V. Srinivasan C/o 62A/21 Vrindavan Society Thane (West) 400 601. 08/06/2011 To, Dr.

Somesh Chander, Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Thane I, Central Public Information Office, 3RD Floor, Nav Prabhat Chambers, Ranade Road DADAR (WEST) MUMBAI 400 028. Sir, Subject : Information sought under R. T. I Act. 1 2 3 4 Name Address Period Gist of information : : : : V. Srinivasan c/o 62A/21 Vrindavan Society Thane (West) 400 601. 01.10.1999 to till date

1. On what basis Charge Memorandum was issued by the Commissioner,

Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008? 2. Who had carried out preliminary enquiry in the matter? On what basis?

3. Who had submitted the report on the preliminary enquiry made in the
matter? On which documents the report was based on?

4. Is it mandatory for the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I

before issuing the Charge Memorandum to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008 to go through the same and the documents before issuing it?

5. Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I before issuing the

Charge Memorandum to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/08 dated 10.09.2008 went through the same and the documents before issuing it?

6. What all the documents the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I

went through before issuing the Charge Memorandum to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008?

7. Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I before issuing the

Charge Memorandum to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008 was convinced that Prima Facie a case against Shri.V.Srinivasan exists? Did he verify and ensured whether all the documents on the basis of which allegation is made is available? If so, what are those documents?

8. Who had drafted, prepared the Charge Memorandum issued by the

Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008?

9. Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I before issuing the

Charge Memorandum to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/08 dated 10.09.2008 went through the Charges and the documents before issuing it and found it to be correct? Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ THI/ 08 dated 10.09.2008 is any other reward file apart from the following two Reward files are involved? M/s Aryan Resources Pvt. Ltd. M/s GMS Technologies Ltd.

10. In the charge memorandum issued by the Commissioner, Central

11. No document in connection with the reward proposal including the

note sheet of the reward file, reward proposal itself, role played by each officers etc. of M/s Aryan Resources Pvt. Ltd. was produced by the DRI or by any other person to Shri.V.Srinivasan. In fact AD, DRI, MZU vide letter F. No. DRI/ MZU/ ADMN/ VIG/ 1/ 03/ 2482 dated 24.03.2009 have categorically stated that efforts were made to trace out the reward file of M/s Aryan Resources Pvt. Ltd, F. No. DRI/ MZU/ F/ 3/ 2000, however, same could not be traced in this office. If AD, DRI, MZU vide letter F. No. DRI/ MZU/ ADMN/ VIG/ 1/ 03/ 2482 dated 24.03.2009 had informed about non availability of the reward file; on what basis allegations were leveled against V. Srinivasan regarding the reward file of M/s Aryan Resources Pvt. Ltd. in the charge memorandum issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ THI/ 08 dated 10.09.2008 and confirmed by the Commissioner,

Central Excise, Thane I in his Order issued vide F. No. II/ 10A2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 31.01.2011? 12. Similarly several documents connected with the reward proposal of
the M/s GMS Technologies Ltd. including DRI-2 and DRI-4 (these documents are mandatory for sanctioning the reward proposal and the proposal itself mentioned that these were sent) was not provided to Shri.V.Srinivasan and only unsigned copy of the role played in this case was submitted or made available which, itself reveals that the role played by different officers as shown in the documents are contrary to what is stated in the Charge Memorandum? Then on what

basis allegations were leveled against V. Srinivasan regarding the reward file of M/s GMS Technologies Ltd. in the charge memorandum issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008 and confirmed by the Commissioner, Central Excise,

Thane I in his Order issued vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 31.01.2011? 13. What was the role played shown in this unsigned reward proposal of
M/s GMS Technologies Ltd. and as charged in the Charge Memorandum? Does it not reveal that the roles played by different officers as shown in the documents are contrary to what is stated in the Charge Memorandum? What was submitted by Shri V.Srinivasan in his reply submitted to I.O. in this regard? What are the reasons that all these were ignored by the Disciplinary authority? (State specifically in detail about the consideration in the Order passed by the Disciplinary authority. Quote the paragraph number and the content).

