Ex DOP, Dr Arun Kumar’s daughter Ms Sawti Srivastava, Scientist ‘C’ DIPAS was terminated at 5:30 Hrs on Friday 10th October 2014.
She was recruited through RAC without having eligibility for the post of Scientist ‘B’ in 2004. Dr Arun Kumar was than Director, RAC and manipulated all recruitment rules for secure her appointment for the post of Sc ‘B’
like
the subject advertised for recruitment was Biotechnology but her subject was environment science. For interview call the number of candidates against post ratio was changed temporary to accommodate her name
For interview subject expert was called from Delhi University the faculty of Environmental Science for the post of Biotechnology.
Ultimately after long fight since 2009 with gang of corrupt officials finally the day has come – Satya ki jeet hui ( सत्य की जीत हुई )
Congratulations to Dr Neelam Bhalla, Sc ‘F’,DTRL, Sh Prakash Singh, Senior Admin Officer Grade – II, LASTEC, Dr. Rajiv Chauhan, Dr A K Singh, DOP, DRDO, Media persons, CVC, CVO, MOD for their great effort for clean DRDO from Corrupt officials.
First suspension of Dr Arun Kumar, Ex DOP, DRDO Charge Sheet to Dr S M Veerbhadrapa, Dr A K Tyagi, termination of Mrs T Chandrabanu, Madras High Court punished two top DRDO scientists Dr V K Sarswat , Ex DG, DRDO and Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), HR, DRDO with simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/each
Now count down began for removal of Ms S Geetha, Sc, D, DIPAS for submitting fake experience certificate and Ms Dolly Bansal, Sc ‘C’, DIPR recruited without having proper qualification at the time application date. Dr Snehmani, Sc ‘F’, SASE recruited without meeting eligibility criteria, giving fake inputs at the time of selection of scientist ‘C’ and finally Cmdr S K Patel husband of Ms Tessy Thomas (Agni Putri) who got illegal appointment as Sc ‘G’ and subsequently given post of director within three days by superseding 480+ scientist ‘G’, one of the great achievement of Sh Avinash Chander, DG, DRDO.
मोदी जी अब लगता है कि डी आर डी ओ के अच्छे दिन आ गए। जय हो !जय हो !जय हो !
DRDO kisi ki Jagir Nahi hai jaha apne putra aur putrio ki line laga kar dedicated scientist ko suffer kara jaye
Very good news Ex DOP, Dr Arun Kumar’s daughter Ms Sawti Srivastava, Scientist ‘C’ terminated Satya ki jeet hui ( सत्य की जीत हुई ) one fabricated appointment close by GOI.Now time come to DRDO Pune Basic Lab HEMRL.Four fabricates dismiss one honest officer Dr.R G Taware Technical Officer who was frame to honest Vigilance officer Mr.R.K.Shina Sc ‘G’ he was get promotion for fabrication work, Allam Appa Rao Sc ‘G’ get the award young scientist for fabricate against Honest other team member 1) A.S.Rao Ex Director HEMRL 2) MPC Rao ALWC 3) AL Dube EX Admin office HEMRL. now Director HEMRL learn the lesson Satya ki jeet hui ( सत्य की जीत हुई )
the direct recruitment of scientist ‘D’ 06 years before is also same. some post has mandatory requirement of doctorate but candidates are selected and after 4 to 5 years they have got doctorate from drdo funded institution.
This crime was not committed alone by Dr Arun Kumar, then DOP but the RAC Chairman, Board members and SA TO RM all are equally responsible and should be punished,
Why congratulate DOP he is only executing the orders. Congratulations only to the crusaders.
From,
Dr. Rajiv Chauhan,
Advocate,
09412628314.
Sub : Regarding Ms. Swati Srivastava dismissal from the post of DRDO Scientist.
Dear Friends,
When I have come to know that Ms. Swati Srivastava appointment in DRDO as a Scientist is not as per the law . Mr. Prabhu and Mr. Prakash singh in a meeting told to me that Ms. Swati father is working as DOP at DRDO Hq and nobody can open this corruption case.
