4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO

8/7/2019 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/4-100709-ketan-2-cvo 1/12

of11

URGENT VIGILANCE MATTER 09-Jul-2010

To : Prof. B. H. Jajoo, Chief Vigilance Officer, IIMA

From : Ketan Bhatt, Computer Center, IIMA

Sub : Request for equitable employment opportunities

Respected Sir,

I have received your letters dated 24-Jun-2009, 14-Aug-2009,

23-Apr-2010 addressed to me. These letters threaten coercive

actions against me in a vigilance complaint that you received.

These letters also asked me to submit evidences that confirm

“grave charges of corruption at highest levels of management”.

Please refer to following events & communiqués in your mailbox

1. First ever vigilance complaint (in the history of IIMA)

dated 28-May-2009 received by you.

2. My letter to you (CVO) dated 03-Jul-2009,

3. Email dated 28-May-2010 08:12 addressed to you (CVO) and

lack of any response to the same,

4. My probation period :

a. Evaluations dated 15-Dec-1993 of my probation period

(1992-93) by yourself (as then CSC Chair),

b. Your act of filing TWO adverse evaluation reports for

same evaluation period. Eventhough Mrs. Rama Rao was my

supervisor, you (as then CSC Chair) did NOT allow her to

write supervisor’s evaluation because of her own anxiety

(refer to point#5 below). Thus you wrote BOTH of my

evaluations, one as ‘supervisor’, second as ‘CSC Chair’,

CVO, IIMA steadfastly refused to accept this communication. He hadinstructed his secretary NOT to receive it on his behalf. Ultimately an"employee" was forced to use SpeedPost to communicate with hisown CVO!! :-( Proof at the end of this document.

8/7/2019 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO


of11

c. 25-Feb-1994 decision of (then) competent authorities to

overrule BOTH of your adverse evaluation reports,

d. Ever since 1992 and that tragic evaluation of my

probation period, you (present CVO) held charge of CSC

Chair for as many as 6+ years (Apr-1992 to Nov-1997,Apr-2003 to Mar-2005). And NOT ONCE did you file my

annual evaluation report for any of those years. I feel

this was done solely with intention of denying me growth

opportunities because, institute was still pleased to

release my annual increments due to my ability and

efficiency,

e. Present Director’s reference to this issue of my

probation period, in his letter of 13-Aug-2009,

5. Flip-flops in eligibility criteria in recruitment :

a. 1991, rise in eligibility criteria for promotion to

“Systems Analyst” when one particular ‘girl’ was to be

REWARDED with out-of-turn promotion. PIO informed that

reasons for alteration are **NOT** there in record,

b. 1993, decline in eligibility criteria for promotion to

“Head CC” when Mrs. Rama Rao (w/o Prof. Rama Rao) was to

be REWARDED. Sir, “Head CC” being the top most

technical+administrative post in CC, one would naturally

expect that eligibility criteria MUST be higher than

that for any of the junior position. BUT in 1993

eligibility criteria for “Head CC” was even lower than

that for “Systems Analyst” in 1991. Again PIO says thatreasons for decline are **NOT** there in office record.

These alterations happened during your Chairmanship.

c. Since my probation period began on 01-Oct-1992, Mrs.

Rama Rao was my supervisor for 13 years and her husband

Prof. Rama Rao was CSC Chair for 4 years. Incidentally

for VALID reasons Rama Rao family (Prof. Rama Rao & Mrs.

Rama Rao) NEVER EVER

filed my annual evaluation reports.

I feel this was done solely with intention of denying me

8/7/2019 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO


of11

growth opportunities because, institute was still

pleased to release my annual increments due to my

ability and efficiency,

d. Our PIO says that some very important documents (of

vital interest to my career) have gone missing sinceresignation (2007) of Mrs. Rama Rao as Head of CC.

e. WHO favored WHOM for WHAT consideration?

