FORM I

[See rule 3]
FORM OF COMPLAINT
BEFORE THE LOKAYUKTA, HARYANA
Complainant Na r e s h Ka di a n son of Ch. Om Parkash Kadian, Retired as
Technical Supervisor (Leather), Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board,
Panchkula, correspondence address C-38, Rose Apartment, sector-14, Rohini, Delhi
110085.
In the matter of allegation against Shri Rohtash Singh Kharab, IAS, Chief
Executive, Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board at Panchkula along with his
previous IAS officer posted as CE Shri Ashok Sangwan, IAS and Shri Pardeep Kashni, IAS
etc.
The above named complainant is satisfied that the aforesaid public servant, all
holding position of CE, Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board:
(i) Has knowingly and intentionally abused their position as such to obtain any
undue gain, s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t he i r e g o or favour to himself or to any other
person or to cause undue harm to any other person.
(ii) Was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by biased
motives and adopted double standards, ignoring the instructions issued by the
Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana in 2001 about unrecorded ACRs read
with the recommendations of the Honble Lokayukta of Haryana Annual Report
2012-13, which were conveyed by the Chief Secretary to all subordinate
functionaries vide letter No. 40/9/2006-4 Pol dated July 15, 2013.
(iii). Ignored the instructions issued by the Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana about
stepping up the pay of senior officials of the general category at par with the
junior counterpart of reserved category employees, which were issued vide letter
No. 22/132/2008 1 GS lll dated December 18, 2013 because Sh. Chaman Lal and
Y.S. Goyat both DKVIOs were the junior officials than the applicant, like wise
Satyanarayan and Chotu Ram, both Demonstrator (Leather) were also junior
than the applicant but these all officials were getting much higher pay scale
along with basic pay than the applicant, many representations were made out for
stepping up the pay but applicant applications were kept unattended, to harass
him, due to these double standards applicant faced heavy financial loss along
with mental torture.
(iv). The Board asked the applicant to comments on the inquiry report vide letter No.
HRB/Admn/EA-1/8278 dated 14-3-2014 and reply along with necessary
documents, which were complete descriptions along with the endorsement of
Civil Surgeon, Faridabad were supplied, which bearing No. 67 dated 7-4-2014
but Civil Surgeon endorsement was willingly ignored by the senior officers of the
Board.
(v). The Board asked the applicant to comments on the inquiry report vide letter No.
HRB/Admn/EA-1/4766-67 dated 29-5-14 and reply along with necessary
documents, which were complete descriptions along with the endorsement of
Civil Surgeon, Faridabad were supplied, which bearing No.1072 dated 17-6-14,
where as two charge sheets were issued for the same reasons and both replies
were not properly examined by the Board officials and they failed to perform
their official duties.
(vi). The Board asked the applicant to comments on the inquiry report vide letter No.
HRB/Admn/EA-1/4764-65 dated 29-5-14 and reply along with necessary
documents were supplied, which bearing No.1145 dated 19-6-14. It would be
pertinent to mention here that Board executed agreement with the suppliers and
as per agreement supplier party will responsible for any supply of sub standard
materials and supplier was duty bound to replace the objectionable items
supplied by them and he was duty bound to refund the excess payments, if any,
as per terms and conditions mutually decided by the Board and supplier party.
It was the duty of Board to take strict legal action against the supplier, as per
agreement, if any complaint received against materials supplied, instead of
taking action against supplier Board issued baseless charge sheets to the
applicant imposing 16-11-2007 instructions, where as supply was executed many
months before 16-11-2007. All routine procedures were followed, party bills
along with goods receipt were obtained, processed as per past practice and after
deducting 5% service charges of the Board, rest payment was released through
cheque to the supplier party, meaning here by revenue was generated for the
Board and same 5% service charges were forwarded to the Board, later
quarterly report was submitted and Board found supply was in order, no
communication was made by the Board, after Departmental inquiry conducted
by the purchaser Department, excess payment Rs. 10,25,638/- was recovered
from the then DEEO, Gurgaon because she accepted the sub standard materials
from the supplier and was hold responsible for this loss, where as applicant
moved complaint against supplier for breach of agreement with the Faridabad
Police, which was forwarded to the Gurgaon by the Commissioner of Police,
Faridabad and this action was expected at the level of Chief Executive of the
Board. It is also pertinent to mention here that State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak
also lodged FIR against the same supplier and SVB, Rohtak investi gations
proved that billing Authority Super Bazaar was not at fault, where as same
procedures were applied by the applicant as well, all documentary proof were
supplied to the Board but all facts were ignored, performance of official duty, in
the interest of Board were not appreciated.
(vii) Is guilty of adopting double
standard techniques to harass their
junior officials, twisting and concealing,
ignoring the actual facts, with held
crossing of Efficiency bar matter for
many years, due to unrecorded ACRs,
many years annual increments were with
held along with 2
nd
and 3
rd
ACPs. In fact
then Member Secretary placed on record
that unrecorded ACRs be treated as
blank, as per instructions issued by the
Chief Secretary, Haryana in 2001 and
Establishment Branch recommended the
clearance of EB, to found fit case but
same proposal was illegally filed on 15-
12-2009 by then CE, on the biased and
baseless report of Section Officer (Legal
and Recovery), which create heavy
financial loss to the applicant.
