All posts by Prabhu

Drdo

CIC Decisions on RTI -1

Leave a comment
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

Information Asked Regarding DRDO annual in Which DRDO distributing Rs 2 Corers

Annually and for managing ceremony DRDO spending a huge amount.

Why I asked this Information – The awards given by Government of India like Padma Award, Shanti Swaroop Bhatnager Award etc all these awards are given with an aim to encourage/motivate/ recognize the contribution of individual recipients and therefore it carries a citation.

DRDO constituted its awards like Scientist of the year, Young Scientist awards, Technology Leadership Award etc. with the aim to inculcate a culture of hard work, dedication, scientific achievements, and technology breakthrough leading to the technology development for national security.

But the award given in DRDO, the mode of selection, the encouragement to the scientific team does not rely on the standards.

Different rules for different occasion or different rules for different officer, the motto of DRDO or the definition of DRDO is suitably implemented..

The public would like to know the manner DRDO spending nearly 2 crores of rupees annually to   these awards, the recipients does not know that he has been chosen for this award, there is no scientific presentation of technology. The recipients, are even unable to operate any scientific instruments  like network analyzer, spectrum analyzer etc because most of awardees scientist or technical personals are working as Director Management Services, Head Material Managements, Security Officer, Library In-charge, Works  In-charge and other suitable position from where they can feed their Akas(Boss).

If any one look in to the list of award recipients and analyses year wise, he will be find the most of citation actually not even justify the work or relation between award and awardees.

There is N number of examples available in various labs where most of awards were not justified; it is purely depending upon the Director’s choice. So nut shell DRDO awards are like ”Andha banten revari apne apne ko de” it is nothing doing with their contribution whether the awardees is related to technology or not. How come a person sitting in security, MT will entitled to get technology award, when DRDO having other awards for non technical working area.

It is really big question in front of country people?

Like in Kargil, one officer got gallantry award and later it was found that the fake encounter was staged for award. (Famous ketchup Colonel Case) 

Same tactics is adopted by DRDO they are distributing awards to their own boys with fake technology propaganda.

Since money belongs to poor tax payers, when Padama award citation are available to citizen of India then how can DRDO deny  give details in the name of schedule –II exemption.

One award Defence Technology Absorption Award is using by DRDO for giving color to their pet firms. Anyone can judge from the recipients list that these firms are really worth does these firms have any significant signature in field of respective industry like M/s Resins & Allied Products, Vijayawada. received this award from Honorable Prime Minister Sh Man Mohan Singh is   related to Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC R&D, Director, HEMRL) 

APPELLANT – Shri Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
PUBLIC AUTHORITY – DRDO.
DATE OF HEARING – 29.06.2011
DATE OF DECISION – 29.06.2011

Facts:-

Heard today dated 29.06.2011.   The appellant is present.  DRDO is represented by Dr. A.K. Tyagi, Scientist ‘F’ and Dr. Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.  These appeals are being disposed of through a common order.  The parties are heard.  The order passed in each case is as follows:

The RTI Request –

To                                                                                                                  Date 30th May 2010    The CPIO & Addl Director, DRDO HQ                                                                                   Room No. 314A                                                                                                                         DRDO Bhawan , Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110 105

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The DRDO Awards Scheme, in its present form, was introduced in the year 1999 to motivate DRDO scientists, engineers and partners in industries and academic institutions in contributing for the cause of national security and self-reliance. The present Award Scheme, instituted by the Government of India, are therefore, meant to encourage DRDO scientists and our partners in the Private Sector Undertakings (PSUs), the private firms as well as the academic institutions in performing even better towards accelerating the pace of development of critical technologies, transfer of technologies from laboratories to industries as well as productionisation of the state-of-the-art defence systems.

The Scheme consists of a total of 17 awards, out of which, 4 awards are given by the Directors of the concerned laboratories/establishments in recognition of outstanding contributions of their scientists and other supporting staff consisting of technical, administrative and allied cadres. The remaining 13 awards are decided at the DRDO HQrs for which nominations are called every year from all laboratories/establishments. The nominations are initially short listed by the Screening Committee under the chairmanship of the Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC). The short listed nominations are, thereafter, examined by the Apex Committee for finalisation of the awards which also consists of two outside experts. These awards are normally given away by the Prime Minister of India on the “Technology Day” which falls on 11th May of every year.

In this connection it is requested to provide the following detail information

  1. Total amount of investment made on DRDO awards  year wise from 1st April 1999 to till date 2010
                     i)        Total amount invested in arranging Award ceremony
                   ii)       TA/DA  on recipient of the awardees and spouse
                  iii)      All categories of all cash award by all Laboratories/Establishments and DRDO Hqrs.                                  during period of April 1999 to till date. In following format

Year 1999-2000

 Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule-II

Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order 60E034921

Regards,

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                                                                                21-Sunderwala, Raipur Dehradun-248008                                                                          Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879, E-mail id- prabhu@dandriyal.com

The RTI request was denied by CPIO, DRDO Hqrs on 2nd June 2010

The Appellate Authority, DRDO Hqrs was denied on 16th August 2010

File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/000384:- CIC Decision

The total amount spent for last three years viz. 2008, 2009 & 2010 on the following Awards may be supplied to the appellant :-

(i) AGNI Award for excellence in Self Reliance;

(ii) DRDO Award for Performance Excellence, and

(iii) Scientist of the Year Award.

Drdo

HEMRL: Audit report raises security doubts

Leave a comment
PUNE I JULY 24 I 2011
Newsline  The Sunday Express

HEMRL: Audit report raises security doubts

Pranav KulkarniTags : JCDA, HEMRL, DRDO lab, Haridwar Singh Posted: Sun Jul 24 2011, 02:44 hrs Pune
The Local Audit Objection report, a JCDA questions contract to Viswaat Chemicals without seeking explosives handling licence.  An audit report by the Joint Controller of Defence Accounts (JCDA) has raised questions about the security and tender awarding processes at High Energy Material Research Laboratory (HEMRL), a DRDO lab.

copy of which is with The Indian Express, has questioned HEMRL’s logic of awarding explosive handling contract to Viswaat Chemicals Pvt Ltd under Government Owned Company Operated (GOCO) contract, without asking the company to submit the requisite explosive handling licences. The report also pulls up the contractor for not maintaining entry and exit records of 173 contract manpower during the contract period.

