B H U, Varanasi
Subject: To remove biased, discriminatory & derogatory suspension of Dr Om Shankar, Assistant professor, Department of cardiology with an immediate effect, in large public interest.
Respected Sir,
I am writing this letter in continuation to my previous letters just to remind you your gentleman promises made to me to render justice. Justice delayed in true sense is justice denied. During our last meeting dated 15th March 2015 on your residence in presence of Registrar Prof K P Upadhyay, after seeing & listening to the video recorded conversation of myself with the Inquiry officer in my case Ex Professor & dean Dr R N Mishra & other evidences, you promised me to revoke my illegal suspension in the EC meeting but EC meeting has already been concluded on 21st April & I am still waiting for positive response from the administration.
You are not only our present leader occupying the chair of great Mahamana, one of the greatest advocator of “Satyamev jayate” but also you have always raised voices against the atrocities on teachers in Allahabad university. You have successfully fought for the rights of teachers when the students beat them up in Dec 2013 by boycotting the classes for 14 days & representing your cases many times the media as a president of AUTA. You have also led the FEDCUTA successfully for more then three years.
This time in my case you have to take wise decision by taking into account, all the evidences available before you & render justice to me at the earliest without being biased on the basis of cast, creed & religion.
Thanking You!
Yours Sincerely
Dr Om Shankar
Assist Professor
(Under suspension)
Dept. of Cardiology
Note: I have already submitted attachments for better understanding of my case along with the letter dated 18th March 2015 in hard copies to your office.
To, Dated: 29th April 2015
The Honorable Vice chancellor,
B H U, Varanasi
Subject: To remove biased, discriminatory & derogatory suspension of Dr Om Shankar, Assistant professor, Department of cardiology with an immediate effect, in large public interest.
Respected Sir,
Myself is Dr Om Shankar, Assistant Professor, in the Department of cardiology, Second topper of the Final MBBS exam & Topper of the BHU PG entrance 2001,has worked with the three most prestigious cardiac institutions (R N T, Kolkata, Medica Super-specialty Hospital Kolkata & Fortis Escorts Heart Institute New Delhi) of this country before joining BHU.
I am also the member of the American college of cardiology & European college of cardiology as well as advisory faculty of TCT, USA, raised voices against prevailing corruptions in the BHU & Credited for my pioneering role in the establishment of Interventional program in the 100 years glorious history of BHU against all odds, which has saved thousands of lives in last Four years & will continue to save Lakhs of lives in the future too.
I was rewarded by slapping suspension against me, on 5th March 2014 for my pioneering work, raising voices against corruption & for demanding up gradation of IMS, BHU to the AIIMS level (for which Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh himself wrote many letters to then PM Dr Man Mohan Singh/planning commission/HRD ministries & Health ministry- Annexure), through peaceful & democratic protest under the leadership of Director IMS, BHU Professor RG Singh with Ex- dean faculty of modern medicine, Dr Mandvi Singh, Ex- Medical superintendent, Professor US Dwivedi, Padam Shree Professor CM Gopal, Other senior and junior faculty members, resident doctors, students & staffs of IMS, BHU by the Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh by framing false & baseless charges against me.
Not only he (Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh) suspended me with the malafied intention but also tried his level best to prove me guilty. To protect himself from his wrong did & to save his skin, he appointed his Yes men, Ex Dean & now retired Professor RN Mishra, Faculty of Visual Arts as an Inquiry officer.
This is clearly evident from contradictory conclusions drawn by the Inquiry officer in my case by ignoring his own (Ex-Professor RN Mishra) observations made during the inquiry process. He has not taken into cognizance or more precisely he has intentionally omitted the important hard facts & evidences in favor of me like deposition of Mr Ramawtar, a security officer in the B H U, Varanasi, who most of the time accompanied us during whole of the agitation (had clearly said in his deposition dated 16th June 2014 that I never did anything forcefully & my role during whole of the agitation was Peaceful) & replacing the CD of my press conversation of 5th March 2014(one of the basis of my suspension) with the CD of 6th March 2014 as a basis of suspension, when I was already suspended.
