Tag Archives: 2011

Drdo

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 4

1 Comment

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

File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001190

Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan
Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012
Date of decision 09.08.2012

Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.
2. The appellant submits that there are a large number of senior scientists who have lived or are living in Government guest houses and yet claiming House Rent Allowance which is contrary to the rules. Thus, they are defrauding the Government. He provides a list of such scientists which is as follows :-

1. Dr. Prahlada, Chief Controller(R&D);
2. Sh. S. Sundaresh, Chief Controller(R&D);
3. Dr. K. Sekhar, Chief Controller(R&D);
4. Dr. r. Sreehari Rao, Chief Controller(R&D);
5. Dr. K.D. Nayak, Chief Controller(R&D);
6. Shri Ravi, Scientist ‘G’, CPIO;
7. Shri S. Sankaran, Director, ER&IPR;
8. Sh. H.V. Ssrinivasa Rao, Director, ISSA;
9. Sh. Ajay Ssingh, Chief Executive;
10. Sh. S. Shanker, Director, DCV&E;
11. Shri R.C. Katoch, Chief Tech Examiner;
12. Sh. B. Choubey, CCE and
13. Sh. Abhay Kumar, CCE.

3. He also produces a copy of the letter dated 17.8.2011 of Dr. Arun Kumar, Director of Personnel, wherein orders for recovery were made. The said letter, addressed to the Directors of all Labs/Establishments for recovery of HRA is reproduced below :-

4. “1. It has been observed that some officers posted to a Lab have stayed/are
staying in DRDO transit facilities/Guest house from the date of their reporting to that station Officers, if have stayed/staying in the DRDO transit facilities/Guest house for more than a month and have simultaneously claimed /claiming HRA for the said period of stay, is against govt. orders/regulations.

2. In view of the above, officers posted at any station who have stayed/staying in
DRDO transit facilities/Guest house for a month or more from their date of reporting and also have claimed/claiming HRA for the said period are required to refund the amount of HRA wrongly claimed forthwith by 15 Sep 2011 through MRO under intimation to the undersigned.
4. This has the approval of the competent authority.

5. The contents of this letter may please be communicated to all concerned.” He wishes to know as to why no recoveries have been effected so far.

6. To this, Shri Mishra would respond that recoveries have been made from all of the scientists.

7. In my opinion, this does not mitigate the irregularity committed in claiming HRA by the above named scientists. Even so, it is to be noted that recoveries have been made from all concerned. If so, the appellant may be informed accordingly in 03 weeks.

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

Address of parties :-

1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.

2. Shri Rajiv Chauhan,
1053/3, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut-250005.

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

4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:

4.1 To CPIO — 29 OCT 2011

4.2 To FAA: — 17 DEC 2011

5. Particulars of Decisions:

5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-

30 NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0278; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI

5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:-

20 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/121;

6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-

6.1 CPIO— 07 DEC 2011

6.2 FAA: — 27 JAN 2012
7. Details of information sought:-

Kindly inform to you that DRDO; Director of Personnel for DG(R&D) issued a recovery of HRA letter no-DOP/03/31000/M/05 DT-17 Aug.2011 that “It has been observed that some officers posted to a lab have stayed / are staying in DRDO transit facilities / Guest house from the date of their reporting to that station. Officers, if have stayed / staying in the DRDO transit facilities / Guest house for more than a month and have simultaneously claimed / claiming HRA for the said period of stay, is against govt orders / regulations.” It seems that a financial irregularity are carried out by the officers / scientist in DRDO. This is a case of the corruption so 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. 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. Pl. provide name of the officers / scientist who availed the facility of the guest house and get / benefited with HRA before issue this above noted letter of DRDO. Pl. provide name of the officers/ scientist.

2. Pl. provide name of the officers / scientist who availed the facility of the guest house and get / benefited with HRA and after issue this above noted letter of DRDO deposited / returned the HRA. Pl. provide name of the officers/ scientist.

3. After knowing this financial irregularity / cheating by the officers / scientist, has DRDO taken any action against the corrupt officers as per the law / CCS conduct rule. Pl provide authentic reply.

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.29-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office for HRA benefits in their own financial interest after corrupt practices because “ It has been observed that some officers posted to a lab have stayed / are staying in DRDO transit facilities / Guest house from the date of their reporting to that station. Officers, if have stayed / staying in the DRDO transit facilities / Guest house for more than a month and have simultaneously claimed / claiming HRA for the said period of stay, is against govt orders / regulations.” So that financial losses occurred to govt. funds by the corrupt officers / scientists. 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 FAA 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 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 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 Director of Personnel for DG(R&D) issued a recovery of HRA letter no-DOP/03/31000/M/05 DT-17 Aug.2011 . It seems that a financial irregularity are carried out by the officers / scientist in DRDO. So that financial losses occurred to govt. funds by the corrupt officers / scientists.

2- 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:-

CPIO reply against the CIC decision dt-29 Jun 2011on file no-CIC/LS/A/2011/000412 is a clear cut evidence in support of my RTI application related with corruption.(Encl)

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. Pl. provide name of the officers / scientist who availed the facility of the guest house and get / benefited with HRA before issue this above noted letter of DRDO. Pl. provide name of the officers/ scientist.

2. Pl. provide name of the officers / scientist who availed the facility of the guest house and get / benefited with HRA and after issue this above noted letter of DRDO deposited / returned the HRA. Pl. provide name of the officers/ scientist.
3. After knowing this financial irregularity / cheating by the officers / scientist, has DRDO taken any action against the corrupt officers as per the law / CCS conduct rule. Pl provide authentic reply.

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

Drdo

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 3

1 Comment

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

File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001219

Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan
Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012
Date of decision 09.08.2012

Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’

2. The appellant had filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2011 seeking information
about the purchase of certain books and other materials by the Defence Institute of Armament Technology, Pune. This information was denied to him on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organisation. During the hearing, the appellant submits that he will be satisfied if he is given inspection of the file/files relating to the order placed by Dr. A.K. Tyagi, the then Library Incharge, DIAT, Pune, for online subscription of ‘Nature Magzine’ against payment of about Rs. 25 lacs

3. The appellant also produces a copy of the letter dated 14.3.2011 of Dr. S.S.Sirurmath, University Librarian, in which he had informed the appellant that copy of order and terms and conditions of Nature Magazine(on line) were not available. He expresses surprise at this response in as much as an order of Rs. 25 lacs could not have been placed without due processing in the file.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that CPIO may give inspection of all records relating to the online subscription to the appellant or his representative in 05 weeks time.