Viswaat Chemicals has been producing a sensitive explosive (HEMRL claims India is only the third country in the world to possess it) at the HEMRL facility. According to the Explosives Act, 1884, producing an explosive handling licence is an important part of the tendering process mandatory for manufacturing and handling explosives.

The Local Audit Objection Report submitted by the Joint Controller of Defence Accounts (JCDA) six months ago refers to a letter numbered HEMRL/MMD/3044/SRP 09-10/34 and dated February 2, 2010 under which the contractor was asked to submit the licence for handling explosives and for the operation of propellent facility.

Former director of HEMRL Haridwar Singh is the director of Viswaat Chemicals.

Scientist G, HEMRL, Dr Bikas Bhattacharya said, “The requirement of the licence was mentioned in the tender specifications. They were to handle explosives for various facilities of the same organisation, HEMRL, because of which licence was not asked. There has been a communication gap and they have the necessary documents. Subsequent reply has been sent to JCDA.”

Manager, R& D, Viswaat Chemicals, S A Borkar said, “We have the licence, however, at the time of the audit, it was submitted for renewal because of which it might not have been seen by the auditors.”

The report also pulls up HEMRL for lapses in security saying, “As per clause 12 of MOU, the contractor has to provide 173 workmen. On scrutiny of the documents, it is revealed that no uniform system exists for maintaining the attendance by the lab for the deployed manpower.”

HEMRL security in-charge Colonel Alok Mathur said, “The system to ensure security checks is in place irrespective of whether the person entering is a scientist or a contract worker.” Bhattacharya said, “Besides normal working hours, there are overtimes during processing campaigns. We have replied to the auditors and they are satisfied with our reply.”

As per the contract, the laboratory agreed to purchase the explosive produced by Viswaat Chemicals at Rs 11,000 per kg. Between November 2007 and December 31, 2010, the laboratory purchased 1,500 kg of explosive from Viswaat Chemicals for Rs 1.7631 crore, including VAT and excise duty. The objection report points out why the laboratory paid additional Rs 11.31 lakh to Viswaat as VAT and excise duty when the production activity of TATB has been undertaken inside the HEMRL campus. “In view of this, the amount paid to the tune of Rs 11, 31,328 may be recovered and remitted into the treasury under intimation audit,” the report said. “We have sent the replies and the case will be settle in a month or two,” said Bhattacharya.

Drdo

Communication Blackout for 15 Minutes after Mumbai’s Serial Blast -Sh. Prthiviraj Chauhan, CM, Maharashtra

Leave a comment

Date 20 July 2011

Please Refer Sunday Guardians – DRDO scrapping a Rs 100 cr communication system (Sunday Guardian-New Delhi – 22  August 2010) Appu Esthose Suresh http://bit.ly/qsOMFF

There was a communication blackout on 13 July 2011 in Mumbai

Honorable Chief Minister Maharashtra Sh Prithiviraj Chavan while talking to media said that for 15 minutes just after serial blast there was a communication blackout and he was not able to communicate with senior official of Maharashtra Police.

Had Pakistan planned to attack Mumbai the financial capital of India by sending F-16/ F-18 with a speed of 2000 km/hour, under the cover of the serial blast, within 15 minutes the F-16 can travel to 500 Km,

Time and again it was brought to the notice of Government of India that for such crises management of two way communication NVIS (Near Vertical Incident Sky wave) mode of HF communication provides only hotline solution without fail.

The details of NVIS and apathy of Government of India was published in Sunday Guardian dated – DRDO scrapping a Rs 100 cr communication system (Sunday Guardian-New Delhi – 22  August 2010) Appu Esthose Suresh http://bit.ly/qsOMFF

Drdo

SA to RM taking some eyewash actions like

Leave a comment

Dear Friends                                                                             18th July 2011

SA’s crises management, after mounting pressure from MoD to take corrective measures to stop the corruption and nepotism.

SA to RM taking some eyewash actions like

  1. Today Dr. Satish Kumar taking charge as Director SPIC instead of Director GTRE (earlier SA wants Dr. Satish Kumar in place of Mr T Mohana Rao) Dr. Satish Kumar is old loyal buddy of Dr Saraswat since IGDMP.
  2. Dr Saraswat patched with Mr S K Jindal and agreed not make Group Captain Raja Babu and he and his lobby pressurizing Mr S K Jindal to take legal action against www.corruptionindrdo.com. (The Pandora Box of DRDO’s corruption)

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com,  prabhu@dandriyal.com
Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com

Drdo

Epitome of DRDO’s Dealing with Explosive

Leave a comment

To                                                                                            17th July 2011
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

Honorable Sir,

The recent serial bomb blast in Mumbai made a big question about the easy availability of such rare explosive RDX & TNT to terrorist outfit.

Please find enclosed document which shows the casual approach of HEMRL, DRDO, Pune the premier and one of the best explosive production facility of India.

While going through the document evidence and audit objection of auditor of JCDA, I found the loose end of HEMRL, DRDO, which may be one easy source for Naxalite–Maoist and Terrorist outfit to learn how to make explosive and also chance to pilferage the explosive may add to pilferage.

After receiving the document I have personally visited the place in the last June and observe the possibility and find out that the working method of HEMRL to make the explosive.

