To, 22th July 2016
Shri Manohar Parrikar,
Room No -104 South Block,
Subject: DRDO forgot Ethics for dealing sexual harassment case, proves that DRDO really following Different rules for different officers
As you already witnessing that in DRDO day by day number of cases are increasing of harassment whether it matter of service / minority / SC/ST/ Sexual harassment.
But surprisingly the processing/ handling of these cases are entirely different in each and every case, not a single case is dealing with proper ethics. Every case is dealing on the basis of accused/charged officer’s relations with his director and other connection with other senior officials sitting in DRDO Hqrs.
In some cases of sexual harassment accused were transferred or temporally attached to some other locations immediately without looking even their seniority, like one scientist ‘G’ from DIPAS transferred to INMAS.
Same time other cases like Sh Vipin Jain, Administrative Officer, ITM, DRDO Mussoorie and Sh V K Arora, Technical Officer ‘D’ IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun both are enjoying their power and position.
In Case of Sh Vipin Jain, Administrative Officer the charge sheet already served. He asked more time to reply i.e. 25th July 2016. See some great facts of DRDO culture.
- Director, ITM give him full executive powers and always try to spend more to more time with him and giving full moral support to accused, who already found guilty by ICC, and bases of that he was chargesheeted.
- Additional Director, ITM sharing lunch with him in daily basis.
- Sh Vipin Jain, Administrative Officer trying to influence witness with all means.
- As per reliable sources he already got written statement from 4 witnesses in his favor, because he is in position to ruin the carrier of any witness with holding their all official/ personal/financial records.
- Sh Vipin Jain, Administrative Officer trying to throughout victim from official accommodation.
- The chairman of ICC who conduct the inquiry is in trauma to see the favor given to accused/charged officer, the height of ITM management they served a notice/explanation to her on demand of accused. (Copy enclosed for your ready reference)
See the Director, ITM reaction on such sensitive matter.
Date of incident 26th January 2016 day time by the evening Director knows the total incident but try to bury the case to help Sh Vipin Jain;
Although very next day victim reported verbally to Ms Gopa Chaudhari, Chairman, women cell but Director was not ready to take cognizance such serious matter.
On 2nd March 2016 the victim submit written complaint to Ms Gopa Chaudhari, Chairman, women cell, ITM, DRDO Mussoorie (Copy of Complaint enclosed for your ready reference because I know the Insensitive officials of DRDO cannot going to show you real picture of the incident like they always did for even project status also).
On same day Ms Gopa Chaudhari act very efficiently and submit her report to Director with her recommendations in capacity of Presiding Officer, ICC. But nothing has been done by Director, ITM. (Letter enclosed for your ready reference)
On 4th March 2016 news flashed on TOI and the matter blow in Delhi and next day then CC (HR) flown to ITM, Mussororie but as per DRDO legacy system they did nothing up to 8th March 2016.
After pressure from Delhi Director ITM give direction to ICC to investigate the matter vide letter no ITM/Dir/ENQ/2016/2 dated 8 March 2016, referred the ICC letter No ITM/ICC(W)/2015-16 dt 2/3/2016. See the seriousness of Director on such sensitive matter, it takes 6 days to release the order, he gave sufficient time to accused to settle the course but unfortunately Sh Vipin Jain not able to convince victim and his family.
The best part of Director’s order is the inquiry should be done as per DOPT F. No. 11013/2/2014-Estt (A-II1) Dated July 16th, 2015 but they forgot the following the rules or just giving privilege to accused to harass and manage the witness as he is holding all executive powers of ITM.
As per DOPT F. No. 11013/2/2014-Estt (A-II1) Dated July 16th , 2015
- A Government servant may also be placed under suspension before or after issue of a Charge Sheet where his continuance in office will prejudice the investigation, for example if there is an apprehension that he may tamper with witnesses or documents. Suspension may also be resorted to where continuance of the Government servant in office will be against wider public interest such as there is a public scandal and it is necessary to place the Government servant under suspension to demonstrate the policy of the Government to deal strictly with officers involved in such scandals. It may be desirable to resort to suspension in case of misdemeanor involving acts of moral turpitude.
Special provisions to deal with threats or intimidation
- Disciplinary Authority may also dispense with inquiry under Rule I 9(ii), and action may be taken without the inquiry when the Disciplinary Authority concludes that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry. The circumstances leading to such a conclusion may exist either before the inquiry is commenced or may develop in the course of the inquiry. Such situation would be deemed to have arisen:
(i) where the Government servant, through or together with his associates terrorizes, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal in order to prevent them from doing so; or
(I) where the Government servant himself or with or through others threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the Disciplinary Authority, Members of the Committee, the Presenting Officer or members of their family.
Sir, as per above facts you can realize the pathetic situation of DRDO management and their HR policies. There is famous that DRDO management follows “Different rules for different officers”
I personally feel if any one go through the victim complaint and statement, which she narrated in front of ICC will shake heart of any sensitive person. So it is no need to say what action is required.
21-Sunderwala, Raiput, Dehradun-248008
Phone 0135-2787750, Mobile 9411114879
Email email@example.com website-www.corruptionindrdo.com
- Copy of written complaint by victim dated 2nd March 2016
- Copy of ICC report 2nd March 2016
- Copy of Director ITM letter
- Copy of Statement of victim