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

Address of parties :-
1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.

2. Shri Rajiv Chauhan,
1053/3, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut-250005.

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.

IMPORTANT NOTE :-

The RTI information is related with the corruption of the CPIO of RTI Dr.A.K.TYAGI during the office-in charge ,information centre/ library & finance officer of DIAT (Defense institute of Advanced technology). So that the decision on my RTI decision given by- Deepak Mishra , Addl.Director, RTI Cell, DRDO BHAWAN , NEW DELHI-110105

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

4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:

4.1 To CPIO — 29 OCT 2011

4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011

5. Particulars of Decisions:

5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-

22nd NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0283; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI

5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:-

10 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/114; Dr.Arun Kumar,OS & DOP , FAA,DRDO HQ

6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-

6.1 CPIO— 28 NOV2011

6.2 FAA: — 17 JAN 2012

7. Details of information sought:-

Kindly inform to you that Dr.A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi. He has violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself .The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order. There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher.
In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.
He purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs

Facts : Till date nobody from DIAT has seen the Nature Journal

This journal was not useful for DIAT as the same deals with life sciences and DIAT area is ARMAMENT ENGINEERING, APPLIED MATHEMATICS, METALLURGY, COMPUTER ENGINEERING, APPLIED PHYSICS, AEROSPACE ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, EXPLOSIVES & APPLIED CHEMISTRY, ELECTRONICS
The chairman for the Nature Journal procurement was Vigilance Officer of DIAT who approved this procurement from local vendor.

In other cases the books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds

The finding of inquiry committee of DIAT (Board of Three Senior Officers)
1. Observations – To understand the existing procedure for procurement of Books by Library, it was necessary to go through basis of existing procedure, record and files to related to procurement. In absence of OI/C,IC&L very limited records made available by Library and after arrival of OI/C,IC&L access to information and records was totally denied to the Board of Officers.
2. Existing Procedure and Anomalies- the following is observed by Board of Officers.
i) OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation/negotiation followed. it is noted that as per terms and conditions no discounts have been asked.
ii) Order has been placed on single tender basis
iii) During limited observations it was seen that Books were accepted at higher prices than the order/approval price by the purchase committee.
iv) No proof of price is being put up to the purchase Committee for approval.
v) Firm Orders are being placed by OI/C,IC&L without bidding/negotiation
vi) Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not registered. As per purchase procedure orders of only up to Rs 5000/- can be placed to unregistered vendors. This rule is not followed.
vii) In our limited inquiry, we observed that large numbers of books were
accepted at much higher price. We site few example-
a) Book ordered for Rs 6029.07 was procured for price Rs 81,936.00
b) Book ordered for Rs 13,156.00 was procured for price Rs 27,362.68
c) Book ordered for Rs 40,000.00 was procured for price Rs 3,60,00.00
d) Book ordered for Rs 3,292.24 was procured for price Rs 5,233.09
viii) We did not find any justification in orders or Terms & Conditions to accept such high billing prices for payment to venors.
ix) OI/C,IC&L did not conduct independent investigation regarding over valued books supplied by the vendors for their correct price.
x) We found such number of cases where over payment was cleaned by OI/C, IC&L and Finance Officer without amendment or without bringing to notice of approving authority or VC
xi) We did not find any power vested to OI/C,IC&L, Finance Officer to clear the over payment cases.
xii) Before payment to vendors, pre-auditing is mandatory (as per purchase procedure) No such pre auditing mechanism is found resulting in escaping the over payment cases from scrutiny and corrective action. We did not find any document or authority to exempt from pre –auditing.
xiii) Functioning of Library in case Library procurement was found devoid of adequate check and balance and control mechanism. We can conclude that OI/C,IC&L and Finance Officer flouted the principle of FR-21

This is a case of the corruption so that the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before high power investigating officer / commission / higher courts in the interest of law and justice .

I want the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Is it true that Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi ?
Yes/No
2. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation / negotiation followed ? Yes/No
3. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L has been placed orders on single tender basis? Yes/No
4. Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not
registered?
Yes/ No
5. Book cost was approved by library committee in US dollor 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds ?
Yes/No
6. Order copy and term, conditions for the nature Magazine is not available. So the order place by Dr. A.K.Tyagi for Nature Magazine verbally or in written? Pl. provide suitable reply with authentic documents.

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.29-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office by Dr.A.K.Tyagi . He violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself .The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order. There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher. In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs. He purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs
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 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 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 the tenders generally published in news paper / internet for the purchasing of the books as per the DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication.

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 books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds
3- In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.
4- 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:-
1- This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the purchasing of the books / periodical publication.
2- Dr.A.K.Tyagi violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself.
3- That this action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. This committee was put up an adverse report to the authorities.
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 it true that Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi ?
Yes/No
2. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation / negotiation followed ? Yes/No
3. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L has been placed orders on single tender basis? Yes/No
4. Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not
registered?
Yes/ No
5. Book cost was approved by library committee in US dollor 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds ?
Yes/No
6. Order copy and term, conditions for the nature Magazine is not available. So the order place by Dr. A.K.Tyagi for Nature Magazine verbally or in written? Pl. provide suitable reply with authentic documents.

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

 

 

Drdo

Antrix: Ex-ISRO chief Madhavan Nair banned from future govt job

Leave a comment

Antrix: Ex-ISRO chief Madhavan Nair banned from future govt job

Anubhuti Vishnoi : New Delhi, Wed Jan 25 2012, 00:56 hrs – Indian Express

In an unprecedented disciplinary action, four of the biggest names in the space community, including former chairman of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) G Madhavan Nair, have been barred from occupying any government position — current or in future — for their role in the Antrix-Devas deal, in which a private company was accused to have been wrongfully allotted S-band frequencies for radio waves.