  1.  HERML having practice to hire outside manpower to produce explosive and the companies involved in this business is related to ex- DRDO senior officials. Dr Hardwar Singh, Ex- Director HEMRL & present director M/s Viswaat Chemicals Pvt Ltd since 2006), the sources said that earlier he was sleeping partner (his son Bunty was inducted in the firm as an employee) when he was active Director, HEMRL.
  2. The same company is involved in all the branches of HEMRL like ACEM, Nasik, where recently you visited on 29th June 2011 and as per press release of DRDO Dr Hardwar Singh was also present there. The company is working since 2000 under Government Owned Company Operated (GOCO) projects with Advance Systems Laboratory (ASL), SF Complex, Jagdalpur.
  3. Mr S A Borkar, Manager, M/s Viswaat Chemicals Pvt Ltd, is only person responsible to hire the manpower and he is doing purely in unprofessional manner by asking HEMRL employees to bring any person of their contact. No police verification is needed. He used to submit a list to police station and after depositing Rs 100/- get a receipt and that receipt is deposited in HEMRL security and they do not wait for police verification, that applied receipt note solve the formality. On the basis of this the casual labour gets the biometric entry card from HEMRL security. No proper entry mechanism is available in HEMRL or any other places.
  4. The records are only maintained with Mr SA Borakar’s office which was situated in old building of HEMRL. Why it is not maintained in HEMRL security because the number of persons in daily required or as per order is need never comes in and the payment bill was always placed as per order. This practice is also observed by local auditor and mentioned his audit objection.
  5. 5.    HEMRL having 1200 work force but as per local audit objection  for HYE 09/2009 & 03/2010 para (e)  “ As per clause 10 of tender specification HEMRL had provided expertise to train the contractors personal up to production stage and raw material formulate the production of TATB  (Triaminotrinitrobenzene explosive) to the contractor. In view of the above please intimate that why the production activity was not undertaken by in house HEMRL”
  6. As per para (D) of audit objection “Attendance: As per clause of MOU the contractor has to provide total 173 workmen. On scrutiny of documents it is revealed that no uniform system exists for maintaining the attendance by the Lab in respect of deployed Manpower. As per clause 1.5 of General Terms & Conditions the vendor shall ensure that In and Out records of all personals/workers are maintained at the security gate during the contract period. However the same is not being done.”
  7. As per para B of audit objection” Kindly refer to your letter No HEMRL/MMD/ 3044/SRP 09-10/34 Dt 01-02-10 under which the contractor was asked to submit the License for carrying out explosive and for operation of propellant facility. Please intimate the reasons for asking the requisite license after the commencement of the contract and how the contract was   awarded in absence of the requisite license. Unfortunately, till date the contractor has failed to produce the requisite license as promised in their letter date 01-02-10. The action taken by your Lab may be intimated to audit.”
  8. As per para (d) of audit objection” The documentary proof of raw material being brought inside the HEMRL through security gate by the contractor for the production of TATB  (Triaminotrinitrobenzene explosive) and the nominal roll of the employees deployed entire operation schedule of production activity may be made available to audit for verification”  There is no such records  available in HEMRL.
  9. As per para (d) of audit objection” Please intimate the costing formula adopted for fixing the price of TATB  (Triaminotrinitrobenzene explosive) @ Rs 11,000/- per KG and whether any concurrence have been obtained from Audit authorities.” The contract rates the working methodology is designed and formulated by Dr Hardwar Singh and Dr A Subhanand Rao, DS & CC R&D – DRDO for siphoned the poor tax payer’s money.

Sir, if you just inquire the file you will find n numbers of mechanism to made money like the product is made in house and the firm only providing the manpower but in their bill they are charging 8.24% excise duty and 4 % VAT, a big question because they are working in DRDO. Who can dare to check? The HEMRL not detecting 10% TDS from the firm in the name of providing specialize service.

The entire nation is aggrieved and as loyal citizen it is our responsibility to protect our country and the national interest. In the name of defence establishment even through employees have noticed the modus operandi they are not coming out because of CCS rules.

The Scientific Adviser’s office is become a black hole. Information/ feedbacks are regularly sent by all Labs and establishments but papers are tear off and put in the dustbin.

Yours sincere effort is needed to clean the DRDO.

Thanking you

Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com,  prabhu@dandriyal.com Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

Company to be check thoroughly – M/s Viswaat Chemicals Pvt Ltd,

Corporate Office   Viswaat,7,Satsang Complex, Upper Govind Nagar, L S Raheja Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai – 400 097, Ph-022 28740365/2341 Fax 28745321

 www.viswaatchem.com, e mail-  viswaat@vsnl.com, viswaat@mtnl.net.in

Registered Office ” Triveni”, Mith Chowki,Malad – Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400064

Board of Directors –  B.Vivek Shetty,Vipin Kumar Jain,Arvind Malhotra, Vishes A Shetty,Shashikant R Shetty,  Bhasker M Shetty, Hari Prasanna Shetty, Dr Hardwar Singh(Ex Director HEMRL)  

Copy for Information and needful action please

  1. P.CHIDAMBARAM,HOME MINISTER, R.No -104, North Block, New Delhi-110011
  2.  R.K.Singh, HOME SECRETARY R.No -113, North Block, New Delhi -110011
  3.  Shri. Umesh C Sarangi  Home Department, Additional Chief Secretary, Maharashtra Government
Enclosed: The Supply Order Copy HEMRL/08AT/0135/D10/LP dated 03/10/2007
                     The Supply Order Copy HEMRL/10AT/0136/D10/LP dated 28/12/2009
                    Copy of Audit Objection HYE 09/2009 & 03/2010  
 
GOCO Audit Objection page 1

 

GOCO Audit Objection page 2
GOCO Audit Objection page 3
supply order to Viswaat Chemicals owned by Dr Hardwar Singh Ex -Director HEMRL
supply order to Viswaat Chemicals owned by Dr Hardwar Singh Ex -Director HEMRL
supply order to Viswaat Chemicals owned by Dr Hardwar Singh Ex -Director HEMRL
supply order to Viswaat Chemicals owned by Dr Hardwar Singh Ex -Director HEMRL
supply order to Viswaat Chemicals owned by Dr Hardwar Singh Ex -Director HEMRL
supply order to Viswaat Chemicals owned by Dr Hardwar Singh Ex -Director HEMRL
Drdo

Generally the Vice-Chancellor should be ashould be a distinguished educationist or eminent scholar

Leave a comment

Universities are autonomous and the Vice-Chancellor is the leader of a higher education institution. As per the norm he/she should be an eminent academician (is Dr Parhalada fulfill this norms?), excellent administrator (is Dr Parhalada fit this norms?) and also someone who has a high moral stature. (Whose vision is “you people are not born for higher studies” for SC candidates) Since his posting as CC (R&D) from November 2005 at DRDO Hqrs he is staying permanently in C-7, DRDO guest house and RTI from JCDA, Delhi revealed that he is drawing HRA. It is attract disciplinary action as per CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 action against Dr Prahlada. Why action is not taking because DRDO waiting for proper complaint against Dr Prahlada.