(viii) Demorlising their subordinate
officials and due to these malpractices,
double standard techniques, moral of
subordinate staff damaged, financial loss
to the applicant, being as TS (L),
applicant was placed at Head Office,
where as another TS (HMP) was allowed
to work as DKVIO at Jind along with
many District additional charge.
(ix) Agenda for BoD meeting dated 17-7-
2014 was prepared and placed before the
Board, which was kept pending for next
meeting, where as many irrelevant
materials were placed before the BoD
with bad intention, with out proper
examination of the facts, P-102 (10) of
agenda about stepping up, Board
recorded that Sh. Chiman Lal, who
belongs to reserved category and Yash
Parkash Goyat was senior then the
applicant, which was not true because
both officials ignored their terms for
promotion as Technical Supervisor
(Leather) and applicant was promoted as
TS (L), joined on 30-1-1995 became
senior then Demonstrator (Leather),
where as applicant was posted as DKVIO
at Gurgaon and Sh. Chiman Lal was
Demonstrator (Leather) under
subordination to the applicant, on the
basis of ACRs recorded by the applicant
Chiman Lal was promoted as DKVIO,
hence applicant case was a fit case for
stepping up the pay, as per Chief
Secretary instructions but ignored by the
Board, which proves the bad intention
and doubtful integrity of the concerned
officials of the Board.
(x) Willingly create hurdles in
promotions, not providing sufficient staff
to the field offices or not recruiting staff
against vacancies because applicant was
very much eligible for the promotion for
the post of Development Officer
(Leather) twice but then DKVIO Hukam
Chand was promoted and after his
retirement applicant was not promoted
on seniority cum merit basis, there was
no joint seniority amongst DKVIOs and
TS, where as TS post was senior then
DKVIO being an special pay in past with
this post.
(xi) Not providing service benefits, annual
increments, crossing Efficiency bars,
second or third ACP etc including annual
increment, which was due as on 1-4-1995,
where as all junior officials of the
applicant enjoyed all benefits, some
retired from the service with all service
benefits higher than applicant.
(xii). Recovery was imposed on the
applicant for Rs. 9031/- with out any fault
and recovery was made with out consent
from pay, appeal was made before then
Chairman of the Board, which was never
decided because applicant was hold guilty
for not proper monitoring the Assistant
and Clerk, where as duties and functions
were defined by the Board for the said
posts and there was no reasons to
applicant hold guilty of the negligence at
the level of junior subordinate Assistant
and Clerk because there was a question
of good faith and believes, while
performing official duties as DKVIO,
now the Board issued letter No.
HRB/Admn/EA-2/ACR/8428 dated 10-10-
2014 asking to supply the copies of appeal
made against CE orders dated 5-10-2006
after expiry of many years, where as
proper appeal was made and same was
not decided yet, by the Chairman of the
Board.
(xiii). Applicant was compelled to proceed
on VRS on August 5, 2014 and same was
accepted by the BoD on August 6, 2014
because two options were told either to
face dismissal on the baseless charge
sheets or to proceed on VRS and
applicant choose VRS option, order dated
7-8-14 can be viewed as evidences, It
would be pertinent to mention here that
applicant was a high qualified and well
experienced official of the Board at the
time of moving VRS because applicant is
a Master of Arts in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Post Graduate Diploma
in Journalism and Mass Communication,
Diploma in Footwear Technology along
with Advance Course in Footwear
Technology with Distinction, where as the
Govt. of Haryana nominating the
applicant as Member to the State
Committee for Slaughter Houses,
Department of Urban and Local Bodies
(Govt. of Haryana), in compliance of the
order passed by the Honble Supreme
Court of India in CWP No 309 of 2003.
(xiv). Applicant was placed under
suspension for no reasons, with out any
speaking orders of the Chief Minister
because proposal was seen by the Chief
Minister not passed any speaking orders
but applicant was placed under
suspension on 29-4-2013, where as
applicant was under treatment and was
fit to join his duties on 2-5-2013, as per
information gathered under RTI Act,
2005, applicant got information that
during the pending inquiry, applicant
suspension was proposed, where as after
completion of inquiry, applicant was not
reinstated, kept under suspension
illegally and allowances were also not
given as per rules, during suspension
period, applicant was shocked to know
that suspension period was treated as due
leave with out any reason on BoD
meeting, where as applicant requested to
reinstate and to treat suspension period
on duty but heavy financial loss imposed
on the applicant forcibly.
(xv) The Efficiency bar clearance matter
was illegally filed by the then Chief
Executive accepting baseless and biased
proposal on dated 15-12-2009, where as
matter was put up by the Establishment
Branch for clearance of EB being an fit
case, where as then Member Secretary
proposed to treat blank unrecorded
ACRs as per instructions issued by the
Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana
in 2001, responsible, accountable official,
who misrepresent and twisted the facts
needs punishment because due to that
biased and half backed proposal was the
turning point in the career of applicant,
create heavy financial loss, mental torture
and harassment, disturbed family life as
well, in fact it was a organized crime.
