Tag Archives: 2014

Drdo

Pranab Mukherjee, Narendra Modi ask people to use technology to fight corruption

Leave a comment

Press Trust of India | New Delhi October 27, 2014

President Pranab Mukherjee and Prime Minister Narendra Modi today called for making optimum use of modern technology in tackling corruption.

In his message on the beginning of ‘Vigilance week‘ starting today, the President said “use of modern technologies can play an important role in eliminating human interface in service delivery systems.”

Emphasising that it is a collective responsibility of citizen as well government officials to fight corruption, Mukherjee said corruption is a complex problem that needed multi-faceted action.

“One of them is the use of technology that can help promote openness and transparency,” he said and asked people to adopt technology initiatives in combating corruption to maximise benefits.

The Prime Minister stressed on the integrity of public servants. “It is needless to point out that integrity of public servants and transparency in public offices is utmost necessary in making transparent and efficient administration free of corruption,” Modi said.

“I appreciate the CVC’s outreach initiatives and endeavours to combat corruption with optimum use of technology,” he said.

Vice President Hamid Ansari said in his message that eradication of corruption from society is not only a legal obligation but also a moral duty of every Indian.

The vigilance awareness Week will be observed till November 1. The theme of the week is “Combating Corruption – Technology as an enabler“.

Drdo

Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik Sc. `H’ Director, DRDE’s extension desire

31 Comments
 
माननीय श्रीनरेंद्र मोदी जी                                                                  दिनाक 28 अक्टूबर  2014
प्रधानमंत्री
कक्षसंख्या  152 पीएमओ
साउथ ब्लाक  नईदिल्ली -110011

 

विषय : 60 साल उपरांत सेवा विस्तार के नियम का विभिन्न संस्थानों द्वारा अयोग्य, अक्षम व्यक्तियों की संस्तुति कर दुरूपयोग करने के सन्दर्भ में

माननीय श्री प्रधानमंत्री जी  आपने  इस महत्वपूर्ण विषय में ध्यान देकर इस दुरूपयोग रोकने के लिए आदेश भी दिए परन्तु यह बड़े खेद का विषय है कि कार्मिक विभाग आपके आदेशो को समुचित प्रभाव  से  कार्यान्वित करने में ढीलम ढाल कर रहे।

डीआरडीओ के श्री अविनाश चन्दर, वैज्ञानिक सलाहकार द्वारा अयोग्य, अक्षम व्यक्तियों की संस्तुति करना लगातार जारी है।  डी आर डी ई, ग्वालियर के निदेशक महोदय प्रोफ डा एम पी कौशिक जोकि इस 31 अक्टूबर 2014 को रिटायर हो रहे हैं वह अभी दिल्ली में श्री अविनाश चन्दर के चरण वंदना में लगे है कि किसी भी तरह उनको सेवा विस्तार दिला दे या फिर कोई चेयर, फेलोशिप, कॉन्ट्रैक्ट या कुछ भी दिला दो।

बदले में वो क्या कर सकते है उसकी एक झलक देखिये, एन बी सी वारफेयर के हेड होने के नाते  डा एम पी कौशिक ने एक विदेशी  यंत्र  (ICAD Chempro100i Make: Environics) जोकि विषाक्त केमिकलो का तुरंत  प्रभाव से पता लगा लेता था का आयात करा और उसकी गुणवत्ता को देख कर सेना ने  999 संख्या में 100 करोड़ रुपये की  इस यंत्र की खरीद जोकि  सामान्य  से दुगनी से ज्यादा कीमत थी।  यंत्र की सेना में विदेश से आप्पूर्ति  के बाद पता चला है की यह यंत्र हमारे देश की क्लाइमेट कंडीशन के लिए उपयुक्त नहीं है और काम नहीं कर रहा।

इस यंत्र की बड़ी इतनी संख्या में बड़ी हुई कीमतों में खरीददारी से किसको फायदा मिला और कहां कहां तक बटा यह तो सिर्फ डा एम पी कौशिक ही बता सकते है।

ऐसे लोगो की सेवा विस्तार के लिए संतुस्ती आना ही एक गंभीर बात है।  इस से संस्तुति करने वालो की मंशा व् नियत पर भी सवाल उठता है।