Generally the Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished educationist or eminent scholar in any of the disciplines or professions, with a high standing in his/her field and adequate administrative experience. We are not generally in favour of appointment of persons who have retired from other fields. An exception to this general recommendation should be made only in the case of very outstanding persons whose association with the universities would be desirable from every point of view and should not be made an excuse for ‘accommodating’ or ‘rewarding’ individuals who do not fulfill the conditions laid down. A vice-chancellor is one who stands for the commitment of the university to scholarship and pursuit of truth. (Kothari Commission 1964-66: 334)

A Vice-chancellor should be a person with vision and (have) qualities of academic leadership with ability for administration. He should command high respect among all sections of the society. The Vice Chancellor should be a distinguished academic…(who)  has commitment to the values for which the universities stand…He must have the ability to provide leadership to the university by his academic worth, administrative competence and moral stature. (Kothari Commission 1964-66: 334)

The universities need distinguished and dignified persons as VCs and it is necessary to ensure that they are treated with dignity and regard, which the office merits. (Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993: 15)

The Vice- Chancellor is the most important functionary in a university, not only on the administrative side but also for securing the right atmosphere for the teachers and the students to do their work effectively and in the right spirit. (Report of the Committee on Model Act for Universities 1964: 11).

Drdo

Mr T. Mohan Rao, Director, GTRE – The boss of Kaveri Engine

2 Comments
To                                                                                                                              17th June 2011
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

Honorable Sir,

Recently you said”Transparency revolution to go on” you are the first man in government, who sense this upcoming revolution and we are 100% that you are accepting it in your ministry and preparing the machinery for accountability.

National Technology Day signifies the glorious achievements of Indian science and technology and has been celebrated all over the country after the successful Pokhran II, Nuclear test on 11 and 13 May 1998.  .Since 1999, 11 May being celebrated by labs/estts of DRDO with delivering of Technology Day Oration, Open House Session, Quiz, etc. The scientist after their technology day oration was felicitated with medals and commendation certificates signed by SA to RM.

As you already aware of the ugly act of Mr. T Mohan Rao, Director GTRE who was celebrated the glorious achievement of 11th May with the Mr V N Narayan, Agent of ILN Technologies Inc.

Next important point the advocate Mr KKR filed the bail application for Mr. T Mohan Rao, Director GTRE and Mr V N Narayan, Agent of ILN Technologies Inc.

When DRDO’s top project director indulge specially with vendor’s agent how can be Indian forces trust DRDO.

As per your direction the enquiry committee was formed and they already investigated and collected all evidences, but sources said that they are helping Mr. Mohan Rao to come out from this crisis.  Dr. V Bhujanga Rao, DS & CC R&D (HR), Dr R Sreehari Rao OS & CC R&D (ECS) and Brig Ajay Gupta submitted their report to SA to RM.

CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 – If the act or conduct of the servant is so grossly immoral that all reasonable men will say that the employee cannot be trusted.

Find herewith some of the real facts about Sri T. Mohan Rao, Ex..Director, GTRE, who was arrested by Police during a raid 011 a high end massage parlor in Jayamahal, Bangalore on 11th May 2011   (Refer to FIR and Police Report attached) 

