DSP के विरुध्द विभागीय कार्यवाही का स्पष्टीकरण

VISION FOR ALL

• 270 Posts
• 28 Comments

मेरा आवेदन को लंबित रखने के लिए समस्तीपुर DSP और अन्य कर्मी के विरुध्द विभागीय कार्यवाही का स्पष्टीकरण समस्तीपुर SP से IG श्री अरविंद पांडे ने मांगा है।मैंने 17 जनवरी 2014 को एक आवेदन श्री अरविंद पांडे को दिया था,जिसके आलोक मेँ समस्तीपुर SP को एक सप्ताह के भीतर कार्रवाई प्रतिवेदन सौंपने का आदेश इनके द्वारा दिया गया था।लेकिन अभी तक कोई कार्रवाई नहीं की गई और वह आवेदन समस्तीपुर DSP के कार्य…ालय मेँ लंबित पड़ी रही।जिन कर्मियोँ और पदाधिकारियोँ के कारण आवेदन लंबित रही,सभी के विरुध्द विभागीय कार्यवाही का स्पष्टीकरण लेकर IG कार्यालय को समर्पित करने का आदेश समस्तीपुर SP को दिया गया है।मैंने आवेदन मेँ प्राचार्य, जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय,समस्तीपुर,समाहरणालय,समस्तीपुर के दो पदाधिकारी, NVS के एक पूर्व सहायक आयुक्त और कुछ अनुमंडलाधिकारी पर FIR दर्ज करने का आग्रह किया है।काश,जो आदेश DSP के विरुध्द आया है,वही आदेश केन्द्रीय मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय द्वारा प्राचार्य और उस सहायक आयुक्त के विरुध्द और बिहार सरकार द्वारा उन अनुमंडलाधिकारी और समाहरणालय के पदाधिकारियोँ के विरुध्द आ पाता तो वास्तव में सत्य की जीत होती। —
…………………
The BJP Prime Ministerial Candidate filed his nomination papers along with Affidavit on 10/4/2014 from the Vadodara Parliamentary Constituency wherein he has revealed one Jashodaben his wife in spouse column in the prescribed form but didn’t fill the information regarding assets and liabilities of his wife.

Earlier,he had left the spouse column blank in the Assembly elections of 2002,2007 and 2012.

We have either one view out of two views to observe this matter-

(i) Earlier he had furnished false information before the Returning Officer being legally found to furnish it which leads to an offence under section 177 of the IPC. Also, he had submitted false statement on affidavit before the returning officer which leads to an offence under section 181 of the IPC. Or,

(ii) Earlier he had intentionally omitted to furnish correct information which leads to an offence under section 176 of the IPC.

Therefore, Mr.Narendra Modi is guilty either of one offence out of two offences expressed above.

Narendra Modi has not submitted information regarding assets and liabilities of his wife. Although ,there is no clear provision in the Representation of the People Act,1951 to declare assets and liabilities of spouse before being elected as section 33A of the said Act only makes it mandatory to declare the criminal records of a contesting candidate and if one becomes fail to comply with this provision ,his nomination be rejected by the returning officer in exercise of the power conferred under section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act,1951.Though, section 75A of the Representation Of the People Act,1951 makes it mandatory to declare the assets and liabilities even of spouse after being elected. After being elected if Narendra Modi fails to comply with the provision of section 75A of the said Act, he must be disqualified from being a member of the house of people (Lok Sabha) .

……………
Solely accusing BJP in the matter of “Arvind Kejriwal Slapping Case” is not good.It might be that AAP itself would be involved.But it may be that other parties would be involved because-
1.Other parties (Either BJP or Congress) would do such to show how people are disappointed From Kejriwal which led them to slap him.
2.If it would be internal conspiracy of AAP,slappers would not be beaten in that manner by AAP workers,because it would be prefixed to slap Kejriwal and then save the slappers to show the non-violence of AAP.Only those people would be assembled around Kejriwal,who could save slappers to show non-violence.
………………