After that I inspected Ms. Swati srivastava selection file in Scientist Recruitment and Assessment Center (RAC) from the order of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and submitted my report before the Information commissioner, CVC/ CVO and to Hon’ble Prime Minister. Now, result is before all of you after Ms Swati termination from the services.
It is a clear cut case of u/s- 420/ 465/468/471 IPC. Now DRDO , Ministry of Defense, Govt. of India should file a case under the provisions of the IPC against Ms. Swati Srivastava and Mr. Arun Kumar. Otherwise high officers of the DRDO will be accountable and responsible for the financial losses which was disbursed to Ms. Swati Srivastava in form of salary etc.
REMEMBER god is great and we are only workers. So work always with honesty for proper satisfaction in life. Most of the DRDO scientists are interested to know the facts of this case, so now I am providing this for all of you as under.
(1)- CIC order to inspect Ms. Swati Srivastava selection files from RAC.
(2)- My inspection report to CIC.
(3)- Appeal before CIC.( A complete case).
(4)- Mr. Arun Kumar, DOP o/o-DRDO and appellate authority of RTI and father of Ms. Swati Srivastava refused to provide the selection documents.
Pl. see all details under mention
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001207
Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan
Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012
Date of decision 09.08.2012
Facts :-Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.
2. It is noticed that in the RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras about the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava. The CPIO had refused to disclose any information vide letter dated 2.11.2011 on the ground that the DRDO is an exempted organisation.
3. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the DRDO had advertised posts of Scientists ‘B’ in 2004 for which qualification was M.Sc. Bio Technology. Ms. Srivastava was M.Sc. in Environmental Biology. Thus, she was not qualified for the job. Yet due to the influence of his father Dr. Arun Kumar, who was then Deputy Director in DRDO, she was fraudulently selected as Scientist ‘B’
4. Shri Mishra submits that there is no one single file relating to this selection. In fact, there were about ten thousand candidates and to cull out Ms. Swati Srivastava’s record would be a herculean task. Further, the record is ten year old.
5. No doubt, DRDO is an exempted organisation, yet in my opinion, there is no harm if the appellant or his representative is given inspection of the entire records relating to the selection of Ms. Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’. As regards the difficulty expressed by Shri Mishra in tracing out the relevant record, I appreciate the same and yet I expect him to cull out the record for appellant’s inspection.
6. This order may be complied with in 05 weekstime.
Sd/-( M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar
To,
Hon,ble Sh. M.L.Sharma ji,
Information Commissioner,
Central Information Commission.
Room no.308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
Sub : Regarding the information of the Non-Compliance of the CIC order by CPIO
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001207;Appellant Rajiv Chauhan;Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012;Date of decision 09.08.2012
Facts of the non-compliance :-
As per the Hon’ble CIC decision, I inspected the files in DRDO. CPIO refused to give the photocopy of the documents and refused to write down anything in paper clearly after the request with the required fees deposition. CPIO created difficulties during the inspection. Chief Controller of Defense, Mr. W. Silavamurty and few others top officers of DRDO were regularly making pressure on CPIO during my inspection to hide information’s and generate problems. I can file my affidavit whenever it requires. Main created problems as is below-
[1]–DRDO File o/c of DOP file for item no.28,31,33,34,37,41,43,46 – Notesheet-1;Total Page-4.
1- The whole file / papers was not proper and fully seen that the record was cleverly fabricated.
2-Signature of the concern authorities hidden from paper slip. So it was not clear who sign the document or the originality of the document or records. Secondly without officer’s signature the validity of the record / paper is NIL. Therefore no mean to see the record.
3-Original related newspaper advertizing for the post is not enclosed. So that actual position of the advertisement and the norms is not clear .
[2]–RAC/07/66/M/2004 ,item no-41,37,34,- Note Sheet-NIL; Total Page-130 –
1- Noting sheet of the file is not available to see .It was clear that the sequence of the paper was changed and important papers were removed from the file.
