to impart equity and justice. It is clearly understood that
rather than hearing my side of story, the CVO was contended and happy with the Inquiry
Officer who was perpetrator of crime as the denial of the defence document would
have brought me out cleanly in the vigilance proceeding.
8.
No
Confidence in the machinery led by DGIT (Vig)/CVO:- The doubts over the
credibility of machinery led by DGIT/CVO has been from the sequence of events
happening over a decade. The details are as under:-
a.
Spoiling
ACR 2006-07:- The custodian of ACR is the Vigilance Department so it is the
fundamental duty of Vigilance Department that innocent people should be
protected from harassment and victimization and guilty to be punished. In the
CBDT, Member (Personnel & Vigilance) is bestowed with this function. But surprisingly
when this matter was brought to their notice while creation of vigilance
proceedings, I have found no mention to the CVC or any authority the truth
behind my vigilance case. It is a mandate in the CVC that Vigilance proceedings
cannot be a process of witch-hunting. The DGIT/CVO suppressing this crucial
fact from CV proves beyond doubt its active role in causing injustice to me.
b.
Silent on
the revenue loss action by the inhuman officer:- The DGIT(Vig)/CVO is
already aware that Shri A K Agarwal, the then
CIT (Central) Bangalore, Shri D K Jha, the then Additional CIT (Central)
Range -1, Bangalore have been covered by CBI for destroying the crucial
evidence in Oxford case. When there was a false case filed against me,
DGIT(Vig)/CVO has conducted full length inquiry without finding the truth by
taking extra time of 7 ½ years from the Commission. But in case of the officers
with questionable morality and integrity, it has not acted even till date where
I have given the evidence in a separate case on 30.07.2009 which could have
easily fixed these officers with questionable integrity. A detailed letter is
available vide link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2018/11/vigilance-silent-on-unscruplous-officers.html
.
c.
Undue
delay in finding truth: The Commission itself has made strong observation
that the DGIT(Vig)/CVO opened a common file and called for a further vigilance
report. The matter took 7 ½ years to the FSA stage. In fact the last report of
the field authorities/Zonal Vigilance to the CVO does not bring anymore new
facts that there were originally brought out on 03.03.2008 except updates in
the matter of remedial action. It is in jurisprudence that Justice delayed is
justice denied. But in my case the CVO not only delayed the justice but failed
to unearth the real facts of my search assessment case despite taking 7 ½ years
.
d.
Party to
false vigilance case:- The DGIT(Vig)/CVO after sitting over my case for 7 ½
years and using the entire machinery against me has created a case of “initiating major penalty” for a search
assessment leading to revenue loss for the department. It was the fundamental
duty of the CVO to find that the primary Article of Charge-1 was totally false
and baseless as the search assessment
was not in the hands of three partnership firms leading to revenue loss as
alleged by DGIT (Vig)/CVO but the search
assessments were in the hands of five partnership firms having revenue gain as
all the files were available with them for more than a decade. Failure in the
part of CVO should be taken seriously as its failure has led an innocent officer
to suffer over a decade by being termed as an officer with doubtful integrity.
e.
Display
of complete bias in vigilance proceedings: The DGIT(Vig)/CVO is in the full
knowledge that the vigilance proceedings has to be conducted with all fairness.
For this purpose the DOPT has
written a Vigilance Manual titled as
“Handbook for Inquiry Officers and
Disciplinary Authorities.” No
authority in the organisation can go against it and has to defend every
instruction whenever it is violated.
i.
When the crucial defence document was denied during
the course of Inquiry proceedings over a year by the Inquiry officer, the
matter was taken to the DGIT/CVO reminding the rights guaranteed in Para 3.5 of Chapter XI of the Vigilance
Manual (1991 Ed) and also the Apex
court Judgment (Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment Travancore Rayon Lt. Vs
Union of India 1971 AIR 862) was mentioned. I also brought out clearly the
display of bias by the inquiry officer, which led me to request for the change
in Inquiry Officer. Against all cannons of law both the Inquiry Officer & the
DGIT (Vig)/CVO rejected my proposal through not only a non-speaking order but
also violating Para 3.5 of Chapter XI of
the Vigilance Manual (1991 Ed) which mandates providing of defence
documents for every charged officer
to properly defend themselves.
ii.