14. As per Article of Charges Annexure-II, Article-II issued by the

Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008

a. (ii) In the reward proposals in the case of GMS Technologies,

.. when the collection of intelligence and development of intelligence in this case was collective team effort. (iii) In the case of GMS Technologies, actually Shri Virag Gupta collected and developed the intelligence, (Emphasis Supplied)

The above two charges are contradictory? The reward proposal supplied (un signed copy) of M/s GMS Technologies Ltd. itself reveals that in the role played by more than one officer the credit for collection and development of intelligence is mentioned? Does it not amount to collective team efforts? If so, on what basis allegation as mentioned above were made in the Article of Charges Annexure-II, Article-II issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008?

15. Intelligence can be developed only after collecting it. Did A.D. Shri Anurag Bakshi, in his statement dated 24.02.2005 recorded before the Assistant Commissioner (Vig.), Directorate General of Vigilance (or anywhere else) OR J.D. Shri C.M. Sharma in his statement dated 03.03.2005 recorded before the Assistant Commissioner (Vig.), Directorate General of Vigilance specifically (or anywhere else), relied by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I in his Order issued vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 31.01.2011 state that Shri Virag Gupta had collected the Intelligence in any of these two cases? Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I at any point of time ascertained,

verified this fact and seen the copy of Intelligence? If so copy of

the Intelligence filed under his signature and the statement/s (marked) where they have specifically mentioned this may be provided.

16. Did A.D. Shri Anurag Bakshi, or J.D. Shri C.M. Sharma in their statement mentioned above relied by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I in his Order issued vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 31.01.2011 specifically state that Shri Virag Gupta Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I at any point of time ascertained, verified this fact? If so copy of the statement/s

had Developed the Intelligence in any of these two cases? Did the

(marked) where they have specifically mentioned this may be provided.

17. Did A.D. Shri Anurag Bakshi, or J.D. Shri C.M. Sharma in their statement mentioned above relied by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I in his Order issued vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 31.01.2011 specifically state that they had collected
the Intelligence (not developed, Intelligence can be developed only after collecting it) in any of these two cases? Did the Commissioner,

Central Excise, Thane I at any point of time ascertained, verified this fact and seen the copy of Intelligence? If so copy of
the Intelligence filed by them under their signature and the statement/s (marked) where they have specifically mentioned this may be provided.

18. Does in the role played in the reward proposal of M/s GMS
Technologies Ltd. (un signed copy submitted) A.D. Shri Anurag Bakshi, is also shown to have collected and developed the Intelligence in addition to? If yes on what basis? He had neither claimed nor any one stated that he had collected the intelligence, nor any note sheet states that he had collected the intelligence? Does it not amount to manipulation of his role played, by himself or by someone else on his saying or on his behalf? Did the Commissioner, Central

Excise, Thane I at any point of time ascertained, verified this fact? What are the reasons for ignoring this by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I in his Order issued vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 31.01.2011? 19.If the answer to any of the question or point mentioned at Serial number 14, 15, 16 and 17 above is NO (i.e. amongst others neither A.D. Shri Anurag Bakshi, nor J.D. Shri C.M. Sharma in their statement mentioned above relied by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I in his Order issued vide F. No. II/ 10A2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 31.01.2011 specifically state that they had
Collected the Intelligence or that Shri Virag Gupta had Collected or Developed the Intelligence in the case of M/s Aryan Resources Pvt. Ltd. and/or M/s GMS Technologies Ltd.) on what basis allegation

on this account were made in the Article of Charges Annexure-I and II, Article- I, II and III issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/

TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008? 20. Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I at any point of time ascertained, verified as to What action has been taken
against A.D. Shri Anurag Bakshi and others? If so, the documents about the same may be provided along with the reply given by the person with whom these were ascertained.

21. The documents relied upon in the charge memorandum issued by the

Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008 shows that Shri V.Srinivasan had neither written any note nor signed the note sheet in the reward proposal file of the M/s GMS Technologies Ltd.? Did the

Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I took notice of this fact? If so, what was the basis for leveling this allegation in the Charge

Memorandum issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008?

22. Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I at any point of time ascertained, verified as to Who had put up the reward
proposal of M/s GMS Technologies Ltd. and who all had written the note or whose hand writing appears in the note sheet of reward proposal of M/s GMS Technologies Ltd. and who all had signed in the note sheet? If yes give details, all the information about this.