My Inquiry officer, Retired Professor RN Mishra has also accepted in a private conversion to me that I was innocent, nobody said anything against me in their deposition during the inquiry process, he was pressurized by the Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh to frame me & prove me guilty to the extent that legal advisor to the Dr Lalji Singh, wanted to sign a report written by the legal advisor, which he did not agreed.
If he could not have written the reports like the present one Dr Lalji singh had not accepted his reports & could have torn & thrown into the dust bin. According to him legal advisor had suggested him to prepare this type of controversial report.
(Annexure-1 video recording of private conversion between the Inquiry officer of my case & me.)
If this is the credibility, honesty & sanctity of the Inquiry officer, Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh & his legal advisor, then it is up to you to decide the truth & wattage of the reports.
Now I want to bring to your kind notice about the truth of the witnesses in my case:
According to the Inquiry officer, total of eight witnesses appeared before the inquiry committee out of which, four witnesses (Director, IMS, Ex Dean & retired Professor Mandvi Singh, Ex-OSD Professor D K Singh & Ex-Medical Superintendent Professor U S Dwivedi) were the same person, who signed the confidential letter to the VC dated 5th March 2014, for my suspension. So question comes whether they can give statement in against of themselves, if not then how they can be a witness? How allegators could be witnesses ????????
Not only that it is interesting to note that one of the four witness, Ex-OSD, Professor D K Singh was out of station till the afternoon of 5th March 2014(the evening I was suspended), came to Varanasi by the afternoon flight & signed a letter that he made repeated request to me & I was threat to the Institution, just after reaching Varanasi.
He was removed from the post of OSD, Trauma centre due to his similar irresponsible behaviors like calling the PM for the inauguration of the Trauma centre (when it was not ready for the inauguration), without informing then VC Prof Rajeev Sangal and questions had been raised against him by the audit officer about his honesty in the bidding & procurement process of the instrument for the trauma centre.
Two of the witnesses Ex Dean & retired Professor Mandvi Singh & Ex-Medical Superintendent, Professor U S Dwivedi were the same person against whom FIR was lodged for supporting the Dr Dhermendra Jain in his corrupt practices when I raised the voice. (Annexure-2 paper cutting showing FIR lodged against them for their alleged involvement in the corrupt practices)
Now, about the 4th Witness in my case, present director, IMS, BHU, Professor RG Singh, Inquiry officer in my case has himself raised question about his honesty & sanctity in the reports submitted in my case, under the heading of observations, 4-(g), page No-7.
Contradictory behavior of the respected Director like signing a latter for the up gradation of IMS into AIIMS along with the Ex Dean & retired Professor Mandvi Singh & Ex-Medical Superintendent, Professor U S Dwivedi in the teachers council meeting dated 3rd March 2014 held in ILT-1, Headed the teachers council meeting dated 4th March 2014 to run a parallel OPD from 5th March 2014, wrote a letter to the Ministry of health & family welfare & decided to send delegation to meet the Honorable Health minister dated 4th March2014 for the up gradation of the IMS to the AIIMS level.
Paper cuttings dated 4th March 2014 showing Director, IMS leading the march of the faculty members & students towards the VC lodge & of the 5th March 2014 showing director sir was sitting on the dharna in front of the IMS building.
On one side he was leading the agitation for creation of AIIMS & on the other hand he wrote a confidential letter to the Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh to suspend me & made me escape goat on the 3rd day of the AIIMS agitation.
Rest three of the four witnesses was from BHU security, including then Chief proctor Prof A K joshi. Everyone from the security department has told in his deposition that they agree to the confidential reports submitted to the Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh dated 3rd & 4th March 2014.
According to the reports dated 3rd March 2014, when march of the senior consultants, resident doctors & students lead by the Director IMS BHU reached the VC lodge, Dr Lalji Singh was not their & he sent then Chief Proctor Prof Joshi to convey the message that he was not in favor of the up gradation of the IMS BHU into AIIMS now (for which he wrote many letters to the Ex PM Dr Man Mohan Singh, H R D Ministry, Health Ministry & planning commission).