Now it becomes apparently clear why the
DGIT(Vig) acted in hasty manner to complete my vigilance proceedings. It is the
DGIT(Vig)/CVO as the authority who was involved in creating a false case by
suppressing the real truth, so it is natural that one who aligns with officers giving
troubles will definitely have no mercy for an innocent officer by providing
equity and justice. A detailed letter is available vide link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2018/11/crisis-of-confidence-with-dgit-vigcvo.html
. Hope the sense of wisdom will prevail in acceding to my request as the
chances for adherence to rule based proceedings in my case from DGIT (Vig) CVO
looks bleak.
iii.
I am sure the mood of CVO will change after
seeing this detailed letter as the crimes committed by every senior authority towards
me is being brought open in public, as the skeleton from everyone’s cupboard
will now become visible.
iv.
I have brought this matter in my personal blog
open to public from a very long time so as to show that my wailing all along
had fallen to deaf ears.
v.
Connecting several links of my blog to this
letter is also done to reduce stationary print which otherwise would run to
several hundred pages to be adduced with this communication.
vi.
It is also done with an intention that nobody
will put curtain to my thoughts and there are possibilities that someday I may
get some justice and bring all unscrupulous elements to book.
9.
Experience
of personal humiliation from senior officers while living life with a
“Vigilance Tag”:- It is really unfortunate to live life with a vigilance
tag. It becomes more humiliating especially when one is totally innocent and
honest on one hand and every person who meets looks down from the angle of
suspicion by saying “do you know he has
a vigilance case against him”. I shall be sharing several episodes with
senior officers whose attitude and action literally got me disillusioned as
they were completely ruthless to me at work place despite being totally
committed.
a.
Mess caused
in my life by administration at Bangalore in the year 2007 – First time, I
went on long spell of unauthorized leave for almost two years in 2008 that is the
year when I placed my resignation for the first time as Deputy Commissioner due
to continued harassment by the unscrupulous officers led by Bangalore
Administration, where not only my ACR was spoiled but false vigilance case was
being orchestered. Both the CCIT-1 and DGIT(Inv), Karnataka and Goa, turned a
blind eye on my victimisation.
b.
Depressed
period of work in Madurai due to “Vigilance Tag”: I was promoted as Joint
Commissioner despite the officers with sinister mind attempted to spoil my ACR
and orchestered vigilance case so that my promotion will get blocked as I was
in the zone of elevation. The peers and friends convinced me to join the office
for the second time. I gave an honest
try by working very hard. But the senior officers made my life miserable. This
led me to go on unauthorised leave, second time, for next two years in the year
2012. The incidents are :-
i.
Ruthless
CIT-1, Madurai: Shri ALKB Chand,
CIT-1, Madurai was my reporting officer who humiliated me in public in
September 2009 despite I was putting best of efforts in the moffussil area
through my hard work. The incident is available in link https://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2014/12/protest-against-alkb-chand.html.
ii.
Malicious
CCIT-IV, Chennai: Shri D Ravindra, CCIT-IV Chennai was creating misinformation
campaign maligning my image. The letter is available vide link https://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2014/12/protest-against-d-ravindraccit.html
iii.
Cruel Administration
at Chennai: Shri P Selvaganesh a senior officer from Chennai administration
was maligning the image in year 2011 especially when I was attending my father
who was suffering from rectum cancer. The
letter is available vide link https://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2018/11/p-selvaganesh-objectionable-behaviour.html
c.
Unforgiving
Administration at Bangalore in the year 2017: I returned from unauthorised
leave in the year 2014 as I got transferred from Chennai to Bangalore and was
reporting to Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-(Intl. Taxation). During this
period my wife was recuperating from the post-treatment of breast cancer and my
father was suffering from relapse of rectum cancer. As the work was not tough I
could manage easily and took leave in order to take care of my wife and father.
During the year I secured my first GOLD
Medal from Department of Science and Technology for my innovation in energy
efficient radiant heat gas burner, by becoming the best in the world. I had
literally reversed the gas fuel
mechanism to the envy of IIT and MIT.
i.
At the end of the year I suddenly found that I
was transferred to Bangalore ITAT and the order specifically mentioned “Not to be posted to field posting” I
was devastated as I did not receive a single memo from my reporting officer during
the year pointing any deficiency at my work. I was disillusioned for the third
time and went on unauthorised leave from the year 2015 till date. A detailed
letter is available vide link https://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2018/11/unauthorised-absence-from-duty-due-to.html.
ii.