6. Missing documents :

a. PIO’s reply dated 26-Nov-2008 informing that many

documents, [expressing collective grievances of CC staff

against YOU (then CSC Chair)] are “NOT there on record”,

b. BUT I had them. I wrote an email on 14-May-2009 19:06 to

check with you in case you were in know of such missing

documents. And your lack of any response to my email,

c. Email dated 31-May-2009 19:55 from Mr. Sunil Garg Head

(acting) CC confirming existence of such documents,

d. My email request dated 03-Jun-2009 22:37 to Director for

administrative review of his decision dated 22-Oct-2008

on YOUR appointment as CVO, IIMA,

e. Director’s letters dated 10-Jun-2009 and 19-Jun-2010

confirming existence of such documents,

f. Please revisit above point#6a which NOW appears to be

false and misleading information given by our PIO,

7. Power-grid and allegations of corruption :

a. 03-Dec-2008 10:32 email from Prof. Rajanish Dass, (then)CSC Chair, (copy marked to CVO) alleged that I was

favoring a particular vendor in multi-crore rupee ERP

tender. Very serious allegation leveled by a high

ranking authority,

b. Just 2 hours after he leveled such a serious allegation,

Prof. Dass abruptly (03-Dec-2008 12:37 email) moved my

work desk to New Campus ostensibly for the reason thatnew work allocation was related to new campus. Albeit so

8/7/2019 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO


of11

many of our CC staff from our Main Campus do render

their services in New Campus while continuing to have

their work desk in Main Campus itself,

c. I presumed, this could be to facilitate fair and

impartial inquiry into serious allegations on me,d. BUT to my utter disbelief and shock, nothing happened.

Within a week, when there was absolutely NO trace of any

inquiry, I realized that allegations by Prof. Dass (copy

marked to you, CVO) were just a ‘smoke screen’ alibi to

withdraw prestigious ERP project and to harass me for

having asked for sensitive information that revealed

scandals in IIMA administration,

e. Hesitantly I was compelled to call the bluff through my

email of 10-Dec-2008 09:22 titled “Power-grid and sheer

dirt polity”. Email was addressed to you (CVO). But YOU

(‘guardian’ of vigilance, CVO) refused to budge. WHY??

f. ULTIMATELY I was forced to make explicit request email

(26-Jan-2009 19:50) to you (CVO) for departmental

inquiry in to serious allegations made by (then) CSC

Chair. In my email I even agreed with CSC Chair that

“favors were indeed being extended to a vendor during

multi-crore rupee ERP Tender”. But YOU (‘guardian’ of

vigilance, CVO) refused to order inquiry. WHY????

g. In my email of 04-Mar-2009 19:55 (copy in your mailbox)

I brought these developments to the notice of Director

as well. I am still awaiting his reply.

h. Please also refer to a long series of employee emails(during Sep-Oct 2008) that appeared on our “electronic

notice boards for all users” expressing deep sense of

despair and anguish at corrupt practices and moral

bankruptcy in promotions to officer’s cadre. And there

being absolutely NO response from management.

i. If you care to search through your mailbox, I believe,

you may come across ‘N’ number of cases where employeeshave vented similar sentiments on several issues.

8/7/2019 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO


of11

8. Blatant abuse of office + moral turpitude :

a. Sir, my struggle for being informed began on 25-Aug-2008

(3 days after Director announced your name as next Dean)

beginning which I made several requests for information

under RTI Act. This struggle escalated to the level ofCentral Information Commission on 19-Jan-2009 when I

filed first 4 of my petitions with CIC,

b. And ‘dirty tricks department’ swung into action as to

find ‘who at CIC would be hearing my petitions’,

c. Please refer to 2 nd Appeal (RTI Act) dated 16-Dec-2009

(copy received by our PIO on 17-Dec-2009). They rightly

zeroed on to Hon. IC Mr. Shailesh Gandhi on 27-Feb-2009.

Please have a look at page-30 of 2 nd Appeal for evidence.

For immediate reference I quote the middle man from his

email to our Director AND Hon. IC Mr. Gandhi, “.... it

appears that he is the specific Commissioner who hears

all IIM and IIT matters. He is, therefore the most

appropriate Information Commissioner for IIMA to invite

for your purposes....”,

d. Needless to say, Mother India is blessed with many

illustrious scholars to “educate IIM community on

provisions of RTI Act”. However, for some reasons,

Director choose NOT to consider ANYONE other than “Hon.