23. Does anywhere in the note sheet of the reward files it is stated that
Shri V.Srinivasan had prepared the role played in this case of M/s Aryan resources Pvt. Ltd. and M/s GMS Technologies Ltd.? Whether he had written any note sheet in the reward file of these two cases or signed it? If yes give details. Did the Commissioner, Central

Excise, Thane I at any point of time ascertained, verified this fact? If yes give details. 24. Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I at any point of time ascertained, verified When the reward proposal in both these

cases was first put up? How many times the reward proposal file was put up and when was the reward finally sanctioned by the reward committee? If yes give details. only kept in abeyance and all the document connected with the reward proposals are available with the Department what evidences the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I had to show that Shri V.Srinivasan had only prepared the reward proposal of these two cases? Copy of the note sheet of the reward proposal to show that Shri V.Srinivasan had only prepared and put up the reward proposal of these two cases. Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I at any point of time ascertained, verified this fact? If yes give details.

25. Since Rewards in both the cases have already been sanctioned and

26. What evidences the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I had

to show that even if Shri V.Srinivasan had only prepared the reward

proposal of these two cases, the same has not been corrected, modified, changed, over written, re-written by the person who had written the note sheet, who had put up, who had all seen and who had signed the Note sheet including SIO (Superintendent), Deputy Director, DRI, F Cell, Joint Director, Additional Director, Additional Director General, Officers of B Cell, DRI, Mumbai? Please give details.

27. Since as per Handbook for Preventive officers, all the proposals for
sanction of rewards is required to be examined, prepared and put up to the sanctioning authority by the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner/Director and in these two cases it was examined, prepared and put up to the sanctioning authority by the Deputy Director, DRI, F Cell, Mumbai, How can it be said by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I that Shri. V.Srinivasan had prepared these two reward proposals? Please give details.

28. Even if it is assumed to be so what evidences are available with the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I that SIO
(Superintendent), Deputy Director, DRI, F Cell, Joint Director, Additional Director, Additional Director General, Officers of B Cell, DRI, Mumbai had not corrected, modified, changed, over written, rewritten before the same was put up to the Sanctioning authority? What are the reasons that the Commissioner, Central Excise,

Thane I did not take these facts into consideration in his Order issued vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 31.01.2011. 29. Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I ascertained,
verified as to What action has been taken against the SIO, (Superintendent), Deputy Director, DRI, F Cell, Joint Director, Additional Director, Additional Director General, Officers of B Cell, DRI, Mumbai and other senior officers connected with reward proposal for incorrect role played shown in reward proposal as claimed in the Charge Memorandum issued to Shri V.Srinivasan and/or amongst others for dereliction of duty and the charges leveled against V.Srinivasan?

30. What is the authority the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I

had to show that preparation only means signing it? Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I ascertained, verified as to What action has been taken against them amongst others for dereliction of duty? 31. As some of the basic documents which are required to prepare the Reward Proposal as well as to be sent along with the Reward Proposal are i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. Copy of information / DRI-1 or Intelligence Operation Report DRI-2 report DRI-4 report Copy of Show Cause Notice Copy of Adjudicating Order Payment particulars etc.

Without these documents the reward proposal cannot be prepared, leave aside sending the proposal to the sanctioning authority/ committee. In the present two cases also, these documents must have accompanied the reward proposal and since the rewards were sanctioned in the subject two cases, these documents must be available. Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I ascertained, verified these documents at any point of time. Produce copy of (i) to (iv) that accompanied the reward proposal in both these cases.

32. Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I ascertained,

verified as to Without these documents how the reward proposal was sent to the Sanctioning Authority/ Committee by the SIO (Superintendent), Deputy Director, DRI, F Cell, Joint Director, Additional Director, Additional Director General, Officers of B Cell, DRI, Mumbai? Further as to How did the Sanctioning Authority/ Committee without these documents sanction the reward? What action has been taken against them amongst others for dereliction of duty? that the law is different for Shri V.Srinivasan and other officers who were working in DRI at the material time? If not, Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I ascertained, verified as to what action has been taken against others and recommended action to be taken against others? If so please provide the details. 2482 dated 24.03.2009 have categorically stated that

33. Does the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I Is of the opinion

34. When AD, DRI, MZU vide letter F. No. DRI/ MZU/ ADMN/ VIG/ 1/ 03/
efforts were made to trace out the reward file of M/s Aryan Resources Pvt. Ltd, F. No. DRI/ MZU/ F/ 3/ 2000, however, same could not be traced in this office. and when the documents relied upon in the charge memorandum issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008 shows that Shri V.Srinivasan had neither written any note nor signed the note sheet in the reward proposal file of the M/s GMS Technologies Ltd. on what basis the Commissioner, Central Excise,