आपकी निरक्षण व् कार्यवाही के लिए कुछ तथ्य सलग्न है।

आशा है की इन तथ्यों की सपूर्ण जाँच करवा कर देश के बहुमूल्य पैसो का दोहन करने वालो के खिलाफ उचित कार्यवाही का जल्द से जल्द जाँच का आदेश देंगे।

 

धन्यवाद
 
प्रभुडंडरियाल
21-सुंदरवाला, रायपुर, देहरादून
फ़ोन  0135- 2787750, मोबाइल – 9411114879,
e-मेल  id prabhudoon@gmail.com  वेबसाइट  www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

Enclosed details: Purchase background of ICAD Chempro 100i,, Make: Environics

Budgetary Price approximately $9,500 

Purchase Price – Rs 100000/- each in bulk purchase                                                (more than $ 16000/each)

Army has purchased instrument ICAD Chempro 100i (Qty: 999 No’s, Make: Environics) against contract nos B/28704/NBC-4C/ICAD/GS/WE-6 Dated 23 Jun 2009 and B/28704/NBC-4C/Option/ICAD/GS/WE-6 dated 26 Mar 2010 for approximately 100 Crore (INR). This instrument detects the chemical warfare agents and is of utmost importance for the defence services. Having cleared the payment after the delivery, it was found that all these instruments failed to perform as per the specification and have technical problems. It is evident from the letter enclosed that performance related issues were raised in Nov 2012 and since then no action has been taken. Few officials are trying to cover up the issue by changing the specification instead of taking 100 Crore back.

As per the information gathered from the sources, these instruments were first purchased by   M P Kaushik from DRDE Gwalior (A DRDO Laboratory and Nodal Agency in Chemical Warfare). Satisfactory working certificate were given to the company and payment was cleared. Later Army gave the contract. It seems that with the help of M P Kaushik few official of army has executed this act.

Environics's reply regarding non function of Chempro100i
Environics’s reply regarding non function of Chempro100i

 

Environics's reply regarding non function of Chempro 100i
Environics’s reply regarding non function of Chempro 100i

chempPro 100 hand held chemical detector

Chemical Warfare Agents result from Chem Pro 110
Technology Evaluation Report Environics USA Inc. ChemPro 100 Hand-Held Chemical Detector By- Tricia Derringer, Thomas Kelly, Dale Folsom, Robert Krile, and Zachary Willenberg, Battelle, 505 King Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201  and Eric Koglin Task Order Project Officer National Homeland Security Research Center Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 944 East Harmon Ave. Las Vegas, NV 89119

mp

 

Drdo

RTI- PMO – Service Extensions

Leave a comment
To                                                                      Date – 27th October 2014
Shri Syed Ekram Rizwi,
Director & Central Public Information Officer,
Prime Minister’s Office,
South Block,
New Delhi – 110011

 

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of OFFICE MEMORANDUM  F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014 Sub: Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.  In Para 1 – The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.

  1. Please provide the copy of order issued by PMO for cases of services extensions which found without obtaining approval of ACC.
  2. Please provide the names of individuals with name of respective department who were given extensions without obtaining approval of ACC.
  3. Please provide  the names of  individuals who were retired from service as per Para- 4 of above referred OM – that in absence of specific approval of ACC towards extension of his services beyond the date of superannuation, an officer should stand retired on his date of superannuation.
  4. As per Para- 1 of above referred OM  – (The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.) As per above statement it is  understood that ACC found such cases where individuals were given service extension without getting first obtaining approval of the ACC. Provide the action taken by PMO on these illegal service extensions till date.

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed – OFFICE MEMORANDUM  F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014

Registration Number            PMOIN/R/2014/61451

OFFICE MEMORANDUM  F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014

F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
(Office of the Establishment Officer)
 
North Block, New Delhi
24th September, 2014

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Sub: Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation

Attention of all the Ministries/Departments is invited to the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules which prescribe that the ACC is the competent authority to decide the cases of extension in service beyond the age of superannuation. Attention is also invited to DoPT’s OM. No. 26012/6/2002-Estt, (A) dated 09.12.2002 on the subject mentioned above laying down instructions/criteria for grant of extension in service to the categories of personnel referred in proviso to F.R. 56(d). The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.

