Menu
blogid : 8093 postid : 435

EVIDENCES AGAINST KUNDAN KUMAR, EX -DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAMASTIPUR

VISION FOR ALL
VISION FOR ALL
  • 270 Posts
  • 28 Comments

EVIDENCES AGAINST KUNDAN KUMAR, EX -DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAMASTIPUR

I have been able to prove the involvement of SDO, District Grievance Officer and Officer on Special Duty (OSD).Whether Grievance Officer and officer on special duty worked under the direction of District Magistrate ,Samastipur or not ,there was no evidences but it seems that DM was involved along with his under ranked officers.

1.As I asked under Contempt Notice that complaint is filed against me before DM after 6 months having no action taken but order of dt.29.9.2011 is issued. It is replied something different in its response instead of replying whether complaint is filed and order is issued or not. It may be possible that DM directed OSD to reply something different to depress the fact of forgery that complaint is filed and order is issued in back date and reply in such manner as if I am wrong and the mind of people and judiciary could be concentrated only against me. That’s why it is replied that action taken against me is right and it is accepted by my father.
2.As District Grievance Officer had helped principal to file complaint artificially in back date and issued order in the same manner .So DM said OSD to reply something different and by concentrating against me to depress the fact of forgery and deviate the people and Judiciary against me.
3.Again,when when I sent RTI Application ,it is refused to provide information by the DM office as well as Principal by replying same that ‘’Information Sought Is Not Information As Per Section 2 (F) Of RTI Act,2005 in response of my same questions asked from both- What action is taken against me, what my father accepted, how action taken is right without medical test and my favour etc. Also,it is refused by OSD to supply a copy of order dt.29.9.2011 by referring that principal has already supplied this paper.
4.It may be possible that the reply of RTI is also sent under the direction of DM. Because DM had tried to protect Principal and Grievance Officer by saying to reply something different to depress the forgery committed by both and now RTI was trying to expose the role of DM by asking such questions where it would be cleared that action is taken against me wrongly and to protect the principal or to hide the action taken against me or to show me wrong if action is taken against me ,complaint and order both are manufactured against me in back date and these are done to make the matter against me. So it is refused to provide information by stating that that ‘’Information Sought Is Not Information As Per Section 2 (F) Of RTI Act,2005.’’
5.If it would not be refused to provide information then firstly forgery committed by grievance officer and principal would come to light. Secondly, it would be clear that DM replied something different in response of contempt notice to protect both- grievance officer and principal.
6.Again by my another RTI,I demanded to supply me all documents filed against me, all reports submitted by the principal in regard to the matter and all orders issued by DM.I also asked the written proof of action taken against me on complaint filed against me and if not action taken, then why. No response made on this RTI Application but I sent twice. As complaint and order both were forged in back date, so no action was taken, so there was no written proof of action taken and thus no response made.
7.As no response made because of my questions why no action taken and send written proof ,no document could be supplied to me because in that case, it was inevitable to give answer of my questions why no action taken and send written proof. Also, as all documents were forged. So DM and his lower officers didn’t take more risk by supplying forge documents. They only wanted to show everything externally against me to protect principal and this could be done only by replying not by supplying documents. Because if I receive documents and find evidences ,they all could be trapped.
8.The question is still constant-Why no document was sent by DM office ?This means, documents were forged in back date, so not sent.
9.I sent principal some RTI Applications and lastly he refused to issue information by saying that he will not reply my any application now if I send again. I was getting evidences by his reply, so he did such. In his this last reply ,a copy of his this letter is sent to DM. Now the question is-Why principal sent a copy of this letter to DM? Because I asked only from principal under RTI Act,2005.This proves, DM is involved to protect principal. So he sent a copy of letter even when it was not necessary.

Read Comments

    Post a comment

    Leave a Reply