After getting this information student and resident doctors got agitated & started raising slogans against Dr Lalji Singh, who were being persuaded by me & I succeeded in getting them back to the IMS where they sat on the dherna. In the VC lodge behavior of another consultant (not mine) was reported to be of abusive nature. (Annexure-3)
According to the confidential reports of the chief proctor dated 4th March 2014, in the afternoon around 50-60 resident doctors reached the S S H, campus that was lead by the 20 consultants including me. Resident doctors (NOT THE CONSULTANTS like me) took round of the OPD following which those consultants who were sitting in the OPD also left their OPD. Even the resident doctors did not forced closed the OPD on the said date. So question comes from where this force full word came as the ground of my suspension?
Now about the last witness Professor R P Singh, then chairman PP cell. He was the person who misguided Inquiry officer by showing non-relevant CDs of the later date, when I was already suspended, replacing CD of the 5th March with the CD of 6th & 7th March as an evidence of my suspension, probably on the instruction of or under the pressure of Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh (for his personal gain). Prof RP Singh tried to manipulate the evidences was also accepted by the Investigating officer of my case in personal communication to me. (Annexure-1 video recording of personal communication between Inquiry officer & me )
Now analysis of the Inquiry committee reports submitted by the Inquiry officer in my case:
4(2)(a) In the teachers council meeting dated 3rd March 2014 at 3.00 p.m in ILT-1, a unanimous & sole resolution was made to the effect that IMS, BHU be converted to AIIMS. The said resolution was signed by the Director IMS,EX – Dean & retired professor Mandvi Singh & then MS Prof. U S dwivedi. The said position taken by the said meeting was against the known stand of the university. The said resolution prima facie confirms the contentions of the charged officer that the Institute unanimously wanted conversion of IMS to AIIMS.
4(2)(e) conclusion drawn by the inquiry officer that the “Letter written by the Director IMS to the MOHFW seems to be follow up action to the resolution of the Minutes of the teacher council held at 1.45 p.m dated March 4th, 2014 (Annexure 20 of the Inquiry reports)” confirms my claim that the Director IMS was leading the agitation & he was also actively involved in the planning & the future course/mode of the agitation but I was made escape goat.
4(2)(f) “Photographs provided by the Prof R P Singh, then chairman PPP Cell on the CD evidence confirms that some of the senior consultants were definitely extending services in the parallel OPD”, the charges on which I was suspended also confirms my claim that the decision of running parallel OPD was also the follow up action of the decisions taken in the teacher’s council meeting held at 1.45 p.m dated March 4th, 2014 headed by the Director IMS (Annexure 20 of the Inquiry reports).
4(2)(g) On most of the questions asked during the cross examination from the Director IMS, related to the events & issues from 2(a) to 2(f), he either did not respond or respond as does not remember (also to the question asked about Parallel OPD-he responded- does not remember, even though it was being run by his own department colleague in front of his own chamber).
Inquiry officer concludes under this subheading that “ If the documents provided by the charged officer {Minutes of the teacher council held at 1.45 p.m dated March 4th, 2014, Annexure 20 of the Inquiry reports} are believed to be correct (authenticity of which has neither been accepted nor denied by the Director, I M S), contentions of the charged officer that the action taken by him is part of the broad action plan/strategy drafted at the IMS level to press for their demand of conversion of IMS as AIIMS does not appear to be unfounded.
4(2) (h) Chief proctor has reported me to be a part of the group of consultants & resident doctors of IMS who went to the VC Lodge on 3rd March 2014, lead by the Director I M S (not by me). It has been specifically mentioned that the Dr Siddharth Lahoutia was abusive & I (Dr Om Shankar) persuaded the group of agitated residents back to the I M S.
(Annexure-3 Daily confidential reports submitted to the VC dated 3rd March 2014)
4(2)(i) In the Daily confidential reports dated 4th March 2014 also, chief proctor has identified me among the group of 20 consultants who were leading the agitation at 11.00 a.m on 4th March 2014, the conduct of Dr Satendra kumar singh (not mine) was objectionable.
