Friday, June 15, 2012

Dr London chidambarams letter to Pankalies dt 5th June 2012


Dr M. Chidambaram                                                                        Nerkuppai,

                                                                                                            5th June 2012



Dear Pangali, 

This is to introduce myself, one of your pangalis, Dr Chidambaram, s/o late Sri MP. Muthiah Chettiar and grandson of 'Rajapart' Kathiresea Chettiar aka Muthupalaniappa Chettiar. I moved to the UK in 1974 but before that, from the 1950s to 1970s I used to participate in all the Soorakkudi Pangalis' activities at Nerkuppai Sri Subramanya Swami temple and also at Moolangudi. 

I came from the UK, couple of weeks ago and on my arrival to India, I was told by one of my relatives who is not even our pangali, about various problems and usage of bittter and ugly exchanges between our pangalis. Then gradually, I came to know the full extent of the disputes, and now I have the copies of all the mails. 

I have also noticed that both the parties have conveniently excluded me from informing, even in these days of electronic age, just because I happened to be living in the England. You might be surprised to know that Mr Thirunavukkarasu and Mr Muthupalaniappan have my email ids and so deliberately did this exclusion.  (I will give some of the reasons for this later). 

Going through the letters and mails, I have to accept that words have been spelt beyond acceptance; however, one has to see the serious problems with the Pangalis' funds and accounts which started off the heated exchanges. In my view, if the so-called 'office bearers or signatories' had responded responsibily for the issues raised in the first instance by Mr Thanneermalai aka Mr T Ramanathan, the problem of bad language would not have occurred. Therefore, it is our responsibility to collectively correct such serious problems of fraud and prevent the same happening in the future. 

Let us ignore the unacceptable language and keep it aside for the time being and concentrate on the problems that still exist: 

Fact 1: Mr Thirunavukkarasu, Mr Muthupalaniappan and Mr Chockalingam have literally thrown the account books despite refusal from Mr T Ramanathan.  

            This means that the three 'signatories' have willingly relinguished their office-bearing status, full stop! Therefore, the stop being office-bearers and  have no right to ask for the return of the same. 

Fact 2: They did not hand over the cheque book and the bank pass book for over a year! Why did they not do this and what did they have in their mind? This proves that the three planned to swindle money, as when they wanted; this is what happened subsequently. 

Fact 3: Despite handing over the account books to Mr T Ramanathan, the signatories – either one or two or all the three jointly – have withdrawn Rs.13,202. This was done without prior consent of the person holding the accounts, namely Mr Ramanathan, nor the rest of the pangalis. 

            This is unacceptable and constitutes a crime and fraud; this is punishable by law, as Mr Ramanathan has stated; however, for our purposes, the three 'signatories' have lost our confidence in them and this alone is enough not only to remove them from the position of 'signatories' but they should never be allowed to hold any such positions dealing with public funds. (See later, Mr 
Thirunavukkarasu's acceptance of this fraud!) 

            The reason given was that Mr Chockalingam had given too much money for Bairavar Homam and hence, he was reimbursed! Whether you believe this story as true or not is a different issue,  but I doubt every word of it, as they had different motive. This shows their arrogance to take every one for a free ride.  

Firstly, if someone donates any money, he is not allowed any reimbursement, as donation means giving and not taking back and secondly if Mr Chockalingam is allowed to do this, then why not for everyone for any amount, for whatever donation done in previous years.  Thirdly, if Mr Chockalingam had 'donated' more, why the hell does he want others to contribute further for the Bairavar Homam. 

Fact 4: Later, these three wanted the account books to be returned to them!

            These three have willingly relinguished their office-bearing status and therefore, they should not be asking for the accounts back; for what reason? (This, in fact states that they accept giving the books in the first instance is their own mistake!) Mr T Ramanathan had used bad language only for their refusal to give an account of their malpractices and unlike Mr Thirunavukkarasu, he  has not done anything wrong with the accounts.  

            The letter dated 1st March 2012 states that the pangalis took a decision, 'yegamanadhaga' to get the accounts back from Mr T Ramanathan. This cannot be 'yegamanadhaga' , as they have not informed  each and everyone of the Pangalis, like myself and others, for such an important matter.  

            If you give the accounts to somone why do you want it back, unless they want to cover their mistakes.

Fact 5: Following a complaint from one of the pangalis, Mr MP Ramanathan, Mr T Ramanathan found out that Mr Thirunavukkarasu had entered his deposit into what is known as the interest account and not in the account of Mr MP Ramanathan! Following this, Mr  T Ramanathan also found out that Mr Thirunavukkarasu had been entering a further eight deposits from  eight other pangalis, to the tune of around Rs.12,000, into the interest account and not in their own accounts.! This too is only in the year 2010, as found out by Mr T Ramanathan. How much more did Mr Thirunavukkarasu swindle in the years, 2008, 2009, and 2011?  

