Subject: DRDO giving false information to Rashtrapati Sachivalaya (President Secretariat) regarding Transfer and victimization of whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta of DMSRDE, Kanpur
Reference:DOP/05/53123/DMSRDE/M/02 dated 22 Sept 2014 of DOP, DRDO
Top management of DRDO is infamous for ill-treat to whistle blowers and officials that belonging to SC/ST and minority community in DRDO. The increasing number court cases, representations to President House, SC/ST commission and minority commission are self explanatory of failure of DRDO HR management
Currently Honorable Madras High Court punishedtwo top DRDO scientists with simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/each. It clearly shows the DRDO losing day by day its credibility and responsibility towards national goals scientifically & administratively as well as welfare of employees and officers working in the organisation. Sir, you can assume the worst situation of DRDO that the top senior officer Dr. G. Malkondiah who was convicted by Hon’ble Madras High Court is Head of HR Department of DRDO.
With reference to the above cited letter , Shri Navin Prakash Gupta, scientist ‘C’ raised his voice against corruption and send lot of complaints to various agencies including Hon’ble Defence Minister with proof.
The representation send to you by whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta on 24 July 2014 , which subsequently your good office send to DRDO for their comments and with above reference DRDO send a reply to ShriNavin Prakash Gupta mentioning in
Para -2 “ Competent authority has approved your transfer from DMSRDE, Kanpur to DRL, Tezpur in public interest keeping in the view the exigencies of work. It is neither is punishment nor an act of victimize as you alleged.”
Shri Avinash Chander constituted a fact finding committee and subsequentlytransfer whistle blower ShriNavin Prakash Gupta to DRL, Tezpur without justifying the issue in public interest. The only aim was to save corrupt scientist and message to others beware don’t make noise against his loyal corrupt officials. It is nothing but abuse of power by Shri Avinash Chander, DG, DRDO, who is working in illegal second extension in service after retirement.
Shri Avinash Chander again constituted second fact finding committee to enquire further the corruption charges against Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Question is why Shri Avinash Chander constituted two fact finding committees, if there was no corruption evidences on record. As DRDO wrote in above reference letter that allegation are baseless. In case the allegations were baseless then why not DRDO disclosed the first FFIC report to whistle blower and sought explanation from him for false complaint to Defence Minister.
THE WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT, 2011, NO. 17 OF 2014 of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 9th May, 2014, and is hereby published for general information on Monday, May 12, 2014.
Under the provisions of sad Act complainant means
(c) “complainant” means any person who makes a complaint relating to disclosure under this Act;
(d) “disclosure means a complaint relating to,—
(i) an attempt to commit or commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;
(ii) wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion by virtue of which demonstrable loss is caused to the Government or demonstrable wrongful gain accrues to the public servant or to any third party;
(iii) attempt to commit or commission of a criminal offence by a public servant, made in writing or by electronic mail or electronic mail message, against the public servant and includes public interest disclosure referred to in sub-section (2) of section 4;
Under the provisions of the CHAPTER V- Safeguards against victimisation the Act provide the protection to whistle blowers
PROTECTION TO THE PERSONS MAKING DISCLOSURE
11. (1) The Central Government shall ensure that no person or a public servant who has made a disclosure under this Act is victimised by initiation of any proceedings or otherwise merely on the ground that such person or a public servant had made a disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry under this Act.
(2) If any person is being victimised or likely to be victimised on the ground that he had filed a complaint or made disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry under this Act, he may file an application before the Competent Authority seeking redress in the matter, and such authority shall take such action, as deemed fit and may give suitable directions to the concerned public servant or the public authority, as the case may be, to protect such person from being victimised or avoid his victimisation:
(3) Every direction given under sub-section (2) by the Competent Authority shall be binding upon the public servant or the public authority against whom the allegation of victimisation has been proved.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the power to give directions under sub-section (2), in relation to a public servant, shall include the power to direct the restoration of the public servant making the disclosure, to the status quo ante.
(5) Any person who wilfully does not comply with the direction of the Competent Authority under sub-section (2), shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to thirty thousand rupees.
The fact is as vigilant citizen of India I have sent more than one dozen corruption cases with complete proof to CVC and CVC duly register the case and send to CVO, MOD for further investigations against Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Question No 1–
The meaning of the exigencies:The state or quality of requiring much effort or immediate action, A pressing or urgent situation, Urgent requirements; pressing needs – This all are bogus the DRL, a life science deserted lab, the Director sitting there also very corrupt, lot of complaints also pending against him. This is only example of abuse of power by Shri Avinash Chander to protect his corrupt colleague. The DRL lab , Tezpur is working in life sciences and where the exigencies of work,
Question No 2-
In DRDO there are more than 7500 scientist are available to Shri Avinash Chander and out of these computer science experts scientist, the 425 scientists are senior to Shri Navin Prakash Gupta and 447 are junior to him, strangely Shri Avinash Chander picked only the whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta for said exigencies of work at DRL, Tezpur.
Question No 3 –
The transfer order was as punishment based on allegation & charges and not in any public interest which is quite evident from letter No. DOP/DS/08/01 dated 28th May 2014 issued and signed by Dr. A.K. Singh, DOP.
Therefore, it is requested that please protect whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta, Scientist ‘C’ from the clutches of corrupt scientists of DRDO and kindly issue orders to Hon’ble Defence Minister to provide immediate protection and relief to whistle blower scientist by cancellation of his transfer order.
The responsibility for execution of Act passed by Parliament after due sanction by Hon’ble President of India is on concerned ministries and ministers. As per this new Act, every ministry should have competent authority to address the matters of victimization of whistle blowers but the requests from whistle blower and his family are being ill-treated by Government officials, ignoring the provisions of whistle blower protection Act 2011.
DRDO is wasting lakhs and lakhs rupees every year in hundreds of court cases running across the country in various courts because of ego satisfaction of top DRDO brass, as well as because of poor HR management victimization of middle class Government servants.
Sir, kindly save this premier organization from the corruption, nepotism and favoritism and give the justice to honest whistle blower scientists and officials of DRDO who are devoted for the Nation.
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,