  1. The raid occurred at around 01.00 PM on Wednesday 11th   May 2011. He was enrooting Bangalore airport supposed to board the New Delhi flight at 1630hrs.
  2. He participated in the DRC on 10th May 2011 at Delhi, returned back to Bangalore. He was supposed to go back to Delhi attend another important meeting on 12th May 2011
  3. Incidentally May 11th happened to be “‘National Technology Day'” for DRDO. In the. Calendar of    monthly event for the month of May 2011 published in GTRE was supposed to chair the National Technology Day function at 1600 Hrs
  4. He has not made any arrangement for the above function; rather he was busy in going to massage parlour at same time.
  5. He was using official government vehicle whose driver was Mr. Victor. The Driver asked to drop him at a distance place and wait at Mekri Circle near Jayamahal till he return.
  6. Mr T Mohan Rao went with Mr V N Narayana a leading vendor/agent from ILN Tech1oogies, supplying mechanical parts to DRDO and other defence company, who was also arrested with Mohan Rao along with 17 others.
  7. According to records available at GTRE the  official  vehicle left GTRE around 1200 Hrs along with Mr T Mohan Rao and the driver was Mr Victor and the vehicle reported back at around 2300 Hrs (11 PM)
  8. FIR and police report narrates in detail the event clearly. Wherein T Mohan Rao was caught red handed inside the Room no 1 with the girl naked named Meera Rao.
  9. He carne out on bail on 13th evening, his mobile and identity card was seized by police. He gave wrong address to the police for which he has provided the proof through his lawyer to obtain bail.
  10. The Advocate who filed the vakalath along with bail application for Mohan Rao and Narayan was same i.e.  KKR (as per police report)
  11. What is so important work he had in GTRE on 11th May 2011, for which he had spent Government money for the flight charges. He has spent only 3 hours a day in office. ‘What happened to his movement order? Has he appointed officiating Director in his absence?
  12. He has not informed higher official at CC and SA about his arrest.
  13. Has he come to GTRE to finalize some deal with Mr VN Narayana or ­some vendor through Narayanan? His focus was on these deals, he gave less import to development of Kaveri engine.
  14. Bail order clearly states that the accused shall not tamper with the prosecution witness in any manner. Can he give wrong Information in news paper which his against court order?
  15. He has formed an informal team with those members who were helped facilitated, and supported his immoral, illegal, corrupt practices in GTRE. For their support to carry out immoral, illegal corrupt practices   many were rewarded with not only faster promotion but also other favors like awards, sponsorship, nominations, deputations abroad, temporary duties to out station, financial powers etc by passing superiors.
  16. Sh RV Madhusoodanan, Sc’G’ was given extension in service beyond 60 years Only  to look in the civil works inside GTRE and acts as spy for Director GTRE to pass on information about the honest and sincere officers and staff who are not favoring their misdeeds.
  17. Mr. V.N. Narayana of ILN Technologies’ has  bagged many orders worth  of corers of rupees   for supplying  engine parts to GTRE  and to other defence companies with the tactics support of Mr. T. Mohan Rao.
  18. As Director GTRE. Mr. T. Mohan Rao has made wealth disproportionate to his Income;. Currently he is running   a school and planning to start a college. He has contact with politician and higher officials in the state and central government. Using money and power he is trying to cover-up the case.
  19. The offence he has committed by indulging in immoral activities by misusing official power is only the tip of ice berg. He has been arrested and released on bail under ITF act section 3,4,5 & 7 (ITB)
  20. As a government servant, under the provision of central civil services  (CCA) rules  he has committed serious offence/ conduct involving moral turpitude, misuse: of official power for personal gain, serious negligence  and dereliction of duty desertion of duty  refusal deliberate  failure to to carry out orders of superiors etc.
  21. The enquiry committee formed to look into these matters is trying to hide the fact and helping him.   He should have been dismissed from the service; instead he has been transferred to another lab. From there he is working with help of politician, DOP, CC R&D at DRDO Hqrs. and his corrupt supporters in GTRE in to come back to GTRE.
  22. The police seized the identity card of Mr.T Mohan Rao and after got bail on 13th he went to GTRE on 14th May and first thing he did he asked Identity card for himself without giving any excuse. Interestingly the inquiry committee had not taking concern of this act.

Kannada portion on page 3-4 translations.

12. First Information Report Contents

The brief summary of this case is as follows:

On 11-05-2011 CCB W&N unit ACP Shri. R.Lakhsman obtained confirmed information from informant that the Energy Inc, Inner Growth Outer perfection Finishing & Training Academy Therapeutic Healing at 1st floor, Eden Apt., 5th  main. JC Nagar, in the name of beauty parlor prostitution was practiced. Based on the confirmed information at 1.00  in the afternoon the CCB officer & staff raided the above said parlor and taken to custody of 10 ladies and 9 gents who were engages in prostitution and confiscated Es 68435 as cash, 15 mobiles, 2 motor cycles, 3 cars and one HDFC Swiping machine.

The above accused has been booked under column number 3,4,5& 7 of ITP act and the  file transfer of complaint etc were made

Ref: JC Nagar Police Station Case No.63/4Ull Column 3, 4, 5 & 7 of ITP Act

With reference to the above said subject in the Honorable Court. We submit that 11-05.2011 Shri R Lakhoman ACP, Women & Drug Wing And CCB. Bangalore at 2.00 PM in the office get information that   the Energy Inc, Inner Growth Outer Perfection Finishing & Training Academy Therapeutic Healing at 1st floor, Eden Apt., 5th  main. JC Nagar, is engaged in prostitution PC Srinivasa, PC Thimmappa reached the spot around 15.15 Hrs wide the presence of Shrl Mohamed Shakil and Mr Mohamed Sami With their presence the place was raided and the re-seen report was prepared and the signature of the witnesses were obtained.

After words, ACP sent PC Srinivas as a Decoy and asked him to make a miss call after initiating the transaction. He was provided with 2500 (2 Notes of Rs.l000 and one Rest 500 Note bearing Nos. 7AQ 667811. 5DS. 199632 and SEC 169580 respectively). The Decoy gave a missed call to ACP after establishing the transaction Immediately the ACP along with the. Witnesses raided No 14 Eden Hall apt first floor. ACP Showed his identity card to   Receptionist and asked her name and address, She told her name is Rosrni Maria. C/o..Mohamed.Aslam aged 35 Yrs residing at Srikantapura, Punjapalya, Tumkur Road, Bangalore. She said the owner of this Parlor is Smt Pradeep Madhuri Hingo Rani.  Who engaged Sanjana, Sumalatha, Leena, Meera Rao, Ruby, Si-Si-, Kavya, Suhashini and Sara, and run prostitution and use them to carry out Body to Body massage in the name of massage parlor.

On enquiry of a person standing near the cash counter his name is    Hemant Kumar, S/o Vasudev, 35 Yrs, #Q’2, 3rd cross 3rd main, Peenya 2nd stage and he  came to this place for body to body massage. On enquiry from ACP, Roshni Maria told that she gets Rs.2500 from each customer and do not give any receipt. ACP ask  the receptionist where  she has sent to Srinivas. She told that she  has sent him to Room No.5 with Kavya, after receiving Rs2500. Then the ACP went to Room No 5   and found that  the Decoy was half naked and  Kavya was totally undressed  and was standing naked kissing .the  decoy ACP asked them to dress properly  and obtained the name and address of Kavya 23 yrs old. She told that she is working as a therapist and serve the customer by kissing and massaging them naked. The parlor owner gives her a salary of Rs 9000 per month. The decoy told that he paid the money to the receptionist. Then ACP enquired the receptionist and confiscated Rs 23000, a mobile 8088278733 where she uses, one more mobile of the owner NOKIA 6303, No. 9845165188 and a HDFC Swipe Machine. When asked about other costumer.  She took them to all the rooms.

At Room No.1, Meera Rao was massaging Mohan Rao nakedly they were taken in to custody.

At Room No 2, Leena Das and Sanjana were doing body to body massaging With Narayan M V nakedly. They were taken in to custody.