But administration felt that they were innocent & I was guilty?
According to them, Person who clamed the agitated resident doctors &students require suspension even without asking any explanation from him, but those consultants who were abusive require no punitive action, clearly points towards the discriminatory behavior of the administrators.(Annexure-5)
4(2)(j) In the daily confidential reports of the chief proctor to the VC, dated 4th March 2014 it has been clearly mentioned that the Resident doctors (NOT THE CONSULTANTS) took the rounds (NO forceful closure, even by the resident doctors) of the OPD following which consultants sitting in the OPD also left the OPD.
Inquiry Officer manipulated the finding of the daily confidential reports dated 4th March 2014 & included from himself that both consultants & resident doctors took the round of the OPD, which is totally Incorrect. He also assumed, without any evidence that the said group probably might have forcibly closed the OPD, which is totally absurd.
In the conclusion, he specifically mentioned that there is no direct evidence on record (of forceful closure of the OPD) in this regard.
This kind of reports made by him, on his baseless assumptions by manipulating hard fact evidences, not only points towards the biased & vindictive attitude of the Inquiry officer but also prima facie confirms his claim (made during personal communication to me) that he has prepared this manipulated report, under the pressure of Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh to save his misdeed, raising serious question mark on his credibility & honesty as well as credibility of the report submitted by him against me.
4(2)(l) There is nothing on record to suggest that the charged officer forcibly entered the meeting of the head of the departments of IMS dated 4th March 2014.
4(2)(m) Through the aforesaid submission charged officer attempted to make a case against the article of charge no 1 & 2 that though he was a part of the group of the consultants that lead the agitation of the resident doctors, he was not the sole leader of the agitation as projected in the charge sheet.
4(2)(n) As regard to the third charges, inquiry officer has believed the statement of then Chairman PP Cell, Prof R P Singh & CD provided by him. According to him, in the video clipping, I have been seen sitting in the room appears to be a class room & responding to the queries of the press on the reasons of agitation, its impact on the patient & future plan.
In addition there is a clipping that shows that I was responding impromptu, to the questions of the press reporter in front of the IMS building at the location where parallel OPD was run.
On the basis of above observation, he concludes that, therefore contentions of the charged officer that he did not hold organized press conference don’t appear to be correct, seems to be again biased and without any hard fact /evidences.
First of all I never told that I didn’t talk to the media person, because right to expression & right to speech are our basic human rights conferred to us by the Indian constitution reaffirmed in the recent judgments of the honorable supreme court( in connection with its judgment about writing in the social media as well as St Stephens college, Delhi students suspension case) Even in the reply to charge sheet submitted to me, I have clearly mentioned that when media person came to me during the Parallel OPD I talked to them & responded to their queries initially in front of the IMS Building, when I was sitting in the Parallel OPD & later in the classroom when I finished my OPD.
Me & Dr Abhishek Chandra were asked to interact with the press during the agitation so I was responding to the queries of the media along with the Dr Abhishek Chandra. About discussion of the future plan of the agitation & its impact on the patient, it was the same strategies’ that was decided in the teachers council meetings dated 4th March 2014.
To call a Press conference to be organized, there must be an invitation letter sent to the Press,( which we never sent to any press during whole of the agitation), neither it (invitation letter) was produced by the said witness (Professor RP Singh,Ex Chairman,PPP Cell) during whole of the Inquiry process nor it is attached as an Annexure of the Inquiry committee report , so there is no question of organized press conference.
None of the BHU Acts, Statutes or ordinances debars the employee of the BHU from their basic human rights (right to speech & right to expression).
Finally, when I raised the voices against the legality of the mere existence of PPP cell within BHU, (which was not supported by any Act, Statutes & ordinances of BHU), the previous VC Professor Rajeev Sangel dissolved the PPP Cell.
4(2) (o) As evident from the 03 video clippings of press contact, Dr Om Shankar is seen to have been attaching baseless ulterior motives of the administration for the stand taken by the university on the issue of conversion of IMS as AIIMS. Therefore, his utterances definitely have the damaging effect on the image of the university administration.