2-Signature of the concern authorities hide from paper slip. So it was not clear who sign the document or the originality of the document or records. Secondly without officer’s signature the validity of the record / paper is NIL. Therefore no mean to see the record.
[3]—RAC/07/1(66)/M/2004 , item no-28,31,34,33,37,41,43,46 – Note sheet-5; Total Pages-77-
1-Original newspaper related with the adv. of the post is not available in file but downloaded available ,which is changed after the publication on the site, on item no-52 / vacancies was four but clearly increased by hand six vacancies after publication and the order for increase the vacancy is not in file and removed.
2- All members / Experts of the selection board hide from the paper slip , due to the reason originality is doubted. However my allegation in RTI is that a member of the selection board was the teacher of Ms .Swati during her Ph.D.
3-On the recommendation of the selection board for recruitment of Sc, B , Adv no-66 .The signature of the Chairman was hide from the paper slip. So there is no mean to see the paper and actuality and geniuses of the record.
[4]- Assessment sheet of the item no-34.- Note sheet- NIL, Total Pages-9 –
1- Noting sheet of the file is not available to see.
2-Signature of the concern authorities hide from paper slip. So it was not clear who sign the document or the originality of the document or records. Secondly without officer’s signature the validity of the record / paper is NIL. Therefore no mean to see the record.
You are kindly requested to pass an order to provide the files for inspection with noting sheets and without any hide from paper slip in presence of my two witness and representative.. Secondly direct them to provide the required certified photocopy of the document after deposition of the fees as per the law. or as deemed fit for compliance.
I will be highly obliged.
With High Regards,
Dated : 4-10-12
Dr. Rajiv Chauhan
1053/3, Shastri nagar,
MEERUT
09412628314; 09258045938;
E-mail: rajivchauhan89@yahoo.co.in
My RAC files inspection certificate to RAC reg. the selection of Ms. Swati Srivastava submitted before CIC/CVC and to Hon,ble Prime Miniser ..
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Appeal before the Central Information Commission;
Appeal No. ———————– Dated ————————
As I am aggrieved by decision of Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate
Authority, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
1. Details of appellant:
1.1 Full Name: – RAJIV CHAUHAN
1.2. Full Address: R/O-1053/3, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT (U.P)-250005
1.3 Phone/Cell No.: 09412628314 ; 09258045938 ; 0121-4009512;
4 Email ID: rajivchauhan89@yahoo.co.in
2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):
2.1 Name/Designation: Dr.A.K.TYAGI ; SCIENTIST “F’ , CPIO, DRDO HQ;
2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.
3. Details of First Appellate Authority [FAA]:
3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: Dr. ARUN KUMAR
3.2 Full Address of FAA: OS & DIRECTOR; DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL;
ROOM NO- 217, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105
IMPORTANT NOTE :-
The RTI information is related with the corruption of the First Appellate Authority of RTI Dr. Arun Kumar & her daughter during the selection as a scientist “B’, so that the decision on my RTI first appeal decision given by-
Dr. S. SUNDARESH, CC R&D(ACE), SI&DS; TRANSPARENCY OFFICER, DRDO,
DRDO BHAWAN , NEW DELHI-110105
4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:
4.1 To CPIO — 03 OCT 2011
4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011
5. Particulars of Decisions:
5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-
02 NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0250; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI
5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:-
11 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/113; CC R& D (ACE), SI&DS;
TRANSPARENCY OFFICER;DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI
6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-
6.1 CPIO— 07 NOV2011
6.2 FAA: — 17 JAN 2012
7. Details of information sought:-
Kindly inform to you that Ms. Swati Srivastava,D/o Dr. Arun Kumar,Director DRDO Bhawan,Rajajimarg,New Delhi was selected Scientist”B’ through RAC(Recruitment and
assessment centre of DRDO) Adv.no, item no34 without having the required qualification for the post as published in the advertisement. The required qualification for the post was M.Sc- Biotechnology, where as the qualification of Swati Srivastava is M.Sc in Environmental Biology. Her father Dr. Arun Kumar ,was the Addl.Director of the DRDO at that time. One RAC interview board external member of Ms. Swati Srivastava was her teacher. However Ms. Swati Srivastava was not completing the minimum eligibility qualification as published, then also she was selected with the criminal conspiracy of her father with board members of the RAC. Ms. Swati Srivastava, Dr. Arun Kumar and RAC board Chairman and Members did dishonesty and cheated all the participants who applied for the post and forged the official documents to select as a Scientist “B” to Ms. Swati Srivastava.