Room No 3…

Room No 4….

Room No 6…

From, all these people a total cash of Rs 67435, 15 mobiles, 2 Motor Cycles, 3 cars and one HDFC Swipe Machine were confiscated and recorded in CCB items list No 17/2011

In this case A 20 Smt Madhuri accused for running prostitution in the name of massage parlor is absconding and the case to be further investigated.

As per Ref Police Commissioner Office No (2)/Meeting/389/20088 dated 19-11-2008 para -7.6, the case has been registered at J C Nagar police station under No 3,4,5, & 7 of ITP act and further investigation will be carried out.

I have investigated the accused and produced their statements. I have registered the confiscated items recovered from them under reference CCB items no 17/2011

1             A 20 female accused on immoral traffic, further information required

2             Investigation is incomplete

3             Further evidence of A1 to A19 to be collected.

Sd/
KR Dhadramma
Police Inspector
Women & Drug Wing
CCB NT, Bangalore

Sir, you just imagine that if Mr. T Mohan Rao again join back as Director to GTRE and will distribute the awards for Next National Technology Day to children of GTRE employees, what will the feeling of true Indians.

Hope you will take an exemplary action for cleaning the DRDO from corruption and nepotism.

Thanking you

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal 
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Tele/Fax –0135- 2787750, Mobile- 09411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com ,  prabhu@dandriyal.com
Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com/

Drdo

Finally Dr Arun Kumar’s Team booked for Criminal Charges

Leave a comment

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE J.M.F.C., PUNE AT PUNE

Regular Criminal Complaint No.   1198 / 2011

Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware
Age: 54 yrs. Occupation: Service
Residing at: A-11, Vijayraj Sankul,
Near Medipoint Hospital, D P Road,
Aundh, Pune – 411007.                                        — Complainant

Versus

1.     Dr. Arun Kumar,

Director of Personnel, DOP, DRDO,

DRDO Bhavan, N. Delhi- 110 105.

2.     V. P. Pande,

Associate Director of Personnel, DOP, DRDO,

DRDO Bhavan, N. Delhi- 110 105.

 

3.     I. B. Arora,

Joint Director of Personnel, DOP, DRDO,

DRDO Bhavan, N. Delhi- 110 105.

 

4.     B. B. Sharma,

Joint Director of Personnel, DOP, DRDO,

DRDO Bhavan, N. Delhi- 110 105.

 

5.     S. B. Yadav,

Deputy Director of Personnel, DOP, DRDO,

DRDO Bhavan, N. Delhi- 110 105.

 

6.     Abhinavjeet Ojha,

Deputy Director of Personnel, DOP, DRDO,

DRDO Bhavan, N. Delhi- 110 105.                          —Accused

Complaint under section 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code

The Complainant most humbly submits as under:-

1.     The Complainant was a Gazetted Group ‘A’ Officer with designation Technical Officer ‘B’ in High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune – 411021, the unit of DRDO,  Ministry  of  Defence, Government of India. He joined his

service on 20.09.1983 and was illegally suspended on 24.08.2009 and then illegally dismissed on 30.12.2010. His entire service period is spotlessly clean.

The accused are the ranking officers of the Directorate of Personnel, DRDO, New Delhi. The Directorate of Personnel is the highest office which deals with the personal matters of Central Govt. servants in DRDO. But, the Director of Personnel is not the Disciplinary Authority of the Complainant. As per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority of Gazetted Group ‘A’ officer like the Complainant is the Director General Research and Development (DGR&D), New Delhi.

2.     Accused No.1 suspended the Complainant under Rule 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 24.08.2009. But, as per Rule 10 (1), accused No.1 is not, at all, competent to sign the suspension order of the Complainant. Only DGR&D is competent to suspend or take disciplinary action against the Complainant as he is the only and exclusive disciplinary authority of the Complainant. Accused No.1 has admitted the fact in his deposition as a Defence Witness in the Inquiry Proceeding of the Complainant on 08.06.2010. He prepared the suspension order in a manner which he knew and believed it to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause injury to the Complainant. He does not hold such disciplinary authority; still he pretended to hold an authority to suspend the Complainant and in such assumed character, prepared the suspension order of the Complainant. When the accused No.1 signed and prepared the suspension order of the Complainant without having any authority, his only intention was to cause injury to the Complainant.

3.     Accused No.2 has issued the Memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 03.09.2009 and has issued order for appointment of Inquiry Officer. Only DGR&D can issue such order. Accused No.2 knew it well that he does not hold any such authority to issue the Memorandum or order of appointment of I.O. He knew it to be incorrect to prepare such documents, still with the only intention to cause injury to the Complainant, he signed and prepared above referred two documents.

4.     Accused No.3 issued order for grant of subsistence allowance to the Complainant on 19.11.2009. By Rule, only DGR&D can issue such order. Accused No.3 knew it well that he does not hold any such authority to issue such order; still with the only intention to cause injury to the Complainant, he has issued such order.

5.     Accused No.4 issued Memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to the Complainant on 07.10.2009. He issued the appointment order of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on 25.11.2009. By Rule, only DGR&D can issue such orders. Accused No.4 knew it well that he does not hold any such authority to issue the Memorandum or to issue the appointment orders of I.O. and P.O. He knew it to be incorrect to sign and prepare such Memorandum and orders, still with the only intention to cause injury to the Complainant, he has done it. 

6.     Accused No.5 has issued Penalty Order to the Complainant under Rule 11 (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 08.12.2010. It is the exclusive right of the DGR&D who is the only Disciplinary Authority of the Complainant. Accused No.5 knew it well that he does not hold any such Disciplinary Authority, still with the only intention to cause injury to the Complainant; he prepared this document of penalty order.

7.     Accused No.6 issued Penalty (Dismissal) Order under Rule 11 (ix) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 30.12.2010. This is the severe most punishment for the Central Government servant. This is the exclusive domain of the Disciplinary Authority who is the DGR&D.