This CD/Video 03 was prepared when I was already suspended i.e on 6th March 2014(because in the said CD I am discussing about legality of my suspension), so this cannot be considered as a ground of my suspension.
Furthermore, whatever I have talked in the CD, it was talked on the basis of strong hard facts/evidences in the form of letters written by the Ex VC Dr Lalji singh to then PM Dr Man Mohan Singh vide letter No-Vc/985 dated 12th February 2013,letter of the planning commission (HRD division) dated 6th December 2013 & dated 10th January 2014 as well as letter No-F (A) BRU/2012-13 dated 04-02-2013 & letter No-DCCMB/Receipts/GF dated December 17,2012. (Annexure-4)
Finally, when we raised the voices against Dr Lalji Singh, an Inquiry was ordered by the HRD ministry under the Chairmanship of Mr O P S Mallik to investigate the charges of corruptions during his tenure. Committee has already submitted his reports in the last August following which Dr Lalji singh was asked to vacate the chair even before the incumbent VC took the charges. His yes man whom he gave the charge of the VC (Professor Binay Kumar Singh), a junior most professor in the Hindi Department, is also facing the suspension.
4(2)(p) Video clippings (Varanasi BHU strike & Varanasi BHU Strike 2) were made after I was suspended, so it has nothing to do with my suspension. So, how it can be produced as a ground of my suspension? It seems that these Non-relevant evidences were later added by the Inquiry officer, under the pressure of University administration to make the repot contradictory as claimed by him during his personal communication to me.
Now the analysis of the erroneous & biased Conclusions drawn by the Inquiry officer by omitting the hard facts in favor of me under the pressure of Previous VC Dr Lalji Singh, his legal advisor & other associates with the malafied intention to prove me guilty or make the report controversial, on the basis of hypothetical assumptions (not on the basis of facts/evidences) which has no place in the Indian judicial system, rather it is a criminal offence.
i) Article of charge 1: At around 11:30 am on March 04,2014 Dr. Om Shankar, Assistant professor, dept of Cardiology, IMS (under suspension), led an agitation by the resident doctors & paralyzed the hospital services of Sir Sunder Lal hospital by forcibly closure of the OPD services’. Dr Om Shankar also forcibly entered the meeting of head of the departments of IMS held by the Director of the IMS on the same day (i.e 04th March 2014).
This allegation is having two parts:
One is about forcibly entering into the meeting of HOD of IMS held by the Director of IMS on the 4th March 2014-
About this charge, Inquiry committee has himself concluded that there is no evidence that the charged officer forcibly entered the meeting of the HOD held by the director IMS on the 04th March 2014 that means this was a false allegation.
About the 2nd part of the allegation about forceful closure of the OPD led by me:
We have to rely on the witness & evidences produced during the Inquiry process:
Witness No- 1,2,4,5 & 6(page 3 / 4 of the Inquiry committee reports) has said nothing.
Witness No- 3rd & 7th had said that daily information reports (confidential to the VC) submitted, dated 3rd & 4th march 2014 are correct & they have nothing more to say. (Annexure-9 & 13, Inquiry committee reports).
Excerpts of the Daily confidential report dated 3rd March 2014 are as follows:
“Sham ko lag-bhag 6.10 baje 100-125 junior and senior residents tatha varishth chikitsakgan kulpati awas pahunche jo AIIMS ki mang ko lekar Kulpati mahoday se milna chahte the. Mukhaya araksha adhikari ne nideshak Mahoday ko awgat karaya ki Manniy Kulpati apnea karyalay me hain tatha es Vishay pad unki sahmati nahi hai. Aap log kripya aawas se bahar chale jayen.
Nideshak se bat-chit ke dauran ek vyaqti mukhya aaraksha adhikari se anawashyak rup se manniy kulpati ko koste hue ulajh gaya. Baad me pata chala ki wo chikitsa vigyan sansthan ke Dr Lakhautia the. Bat-chit na hone ki asthiti me resident doctors uttejit ho gaye. Ve Kulpati awas ke mukhya dwar ko jor-jor se hilane lage. Unhaune bhaddi bhaddi galiyan dena prarambh kar diya. Kulpati murdawad , Mukhya aaraksha adhikari murdawad ken are lagane lage.
