ORDER

1. I have examined the report/order sheet of the vigilance section relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. The report/order sheet was probably prepared in the year 1996. The report states that a complaint was received from one Mr. R.K. Singh of Noida, making allegations that the complainant-petitioner herein, while working as ADG, G.M.S.D., Delhi, had favoured one Mr. Hans Raj and his company/associates and had made purchases at higher costs without issuing tender inquiries.

2. The report/order sheet records the allegations in the complaint as under:

1. "Shri Meena favours one Mr. Hansraj and his companies/associates e.g. he is promoting the interest of firm M/s Harjeet Enterprises, which is distributor of companies of Mr. Hansraj, Shri. Meena purchases bracketed items for CGHS at higher costs without issuing tender inquiries. He is purchasing product of his favour i.e. companies (e.g. Richimol, Richimox) by misrepresenting the facts.

2. He is passing the current bills of his favourite companies where bill worth Rs. 25 crores are pending in the depot.

3. The stores of favorite parties of Shri. Meena are being issued first so as to go more order in their favour. This results in expiry on short life product of other firms.

4. Sh. Meena is interested in purchasing only proprietory items and does not procuring generic items and issues non availability certificate in respect of generic items. The CGHS the largest indentor of depot has not been supplied 30% requirement.

3. The said Mr. R.K. Singh it later on transpired was a fictitious person. Comments of the petitioner were called for. The brief of comments of Sh. Meena vis-a-vis allegation were recorded in the report/order sheet as under:

"1.Depot has to make supply of bracketed items in equal proportion as per the decision of CGHS so that if one particular bracketed items does not give proper response to any particular patients the CGHS dispensaries should have other bracketed items for issue to the concerned patient. As such the depot is bound to comply with the advice of CGHS to supply the items as per their direction and depot cannot purchase and supply only one of the bracketed items. A copy of the CGHS's letter in this regard has been enclosed by Sh. Meena.

As per the depot records no firm under the name of M/s Harjeet Enterprise is having any business with the depot. As regards the allegation regarding purchases of Richimol Richimox Sh. Meena has stated that:

"The complainant has given the facts for the period 94-95 of my predecessor Sh. Viswa Vibhuti by making false mala fide complaint against me and wrongly implicating me in the complaint. It is truly analysed the whole position is furnished below and thus this complaint should have been against Sh. Viswa Vibhuti as he in his time obtain sanction of the DTe during 94-95 for tab. Richimol and Cap. Richimox by furnishing false information in the column of 5 LPP's during 1944-1995. Depot stated that items were required for supply of CRPF, BSF and Delhi hospitals and whereas the supply has been made to CGHS and not to these Indentors even in small quantities during 94-95. As the LPPs are sent to the DTe. after duly verifying the facts by the DM Dr. A.K. Singh who is overall responsible for stores issued to the indentors. Hence Dr. A.K. Singh D.M. is directly responsible for reflecting the correct information in the LLPs but he failed by giving wrong information on these LPPs and I am afraid there may be many more cases of this type of twisting the facts. In fact this complaint should have been against Dr.A.K. Singh and Sh. Viswa Vibhuti. Sh. Meena has stated that the Delhi depot has purchased Tab Richimol and Cap Richimox in my tenure after obtaining sanctions of the Directorate at the same rate at which they were purchased by Sh. Viswavibhuti and also at the rates already sanctioned by the DTe. and Depot has not allowed any increased in rates in these purchases.

2.Bills are to be passed by AO who