A Bhaskarnarayana, former scientific secretary in ISRO; K R Sridharmurthi, former managing director of Antrix which is the marketing arm of ISRO; and K N Shankara, former director in ISRO’s satellite centre, are the others who have been penalised, according to an order issued by the Department of Space on January 13, 2012.

Nair, during whose tenure the contract was signed, is the recipient of the Padma Vibhushan. He is the chairman of the board of governors of IIT Patna.

The order, a copy of which is with The Indian Express, is signed by Sandhya Venugopal Sharma, director, Department of Space. While it does not specify the allegations against these scientists, the order says that the decision comes after the government “carefully considered” the report of the high-powered review committee set up on February 10, 2011 and that of another team set up on May 31, 2011.

The order, sent to all Secretaries of the Government of India and Chief Secretaries of state governments and Union Territories, says that these “former Officers of the Department of Space shall be excluded from re-employment, committee roles or any other important role under the government”.

Further, the order states that “these former officers shall be divested of any current assignment/consultancy with the government with immediate effect”. Ministries and departments concerned have been asked to communicate necessary action taken towards the same to the Department of Space.

The deal involved a contract that Antrix Corporation — whose mandate is to market technologies developed by ISRO — had signed with Bangalore-based Devas Multimedia in 2005. The multi-million dollar deal gave Devas bulk lease — 90 per cent — of transponders on two yet-to-be-launched satellites for supporting a range of satellite-based applications for mobile devices through S-band frequencies. For this, the company was given access to 70 MHz of the 150 MHz spectrum that ISRO owns in the S-band.

The Cabinet approved the building of these two satellites — GSAT-6 for Rs 269 crore and GSAT-6A for Rs 147 crore — in 2009. The cost of the launch of satellites was to be Rs 350 crore. Interestingly, the Cabinet was not informed that these two satellites were meant to be used by Devas, a fact admitted by ISRO.

“Ideally, that should have been explicitly mentioned but it was not done,” ISRO chief K Radhakrishnan had told reporters last year when the matter had broken out.

Following allegations that the contract was awarded to the company without competitive bidding, ISRO had set up a committee to review the contract in November 2009, soon after Radhakrishnan had taken over as ISRO chairman from Madhavan Nair.

On the recommendations of that committee, the deal had been scrapped. Devas has gone to court against that decision and the matter is pending in court.

While deciding to scrap the deal, ISRO was also guided by the fact that strategic and societal needs of the S-band spectrum had changed radically from 2005 when the contract was signed, and therefore, it was not imprudent to hand over such a large band of spectrum to a private company.

Former head of NASSCOM Kiran Karnik, who had served as an independent member on Devas Board, had, however, strongly defended the contract. In a letter to the Prime Minister, he had lamented the fact that the government had not done enough either to defend the agreement or the reputation of ISRO.

“In terms of processes, as far as I know, this agreement went meticulously through every step… If cabinet approval was not sought for the deal, the question is whether it was at all required and whether past transponder deals with private parties has gone through any such specific Cabinet approvals,” Karnik had asked.

After the controversy broke out, Karnik resigned from the Devas Board. He had told The Indian Express that he did not have the time or the energy to spend on offering explanations, particularly to the media.

Reader’s Comments(2) | Post a comment

ISRO TOO !

ISRO_EMP | 25-Jan-2012

IS ISRO ANOTHER CWG AND IS THIS ADEQUATE? IS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TO BE SHIELDED IN THE NAME OF STRATEGIC DOMAINS?

Antrix: Ex ISRO chief...

K. K. Cherian | 25-Jan-2012

Sir, ISRO is one of the most prestigious organisations in the country. A chance to head such an organisation is an extraordinary achievement for any Scientist. It is shocking and Paradoxical that Mr. Madhavan Nair who was one of the most respected individuals in the country should have indulged in such a shameful and deceitful act. The action taken is probably too small a punishment for the heinous crime he has committed. One can only hope and pray that ISRO would never again face the ignominy of such individuals heading it

Drdo

Defence lab wasted money on bridge Army couldn’t use: CAG

Leave a comment

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

Defence lab wasted money on bridge Army couldn’t use: CAG

Pranav Kulkarni : Pune, Sun Dec 25 2011, 02:47 hrs

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has now targeted city-based Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) lab Research and Development Engineers (R&DE). A CAG report has revealed that the non-execution of a project to build a modular bridge by the R&DE resulted in wastage of assets created at a cost of Rs 21.46 crore as the users, in this case, the Army, found the bridge unusable. The report, however, mentions that the DRDO and the Army were aware of the project limitations but no attempt was made by either of them to resolve the matter beforehand.

The report says the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had, in October 2002, sanctioned a project to build a 46-metre single-span bridge of Military Load Class 70 (MLC 70). R&DE was supposed to complete the work by October 2006 at a cost of Rs 24.25 crore. In May 2006, it sought an extension of the Probable Date of Completion (PDC) up to October 2008. In October 2007, the R&DE, against specifications, submitted a trial report to the DRDO headquarters for a 20-metre bridge and MLC 40 standard, which was not acceptable to the Army. Also, the PDC of the project was again extended to December 2009.

During this time, the R&DE developed a 40-metre, MLC 70 bridge, which was usable after trials but was not what the users had specified (46 m). The report said in March 2010, the R&DE closed the project after having spending Rs 21.46 crore and proposed to develop a new project worth Rs 13.25 crore with original specifications, which was to be completed by July 2012.

“Thus instead of adhering to specifications, R&DE, Pune, developed a bridge which was not required by the users. The end result was — after an expenditure of Rs 17.89 crore, excluding the cost of five carrier vehicles being used in next project, the requirements of the user could not be served,” the report says.

“The details of the case, MoD’s reply and the clarification given by the users reveal that both the user and DRDO were aware that the bridge being built was 40 metres and MLC 70. Further, the DRDO had its limitations for construction of the bridge with original specifications. Though both the user and the designer were aware of the limitations of the project, neither of them took the initiative to foreclose the project,” it says.

