It reflects deep rooted corruption in the working of D.M., D.P.R.O. and C.D.O. as D.C. MGNREGA is different from E.O. under Panchayatraj Act

 

Grievance Status for registration number : GOVUP/E/2022/38071

Grievance Concerns To

Name Of Complainant

Yogi M. P. Singh

Date of Receipt

05/06/2022

Received By Ministry/Department

Uttar Pradesh

Grievance Description

श्री मान जी पंचायती राज अधिनियम के तहत जिलाधिकारी द्वारा नामित जिलास्तरीय अधिकारी डिप्टी कमिश्नर मनरेगा और प्रोजेक्ट डायरेक्टर द्वारा जाँच की गयी और उस जांच में विकास खंड छानवे के कर्मचारी अनियमितता के दोषी पाए गए और एक लाख एक हजार छह सौ पंद्रह रुपये वसूली की सिफारिश अधिकारी द्वय द्वारा किया गया किन्तु आज तक वसूली नहीं हो पायी है इस अनियमितता के लिए ग्राम प्रधान सेक्रेटरी तकनीकी सहायक और ग्राम सेवक दोषी पाए गए और उनसे रिकवरी सुनिश्चित करना था

श्री मान जी किसको जांच अधिकारी नामित करना चाहिए और जाँच अधिकारी के विरुद्ध प्रार्थना पत्र कब पड़ना और स्वीकार करना चाहिए उसको जानने के लिए निम्न नियमो को देखे इसी लिए तो कहा जाता है की किसी पी.सी. एस. प्रमोटी  को जिलाधिकारी नहीं बनाना चाहिए सोचिये कितना भोंदू था तत्कालीन जिलाधिकारी क्योकि वह राज्य प्रशासनिक सेवा से भारतीय प्रशासनिक सेवा में आया था

Here matter concerns the deep rooted irregularities and corruption prevailed throughout the government machinery and this question arises that whether the enquiry officer appointed under the panchayati Raj act who submitted report after enquiry in the matter can be substituted by an enquiry carried out by the junior rank officers of the block development office. If the gram pradhan suspected the integrity of the team of enquiry officers appointed by the district magistrate then he had to make a complaint initially but when the enquiry had been complete then he had no right to make a complaint against the integrity of the enquiry officers. Undoubtedly it is an effort of the district magistrate district panchayati Raj officer and chief development officer to make an effort to cover the act of corruption under the carpet. There must be transparency and accountability in the working of the public authority so that common people may not raise the fingers on suspicious deeds of public staff.

Grievance Status for registration number : GOVUP/E/2021/52960 Grievance Concerns To Name Of Complainant Yogi M. P. Singh Date of Receipt 19/09/2021

Grievance Status for registration number : GOVUP/E/2021/03421 Grievance Concerns To Name Of Complainant Yogi M P Singh Date of Receipt 21/01/2021

Whether the imposed recovery recommended by the joint team of the deputy commissioner MGNREGA and the project director was recovered from the defaulters if not the government must give a reasoned explanation. Undoubtedly such dealings at the district level are full of corruption and it is most surprising that accountable public functionaries in the state are mute spectators of it.

 WHO SHOULD BE APPOINTED AS INQUIRY OFFICER . The principles of natural justice imply “fair hearing”, “unbiased judgement” and “clear speaking order”. It, therefore, follows that the person to be appointed as Inquiry Officer”:-(i). should not be interested in the subject matter or the inquiry in any  manner (ii). Should not be biased (iii). should not be a witness in the proceedings(iv). should not have expressed an opinion about the merits of the case (v). should be sufficiently senior to the charged officer to evoke confidence of all concerned.

APPLICATION AGAINST THE APPOINTMENT OF INQUIRY OFFICER  Whenever an application alleging bias against the Inquiry Officer is moved by the Charged Officer, the proceedings should be stayed and the application with relevant material should be forwarded to the Revisionary Authority for consideration  and passing appropriate orders thereon. Such an application should be moved as soon as the government servants become aware of the bias. Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding the time when an application of bias against the Inquiry Officer should be moved, yet it is advisable that such an application is moved at the earliest, after the appointment of the Inquiry Officer. The reason being that the Government servant cannot be allowed to sit on the fence till the proceedings have progressed sufficiently or have been completed to move such an application if he finds that the decision is going on likely to go against him.

Grievance Document

Current Status

Case closed

Date of Action

24/06/2022

Remarks

अधीनस्थ अधिकारी के स्तर पर निस्तारित अधीनस्थ अधिकारी के स्तर पर निस्तारित अधीनस्थ अधिकारी के स्तर पर निस्तारित अधीनस्थ अधिकारी के स्तर पर निस्तारित kary kw babat manrega mai bhugtan kiya gaya hai

Reply Document

Rating

1

Poor

Rating Remarks

Here chief development officer district Mirzapur submitted inconsistent parrot reply on the public grievance portal of the Government of India. Here core issues is the illegal cancellation of the recovery recommended by the enquiry officer nominated under panchayati Raj act by the district magistrate Mirzapur. Everyone knows that enquiry officer nominated under the panchayatiraj act is a district level officer appointed by the district magistrate of the district. The nomination of the enquiry officer is challenged at the initial stage not when inquiry officer submits the report. If the findings of the inquiry officer is challenged before the competent authority then officer whose rank is higher to the nominated officer earlier is appointed as the enquiry officer. Here those found guilty ine the inquiry of the inquiry officer were made the team member which made the enquiry letter and they freed themselves from the charges which is a mockery of the law of land.

Officer Concerns To

Officer Name

Shri Bhaskar Pandey (Joint Secretary)

Organisation name

Government of Uttar Pradesh

Contact Address

Chief Minister Secretariat , Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow

Email Address

bhaskar.12214@gov.in

Contact Number

05222226350