On 16th October 2017 I found a sealed
cover which was a letter from PCCIT-1, Bangalore intimating adverse comments on
30.05.2016 for the year 2014-15.
iii.
The letter brought to my notice that in my APAR
2014-15 at Point no.5 in Integrity Column Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, comments
were “Insufficient time to judge”
which was treated as adverse comment. The comments of the reporting officer are
found to be frivolous as the reporting officer need not live life with me to
know my integrity, but question only when there is a complaint of corruption. As
I did not have any complaints questioning the integrity, then, I have all the right to be
treated as innocent as the dictum for integrity is “Unless until proven Integrity for everyone is beyond doubt.” This shows that I was again victimized on the
issue of ACR by the senior officer. To my surprise the CCIT-1, Bangalore
reviewing authority at Bangalore agreed with the reporting officer without ever
knowing anything about me.
iv.
I sought redressal before the PCCIT-1, Karnataka
& Goa. The letter is available in the link https://sanghihari.blogspot.com/2018/11/false-acr-issue-by-ms-chandana.html
. This time I was not surprised when the request got rejected by the
unforgiving PCCIT-1, as I had already got immune to inhuman behavior from every
administrative quarter by being disillusioned. The irony is that the PCCIT who
got the adverse comments from the reporting officer also delayed considerably in
seeking my view for months together. I
still cannot digest that how the delay at their end was considered as
appropriate and fair but my inordinate delay due to no fault of mine was taken
very seriously. The attitude of senior officers and the administration
clearly reflects that even if you are innocent, honest and an outstanding
officer, no one is going to show mercy and compassion if you have “Vigilance
Tag”.
v.
I did not pursue this matter further as I knew
the matter will go to insensitive line of authorities. As I was neither
expecting to join back the service nor expecting rising in ranks in IRS I left
the matter at that point. I was also sarcastically smiling as it is exactly
after a decade my ACR was getting spoiled and there was no change in
administration as “ONE CAESER WAS EXACTLY REPLACED BY ANOTHER.”
vi.
The procedure of writing ACR is so sacrosanct
that a detail procedure is given cautioning the senior authorities not to be
reckless while assessing the officer subordinate to them. I feel that PCCIT-1
should have personally invited Smt. Chandana Ramachandran and guided her by
stating that “there are only two option
on Integrity assessment that is, DOUBTFUL and BEYOND DOUBT. Hence you writing in
ACR ““Insufficient time to judge” in Integrity is totally inappropriate as it
is going to unnecessarily destroy the career of an innocent officer” This
is what an administration has to do if it is having welfare as a driving force
in mind. This clearly shows that in our department is not only Smt. Chandana
Ramachandran needs training while writing an ACR but many senior authorities in
administration.
d.
Lack of
Camaraderie in IRS when you have a Vigilance Tag:- My experience is that in the entire battle not
a single colleague, IRS Association or any authority (Shri K V Choudhary, the
CVC who is also from IRS & knows me personally) came out to hear my side of
story. In IRS we don’t need enemy from outside; we have our fellow men to
nicely do that. The irony is that senior direct recruit officer is against only
the direct recruit officer. No other service spoils the ACR except IRS and that
is why we do not go honorably to deputation outside. This is indeed shameful. Even
now I feel that IRS Association rather than concentrating more on dinner get
together can become an effective to tool if they set their house in order by
streamlining transparent transfer mechanism, timely promotions and taking real
issues at work.
10. Search for new beginning in life at the age
of 42 years:- An innocent officer driven to the corner by unscrupulous
officers, challenged again and again on integrity issue by a totally
insensitive administration and then hounded by Vigilance with a false case and
conducting proceeding with a motive to fix the major penalty can do? Lose total faith in the organisation from
top to bottom by getting DISILLUSIONED. The easy option available to the
officer is to go into PERMANENT DEPRESSION. But that was not the case as I
decided to sell DOSA/CHAPPATI on the road and start life afresh. The real
challenge now was that I and my family were totally out of energy as
professionally I was decimated; financially I was broke as no salary to sustain
& lastly compounding to the problem was that of family going through deep
health issues. The first thing I decided
was that I will never claim any benefit under reservation either for me or my family,
but start life dignifiedly as a common man.
a.
Driven by
passion: In the times of difficulty there are definitely some angels who
will come for rescue to fill the gap. But to live I wanted to choose an area of
work to feed me and my family and that is where I found comfort and passion in
“Cooking,” which definitely took me to places.
b.