Thane I in his Order issued vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 31.01.2011 stated that
it is clear that though the C.O. did not put his sign in token of having prepared the reward proposal, the evidence points to the preponderance of probability that he manipulated the reward proposal which reflected the role of the Officers as already tempered by him, which resulted in his getting a reward which was totally disproportionate to his contribution to the case at the expense of other officers. On what basis these observations were made by the Commissioner,

Central Excise, Thane I in his Order issued vide F. No. II/ 10A2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 31.01.2011? Please produce the documents
which shows that Shri V.Srinivasan had only prepared the reward proposal of these two cases and the same has not been corrected, modified, changed, over written, re-written by the person who had written the note sheet, who had put up, who had all seen and who had signed the Note sheet including SIO (Superintendent), Deputy Director, DRI, F Cell, Joint Director, Additional Director, Additional Director General, Officers of B Cell, DRI, Mumbai

35. On what basis the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I in his Order issued vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 31.01.2011 in reference to sending of DRI series of report stated that
Also, officer to ensure that the reports are sent within time after ascertaining its correctness. Rather, the supervisory officers failed to ensure the submission of the reports. Had they done their job properly the C.O. could not have had the opportunity to tamper the records. these reports are to be submitted under the signature of an officer of the rank of Assistant Director or above, it becomes the responsibility of the supervisory The relied upon records connected with the Charge Memorandum issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008 i.e. the reward proposal file of the M/s GMS Technologies Ltd. itself shows that DRI-II, DRI-IV report etc. were sent and were also annexed with the Reward proposal. In respect of M/s Aryan Resources Pvt. Ltd. AD, DRI, MZU vide letter F. No. DRI/ MZU/ ADMN/ VIG/ 1/ 03/ 2482 dated 24.03.2009 had informed about non availability of the reward file; on what basis these observations were made by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I in his

Order issued vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 31.01.2011? In both the cases Rewards have been sanctioned and
reward proposal requires all these documents for consideration of reward and without these documents reward proposal cannot be considered. In such case what are the documents on the basis of these observations were made?

36. In the case of M/s GMS Technologies Ltd., the subject matter of the

Charge Memorandum issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008 Duty has been demanded on the INK imported @ US$250/- per bottle and paid by the importer? In the case of M/s Aryan resources Pvt. Ltd. Different file being file No. DRI/BZU/F/4/2000 was opened to Investigate into the import of INK by M/s Aryan resources Pvt. Ltd. And the same was dealt by A.D. Shri Anurag Bakshi and SIO Shri Virag Gupta and other officers (other than Shri V.Srinivasan)? M/s Aryan resources Pvt. Ltd. had declared the Value of INK as US$ 50/- and later at US$ 25/- per bottle. Did

the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I ascertained, verified as to If A.D. Shri Anurag Bakshi and SIO Shri Virag Gupta were aware of the case Investigated by Shri V.Srinivasan against M/s Aryan resources Pvt. Ltd. and M/s GMS Technologies Ltd., the subject matter of the Charge Memorandum issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008 what is the reason they did not Investigate and demand the duty @ US$ 250/- per bottle as done by Shri V.Srinivasan in the case of M/s GMS Technologies Ltd. (These documents are available with the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I). Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I ascertained, verified as to What are the reasons for closing the file No. DRI/BZU/F/4/2000 without demanding any duty and for making false statement that there was no evidence, when it can clearly be seen that in the case Investigated by Shri V.Srinivasan against M/s GMS Technologies Ltd., the subject matter of the Charge Memorandum issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I to Shri.V.Srinivasan vide F. No. II/ 10A-2/ VIG/ TH-I/ 08 dated 10.09.2008 duty has been demanded on the INK imported @ US$250/- per bottle and paid by the importer?

37. Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I ascertained,

verified as to What action has been taken against A.D. Shri Anurag Bakshi and SIO Shri Virag Gupta amongst others for dereliction of duty and for causing loss of Revenue of over Rs. One Crore? verified as to What is the reason that this matter was not referred to Vigilance or Inquired by Vigilance against A.D. Shri Anurag Bakshi and SIO Shri Virag Gupta amongst others for dereliction of duty and for causing loss of Revenue of over Rs. One Crore?

38. Did the Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane I ascertained,

Details of payment made

RS 10/- was paid to the Cashier, Central excise Thane I.

(V. SRINIVASAN)