Manish Bharadwaj, scientist and spokesperson, DRDO said, “We will have to speak to DRDO authorities before commenting.”

Drdo

Civil Suit No. 1200/2011-1. Dr. Vijay Kumar Saraswat-SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION AND DAMAGES :- Re. 1/- (RUPEE ONE ONLY)

3 Comments

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE AT PUNE 

Regular  Civil  Suit  No. 1200/2011.

Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware
Age: 55 yrs.  Occupation: Service
Residing at:   A-11, Vijayraj Sankul,
Aundh-Baner, D.P. Road,
Pune – 411 007.                                                            —       Plaintiff

 Vs.

1.      Dr. Vijay Kumar Saraswat,
Age: 62 yrs.  Occupation: Service
The Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri and
Director General, Research & Development,
DRDO, DRDO Bhavan,
New Delhi- 110105.
 
 2.      The Union of India
Represented by
The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India,
South Block,
New Delhi -110 011.                                            —       Defendants

SUIT    FOR    RECOVERY  OF   COMPENSATION   AND DAMAGES :-  Re. 1/- (RUPEE  ONE  ONLY)

The plaintiff most respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court as under:-

1.      The plaintiff was working in High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune, the unit of DRDO, under Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India.  He was working as a Technical Officer ‘B’. It is a Gazetted Group ‘A’ post. He completed 26 years’ spotlessly clean service in HEMRL, Pune. Not a single letter of instruction / warning, any memo or any show cause notice is on his entire record.

But on 24.08.2009 at 16.45 hrs, the Plaintiff was suspended by fax order, all of a sudden, without any show cause notice. The suspension order bears the signature of Dr. Arun Kumar, the Director of Personnel (DoP). The order is issued as per section 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, but Dr. Arun Kumar is not the authority who can sign the suspension order of a Gazetted Group ‘A’ Officer.  Dr. Arun Kumar, on 08.06.2010 has admitted this fact in his deposition as a Defence Witness before the Inquiry Officer.  The Plaintiff immediately lodged a protest against this unauthorized and hence illegal order. As the Defendant No.1 is the Director General of DRDO and as he is the only Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had submitted a copy of the protest to him also.

2.      Though the ultimate responsibility of the working of DRDO lies with Defendant No.1, he did not take any cognizance of the protest of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff submitted his grievance to the Defendant No.1 through his letters sent on 16.09.2009, 21.10.2009, 03.12.2009, 18.12.2009, 02.03.2010, 27.05.2010, 09.07.2010, 14.07.2010, 24.08.2010 and 01.12.2010. The Plaintiff sent him the legal notices on 14.09.2009, 02.03.2010 and 19.03.2010. But Defendant No.1 did not give any response to any of the letters or notices of the Plaintiff. He did not take any cognizance of the grievance of the Plaintiff.

3.      The Plaintiff was illegally compelled to go through the Inquiry proceedings and was penalized on 08.12.2010 under Rule 11 (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules. This penalty order was issued by one Mr. S B Yadav, the Dy. DoP who is not at all the Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff. As if this was not enough, the Plaintiff was dismissed from the service. This Dismissal Order under Rule 11 (ix) of CCS (CCA) Rules was issued by one Mr. Abhinavjeet Ojha, the Dy. DoP, who is not at all the Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff. 

As per Article 311 of the Constitution, no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

 4.      The DGR&D is the only Appointing and Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff. No officer below his rank can take any Disciplinary Action against the Plaintiff who is a Gazetted Group ‘A’ officer and a Doctorate fellow. As per Organization Chart of DRDO, DGR&D is on the top. Below him there are 11 CCR&Ds. And under one CCR&D, DoP is there. The person who has signed the dismissal order of the Plaintiff is one of the staff members of the Directorate of Personnel. There are no such posts as Associate Director, Deputy Director, Joint Director or Assistant Director in DRDO. Mr. Abhinavjeet Ojha is a self-styled and self-proclaimed Deputy Director of the Directorate of Personnel.

5.      The Plaintiff filed a Criminal complaint No. 1198/2011 in the Court of Hon’ble J.M.F.C. Court No.9, Pune against Dr. Arun Kumar, the DoP and his 5 colleagues. Hon’ble Court issued process against them all under sections 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant No.1 to immediately suspend these accused as per Rule 10 (1) (b) of CCS (CCA) Rules.

6.       Though the Defendant No.1 is the only Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff, the officers much below his rank issued suspension order and penalty orders without any authority. The Plaintiff put up his grievance to Defendant No.1 but he did not take any action against the unauthorized officers. He remained a silent spectator. Moreover, he protected his erring subordinates who, without any authority played with the service life of the Plaintiff.

7.      The Plaintiff is dismissed from the service by the unauthorized officers and the Defendant No.1, the Head of DRDO is just looking at the situation as if he is not concerned at all. His inaction has deprived the Plaintiff of his service. Plaintiff has suffered a lot due to his inaction.

8.      Revengefully and mercilessly the Plaintiff has been dismissed from the service without any monetary benefits.  Without giving a single Rupee to the Plaintiff, he has been driven out of DRDO, after 26 years’ spotlessly clean service.  The Plaintiff is running 56 years of his age and huge liabilities are ahead of him now. And at such time the Plaintiff is extinguished from the service by a blatantly unauthorized and low grade officer. The provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules regarding the suspension and the dismissal have been arrogantly flouted by the unauthorized officers who are systematically protected by Defendant No.1. This is nothing but a torture by a very responsible officer i.e. Defendant No.1. As per the Organization Chart of DRDO he is the apex authority. Being a Disciplinary Authority, he has not dared to sign the dismissal order of the Plaintiff. He remained behind the curtain. His cowardly behavior has ruined the service life of the Plaintiff. This unbecoming of a Government servant is liable for the torture of the Plaintiff. He is liable to pay the compensation to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff wants compensation for his sufferings from Defendant No.1

9.      The amount of compensation is not material at all. Liability of Defendant No.1 to pay the compensation to the Plaintiff is material. The Plaintiff wants only one Rupee as the compensation. This one Rupee will definitely soothe the injury which Defendant No.1 has inflicted on the Plaintiff by his impotent neutrality in the matter.