(xvi). Applicant submitted many time
Chief Secretary, Haryana letter No.
40/9/2006-4Pol dated July 15, 2013 along
with the Haryana Lokayukta Annual
Report 2012-13 for strict compliance
because Chief Secretary letter para No. 3
clearly defined the timely recording of
ACRs and now Board asked the copies
of self appraisals after many years, where
as at this stage after expiry of prescribed
period and applicant retirement No
ACR;s can be recorded, as per rules but
to harass the applicant, Board officials
failed to obey the said Lokayukta
observations, where as unrecorded
ACRs period should be treated blank
and service benefits like crossing of EB,
granting of ACPs etc needs to be
granted.
(xvii). Govt. of Haryana can appoint
Secretary of the Board, as per section 4
and 6 of the Board Act but Section
Officer (Legal and Recovery) has been re-
designated as Secretary bypassing the
Development Officers and SAO, which
needs immediate attention.
To support the allegations the complainant relies on the following facts and is
also filing an affidavit:- Attached. The complainant has not for the same matter
resorted to a remedy by way of proceeding before a tribunal/ a court of law/ an
authority empowered to decide the matter particulars of which are as under:-
Applications before CE and Chairman.
The necessary deposit of Rs. 1000/- has been made by affixing judicial stamps of that value on the
complaint.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, prayed that an inquiry be made against the public servant
all IAS officer holding position of the Chief Executive, Haryana Khadi and
Village Industries Board for applying double standard, harassment tactics,
violating the instructions issued by the Chief Secretary in 2001 and the
violation of the recommendation of Honble Lokayukta Annual Report
2012-13 about unrecorded ACRs, responsibilities may kindly be fixed and
following relief may kindly be ordered, because at this stage neither any
charge sheets nor any Departmental inquiries are pending
1. Applicant pay scale was modified from 1600-2660 to 1640-2900 as on 1-
4-1995 and 1-4-1995 was the actual date of annual increment,
principally first pay was to be fixed in 1600-2660 upgrading pay scale to
1640-2900 and then annual increment was to be given, which was due as
on 1-4-1995 but this annual increment was not yet granted after regular
representations, hence annual increment, which was due as on 1-4-1995
may kindly be given.
2. Efficiency bars was not cleared, as it was due on 1-4-2001, treating
unrecorded ACRs blank as per the instructions of the Chief Secretary,
Haryana, if not recorded by the reporting officers, accepting officers,
hence Efficiency bar may kindly be cleared as on 1-4-2001 and all
annual increments illegally with held may kindly be released with
interest of 18%per annum with in time frame and Section Officer
(Legal and Recovery) may kindly be hold guilty for his biased proposal
15-12-2009, while processing EB matters of the applicant.
3. Second and third ACPs were not granted in time; where as all junior
officials to the applicant were granted all service benefits in time, hence
both ACPs may kindly be granted as on due date.
4. Natural justice was ignored not given to the applicant like promotion to
the post of Development Officer (Leather) as it was became due twice
and illegally deducted amount of Rs 9031/- may kindly be granted with
interest after set asiding the order of recovery.
5. Applicant placed under suspension for a long time illegally after 29-4-
2013 and was not reinstated after completion of inquiry, hence
suspension period may kindly be ordered to treat as duty period
because all baseless charge sheets were filed by the BoD as on 6-8-2014
giving warning to the applicant accepting VRS. It would be pertinent to
mention here that no speaking orders were passed by the Chief Minister
on the proposal of biased and baseless proposal, submitted by the
Industries Department, where as then Government was supported by
the disqualified MLAs and the action became illegal after the verdict
passed by the Honble High Court on October 9, 2014 in CWP No. 2900
of 2013.
6. All service benefits along with release of pension, GPF, gratuity, leave
encasement, commutation of pension etc may kindly be ordered with
interest.
7. Leave on medical grounds rejection orders may kindly be set aside,
appeal before Chairman is pending may kindly be directed to decide
with in 7 days, keeping in view the endorsement of CMO, Faridabad
and required leave may kindly be ordered to sanction.
8. Suspension was illegal, not reinstated after request, suspension period
treated as special leave is against natural law and this period may kindly
be treated as duty period. It would be pertinent to mention here that
suspension allowances were not given, as per rules and regulations,
which proved unnecessary harassment and mental torture.
9. Section Officer (Legal and Recovery), holding position of Secretary of the
Board against section 4 and 6 of the Board Act, appropriate orders may
kindly be passed.
10. Applicant promotion to the post of Development Officer (Leather) was
due on the basis of seniority cum merit basis but not granted to the
applicant, same may kindly be given along with the opportunity to
withdraw his voluntary retirement request dated 5-8-2014.

Naresh Kadian, TS-L (Retired).