IC Mr. Shailesh Gandhi” for the purpose.

e. Director sent his invite to Hon. IC Mr. Shailesh Gandhi

on 04-Apr-2009, that is, JUST 4 days before 08-Apr-2009

when Hon. IC was to hear and decide on many of mypetitions. Morals?? Ethics??? Propriety????

f. Ultimately when Hon. IC Mr. Gandhi came to address the

conference, its ‘Genesis’ had metamorphosed from non-

academic to academic/teaching with students, faculty and

‘other staff’ as invitees.

g. Please also refer to your (CVO) act of denying me entry

to this conference while you yourself, First AppellateAuthority and few select employees accrued unfair

8/7/2019 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO


of11

benefit from interactions with Hon. IC Mr. Gandhi who

was ‘the specific Commissioner hearing all IIM matters’.

h. I am still awaiting answers to these blatant abuses of

office and moral turpitude by our TOP MANAGEMENT.

9. “Candle Light Vigil” across 20 IIT/IIM/CFTI campuses :

a. 19-Nov-2009 12:52 email from Shwetank Bhatnagar (General

Secretary, Students' Affairs Council, IIMA) invited top

management (including you, CVO) for a nation-wide public

event “Candle Light Prayer Meeting” in the memory of Mr.

Manjunath Shanmugam as a resolve against corruption. The

email also detailed agenda for meeting which included

“pledge against corruption” & “singing national anthem”,

b. Many students, staff and faculty assembled that evening

in memory of a whistleblower brave-heart IIM alumnus who

dared to refuse bribes and ignored threats to fight oil

adulteration. Email invite from Students' Affairs

Council was explicitly addressed to Director, Dean and

CAO. However, for some reasons, they could not make it,

c. There were some messages from those who could not make

it to the meeting due to exigencies. Let me draw your

kind attention to two emails (copies marked to you, CVO)

¾ 21-Nov-2009 12:37 from Prof. Morris who suggested

that we need to make concerted efforts to make

‘systemic’ changes to contain corruption,

¾ 27-Nov-2009 09:25 reply email from myself wherein I

narrated my own experience to show that there are

grave risks even to effect ‘systemic’ changes and

that people with vested interest in feeble system

invariably come together to harass ‘whistleblower’,

d. Lack of any encouragement from you (CVO, ‘guardian’ of

vigilance at IIM) to these communiqués is sad reflection

on state of vigilance administration at our institute.

To the best of my knowledge, IIMA is still awaiting itsFIRST public event to promote vigilant administration,

8/7/2019 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO


of11

10. RTI Revelations : Informed workforce is an asset for any

organization. Law mandates (u/s 4(1d) RTI Act) that C.R.,

performance appraisal, speaking orders on key appointments

/decisions, MoMs of committees (CSC, RSDEC, BoG), etc be

shared with affected employees SUO-MOTO ,a. Dean’s (who also is CVO) is an ‘honorary’ post with

appointment made by Director. Documents listed in RTI

[expressing collective grievances of CC staff against

YOU (then CSC Chair)] were fraudulently destroyed by

authorities after Director announced your name as next

Dean AND after my RTI application. This was done with

sole intention for PIO to claim that these documents are

***NOT*** on institute record. I had to make desperate

efforts (refer point#6) to have them reconstructed from

my own copies. Lack of CVO appreciation for my efforts,

b. Institute does not share C.R. and performance appraisals

with its employees. Employees also do not get copies of

their service books. These being done in gross

violations of Supreme Court judgments, GoI guidelines,

O.M. etc and explicit CIC orders. Such practices are

known to promote ‘crony culture’,

c. Promotion Policy for officer grade is a revelation in

itself. Quite often candidates to be promoted are

identified first and then matching eligibility criteria

are attached accordingly. Records of reasons for such

flip-flops in eligibility criteria are NOT maintained.

Also nobody bothers to record awardees’ achievementsthat fetched him/her promotion.

d. CIC decision dated 17-Mar-2010 in a complaint ordered

the institute to provide as many as 23000+ pages to the

applicant “FREE OF CHARGE” (total cost to the exchequer

Rs.46000+). Who paid for this? Lackadaisical attitude of

our officials often result in such wastage of public

funds necessitating steep rise in fees paid by ourstudent-citizens. Does this merit vigilance alarm??

8/7/2019 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO


of11

e. Non-existent record destruction policy. Chief Admin

Officer Mr. Pillai wrote in his signed order,

“Periodically unnecessary / unwanted papers are

destroyed as per our judgement. No register is kept.”