10.   Notice to Government: Actually this suit is not against the Government, but as the Govt. officer is involved in his personal capacity, the notice u/s 80 of Civil Procedure Code has been sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence on 27.04.2011 for information only. The Plaintiff has not received any reply to the said notice from Defendant No. 1 or 2.  Defendant No. 2 has been made formal party to this suit.

11.   Jurisdiction: As the plaintiff is residing in the city of Pune and cause of action has happened in Pune, Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try this case.

12.   Cause of Action: First arose on 24.08.2009 when the Plaintiff was suspended by the unauthorized officer in DRDO. The cause of action is continuous since then till this date as the Defendant No.1 is protecting the illegal acts of his subordinates.

13.   Court Fee:  As this suit is for recovery of compensation of Rs.1/- (Rupee One only) it has been valued for Rs.1/- and required stamp of Rs.200/- is given herewith.

14.   It is, therefore, prayed that:-

a.      The Defendant No. 1 may kindly be ordered to pay compensation and damages of Re.1/- (Rupee One only) to the Plaintiff.

b.      Permission may be granted to amend the suit, if required.

c.       Any other just and equitable orders may be passed in the interest of the justice.

Pune
Dated: 29/08/2011
Plaintiff
(Dr. R G Taware)
 
(Mr. B R Barge)
Advocate for Plaintiff           

VERIFICATION

            I, Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware, Age – 55 years, Occupation – service, R/at- A-11, Vijayraj Sankul, S.No. 244, Aundh-Baner, D P Road, Pune- 411007, do, hereby, verify the above contents from Para 1 to 14 as true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and in witness whereof I have put my signature under it at Pune on this 29th  day of  August 2011.

Plaintiff

(Dr. R G Taware)

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE AT PUNE

 

Regular  Civil  Suit No. 1200/2011.

Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware                        .            —       Plaintiff

Vs.

Dr. V K Saraswat and other 1                                    —       Defendants

List of Documents submitted by Plaintiff is as follows:-

Sr.No.

Description of Document

Date

Page No.

1.

 Legal Notice to the  Secretary, Ministry of Defence, u/s 80 of Code of Civil Procedure 27.04.2011 01 – 02

2.

 Notice to Defendant No.1 (Dr. V K Saraswat) 27.04.2011 03 – 05

3.

 Suspension Order 24.08.2009 06

4.

 Protest letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for suspension order 26.08.2009 07 – 09

5.

 Legal Notice to Defendant No.1 14.09.2009 10 – 11

6.

 Representation of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 against illegal order of suspension 16.09.2009 12 – 13

7.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for subsistence allowance 21.10.2009 14 – 15

8.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal suspension by DoP 03.12.2009 16 – 17

9.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal extension of suspension period 18.12.2009 18 – 19

10.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1  through the Director, HEMRL for inquiry and action for C-PAR for the year 2008 02.03.2010 20 – 23

11.

 Notice to Defendant No.1 02.03.2010 24 – 25

12.

 Notice to Defendant No.1 19.03.2010 26 – 27

13.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal extension of suspension period 27.05.2010 28 – 30

14.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal suspension & extension of suspension period 14.07.2010 31 – 34

15.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for anniversary of illegal suspension 24.08.2010 35 – 37

16.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal extension of suspension period 01.12.2010 38 – 39

17.

 Penalty Order under Rule 11 (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by Mr. S B Yadav, Dy. DoP 08.12.2010 40 – 41

18.

 Dismissal from service : Penalty Order under Rule 11 (ix) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by Mr. Abhinavjeet Ojha, Dy. DoP 30.12.2010 42 – 43

19.

 Protest letter against Punishment Order  dated 08.12.2010 by Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL 01.01.2011 44 – 45

20.

 Protest letter against Punishment Order  dated 30.12.2010 by Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL 10.01.2011 46 – 47

21.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal dismissal from the service 14.01.2011 48 – 50

22.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for reservation of right of appeal 14.01.2011 51 – 52

23.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for reinstatement after penalty order dt. 08.12.2010 15.01.2011 53 – 54

24.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL  regarding service benefits 07.03.2011 55 – 56

25.

 Notice to Defendant No.1 14.06.2011 57 – 58

26.

 Penalty Order by Mr. M Natarajan, DGR&D to Mr. M A Muhatte, STA’C’, HEMRL, Pune 30.06.2005 59 – 60

27.

 Penalty Order by Dr. V K Saraswat, DGR&D (Defendant No.1) to Mr. D T Bhosale, TO’A’, ARDE, Pune 17.03.2011 61

28.

 Regular Criminal Complaint by Plaintiff against Dr. Arun Kumar, DoP and his 5 colleagues in the Court of Hon’ble JMFC, PuneVerification of Complainant

Order below Exh.1 in RCC 1198/2011

Order below Exh.1 in RCC 1198/2011

 

 21.03.2011 

 

09.06.2011

07.05.2011

 

13.06.2011

 62 – 67 

 

 

68 – 71

72

 

73

 

All Xerox copies of documents are submitted by the Plaintiff.

Total No. of Documents:  28 (Twenty Eight) &

Total No. Pages                       :  73 (Seventy Three only).

 

PuneDate: 29.08.2011                                                                        Adv. For Plaintiff

(Mr. B.R. Barge)

Drdo

PIL-IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE CIVIL WRIT JURIDICTION

1 Comment

PUBLIC  INTEREST  LITIGATION  No.  142 /2011

DIST: PUNE

Ramshastri Justice Foundation, Pune
Through its Secretary
Dr. Rohidas G. Taware                                   :           Petitioner

V/s

Union of India & others                                 :           Respondents

I N D E X

SR. NO.

EXH. NO.

PARTICULARS

PAGE NOS.

1.

–

 Synopsis

A – D

2.

–

 Memo of  Writ Petition

01 – 12

3.