In the Director, DRDO fax message 03/8/2004 for RAC Adv.No.66,item.34, eligibility subject showing Biotechnology. RAC,DRDO document of assessment sheet dt. 26/9/2004 for adv.66 subject of Ms. Swati Srivastava forgely filled in Biotechnology list.
However , as per the DRDO letter RTI/01/2091/p/2011-12/005 dt. 6/4/11, Ms.Swati Srivastava subject is environment biology. Therfore Ms. Swati Srivastava without fulfill the eligibility qualification got the scientist “B” post in DRDO on forged documents of the RAC. (Recruitment and assessment centre of DRDO)
Secondly, In the seniority list for promotion of scientist “C” as published on july 2010 page no.45 of DRDO official document again dishonestly changed Ms. Swati Srivastava qualification belive to be a forged M.Sc-Biotechnology instead of M.Sc in Environmental Biology. I hereby enclosed all related documents for your consideration and action.
I want the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Is Ms.Swati Srivastava, Scientist “B”,DIPAS the daughter of Director DRDO, Mr.Arun Kumar ?
Yes/No
2. What was the eligibility subject of RAC Adv. No.66, item 34 ? Biotechnology/
Environmental Biology
3. What was the subject qualification of Ms. Swati Srivastava in her M.Sc ? Biotechnology/
Environmental Biology
4. Did RAC – DRDO,ADV.NO-66 Assessment sheet mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms.Swati Srivastava ?
Yes/ No
5. Did promotion list of the DRDO mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms. Swati Srivastava ?
Yes/No
I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request to you please provide me the information by the speed post.
8. Brief facts of the case:-
I submitted my RTI application before the CPIO, DRDO, New Delhi on dt.03-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office during the selection of the scientist. CPIO reply is not satisfactory and not as per the law because the RTI is related with the allegation of the corruption and not exempted under section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.
In his reply CPIO mislead to me with the reference of Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454. However in this Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454,clearly mentioned that- “37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.
The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”
I was not satisfied with the reply of CPIO,DRDO HQ, New Delhi, after that I submitted an appeal before FAA to take the information but the FAA / Transparency officer of DRDO dismissed the appeal and failed to provide the information with the ref. of second schedule of the RTI Act & section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.
9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:-
1- That the RTI application is related with the public information because 63 participant were applied for the above mentioned scientist post after the publication of the advertisement in employment news paper .
Encl- (a)- List of the 63 participant applied for the post.
(b)-Employment advertisement no-66; dt-2/4/2004
2- That this information is directly related with the corruption and misuse of the office and not come under section 24(1) of the RTI Act because the required qualification for the post was M.Sc- Biotechnology, where as the qualification of Swati Srivastava is M.Sc in Environmental Biology. Her father Dr. Arun Kumar ,was the Addl.Director of the DRDO at that time. One RAC interview board external member of Ms. Swati Srivastava was her teacher. However Ms. Swati Srivastava was not completing the minimum eligibility qualification as published, then also she was selected with the criminal conspiracy of her father with board members of the RAC. Ms. Swati Srivastava, Dr. Arun Kumar and RAC board Chairman and Members did dishonesty and cheated all the participants who applied for the post and forged the official documents to select as a Scientist “B” to Ms. Swati Srivastava.
3- That the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice.