Sir, this is atrocious for any vigilance administration.Ultimately Hon. CIC was forced to reprimand and order

course correction.

f. IIM is 45+ years. Grievance Redressal System is almost

nonexistent. Grievance redressal is **oral**. ‘genuine

grievances’ are ‘amicably resolved’, REST get trashed,

as if not received. Not even acknowledged. Footmarks

wiped clean. As such institute does not maintain

grievance register. Even new grievance redressal system

does not inspire confidence, forcing employees to

approach BoG and litigation. Sir, this is atrocious for

any vigilance administration. Ultimately Hon. CIC was

forced to order course correction. We are still awaiting

credible “Grievance Redressal System”.

g. PIO disclosures of 24-Apr-2009 are alarming revelation.

While IIMA does have Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO),

**NO** efforts have ever been made to sensitize

(notification, O.M., etc) IIMA community to “vigilance

angle” OR existence of a position called “Chief

Vigilance Officer”. In IIM’s history, TILL DATE of PIO

reply no vigilance complaints were ever received, no

vigilance inquiry ever held. As such vigilance register

did NOT exist. Since how long do we have CVO?h. Akin to an accountant not maintaining his books, if

institute does not create and publish (on website) its

financial deals and other records (speaking orders for

major decisions, record destruction register, grievance

register, vigilance register...), then HOW will our

citizens be able to exercise their right to

information?? WHY does our institute require frequentcourse corrections ordered by judicial pronouncement???

8/7/2019 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO


of11

11. Prejudices evident at CSC and RSDEC :

a. In Oct-2007 I was named ‘project lead’ for most

ambitious software implementation project at MDP office

which later evolved into campus wide full fledged ERP

implementation project, b. I coordinated multi-crore rupee ERP project from

initiation through, finalization of tender documents

through, tender publishing through, pre-bid meeting,

c. My supervising authority, IT Manager, in her evaluation

report for 2007-08 wrote, “has contributed remarkably

for the RFP of ERP project. Would be able to handle the

ERP project from inception to implementation”,

d. Eventhough my supervisor gave such an excellent report,

I was removed from this project without any genuine and

bonafide reason (refer above point#7),

e. 03-Dec-2008 12:37 email from then CSC Chair did

prejudiced and resentful work allocation for unspecified

reasons (ref above point#7),

f. My email of 31-Mar-2010 18:34 addressed to you regarding

violations of principles of “Natural Justice” at RSDEC

(top evaluating authority for me). I am still awaiting

reply from your side,

g. Latest example of prejudiced mindset is the letter dated

17-Jun-2010 from Prof. Rama Rao (CSC Chair). He took

umbrage to my email 23-Apr-2010 18:03 titled “Security

and integrity of our emails”. Please also refer to my

reply dated 05-Jul-2010 (copy already with you).

12. Prejudices evident in administration :

a. My email dated 26-Jan-2009 20:06 wherein I suspected

that MoM were being manufactured by administration with

malafide intentions,

b. Decision of FAA (RTI Act) dated 13-Mar-2009. Deep rooted

prejudices are evident in ‘ultra vires’ observationsmade by Chief Administrative Officer Mr. N. V. Pillai.

8/7/2019 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO


of11

Similar ‘ultra vires’ observations are made in almost

ALL of his decisions as First Appellate Authority.

c. Nine of the Central Information Commission (CIC)

decisions dated 08-Apr-2009, 07-Jul-2009 and 17-Mar-2010

over ruled positions taken by our PIO (Est. Officer) andFAA (Chief Admin. Officer),

d. Many show cause notices received by our PIO due to his

non-compliance with these CIC decisions,

e. Many many petitions still awaiting CIC hearing,

f. Sir, CAO is in charge of entire administrative machinery

and his prejudices are very much evident through acts of

various departments. My applications are not getting

fair and prompt reply,

Sir, above cited letters & emails were received by YOU (CVO).

Though at my lay level there are no indications, your office

may have shared these ‘vigilance’ and ‘governance’ issues with

Director, BoG, CVC, MHRD, etc. Infact sharing may be desirable

when winds of structural reforms are blowing and MHRD has

constituted a committee to look into governance issues.