A

 O. M. issued by DoPT for grant of extension to Central Govt. servants beyond the age of superannuation.  Dated:  09.12.200223.02.200509.02.201116.05.2011

13 – 22

4.

B

 Attrition of scientists from the DRDO.Reply by Defence Minister in Lok Sabha.DRDO losses one scientist every second day.   During recession, fewer scientists left DRDO.Scientists Leaving DRDO- why called Attrition

Top Defence scientists Leave DRDO En Masse

23 – 30

5.

 

C

 Extension Applications alongwith Integrity Certificates issued by Dr. Arun Kumar, DoP, for   Shri. Agarwal R.C.      Dated: 18.05.2011Shri. Ikbal Singh         Dated: 18.05.2011

31 – 36

6.

D

 Frustration letters by scientists of DRDO to Shri A K Antony.Letter by K. Meera, Sc.’G’, GTRE, BangaloreLetter by S K Jindal, Sc.’G’, SPIC, New DelhiLetter by Dr. Rajesh Rampal, Sc.’G’, Jodhpur

37 – 42

7.

E

 Letters by Petitioner toMr. A K Antony,          Dated: 13.05.2011The Secretary, DoPT,   Dated: 01.06.2011The Secretary, DoPT,   Dated: 14.06.2011

43 – 50

8.

F

 Regular Criminal Complaint No. 0401198/11With Orders of JMFC, Court No.9, Pune.

51 – 61

                                                                                                   Last Page: 61

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE CIVIL WRIT JURIDICTION

 

PUBLIC  INTEREST  LITIGATION  No. 142 /2011

 

DIST: PUNE

Ramshastri Justice Foundation, Pune
Through its Secretary
Dr. Rohidas G. Taware                                   :           Petitioner

V/s

Union of India                                                :           Respondents

SYNOPSIS

 

SR. NO.

DATE/ EXHIBITS

PARTICULARS

1.

2002 – 11

Exh. –  A

 DoPT by its O.M. dated 09.12.2002 issued instructions regarding grant of extension to Central Govt. servants beyond the age of superannuation. It laid down procedure for consideration of cases for extension in scientific fields. 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. Instructions in this regard were timely issued by DoPT by its O.M. dated 23.02.2005, 09.02.2011 and 16.05.2011.

2.

2003 – 11

Exh. – B

 Defence Minister, Shri. A K Antony replied in Lok Sabha to Shri. Siddeshwara regarding attrition of scientists from DRDO. According to the Ministry, 1107 young scientists resigned from DRDO between 2003 and 2007. DRDO has miserably failed to arrest the exodus of young scientists from DRDO. 20 top scientists of DRDO quit their jobs in second half of year 2010.

3.

18.05.2011

Exh. – C

 Applications of Shri. Agarwal R C, Sc. ‘H’ and Shri. Ikbal Singh, Sc.’G’ for extensions along with Integrity Certificates issued by Dr. Arun Kumar.

4.

2011

Exh. – D

 Letters of frustrations by K. Meera, Sc.’G’ , GTRE, Bangalore, S.K. Jindal, Sc.’G’, SPIC, New Delhi and Dr. Rajesh  Rampal, Sc.’G’, D. L., Jodhpur addressed to Shri. A K Antony, found the vent for their suppressed resentment regarding malpractices in DRDO.

5.

2011

Exh. – E

 Ramshastri Justice Foundation, Pune, the Petitioner wrote to Shri. A K Antony on 13.05 2011 regarding lawlessness in the administration of DRDO. The Petitioner by its letter dated 01.06.2011 wrote to Secretary, DoPT regarding illegal extension in service and promotion of Dr. A Subhananda Rao. The Petitioner vide its letter dated 14.06.2011 wrote to Secretary, DoPT regarding growing Criminal activities of top scientists in DRDO.

6.

2011

Exh. – F

 Dr. R G Taware filed Criminal Complaint against Dr. Arun Kumar and his five sub-ordinates under sections 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Hon’ble JMFC Court No.9 issued process against all the six Accused under the same sections of I.P.C. Six top officers of the Directorate of Personnel, DRDO are the Accused before the Criminal Court of Pune.

 

POINTS TO BE URGED;

The age of retirement by superannuation of the Central Government employees is 60 years. As per the provisions in F.R. 56(d), the Estt. Division of DoPT has laid down the procedure for grant of extension to the scientists through its D.O. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO(SM-II) dated 10th July, 2000.

DRDO, by flouting the instructions of DoPT, has given unjustifiable extensions to many of its scientists. Not only the next men who have missed their promotions but several people have missed consequential promotions all along the hierarchy in DRDO.  This has caused frustration in senior scientists whose promotions have been blocked and has affected the morale of upcoming young scientists. A total of 1107 young entrants have resigned from DRDO between 2003 and 2007. In a severe blow to the already shrinking numbers of Researchers in DRDO, 20 top scientists have quit their jobs in the second half of the year 2010. All the efforts of DRDO to arrest the attrition rate, have miserably failed.

This is only because of the superannuating scientists who are clinging to their posts. The extended services of so-called distinguished scientists are required to be extinguished to arrest the exodus of dynamic young scientists from DRDO.  Some of the top scientists are enjoying extensions up to the age of 64-65 years. This is not only bad for DRDO; but it is the wastage of the national money on their salaries and other benefits. These malpractices are required to be stopped immediately in the national interest.

Hence, this Petition.

ACTS REFERRED TO & RELIED UPON:

  1. Constitution of India
  2. Fundamental Rules and Office Memoranda issued by DoPT, Union of India.
  3. CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964
  4. CCS (CCA) Rules 1965

AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO & RELIED UPON: Nil.

Mumbai                                               (Mr. B. R. Barge)
Date: 27/09/2011                    Advocate for the Petitioner
Sanad No.  MAH/1348/1992
Email: bargebhagwan@gmail.com
Cell No. 9881750682
Office: 16, Mata Chambers,
Anandnagar, Old Sangvi,
Pune – 411 027.
Phone: 020-27282647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE CIVIL WRIT JURIDICTION

PUBLIC  INTEREST  LITIGATION  No.142 /2011

DIST: PUNE

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

In the matter of extension and promotion in extension in the service of scientists in DRDO, Ministry of Defence, beyond the age of superannuation.