Standardization
of Indian Recipe: Just after the first
resignation I started standardizing
Indian recipes by cooking food on charcoal stove in a small eatery joint at
Bangalore. I went on standardizing hundreds of Indian recipes spanning from
Saatvik to Non-Saatvik food as I realised that I can taste and reproduce any Indian
food.
c.
Invention
of world class gas burner system:- Cooking food on charcoal had many
problems from preparation time of charcoal for hours to extreme heat, fly ash,
unregulatable heat, skill in handling charcoal, etc led me to innovate a
radiant heat gas burner system through serendipity. Little I realised that this
endeavor is going to make me a leading thermo-dynamic scientist from India literally
reversing the gas fuel mechanism and creating new standard in BIS in Radiant
Heat for the world to follow.
d.
Awards
and Accolades: After being underground for more than seven years, away from
family I worked on my passion relentlessly. I accumulated weight of 136 Kg from
85Kg as it was directly reflective of what burden I was actually carrying in my
mind. From Gas burner system I evolved a brand “Agnisumukh” and created umpteen
applications from cooking ranges to steam boiler, which were energy efficient.
Though not being a mechanical engineer, I competed in open technology
competition with IIT students. Beating many young and smart talents from
technical background, I got awarded with several medal and accolades nationally
and internationally in the past three years. The details of the achievements of Agnisumukh innovation has
been accredited with the following recognitions:
i.
Gold Medal in DST- Lockheed Martin India
Innovation Growth Programme 2015.
ii.
National winner in United Nation’s Global
Cleantech Innovation Program 2015.
iii.
DICCI Business Excellence award from the
Honorable Prime Minister of India for their campaign and contribution to “Make
in India” and climate change.
iv.
Agnisumukh was showcased in CEM7 Startups &
Solutions Showcase Exhibitor from India in June 2016.
v.
Agnisumukh was one of the top 10 technologies in
the past decade shortlisted by the US Department of Defense, FICCI and was part
of the round table conference held by the Defense Secretary - Ash Carter in
June 2016 at New Delhi.
vi.
Agnisumukh was invited by UNIDO in COP-22 at
Marrakesh, Morocco representing India in clean-tech in November 2016.
vii.
CTI PFAN 2016 declared Agnisumukh project as one
of the top ten investment opportunities in Asia in February 2017.
viii.
Agnisumukh selected as Entrepreneur on the Edge
by Asian Development Bank under “Energy for All Platform” in May 2017.
ix.
Jury appreciation Award in DST Lockheed Martin
India Innovation Growth Programme 2.0, 2017.
x.
CII National Award for Excellence in Energy
Management 2017 – Most Innovative Product of the Year.
xi.
High Level Speaker in Vienna Energy Forum in May
2018
xii.
Speaker in Roundtable Conference in GEF
Assembly-Vietnam in June 2018
xiii.
Gold Medal from Institute of Economic Studies
for “International Leadership Innovation Excellence Award” at International
Economic Summit at Bangkok in November 2018
xiv.
Client
List: Our client list includes ITC Hotels - “The Greenest Luxury Hotel
Chain in the World”, Infosys, Radisson Blu, Park Plaza Hotel, Apollo Hospitals,
Club Mahindra, Wonder La, Citrix etc. We have implemented projects on LPG, PNG
and Bio-Methane with validated energy efficiency savings beyond 30%. We are
proud to announce that the kitchens of The President of India and The Prime
Minister’s Office and DG - Defense Estates project at Chennai are powered by
our innovation as well. India’s perennial food bowl “Akshaya Patra” and Indian
Army is our latest addition to this sterling list.
xv.
Agnisumukh was the official partner to “Le Club
des Chefs des Chefs”, an exclusive association of royal chefs of the world
which met in India in 2016. At this forum, Agnisumukh platform was showcased as
the most innovative, gourmet platform for cooking by Chef Manjit Singh Gill,
Corporate Chef of ITC Hotels along with our innovator Mr. Hari Rao. We are the
official partners of Indian Federation of Culinary Association (IFCA) and have
presented our disruptive innovative to the conglomerate of the best chefs in
the country.
11.
Demand for
Equity and Justice: The above story looks too good to be true but it is
only those officers can achieve when harassed and victimized who are ready to
start afresh at anytime without a bureaucrat tag. I have right to demand equity
and justice so that truth can prevail. The following are my expectations:-
a.
