Judge Yourself

I have urged the present President of Federation of Film Societies of India to come out with convincing reasons for dissauding people from supporting my petition. He could have justified his stand by addresiing the points I had posed in my reply to his mail to me and others. But instead, he, with his supporters started slandering me with unfounded allegations. I reproduce the queries I had raised for his answer,to be judged by people. Your e-mail to all appealing, ‘no need to sign the petition. I demit my office in one month’ gives an impression that you are martyring yourself in the wake of the allegations. People unaware of the fact that your term of office has ended and the process of electing office bearers of F F S I, Central office for 2016-’18 is under way may have such a misconception. The intent of this write-up is to dispel that misconception. Your barb “my alleged despotic ways will end!” is out of your self-confidence that you will be reelected. (With that sarcastic declaration itself you have earned all the three votes from Kerala!). The whole proceedings on our complaint have set a wrong precedent of despotism. Whether you continue in the chair or give it up, this undesirable precedent will not vanish. My petition on change.org is the insistence to amend that wrong. If it is otherwise, you ought to clear yourself by responding to the following: 1. You have claimed in your order that our complaint is “the first ever occasion for the C O of F F S I ” and ‘it was decided by the President to fall back upon the standard of practice of any inquiry carried out in a government department as it sought fair play to all concerned”. Your observation “the Inquiry Officer’s own lack of experience in undertaking such matters is also evident” makes it clear that the enquiry was not conducted as per your instructions and that “fair play to all concerned” was denied. Is it not a denial of natural justice to pass an order in favor of the accused, relying on a report submitted without conducting any investigation? You yourself admitted in your order that “Mr.xxxxxxx refused to face any cross examination by the complainant. By refusing, the defendant placed himself in a position to reduce his level of innocence”. But, still, you did not reckon that position while passing your order. Instead you assumed the role of an advocate of the oppressors and chose to sanctify their undemocratic acts. The petition to review that unfair order was not even acknowledged. You disregarded it without accepting or rejecting it. Was it fair? 2. Your agreement with the inquiry report that our complaint against the irregularities in the use of funds-“squandering public funds for someone’s self projection, sustaining nominal organizations for continuing in power and doling out favours for silencing dissent”- is a matter for the Chartered Accountant of the organization to point out as part of his official duties and “this inquiry will not go into it unless officially indicated” has to be presumed as the gratification for the hospitality enjoyed by the Central Officers while in Thiruvananthapuram. 3. You have also an obligation to answer why, despite your instruction “ One copy of this order shall be delivered by post to the complainant, one copy will go to the complaint against, one……..” , the hard copy of your order was not delivered. Even after the omission was brought to your notice you were indifferent to it. When the complainant wanted to approach the Central Council, Federation’s highest body vested with the power of hearing appeals, to file an appeal against that order, the attempt was stymied by denying the contact details of Central Council members. When you were apprised of the matter, you again remained mute. 4. Do you, ‘as a former civil servant going by the book’, find it proper to accommodate one into the decision-making and law-making bodies of the Federation, thus providing room for intervention in the proceedings in a complaint on that matter ,while the deliberate violation of Rules & Regulations and Bye laws of the Federation is under scrutiny?