In the matter of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

And

In the Fundamental Rules and Office Memoranda issued by DoPT, Union of India.

And

In the matter of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964;

And

In the matter of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965;

 

Ramshastri Justice Foundation,
Email: justicefoundationpune@gmail.com
Through its Secretary,
Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware
Email: rohidas.taware@yahoo.com
Cell No. 9423015022
Regd. Office:
16, Mata Chambers, Anandnagar,
Old Sangvi, Pune – 411 027.                   
Phone No. 020-27282647                   — Petitioner

 

Vs.

  1. Union of India

Through

The Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri and
Director General, Research & Development,
DOP, DRDO, Ministry of Defence,
Govt. of India,
DRDO Bhavan,
New Delhi- 110 105.

 

  1. Union of India

Through

Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt. of India,
South Block,
New Delhi-     110 105.
 
  1. Union of India

Through

Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),
Govt. of India,
North Block,
New Delhi- 110  011.                              — Defendants

(No.1 to 3)

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

The petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits as under:

1.         The Petitioner is a NGO registered under Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is based in Pune, Maharashtra and is fighting against social evils and injustice. It has developed enormous concern over the corruption in DRDO, Ministry of Defence.

2.         The petitioner is invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India in public interest against the corrupt practices and irregularities in the working of DRDO.

3.         The cause of action for the filing of this Public Interest Litigation is the concern of the Petitioner which got accentuated over the grant of extension of service of scientists beyond the age of superannuation.

4.         The age of retirement by superannuation of the Central Government employees is 60 years. The procedure for grant of extension to the scientists is laid down in Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) D.O. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO (SM-II) dated 10th July 2000. Such extensions in service to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. As per DoPT O.M. No.26012/6/2002-Estt.(A) dated 9.12.2002, whenever any specialist is considered for grant of extension, his character roll and personal file should be carefully scrutinized. He must have a good reputation for integrity and honesty. A certificate of integrity is required to be furnished by the appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry.

5.         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.

6.   As per O.M. No. 26012/8/2011-Esst.(A) dated 16.05.2011, the criteria are laid down for considering cases of extension of service of scientists in terms of proviso to FR 56(d) and the guidelines for extension of service of eminent scientists of international stature beyond 62 years have been further reviewed as a need has been felt for a rigorous peer group screening by an inter disciplinary committee of experts.

7.         Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRCs) headed by the Secretary of the Scientific Departments are constituted by the DOP&T with the approval of Prime Minister for a term of 2 years to consider the cases of extension of service of scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years.

8.          It has now been decided with the approval of Prime Minister that the existing/reconstituted Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) shall also do the first stage screening of scientists for their extension beyond 62 years of age and thereafter the DPRCs’ recommendations will be placed before the committee under the Cabinet Secretary provided that the DPRCs have at least two outside experts apart from Secretary (Personnel & Training). The DPRCs must give detailed justification for such extension based on merits of the case; the international stature of the person recommended and shall also indicate whether this will block promotion opportunities of others in the Department. Such recommendations of the DPRCs for extension of service of scientists beyond 62 years will be sent to the Establishment Division of the DoPT for placing the cases before the committee under Cabinet Secretary. Only such cases recommended by the committee under Cabinet Secretary will be processed further for approval of Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) through the office of the Establishment Officer. Cases of extension of service of scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years recommended by DPRC will continue to be sent directly to the office of establishment officer in DOP&T as at present.

9.                        All proposals for extension of service of scientists beyond 62 years in terms of the 3rd proviso to FR 56(d) may, therefore, be processed keeping in view the above guidelines in addition to the criteria stipulated in the OM dated 09.12.2002 (Exh. – A)

10.                     But the Fundamental Rules (FR) and the timely instructions issued by DoPT through various Office Memoranda (O M) are not properly followed by DRDO. The present DGR&D,  11 CCR&Ds (Chief Controller, Research and Development), 52 Directors of various Laboratories / Organizations and hundreds of Scientists of ‘G’ and ‘H’ cadre have been given extension in their service. Most of these posts are having ‘Engineering’ as their basic qualification but they call themselves scientists and do the administrative duty. They are not performing any scientific duty. They are not at all engaged in any Research work. They are doing the administrative work only.

Engineering is not a Science. It is the application of Science. It is a Technical qualification. A scientist is basically a Researcher. But in DRDO persons having technical qualifications are recruited as scientists.

11.                  Thus, these so-called scientists who are basically engineers are performing administrative duty. And for administrative duty they are given extension in service. As if this is not enough, some of them are given promotions during the period of extension which is blatantly against the instructions of DoPT. At present more than 95% of scientists from DRDO are basically engineers. They don’t have any basic Science background. There is no research orientation. They are not doing any Scientific /Research work. Still, they get extension in service which is to be given exclusively to the scientists for completing the Research work in hand and such extensions are maximum for 2 years after superannuation.

12.   But, the present picture in DRDO is horrifying.

a.      Dr. A Sivathanu Pillai, CCR&D, born on 15th July 1947 has completed 64 years of his age. He is basically an Electrical Engineer and performing his Administrative duty as CCR&D since 13th Sep. 1999. For about 11 years he is enjoying the same post by blocking the promotions of many others in hierarchy.

b.      Dr. Prahlada, CCR&D, born on 5th Feb. 1947 is basically a Mechanical Engineer. He was given extension in service for doing his administrative duty as CCR&D. Up to his age 64 he enjoyed the extension. Now he is appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (DIAT), Pune which is a Deemed University.

c.       Dr. Vasudeva SK, CCR&D, born on 26th Jan. 1947, took over the charge of his post on 1st July 2001. For more than 10 years he is on the same post. Though he has completed 64 years and 8 months of his age and is still enjoying the extensions. His services are extended for 5 years after superannuation just to look after the administrative post. His extension in service is not at all justifiable. This is definitely going to block the promotion opportunities of others in DRDO.

d.      Dr. Arun Kumar, the DoP, born on 4th Nov. 1950 has been given extension for looking after the Personnel matters. Director of Personnel is not a scientific post. He is not doing any Research work. He is doing only the Administrative work of Personnel. Still, he has been given extension.

