| habitual CHEATS |
|---|
a gist of a statement made by me on 071203
The complaint no.1828 of 2007 was filed in the context of the refusal of the respondents to release the DCRG to the petitioner.
The DCRG of the petitioner has already been sanctioned and there was no dispute on that issue.
The complainant would like to mention in passing that an amount of Rs.98,374/-, almost half of the total amount of gratuity sanctioned to the petitioner, has been paid to the Kerala Government by the complainant on account of the gratuity he received from the indian army.
The orders of the Hon'ble * * * * ** * * * * dated 28 september 2007 makes it crystal clear that the respondents were in the wrong and censures the respondents.
B. However, in spite of the specific directions to the respondents to issue the NLC within one week of the original orders of the * * * * ** * * * *, the respondents ensured that the complainant was not able to draw the NLC from the treasury even after almost two months of the above orders.
The complainant was forced to file an IA no.646 of 2007 on the matter as late as 07 november 2007.
C. The respondents resorted to the most nefarious means to ensure that the complainant was not able to draw the DCRG till 23.11.07:
1. The assertion of the Director of Medical Education (DME), Kerala vide his letter no.0710d/PEN/DME dated 15 october 2007 that the NLC was forwarded to the addl sub treasury vanchiyoor along with the above communication has been proved to be a falsehood by his own communication no.G3-10223/2005/DME dated 07.11.07 addressed to me.
The DME's goose would have been cooked even otherwise for according to very reliable information available to the petitioner, the only registered letter that had gone to the addl. sub-treasury, vanchiyoor, from the directorate of medical education during the period the NLC was supposed to have been sent, was on 30 october 2007 and the same had been delivered safely to the treasury on 02 november 2007.
2. In another false statement, the DME vide their letter no.G3 -10223/2005/DME dated 07.11.07 addressed to the complainant claims that the NLC was delivered to the subtreasury vanchiyoor on 16 october 2007.
This claim was promptly negated by the sub treasury officer addl sub treasury vanchiyoor vide their letter no.Pen.408/2007 dated 15.11.07 addressed to the DME.
3. The complainant suggested vide his letter no.0711D/DME/NLC dt. 16 nov 2007 to the DME that rather than wait for the NLC which has gone missing since 15.10.07 a duplicate be issued to the treasury without delay. However this suggestion was not taken cognizance of by the DME.
4. The DME's letter no.G3/10223/2005/DME dated 21.11.07 addressed to the subtreasury officer, vanchiyoor, claims that the special messenger, engaged to ensure that the NLC reaches the vanchiyoor treasury faster than when sent by post, had delivered it to some other treasury “mistakenly”.
The DME also makes an audacious statement that the NLC will be furnished once it comes back from where it has been delivered by the special messenger, perhaps in the context of the petitioner's humble suggestion to issue a duplicate vide his letter no.0711D/DME/NLC dt. 16 nov 2007.
As per their letter no.G3/10223/2005/DME dated 21.11.07 the DME is not aware as to which treasury the NLC has been “mistakenly” delivered.
5. In the latest episode of the drama, there is a sudden turn around; the NLC is claimed to have been sent back to the DME by the sub treasury officer medical college thiruvananthapuram on 23 november 2007 and was delivered to the sub treasury vanchiyoor on the same day.
6.If the story of the wrong delivery of the NLC is to be believed the sub-treasury officer of sub-treasury, medical college, thiruvananthapuram who received the NLC on 15 october 2007 kept it with him for more than a month and then sent it back to the DME on 23 november 2007.
The complainant had been to the concerned subtreasury on 28 november 2007. After introducing himself to the subtreasury officer, sub-treasury, medical college thiruvananthapuram, the complainant showed him a copy of the orders of the Hon'ble * * * * ** * * * * dated 23 november 2007.
The medical college subtreasury officer's contention was that they do not have any record as to when the NLC refered to was received by them and the only document that will show this date will be the acknowledgement in the local delivery book of the office of the sender, the director of medical education.
The complainants information is that there has to be an entry in the register of the sub treasury medical college trivandrum in case of all documents received there on a particular date.
Obviously the subtreasury officer is not bound to provide such details to the complainant; but that is not the situation when the judiciary directs him to do so.
The complainant's previous experiences tells him that the whole drama was enacted in an effort to circumvent the directions the Hon'ble * * * * ** * * * *.
D. And this will not be the first time that the concerned authorities have played dirty tricks to achieve their nefarious ends.
False statements, Fake enquiry reports and Doctored documents have always been the forte of this set up and has been lavishly used in the past also to pull the wool over the eyes of the decision making authorities.
The saddest part of it all is that they have always got away with it; and this experience, the complainant is afraid, has made them bolder.
E. The complainant's experience is, that, caught on the wrong foot, pushed to the corner and subjected to strong censure by the Hon'ble * * * * ** * * * *, the standard response of the respondents will be an effort to side track the main issue by a well orchestrated malicious slander campaign directed against the complainant bolstered with the help of fictitious documents.
The complainant feels that the voluminous file handed over to the Hon'ble * * * * ** * * * * by the respondent in the simple matter of the issue of the NLC and the “mistakenly” delivered letter of the DME is an effort with this end in mind.
The complainant is confident of demolishing every argument of the respondents and it is humbly prayed that the complainant may be given an opportunity to explain the facts in case of the points raised in the above files.
F. The complainant also begs to take exception to the DME's junior superintendent ( a member of the clerical staff) jeering at the complainant in the court on 23 november 2007.
G. Last, but not least, the complainant would like to express his deep sense of gratitude to the Hon'ble * * * * ** * * * * for enabling him to draw the DCRG which the complainant has done on 27 november 2007.
Dated this, the 02nd day of december 2007.
( Cheriyath Jyothi )
Deponent
| Cheating |
|---|
| Devil's work shop |
| stinker |
viceman
071205 * * *
links
| golden oldies |
|---|
| movies |
| pics |
| youTube |
| picasa |
| flickr |
| Rome |
| address |
| online diary |
| HOME |
|---|