As per Article 311 (1) of the Constitutional of India, no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an All India Service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

Here, the DGR&D is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority of the Complainant. Accused No.6 is very much subordinate to him. Still, by flouting the Constitution and CCS (CCA) Rules, he has dismissed the Complainant.                        

Accused No.1 who is superior to Accused No.6 has admitted that he is not the Disciplinary Authority of the Complainant and he has not suspended him. When the superior officer is not competent even to suspend the Complainant, the accused No.6 who is comparatively the low grade officer, has issued the severe most penalty order of dismissal blatantly without any authority. He knew it well that he does not hold any such authority to dismiss the Complainant from the service. He has done it knowingly and with the sole intention to injure the Complainant.

8.     Moreover there are no such posts as Associate Director, Deputy Director, joint Director, Assistant Director or Additional Director in DRDO. No Gazette Notification to that effect is available in DRDO. It has been admitted by Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) in his letter No. DIITM/02/2091/P/2010 dated 20.05.2010.

 

9.     Thus all the accused, the Director and all these so-called Associate, Deputy and Joint Directors from the Directorate of Personnel have committed offence under Sections 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. They have committed the offence in the discharge of their official duties. The only intention of these officers was to cause injury to the Complainant. From suspension of the Complainant till his dismissal from the service, the accused have jointly done it in furtherance of their common intention to cause injury to the Complainant. Accused No. 1 to 6 are from the same office i.e. Directorate of Personnel, DRDO.

All these accused officers have used DGR&D’s exclusive powers to the exclusion of DGR&D himself.

Thus, all the accused have jointly and severally committed the offence under section 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

10.             Cause of Action: – First arose on 24.08.2009 when the Accused No.1 illegally suspended the Complainant and was continuous till 30.12.2010 when accused No.6 illegally dismissed the Complainant. The Legal Notice under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure was sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence on 12.02.2011 for according the sanction. The complaint is well within limitation.

11.             Jurisdiction: – All the illegal orders issued by the accused at New Delhi office have been effected at Pune. The offence has been done to the Complainant at complainant’s office of HEMRL, Sutarwadi, Pune – 21. The Complainant was ordered by the accused not to leave his station i.e. Pune during suspension period. Very clearly, the place of offence is Pune. So, this Hon’ble Court has the Jurisdiction to try this complaint.

12.             The Complainant, therefore, prays that:-

  1. Process may kindly be issued against all the accused.
  2. All the accused may be punished as per law.
  3. Any other order may be passed in the interest of justice.

Pune

Date: 21.03.2011                                                 Complainant

 

Advocate for Complainant

(Mr. B R Barge)

VERIFICATION

I, Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware Age: 54 yrs, Occupation: Service, Residing at: A-11, Vijayraj Sankul, Near Medipoint Hospital, D P Road, Aundh, Pune – 411007, do, hereby, state on solemn affirmation that the contents in column No. 1 to 12 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information. Hence, I verified the same on 21st March 2011 at Pune.

Complainant

Order below Exh. 1 in R.C.C. 1198/2011

1.     Perused complaint of complainant recorded u/s. 200 of Cr.P.C. I have also perused the documents filed with list at Exh. 03 and 06 by the complainant. From record; it appears that it is complaint for the offences punishable u/s 167 and 170 r/w. s 34 of IPC. It also appears that all six accused are officers of Directorate of Personnel, DRDO, New Delhi, a body which deals with personal matters of Central Government Servants.

2.     As per contention of complainant, accused No.1 had suspended him. In view of Rule 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, accused No.1 was not at all having authority to issue such suspension order of the complainant. Accused No.1 admitted said fact in his deposition before Disciplinary Authority. Said deposition is placed on record at Sr. No.7 at List at Exh. 03.

3.      Moreover, accused No.2 issued Memorandum under Rule 14 of above Rules. He had no such authority to issue such Memorandum to the complainant. Moreover, accused No.3, who issued order for grant of subsistence allowance to the complainant, had no authority to issue such order. Furthermore, accused No.4, who issued Memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, to the complainant, had no such authority to make appointment order of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Furthermore, accused No.5 issued penalty order having no authority. Accused No.6 issued penalty (Dismissal) order had no authority to issue the same.

4.     Thus, in my view, the above evidence on record, prima facie makes out the case for the above mentioned offences, hence issue process against all six accused for the offences punishable u/s 167 and 170 r/w. s 34 of IPC. Matter be kept on 22.07.2011.

Date: 13.06.2011                                               (P.K. Deshpande)

                                                                        JMFC, Court No.9, Pune

Drdo

Appeal to all young Scientists of DRDO to save DRDO from Blackmailers

1 Comment

Dear friends you are observing in your respective labs that a new trend of extension in service is increasing day by day and the eligible people are missing the goal of top post of lab.   Surprisesly the increasing trend is due to blackmailing of higher-ups. Friends carefully observe the list; you will not find any single deserving candidates who are getting extension, because the deserving scientists are not able to get chance of extension in list recommended from DRDO.    You will be  shocked to know that extension awardees are facing vigilance inquiries and lot of complaints are pending with Criminal cases/civil cases/CVC/Women Cell/CBI/DRDO vigilance cell but due to blackmailing power SA & CC’s are bound to overlook all these and recommend all blackmailers for extensions.

So what is the solution?

All extensions are given on the basis of criteria for grant of extension/re employment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation are laid down in the DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt. (B)  Dated the 18th May, 1977

Please go through the following and send your observation about those blackmailer scientists from your respective labs. These blackmailer scientists put others work in their name and you people only can expose their tactics because the ministry officials who process the file are non technical they cannot assess the game plan of these intellectual scientific mafia’s.

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal 
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com ,  prabhu@dandriyal.com
Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com/

No. 26012/6/2002-Estt. (A)

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions

(Department of Personnel & Training )

New Delhi, dated 9th December, 2002

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject : Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government  servants  beyond the age of superannuation – issue of  instructions regarding.