Dr Om Shankar unhe samjha bujha kar wapis IMS le gaye,jahan ve dharna pad baith gaye.”
(Annexure-3 Daily confidential report dated 3rd March 2014)
Excerpts of the Daily confidential report dated 4th March 2014 are as follows:
“Din me lagbhag 11:00 baje IMS se 50-60 ke samuh me resident hathon me takhtiyan liye hue bahar nikle. Samuh ka netritwa Dr Om Shankar,Dr Liddharth Lakhautia,Dr Abhishek Chandra,Dr satndra kumar singh, Dr S P Mishra, Dr Jaya Chakraverty ,Dr Anup Singh,Dr shashikant pasi,Dr sandeep,Dr Farhan durrani & Dr Neeraj sahit anya lagbhag 20 shikshkon dwara kiya jar aha tha. Dr satendra Kumar Singh ne atyant hi aapatti janak avam marne ke liye lalkarte hue abhadra bhasha ka prayog proctorial board ke sadasyon ke liye kiya. Resident doctoron ke samuh ne chikitsalay me pravesh kar vibhinn vibhagon ka chakraman kiya. Unke chakraman ke pashchat vibhinn OPD me marij ko dekhne me sahyog kar rahe varishth chikitsakon ne bhi OPD chhor diya.”
(Annexure-5 Daily Confidential Report dated 4th March 2014)
So the conclusions of the daily confidential report dated 4th March 2014 are as follows:
I was among one of the 20 consultants that led to the agitation on the 4th March 2014 (not the sole leader).
None of the Consultants leading the agitation entered into the OPD or did the Chakraman (round).
The resident doctors took rounds.
Even the resident doctors were not involved in the forceful closure of the OPD services on the said date.
Witness No-8 Mr Ram Awtar, a security officer in the BHU (who most of the time accompanied us during whole of the agitation), in his written reply to the questionnaire, dated 16th June 2014 has clearly mentioned that I (Dr Om Shankar) never did anything forcefully & my role through out the agitation was Peaceful. (Annexure-6 deposition of Mr Ram Awtar)
If these were the evidences then on what ground or evidences, Inquiry officer concluded that charges were partially established?
Any Institution, society or country requires a good leader for their development. Leaders are the soul of any democracy. To the best of my knowledge you were the president (LEADER) of AUTA & FEDCUTA. In the first quarter of Dec 2013 you led an agitation of teachers & boycotted the classes for 14 days & also talked to the press many time, against the beating of one of the teacher of AU by the students. Even the establishment of this great Institution had not been possible, in the absence of the great leadership quality of the Mahamana. So being a leader is not a crime.
ii) Article of charge 2: Dr Om Shankar was found running a parallel OPD in front of the main building of IMS with some agitating faculty members of the IMS on March 05th 2014. He has misled the patients by prescribing medicine on fake OPD slips bearing the monogram of AIIMS, Delhi & the name of Institution as AIIMS, Varanasi.
In the allegation itself it has been clearly mentioned that I was not the sole person running the parallel OPD in front of the main building of IMS on 5th March 2014 then why I was suspended for the same act but not the others? Rather one of them (Professor K K Gupta) has been promoted to the post of Medical Superintendent.
Usually during any agitation hospital services (or other Services, like the recent unfortunate incident of the Allahabad high court after the killing of lawyer & also during the agitation against beating of teachers in Allahabad university under your accomplished leadership) are closed to press for their demands but in our case we decided to continue the emergency services & to help the patients coming in regular OPD, we decided to run a Parallel OPDs within the IMS itself, which was forcefully closed by the Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh by ordering a lthi charge on us & sealing the IMS Campus.
