Dated : 03.12.

2012

To, Shri Pratap Singh, IAS, ( Retd.) , Enquiry Officer, Dehra Dun. Sir, As per your directions, I am herewith submitting a written statement at the conclusion of the Enquiry proceedings , thus summing up my defence in the matter. At the very outset, I would like to inform you that irrespective of your repeated directions, and that too in writing for supply of some documents to me, a request for which had been made by me prior to the filing of my Additional Reply , as per the Orders of the Honble High Court, and which had been denied to me by the Secretary, terming them to be irrelevant, some documents have till date Not Been Provided to me. Not supplying the documents asked for, has been the Rule rather than an Exception with the Secretary , thereby prejudicing my defence. You will also kindly recall that at the beginning of this Enquiry, I had raised an objection that after issuing the first charge sheet on 23.01.2012, issuing the second charge sheet , on 22.05.2012, that too without the approval of the Managing Committee , is without competence . The Secretary, in your presence, on a number of occasions, has consistently maintained that, what was issued to me on 23.01.2012, Was Not A Charge Sheet. In this respect, I have the following submissions to make : a. A perusal of the P G College Managing Committee proceedings, dated 22.01.2012, wherein the decision to suspend me was taken, and a copy of which was dispatched to me along with the suspension order, categorically mentions that on receipt of the preliminary enquiry report on 12.10.2011, submitted by the preliminary enquiry committee constituted as per the decision of the P G College Managing Committee, dated 14.09.2011, a decision has to be taken. Different views were then expressed but finally it was decided that, On the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, and in keeping with the legal opinion obtained, Dr. Indu Singh be immediately served a charge sheet and suspended with immediate effect. She also be given 10 days time to reply to the charges framed , and be given all documents so as to enable her to file her reply to the enquiry committee earlier constituted. Following this , the Convener of the Enquiry committee Shri R N Manglik will give his findings to the MC ( Managing Committee), and then the MC will take a suitable

decision . The suspension Order was accompanied with a copy of the detailed report which had been submitted by this preliminary enquiry committee , ( 8 pages) framing 4 main charges and then sub- charges . b. If the MC Resolution speaks of it as a charge sheet, can it be deemed to be something else? c. 17.07 The Order of suspension if passed in contemplation of an enquiry , shall cease at the end of four weeks of its operation , unless the teacher has in the meantime been communicated the charge or the charges on which enquiry is contemplated. Thus, if what was served to me with the suspension order issued on 23.01.2012 was NOT a charge sheet, then my suspension should have been revoked after four weeks. On the contrary, the Secretary and the Enquiry officer, kept mum on my repeated requests for supply of documents, that were needed by me to reply to the charges framed, and many months later, i.e on 22.05.2012, almost out of the blue, the charge sheet dated 22.05.2012 was delivered to me at my residence by speed post. All this while, I was reporting to the Office of the Secretary, daily, as instructed in the suspension order, met him occasionally, but was never informed , what the secretary is vehemently now claiming ,that the Order issued on 23.01.2012, Was Not A Charge Sheet. d. Moreover, as I have contended earlier, the charge sheet dated 22.05.2012 was issued Without the Approval of the MC. The plea of the secretary NOW, that he informed the MC at a later date , namely at its meeting dated 27.06.2012 of HIS decision to issue the charge sheet dated 22.05 2012 does not hold water . The University Statutes , related to the powers of the Principal at Parishishta GH state : The Principal shall follow the directions of the Management as issued to him in writing through the Secretary . There were No Directions of the Management to issue the charge sheet dated 22.05.2012. The ONLY time the Management took a decision to issue a charge sheet was at its meeting dated 22.01.2012. And subsequently, A Charge Sheet WAS issued , with the directions to me to file my reply Within 10 days. It is precisely for this reason, that the Secretary vide his letter dated 22.05.2012, Ref: Pra.Ni 02 / 2012 , states ; As you have Not replied till date in your defence to the charges leveled at you by the preliminary enquiry committee, vide the letter of the undersigned dated 23.01.2012 , Ref: MKP,PG 84 / 121, thus in that reference you are AGAIN informed that you are hereby If so, then a perusal of the Relevant University Statutes is crucial ;

charged by the undersigned as follows. There is NO Mention of ANY direction/ Resolution of the MC in this respect. And the Secretary Can Not Do It On His Own. Perhaps, this is precisely why, even after your written directions to the Presenting Officer, I have till date NOT been provided with the Resolution of the MC , issuing directions that I be served the charge sheet dated 22.05.2012. There can be no denying that there HAS to be a Resolution of the MC to issue a charge sheet, which is not there. The Secretary may say that he INFORMED the MC at a later date , however, my information reveals that at the said meeting, the decision to issue a charge sheet was NOT on the Agenda.( i.e at the meeting dated 27.06.2012). What was on the Agenda was to take a decision on the Reply submitted by me on 21.06.2012 in response to the charge sheet issued on 22.05.2012. And subsequent to portions of my reply being read out, a decision to appoint an Enquiry officer from outside the MC was taken, as by now, in the Civil Suit filed by me , the learned Judge had stated that the action of the MC to themselves issue a charge sheet, conduct an enquiry themselves and then also sit in judgment , is against all principles of Natural Justice,and to that effect , the suspension order passed by the MC is willful and Illegal. e . It may not be out of place for me to mention here, that the MC , in this Civil Court , never contended that the charge sheet issued on 23.01.2012, was NOT A Charge Sheet. It is for this reason, that I had raised this issue in my Preliminary Objections ,in reply to the second charge sheet dated 22.05.2012 . And I still hold, that any charge sheet , issued without the prior approval of the MC, is without legal competence . f. I would have also appreciated if you had permitted me to cross examine the Secretary, on not only charge No 5 , but other charges too, as I had requested in my Additional Reply , that I be given the opportunity to cross examine him. e . I would also like to draw your kind attention to the statement made by the Secretary, on many occasions, in your presence, that this matter, namely of my suspension and the enquiry being conducted by you , will reach the courts and that it will be me who shall be approaching the courts. To make such a statement, at the time of the enquiry is highly objectionable, and shows a predetermined mind of the MC. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, ( Indu Singh), Principal, MKP(PG)College, Dera Dun.