            This wrong entry into a different account would be done if someone does not know how to account a particular credit or debit into its own account from the ledger. I do not suspect that that  is the case as  Mr Thirunavukkarasu is very intelligent man; then why this cock-up and was done nine times? There is only one reason. Apparantly, Mr Thirunavukkarasu had allocated himself a loan of Rs 50,000 from the Sooraikkudi Pangalis' account; (who authorised it and is there a system of authorising such loans?) On that kind of loan accounts, there is no proper entry of interests as to who paid interest, how long for and who has defaulted. In such a state, if Mr Thirunavukkarasu had been entereing others' deposits into this interest account, it means that either he is subsidising his own interest payments from such deposits from other people or helping his friends who have taken a loan, to show that they had paid interest. Either way, this is nothing but fradulous malpractice to fool others so that he is the only beneficiary, out of this messed up accounting. Would you allow him and his partners in crime, to continue such malpractices and defraud all thepangalis?


Fact 6: When everythingelse failed, they wanted to exclude Mr T  Ramanathan from the pangali's list! 

            What an atrocity? The three fraudsters bloody well knew that they have commited a crime, which is punishable by law and to cover that mistake of fraud, try to use bad language and counter arguments; when that too failed, they decided to start to play a totally new game of excluding Mr T  Ramanathan. This to me appears mainly to sidetrack the serious issues of their fraud as they could not find any other reason to shut Mr T  Ramanathan. 

            On the 26th of May 2012, the day after the Kumbabishekam, I confronted Mr Thirunavukkarasu and wanted to ask him three straight forwards questions; but he fizzled out after the secod question and wanted to run away as two or three of our pangalis gathered during our discussions.  

I asked him first whether all the three signatories willingly handed over the acount books; he blabbered around initially stating that evey pangali was there, but when I finally pinned him down, he accepted that all the three signatories did hand over the account books, willingly

Secondly, when I asked him whether he withdrew the money after handing over the accounts and that too without informing Mr T Ramanathan, he did accept that; I told him that that act of withdrawing money from the bank, after handing over the accounts and without informing Mr  T Ramanathan, was a serious mistake and amounts to fraud; his answer was acceptance of that as a mistake but wanted to know what to do about it. 

I wanted to ask him the third question of why did the three want the account books back, but he started to run away, as he saw the witnesses gathering behind me. What does this show? You think for yourselves. 

Therefore, I need to tell all of you clearly the following facts: 

1. Mr Thirunavukkarasu had swindled money from the Pangali's account to the tune of around Rs.13,000, by depositing various donations from pangalis into the interest account, with a sole motive of 'helping himself'. This is fraud. The other two,  Mr Muthupalaniappan and Mr Chockalingam had been accessories to this fraud. 

2. Mr Chockalingam has withdrawn Rs. 13,202, by telling a lie that he had overpaid for the Bairavar Homam; this is also a fraud. The other two, Mr Muthupalaniappan and Mr Thirunavukkarasu have bee accessories to this second fraud. 

3. The three had 'thrown' the account books which shows that they had relinguished the position of signatories but now, reaslising that it was a mistake, want the account books and cheque book, back, only to swindle more money out of your funds!  

Should you allow such fraudsters to continue to look after public funds? 

This is what you have to decide rather than excluding Mr T Ramanathan from the Pangali's list. Please look at the facts given above carefully and take the needful action.

I suggest the following actions: 

-        the amount of Rs 13,202 should be returned with immediate effect, with nominal interest and an apology from all the three concerened, for the fraud they had committed.

-        Exclude all the three, the so called signatories, namely,  Mr Thirunavukkarasu, Mr Muthupalaniappan and Mr Chockalingam, from any kind of activities dealing with money, as they not only unfit for such actions but also are daylight robbers

-        Mr Thirunavukkarasu and the other two to explain why the funds of nine or more people have been entered into interest accounts, instead of the proper individual's accounts

-        there is no need to return the accounts books to anybody, as the current priority is to bring these three to account for their frauds. 

If some of you want to comment, criticise, question, add any more facts that I do not know or even appreciate what I am doing, please do not hesitate to contact me and the following are my contact details:

India:  Mobile: 97862 67380 

UK:     Mobile: + 44 (0) 7772 312 794
            Landline: + 44 (0) 20 8423 5130

Chidambaram (Dr).





===








No comments:

Post a Comment