I continued my services to the poor & needy patients through out the agitation, even on the 7th Day of my hunger strike when I was not able to sit properly. (Anneure-7 Photograph showing, extension of services to the needy patients even after my suspension & hunger strike)
About writing a prescription on the paper bearing the monogram of AIIMS, I have already mentioned in the letter to the Registrar, BHU, in reply to the articles of chares framed against me that patients were coming to me as well as other consultants sitting in the OPD with the said prescription bearing the monogram of AIIMS, I had nothing to do with the surfacing of the said prescription. None of the witnesses or evidence Annexed as Annexure has pointed out my role in any manner about the preparation or surfacing of the said Prescription bearing the monogram of AIIMS. Not only me but all other consultants were also writing on the same prescription paper bearing the monogram.
(Annexure-8 participation & writing of other consultants on the same prescription paper bearing the monogram of AIIMS, Varanasi)
Even the Investigating officer has mentioned under his observation 4(2)(g) page -7 of the Inquiry committee reports that-
“ If the documents provided by the charged officer {Minutes of the teacher’s council meeting, held at 1.45 p.m dated March 4th, 2014, basis of running parallel OPDs, Annexure 20 of the Inquiry reports} are believed to be correct (authenticity of which has neither been accepted nor denied by the Director, I M S), contentions of the charged officer that the action taken by him is part of the broad action plan/strategy drafted at the IMS level to press for their demand for conversion of IMS as AIIMS does not appear to be unfounded”.
Being a Doctor it’s our sole duty to prescribe the treatment on whatever paper is available at that time to help the needy patient.
I am not able to understand how writing a correct prescription on any piece of paper would mislead the patient?
Irony of the fact is that, the Ex- VC Dr Lalji Singh awarded Professor R G singh with the director’s post due to running of parallel OPD by him (Professor R G Singh) in his villege Kalbari,Jaunpur. Not only that many more consultants including Professor Vivek Sherma, other HODs & present Director were going regularly to his village to run the parallel OPD in anticipation of rewards (can be confirmed by any villager).
If running a parallel OPD by those dignitaries were the criteria for getting rewards then how running parallel OPD on a humanitarian ground to help the poor & needy patient is a crime?
iii) Article of charge 3: In the morning of March 05,2014 Dr Om Shankar was found holding a press conference without prior permission from the university administration. During the press conference, Dr Om Shankar was reported to have made utterances maligning the image of the University.
About the first part of the charges of holding a press conference without prior permission from the university administration, I have already explained under the explanation of observation of the Inquiry officer’s report 4(2) (n) that the mere existence of the PPP Cell within BHU campus was illegal, leading to their dissolution by the Ex VC Prof Sangal & I never called any press conference during whole of the agitation so there was no question of permission from any of the university administration. I just replied to the quarries of the press on the said date.
About the Utterances made during the said press interaction dated 5th March 2014, maligning the image of the university, I want to again reaffirm that I didn’t made a single utterances maligning the Image of the university rather I have talked about benefits of having AIIMS within the BHU Campus. This can be confirmed by the video of the press interaction dated 5th March 2014,which has been changed by the Video of the 6th March 2014, by the Investigating officer & Ex Chairman PPP Cell Prof R P Singh under the pressure of Dr Lalji Singh.
Not only that I was suspended with the malafied intension by framing false charges against me but it has absolutely NO legal backup with clear cut Violation of BHU Act, Statute & ordinances & CCS(CCA) rules. So it has NO meaning & should stand Null & Void from the immediate effect :
· I was suspended directly on 5/6 -03 - 2014 without asking any explanation from me, even though it was a collective agitation led by the Director IMS, BHU, Varanasi seems to be biased, discriminatory and derogatory.
· When I was suspended, I represented my matter before the Honorable High court vides case NO-20949/2014 dated 10th April 2014. Honorable high court directed the University authority to present the matter before the Executive council (appointing authority in my case) within one month, either by personal communication or by calling Executive committee meeting.
Then Vice chancellor Dr Lalji Singh preferred the first option i.e. by personal communication.
As per the direction of the Honorable High court, I also represented my matter to the Executive Council members through mails.