He has committed offence under sections 167, 170 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.   He is an Accused in Criminal Complaint No. 1198/2011 in the Court of Hon’ble J.M.F.C., Court No.9, Pune (Exh. – F). The Sessions Court of Pune has confirmed the Criminal process issued against him. During the pendency of Criminal Complaint against him, his service was extended after superannuation. Actually, his service was required to be suspended as per Rule 10 (1) (b) of CCS (CCA) Rules.

To crown it all, he has issued ‘Integrity Certificates’ to Mr. Agarwal R C, Mr. Ikbal Singh and many others for their extensions in service after their superannuation and has forwarded their applications to DoPT (Exh. – C). Actually, as per DoPT instructions a Certificate of Integrity is to be issued by the appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry.

A person who is undergoing a Criminal trial cannot be the appropriate authority. He has skillfully extended his own service and is extending services of others by issuing Integrity Certificates. The DGR&D is quite aware of this. The indifferent behavior of present DGR&D and his attitude of neutrality have generated many such odd and illegal things in DRDO. He is wholly responsible for this lawless situation in DRDO.

e.       Dr. A Subhananda Rao, Director, HEMRL, Pune and Director, GTRE, Bangalore, born on 1st June 1950 has been given extension after superannuation. During this extension he is promoted to CCR&D.

He has committed offence under section 500 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. He is an Accused in Criminal Complaint STC No. 0437286/2009 in the Court of Hon’ble J.M.F.C., Pune. As per Rule 10 (1) (b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, he was required to be suspended immediately in August 2009 (Exh. – E). In spite of his Criminal status, the DGR&D has maintained him as Director, HEMRL, Pune. Recently, he has been given the additional charge of Director, GTRE, Bangalore. This additional charge of GTRE and promotion of CCR&D are given to the Accused person after his superannuation. Thus, one person is enjoying three posts at a time as if there are no other eligible candidates in the hierarchy of DRDO.  It is obvious that three deserving candidates have been discouraged and kept away from their promotions.

13.   The above five examples (a to e)   is the sample survey of the whole system of DRDO. It is just the tip of an iceberg. It is prevailing since long. It is not that the other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the job. It is not at all that they don’t have any other alternatives. In addition to the Fundamental Rules (FR), the DoPT has issued the timely Office Memoranda, but it lacks effective supervisory power as well as the willpower. Under the favour of DoPT, the DRDO is proceeding fast towards rampant extensions and promotions in extensions.  The top officers in DRDO are not ready to go home even after retirement. Like leeches they are clinging to the DRDO. Their extensions after superannuation are absolutely unjustifiable but nobody bothers about the side-effects and after effects of such illegal extensions. Unjustifiably extended scientists are the clots in the blood stream of DRDO. They are required to be removed instantly or else, one day, they will paralyze the whole system of DRDO. The DoPT very aptly formulates the provisions and makes rules in this regard but skillfully ignores the application of the same. Under the favour of DoPT, the top scientists of DRDO are enjoying extensions blatantly against the public interest and national interest.

14.   Such unjustifiable extensions after superannuation have resulted in discouraging the young scientists joining the DRDO. In the year 2006, about 322 junior scientists resigned from the DRDO and in 2007 the figure was 273. However, in 2008 the number came down to 150 and in 2009 only 61 scientists have put in their papers. According to the Defence Ministry a total of 1107 scientists, mostly young entrants have resigned from the DRDO between 2003 and 2007, implying that on an average one person leaves every two days. The attrition rate in DRDO, which has 7000 scientists, has been about 6.3 percent. And what was making the situation worse was that the organization was able to fill up only 60 -70 percent of its vacancies (Exh. – B).

In a severe blow to the already shrinking number of Researchers in Defence Laboratories across the Nation, 20 top scientists of the DRDO have quit their jobs in second half of year 2010.

15.   The rampant extensions in service after superannuation have discouraged the new generation of scientists as well as the old one. The old generation is fed up as their promotion opportunities have been blocked. K Meera, Sc. ’G’, GTRE, Bangalore, S.K. Jindal, Sc. ’G’, SPIC, New Delhi and Dr. Rajesh Rampal, Sc. ’G’, Defence Lab., Jodhpur have bitterly reacted and conveyed their strong protest to Mr. A K Antony (Exh. – D). 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 have caused frustration and affected the morale of the upcoming scientists who have exposure to latest technological developments in connecting fields. Extension in service to the superannuating scientists must be resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. Such extensions must be in the public interest. Then only the health and the esteem of DRDO will be maintained.

16.   The Petitioner has not filed any other Petition in respect of the subject matter of this Petition in any other Court in India.

17.   It is therefore prayed that:-

For the specific reasons cited in the foregoing, the Petitioner prays for the issuance of appropriate Writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as under:

a.      The Respondents be directed to review and confirm the justifiability of all the extensions and the promotions in extensions in service in DRDO scientists beyond their age of superannuation.

b.      The Respondents be directed to cancel all the unjustifiable extensions and promotions in extensions in service of DRDO scientists beyond their age of superannuation.

c.       Any other suitable relief to which the Petitioner is deemed entitled to, be kindly granted in favour of the Petitioner.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

 

Mumbai                                                     (Mr. B R Barge)
Date: 27/09/2011                               Advocate for Petitioner

VERIFICATION

I, Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware, Age: 55 yrs., Secretary,     Ramshastri Justice Foundation, Regd. Office: 16, Mata Chambers, Anandnagar, Old Sangvi, Pune – 411 027, the Petitioner, do, hereby, verify that the contents of the Petition from Para No. 1 to 17 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I have not suppressed any material fact.

 

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai            )                         (Dr. R G Taware)
Dated     27th day of Sep. 2011           )                                   Petitioner

Identified by me,

Mr. B R Barge
Advocate for Petitioner