To,

1.       Hon’ble DGP, State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula.

2.       Hon’ble ADGP, SVB, Gurgaon.

3.       Hon’ble SP, SVB, Gurgaon.

Subject: Statement of Naresh Kadian in FIR No. 29 dated December 25, 2009 regarding.

Sir,

It is humbly submitted that:

1.       The said FIR No. 29 dated 29-12-2009 became infractuas because the Department of Education, Haryana hold guilty then DEEO, Gurgaon after departmental inquiry and recovered the excess payment from her (Copies of orders attached here with for ready references).

2.       In a similar material supply with the DEEO, Jhajjar was also inquired by the SVB, Rohtak, FIR No. 2 dated 4-2-2010 was lodged against same supplier Rattan Singh, as per challan, the billing Authority was exempted and same procedure was adopted in case of FIR No. 29 matter, as per past practice (Copies of challan are attached here with for ready references).

3.       It is humbly submitted that Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board is not manufacturing any materials, Board has executed agreement with their outsiders suppliers and many terms and conditions were mutually agreed by both parties, as per section 4 of this agreement “ That the goods supplied on behalf of Board will be of the approved samples of the purchaser, in case of any complaint on account of sub standard, any manufacturing defect or such latent or patent defect that may come to light that supplier will be wholly bound to replace or reimburse the Board or its nominee on account of loss, thus incurred” (Copy of agreement attached).

4.       The rates were given by the DEEO, Gurgaon and Board can not try and decide the rates from the open market, very limited suppliers were authorised by the Board, as per agreement, hence supply order was placed to the supplier, who procured the order from DEEO, Gurgaon.

5.       It was the responsibility of DEEO, Gurgaon to check the goods along with cost, quality and quantity, after DEEO satisfaction, goods receipt along with the payment released by DEEO and then after deducting 5% service charges of the Board, rest payment was released through Bank transaction to the supplier, where as service charges were forwarded to the Board, as per past practice and quarterly report was accepted by Board.

6.       The Board never received any complaint about goods supplied, in question to the DEEO, Gurgaon.

7.       I have lodged complaint zero FIR against supplier with the Faridabad and then Gurgaon Police for breach of agreement (Copies attached here with for ready reference).

Where as I was booked with the supplier but then DEEO, Gurgaon was left free, in fact she was responsible for all irregularities and I have performed my official duties, in the interest of Board, to generate revenue, which can not be treated as crime. It is further requested to please consider the findings of SVB, Rohtak, in case of similar supply FIR No. 2 along with the penalty orders, recovery from then DEEO, Gurgaon. At this stage, no loss to the Government involved, FIR No. 29 dated December 29, 2009 seems to be infractuas and criminal conspiracy along with the registered supplier does not arise.

Hence you are humbly requested to please release me from all the charges.

Sincerely yours,

Naresh Kadian,

Former DKVIO, Faridabad,

C-38, Rose Apartment, Prashant Vihar,

Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi – 110085.

Mobile: 9813010595.