According to the university authority (agenda of the last Executive Council meeting Appendix-8 H, page-91, dated 29th June 2014), Out of the eight (8) members only three members approved the decision of my suspension (i.e. the majority of the members didn’t approved my Suspension). So, my suspension remains Null & Void.
· Not only that, contrary to the court order, decisions of the Executive Council members were never communicated to me (violation of the court order).
· Instead of revoking my Illegal & biased suspension, (by the Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh,) it was further increased by 3 months vide letter No- R/V&CS/2014/163/455 dated 26/05/2014 w.e.f 3rd June 2014 in an autocratic manner which he was not entitled to also.
· The very purpose of suspension of any employee is that, the concerned officer should not interfere with the inquiry process but in my case Inquiry committee has already submitted its reports dated 27/06/2014.
· Furthermore reports of an Inquiry committee was not Put before the Executive council (which was scheduled on 29-06-2014) even though it was submitted 2 days before the said meeting i.e. on 27.06.2014.
· Nor the extension of my suspension was put before the Executive Council (appropriate authority) for its approval {violation of CCS rule 10 (6)}.
‘’An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension”.
· Matter that was put before the executive council was for the approval of my Suspension (not for the approval of extension of my suspension).
That means university also agrees that my suspension was not approved through personal Communication (which must have been done within 90 days according to CCS rule 10(6). So my suspension remains Null & Void.
· Even though the EC meeting dated 29/6/2014 finally approved my Suspension, it has NO Legal Bearing because
According to CCS (CCA) rule 10 (6): -
“An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension.
But in my case meeting of the competent authority (i.e. EC) was called after 114 days. (i.e. well beyond 90 days limit set in the rule). So, there is no question of subsequent review when there was no meeting of the EC called before the expiry period of my suspension.
· Not only that I am not being given even half of the salary (subsistence allowance) as mentioned in my suspension letter which is again violation of the CCS (CCA) rule 7 (2),for which I have written many letters to you as well sir.
· Continued Violation of the rules by them had gone one step further i.e. Caretaker Registrar cum V C, Sri Vinay Kr Singh extended my suspension further for three months vide letter No-R/V&CS/2014/163/854 dated 25 August 2014 w.e.f 01-09-2014.
· Finally, extension of my suspension vide letter no ref.No.R/V&CS/2014/163/098 dated 30th November 2014 w.e.f 30-11-2014 was done after the expiry period (i.e. after 90 days) of my suspension (which was valid only unto 29th of November 2014 vide letter No-R/V&CS/2014/163/854 dated 25 August 2014 w.e.f 01/09/2014. This is again violation of CCS (CCA) rule, Part IV 10 (7): -
“An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days”.
According to BHU Act 16(D) i.e. Protection of action taken in good faith: -
“ No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any officer, teacher or other employee of the University for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done by him under this Act or the Statutes or the Ordinances or the Regulations.”
So to conclude:
Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh & his associates made me victim by framing false charges against me & to prove me guilty he took the help of the Inquiry officer in my case, now Retired Professor & Ex Dean RN Mishra. This kind of criminal act & behavior cannot be expected from any person occupying the chair of great Mahamanan.
So, its my humble Prayer to you sir, by taking into account my innocence & suffering due to wrongful suspension by the Ex VC Dr Lalji Singh with the malafied intensions, your gentleman promises made to render justice to me, large people suffering due to my absence from the duty, recent remark of the supreme court regarding the suspension lasting more then 3 months, Extension of my suspension dated 30th November 2014 after expiry period of my suspension, kindly revoke my Illegal & absurd suspension as well as pass an appropriate order to release my full salary from the date of my suspension with an immediate effect so that justice be rendered not only to me but also to the thousands of the poor cardiac patients of this area who are dependent on me for their health ailments.
Whatever I did till date; I did for the betterment of the IMS & BHU & to remove deep routed corruptions.
This is for your kind consideration and desired action needed in the present situation on an urgent basis because justice delayed is justice denied.
Thanking you!
Yours Sincerely-
Dr Om Shankar
Assist. Prof. of cardiology
(Under suspension)
I M S, B H U, Varanasi
0 comments:
Post a Comment