The undersigned is directed to say that the criteria for grant of extension/re employment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation are laid down in the DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt.(B)  dated the 18th May, 1977.  After May, 1998 and when the age of retirement  of the Central Government employees increased from 58 to 60 years, some  of the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 18th May, 1977 referred to above have lost their relevance.  Accordingly, it has been decided to revise the instructions relating to extension/re-employment to Central Government employees.

2. In the absence of specific orders to the contrary by the competent authority, a Government servant must retire on the due date.  The date of superannuation of a Government servant is known in advance and ordinarily there should not be a question of failure to make arrangements for his release sufficiently in advance.  It is the responsibility of the administrative authority concerned to ensure that the Government servants under their control retire on the due date.

3.  Extension: F.R. 56(d) states that no Government servant shall be granted extension of service beyond the age of 60 years.  However,  provisions exist in the rules to grant extension of  service to certain  category of Government servants only.  Therefore, it must be ensured that no  Ministry/Department  should propose to grant extension in service unless the case is covered by the Rules.

4. The proposal for grant of extension in service to the categories of  personnel referred to in the first, second and third proviso to F.R. 56(d)    -2- shall be referred to the Estt. Division of Department of Personnel and Training two months prior to the date on which the individual concerned is  due for superannuation.   The procedure for grant of extension to the Scientists is laid down in DoPT d.o. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO(SM-II) dated the 10th July, 2000.

5. Procedure for consideration of cases for extension of specialists in the medical and scientific fields:- It should be appreciated that even in the case of extension to specialist in the medical or scientific fields, it is not only the next man who misses promotion but often several people miss consequential promotions all along  the hierarchy.  Thus, too many cases of extension in service or reemployment are likely to cause frustration and affect the morale of the upcoming scientists who have exposure to latest technological developments in connecting fields.  Keeping in view these circumstances, the following criteria and procedure has been evolved with a view to ensure that extensions in service to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances.  The overriding consideration for the grant of extension is that it must be in the public interest and in addition satisfy one of the following two conditions:-

i)    that the retiring specialist is  not just one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest; or

ii)   that other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the  job.

Test (ii) would be satisfied only if there is shortage in particular specialization, or if it is not possible to find a suitable successor or if the specialist is engaged on a work or project of vital importance, which is likely to produce results in a year or two.  If specialists in the next lower post are not eligible for promotion on the ground that they have not put in the minimum service in the lower grade prescribed under the rules, no promotions can be made to the higher grade, unless such specialists put in the requisite length of service.  But specialists who are eligible for promotion  to the post against which extension is recommended, should not be rejected solely on the ground that they do not have as much experience as the retiring specialist.  They should be considered for promotion according to the -3- recruitment rules and if they are found suitable they should be promoted to the posts being vacated by the retiring specialists.

6. Whenever any specialist is considered for grant of extension, his character roll and personal file should be carefully scrutinized and all other relevant information that may be available should be taken into account to judge whether the specialist had good reputation for integrity and honesty.   In cases where the specialist is not considered to have good reputation for integrity and honesty, he should not be considered for grant of extension in service.  The appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry should furnish a certificate of Integrity along with the Annexure-I as follows where it proposes to grant extension of service.

“Having scrutinized in character roll and personal file of

Shri/Smt./Kum._____________________ and having taken into account all other relevant available information, I certify that he/she has a good reputation for integrity and honesty.”

7. While making proposals for extension of service in higher posts, it is all the more necessary to apply higher standards of efficiency to persons whose appointments to the higher posts are recommended for approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.  The number of top posts is bound to be very limited and a few persons should not have them for too long.  No Government servant who is on extension of service after the prescribed date of retirement should be promoted to another post during the period of extension of service.

8. No extension of service should be considered on the ground that a suitable successor is not available unless it is established that action to select a successor had been taken well in advance but the selection could not be finalized in time for justifiable reasons.  A proposal for the grant of extension of service based merely on the consideration that the specialist’s predecessor had been given extension should obviously not be accepted. -4-

9.  Re-employment: No proposal for employing a government servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years shall be considered.  It is also clarified that no person can be appointed/ reappointed to Central Government service after the age of superannuation of 60 years through contract.

10. Re-employment of military pensioners who have not reached the age of superannuation for Central Government employees will not be governed by these instructions.

11. Appointment of Consultant:-

Detailed instructions have been issued for appointment of consultant vide DoP&T’s Office Memorandum No. 16012/7/97-Estt.(Allowance) dated 13th  February, 1998. Hindi version will follow.

                Sd/-

Mrs. Pratibha Mohan

Director (E-II)

To

 All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.

(As per standard list)

 

 

Annexure-I

 

Performa for sending proposals  for approval of Department of Personnel & Training for grant  of extension to Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.

 

1. Designation of the post:

2. Duration of the post     :

3. Scale and terms of the post and perquisite attached, if any:

4. Whether financial sanction for the creation of the post/continuance of post for the    duration shown at (2) has been obtained:

5. Method of recruitment:

6. Name and the terminal date of appointment of the outgoing incumbent of the post:

7. Name of the specialist proposed for appointment and the service to which he belongs:

8. Full service particulars of the Officer with date of birth and pay drawn:

9. Names of other Officers considered:

10. If promotion post, whether copies of proceedings of a D.P.C. are being enclosed? If not, why not?

11. Whether character roll of the specialist proposed and those considered are being sent.  If not, why not?

12. Please indicate:

(i) (a) Whether the post  is scientific or medical specialist.

(b) Periods of extension granted earlier to the officer, if any

(c) Date from which extension is to be granted.

(d) Period of extension of service.

(ii) Justification for grant of extension:

(a)  The date from which it was known that vacancy would occur.

(b) Action taken to select a successor with chronological details.

(c) If selection is being made, reasons why this could not be finalized in good time.

(d) Can some officiating or ad-hoc arrangements be made, pending fresh appointment by proper selection? If not, why not?

(iii) Whether orders of the Minister-in charge have been obtained?

13. Whether the prescribed Integrity Certificate, from the appropriate authority, is enclosed.