10. Any other information in support of appeal:-
This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the selection. Secondly, In a RTI reply of the CPIO, DRDO HQ vide his letter no rti/01/2091/p/2011-12/005 dt 6/4/11 Ms Swati subject is environment biology however as per the seniority list for promotion as published on july 2010 page no.45 of DRDO official document Ms. Swati subject is M.Sc- Biotechnology.
Encl- (a)- RTI reply vide letter no-o rti/01/2091/p/2011-12/005 dt 6/4/11 Ms Swati subject is environment biology.
(2)- seniority list for promotion as published on july 2010 page no.45 of DRDO official document Ms. Swati subject is M.Sc- Biotechnology.
11. Prayer/relief sought for:-
I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Is Ms.Swati Srivastava, Scientist “B”,DIPAS the daughter of Director DRDO, Mr.Arun Kumar ?
Yes/No
2. What was the eligibility subject of RAC Adv. No.66, item 34 ? Biotechnology/
Environmental Biology
3. What was the subject qualification of Ms. Swati Srivastava in her M.Sc ? Biotechnology/
Environmental Biology
4. Did RAC – DRDO,ADV.NO-66 Assessment sheet mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms.Swati Srivastava ?
Yes/ No
5. Did promotion list of the DRDO mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms. Swati Srivastava ?
Yes/No
I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the information’s by the speed post.
(2)- I request your honor to pass an order in favor of the applicant as deemed fit as an any relief .
Personal Presence at hearing:- — YES
Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with this commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
Place: MEERUT
Date: —————-
Signature of appellant
Great Job Done ( सत्य की जीत हुई ), There may be many more if start digging. Almost five years back recruitment of direct Scientist D (publication) without having doctorate any special qualification and stream experience smell the manipulation, customization and fabrication of qualification experience and other eligibility criteria. Follow your path, now we are sure we can uncover the reality.
How many such appointments have been made by DRDO in other laboratories?
Recruitment of kith and kin without essential qualification is the operational right given to DRDO’s higher officials.
If a person get appointed as “DIRECTOR” of any lab/directorates/recruitment body, as per govt rules it becomes his personal property. So they are authorised to do such good things in the interest of the nation.
Lets see how the future of DRDO in the MODIfied regime.
Gud luk folks
GOOD WORK DONE AGAINST CORRUPTION
In the case of Ms.Dolly Bansal and Ms. Archana Mohinder, their parents were Joint Director of RAC and Director of Desidoc respectively when their illegal selections were made. Dolly Bansal was ineligible on the last date of application and she joined in February 2005 while others of her batch waited till October 2005 for the medical clearance to be completed. All due to her father’s hold/influence in the RAC where he was Jt Director. Now the present Director of DIPR is hell bent on protecting her than allowing justice to prevail.
You have seen the result, the fate of Dr Arun Kumar, Dr SM Veerbhadrpa, Dr AK Tyagi, Mrs T Chandra Banu, Ms Swati Sirvatava, now wait and see the result of Ms Dolly Bansal, Ms Geetha, Cmdr S K Patel and other lot fake degree holder of DRDO who are in same boat
Interesting Ms.Dolly Bansal’s brother Mr.Manish Bansal is in DOP at DRDO HQrs. So will justice prevail in the case of Sh. Bansal and Dolly Bansal when Mr. Manish Bansal has access to the very files at DOP?
Once they all found guilty like Ms Swati Srivastva, all the perks, salery, professional allowances and what ever amount paid to these so called scientist during their services should be recoverd with interset.
Once any of them founnd guilty, the amount paid to such so called scientists in the form of salery, perks, professional allowances, advance increments, etc. should be recovered with interest. They have played dirty game with government of India
The DRDO has become the den of corruption. In 2013, just before the result of the Technical Officers was to be declared (i.e. 31st August, 2013) Total vacancies were manipulated at the last minute and several officers were denied their dues of promotion, though their residency period for their respective category was over. A few of the deserving officers were retired in the preceding months having born a permanent financial loss in terms of pensionary benefits.