After above discussion, do you still expect me (refer first

para on page#1) to furnish evidences to prove allegations that

you received in a vigilance complaint? “Do I have access to

institute records?” If you expect ME (a lay employee) to

collect evidences, what is the job of Vigilance Department?

Please, you yourself live very much in this thicket of

documents that betray corruption and moral turpitude in

institute administration.

Prayer for relief :

¾ References quoted above indicate deep rooted prejudices

exhibited by various higher authorities (both in academic

as well as general administration). It is my most humblerequest to you (CVO of IIMA) to please ensure that acts

8/7/2019 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO


of11

of RSDEC, CSC Chair, Head CC & administrative departments

falling under authority of CAO ‘appear to be and are’

just, fair, rational. And that authorities at our

institute follow principles of “Natural Justice” and

impartial processes while deciding issues related to me.¾ Sir, I am entitled to equitable employment opportunities.

Time and again I have brought these issues to your kind

attention. Please initiate remedial measures so that

courtesies and privileges (congenial work environment,

profile of work allocation, computing infrastructure,

printer, etc) as those extended to “CC staff of

comparable seniority” are extended to me as well. And

that there is no discrimination due to pending RTI and

vigilance issues.

¾ Please order thorough inquiry in to issues arising out of

above discussion, including meteoric rise & rise of

senior officers. Fluid nature of adjustable promotion

policy helps. WHO favored WHOM for WHAT considerations?

Which considerations were on monetary basis and which

ones were on barter basis? Botched public tenders?

Sir, you (CVO) are my appointing authority (as Dean)

and my top evaluating authority (as RSDEC Chairman).

Please consider if there are ‘conflicts of interests’

herein all above cited references when you (ex CISG/

CSC Chair) are NOW holding the position of CVO, IIMA.

I request for your written reply. Thanks.

Sincerely,

---------------------------

In the case of FIRST EVER vigilance complaint (dated 28-May-2009) inthe history of IIMA, CVO steadfastly refuses to order inquiry. WHY?

CVO instructs his secretary NOT to acknowledge receipt of employeecommunications. WHY??

Eventhough CVC guidelines recommend 'external' CVO, IIMA has an'internal' CVO with vested interests in feeble vigilance. WHY???

8/7/2019 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO


Subject: Re: I came to submit one letter From: Ketan Bhatt <[email protected]>Date: 2010-07-14 11:22To: "Prof. B. H. Jajoo" <[email protected]>CC: "J. S. Vijayapiriya" <[email protected]>

To : Prof. B. H. Jajoo, CVO & Dean, IIMA

From : Ketan Bhatt, Computer Center, IIMA

Respected Sir,

Please refer to my visit to W-5 on 09-Jul-2010 when I cameto submit one letter addressed to you (CVO). We had abrief chat in W-5 corridor when you instructed me to comeagain on Monday, 12-Jul-2010. In the same context pleasealso refer to,

My email of 09-Jul-2010 18:211.My email of 12-Jul-2010 12:44 after my second visit toyour office. I met with your secretary Ms. Priya. Shecalled some mobile (probably yours) and read out thesubject line. After that she was not prepared toacknowledge receipt of my letter and asked me to comeagain this afternoon around 15:30.

2.

My telephone call (12-Jul-2010 15:15) to Ms. Priyawhen she informed that you were not available.

3.

My telephone call (12-Jul-2010 17:10) to Ms. Priyawhen she informed that you were not available. Shealso reiterated that she is under instruction NOT toreceive my letter.

4.

My personal visit (13-Jul-2010 10:40) to your officewhile you were present. Ms. Priya checked with you andinformed that you were busy attending to yourelectronic mailbox and that she would call me once youdecide to attend to this vigilance matter.

5.

Thus I have NOT been able to submit my letter to you (CVO)

inspite of the best of my efforts. Under the circumstancesI was compelled to send my letter by "SPEED POST". It isan 11 page letter “Urgent Vigilance Matter : Request forequitable employment opportunities”. By the way till NOW Iam still awaiting call from your office.

It is my humble request to kindly allow your secretary toreceive letters. I am bound to come again for meeting asand you call me at your convenience. Thanks.

- Ketan

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Ketan Bhatt < [email protected] > wrote:

came to submit one letter 1 of 2

4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO

Documents

Transcript of 4 100709 Ketan 2 CVO