Seek
empathy but not sympathy: I want every person who reads this letter to go
through my ordeal so as to become empathical. Experiencing my life you not only
know my pain but also visualise what they would have done in my situation. I do
not want self-pity for soft peddling in the vigilance proceedings as I am ready
to get buried if truth is otherwise to what I have stated in this letter.
b. Independent Inquiry: It is said in
jurisprudence that “hundred criminals may go scot free but one innocent must
not suffer. But in my case it was totally otherwise. I demand an independent inquiry as institutional mechanism led by
DGIT (Vig)/CVO has totally failed. I want the disciplinary proceedings against
me should be conducted by any authorities other than the present Inquiry
Officer and the DGIT (Vig)/CVO as both have scant respect to rule based
proceedings as mentioned in the Vigilance Manual.
c.
Punishing
the guilty: After a thorough probe I want the responsibility to be fixed so
that unscrupulous element will get punished which will send strong signals to
other perpetrators.
a.
Vibrant institutional
mechanism: Administration core is with “WELFARE” & Vigilance core is
being ALERT. Both naturally mean that “PROTECT THE INNOCENT and PUNISH THE
GUILTY” as it will not only add welfare but the organisation become totally
vigilant. In my case all authorities right from CBDT Chairman, DGIT(Vig),
PCCIT-1, DGIT(Inv) and many other senior authorities did quite opposite to what
is expected them to do as their FUNDAMENTAL
DUTY. This clearly highlights that taking the VIGILANCE OATH for
unscrupulous officer appears to be a lip service as it is being more violated
than being followed. I propose that there should strong institutional mechanism
and a separate desk for handling grievance and complaint. Every ACR should have
an additional column to give rating of their reporting officer and reviewing
officer to know whether they have guided or harassed them. This is a moving
forward step as 360° performance
review can set house in total order. Every Vigilance Proceeding must
have a dossier right from the case getting built up till the charge is
initiated to find whether there is nexus between the PROSECUTION WITNESSES and
CHARGED OFFICER. The allegation of the charged officer against the prosecution
witness should also become part of the same vigilance proceeding. This will
assist the CVC as the Commission is doing through their respective nominee who
can be unfair like DGIT(Vig)/CVO in my own case.
b.
Personal
audience and apology: I have a desire to have personal audience before you
and have presence of authorities who have derelict their responsibility,
belittling their position by not performing their official duties with
responsibility. I demand personal
apology from every position who failed to discharge their responsibility in
protecting an innocent in my case and helping the crooks.
c.
Honorable
exit from the service: - I am dragging my feet in Income-tax Department to
exit gracefully with pride and dignity, by putting a brave fight. This would be
a lesson for many in the years to come. After going through this entire ordeal,
I do not find any connect with CBDT as no authorities from their chair have
ever invited to know my side of story. I demand an honorable exit with grace
and gratitude as enough humiliation I and my family have gone through. I am
positive that I will not only be part of a billion dollar global company from
India but take our country to the next level of gas fuel technology by becoming
the envy of the world.
Sir, I have come before you with
great sense of hope and also a wish that the wrong committed at various levels
of hierarchy will be inquired into. I am not asking to soften any stand on my departmental
inquiry but want the proceedings to be conducted by Inquiry Officer who can
impart fairness and justice by respecting the processes laid down by the law.
I thank you and eagerly look
forward to hear from you and meet you in person
Yours
faithfully
Sd/-
(Sanghi
Sri Hari Rao)
JCIT (OSD), O/o Pr. CCIT -Bangalore
CC to: -
1.
The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, New Delhi
2.
The Hon’ble Finance Minister of India. New Delhi
3.
The Chief Vigilance Commissioner, New Delhi.
4.
The Chairman, CBDT, New Delhi.
5.
The Member (Personnel & Vigilance), New
Delhi
6.
The Director General Income-tax (Vigilance), New Delhi.
7.
The Additional Director-General Income-tax (Vigilance)(South),
Chennai.
8.
The Principle Chief Commissioner of Income-tax,
Bangalore-I.
9.
The Under Secretary to the Govt. Of India
(V&L), New Delhi
10.
The Addl. CIT (Vigilance), Bangalore
11.
The Inquiry Officer, CIT (A)-3, Bangalore
12.
The Presenting Officer, the DCIT Central Circle
2(2) Bangalore.
No comments:
Post a Comment