2. It has also been observed that Ministries/Departments often submit proposals late to the EO Division as a result of which submission of cases for consideration of the ACC also gets delayed.

3. In view of the above, all the Scientific Ministries/Departments are hereby advised to take timely action for constitution of the DPRC for considering the cases for extension of service of specialists in medical or scientific fields, beyond the normal date of superannuation and ensure that proposals seeking approval of the ACC be invariably submitted at least two months in advance of the date of superannuation.

4. It is also reiterated that in absence of specific approval of ACC towards extension of his services beyond the date of superannuation, an officer should stand retired on his date of superannuation and under no circumstances should the Ministry/Department concerned extend his services beyond superannuation unilaterally without the approval & ACC.

sd/-

(Anand Madhukar)

Director (ACC)

 

Drdo

Narendra Modi government takes RTI to another level: All replies to be put online

7 Comments

Aman Sharma, ET Bureau Oct 22, 2014, 02.20AM IST

(The Department of Personnel…)
NEW DELHI: It had been expected to dilute the UPA government’s showpiece Right to Information (RTI) Act that had become a scourge of sorts for its ministers and bureaucrats and was even blamed by some as a contributing factor for the policy paralysis during its reign. But the Narendra Modi-led BJP government has done the reverse and taken RTI to quite another level.

Starting next month, all replies given under RTI by ministries will be posted online, available for access to all and not just to persons seeking the information. This will mean unprecedented scale of disclosure and cheer transparency advocates, especially those in the NGO sector with whom this government has had a testy relationship. Until now, only the person filing the RTI application seeking replies from a ministry or a government department would get the reply and that too mostly via post.

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on Tuesday issued an official memorandum to all central ministries and departments directing them to take “immediate action” to ensure that “the facility to upload the reply to RTI application and first appeal on the website of the respective ministry or department” may be started from October 31. Replies to queries will be put up on ministries’ website and be available for all to view and not just the person behind the query.

The move has won the government plaudits. Satyanand Mishra, former Chief Information Commissioner, told ET that the step takes transparency under the RTI Act to “just another level.” “It is a very good and welcome step. It will not only improve transparency but also reduce workload of government officials as it will help eliminating possibility of repeated RTI queries on the same issue,” Mishra said.

“As far as person whose RTI reply is put online, someone seeking transparency in form of a RTI plea should not have any problem is government shows the same transparency and makes the reply to him public,” he added. Incidentally, the UPA government too had tried to do a similar thing and even passed instructions to this effect in April last year, but its move could never be implemented.

A DoPT official told ET that the Modi government was now implementing what could not be done by its predecessor, noting that the RTI Act had a specific provision for suo-moto disclosure of information. “Any person can now check a website to see what information has already been asked for and provided under RTI and hence the Ministry will be relieved of answering the same queries again and again. It will also bring transparency,” a senior DoPT official said, requesting anonymity.

The DoPT note to ministries, while exhorting disclosure, also warns them to exercise caution while dealing with information that could affect privacy of individuals.

“It may be noted that RTI applications and appeals received and their responses relating to personal information of an individual may not be disclosed, if they do not serve any public interest,” the note said.

On its part, the DoPT has already added, on a pilot basis, a new feature on its website that gives an option to all Central Public Information Officers to upload replies to RTI on its site. The PMO recently led by example by disclosing the details on number of staff, PM’s staff and also the assets of all central ministers.

The UPA birthed the RTI with great pride in 2005, but found itself bruised periodically by the transparency revolution it had unleashed. Some political storms triggered by the RTI during the UPA era include letters between Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi on RTI amendments; in the telecom scam, the communication between Singh and the then-telecom minister A Raja; the exchange between the PM and the CJI on the declaration of assets by judges and letters from three sports ministers that flagged off the c o r r uption in the 2010 Commonwealth Games spending.

Drdo

DRDO giving false information to Rashtrapati Sachivalaya (President Secretariat) regarding Transfer and victimization of whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta of DMSRDE, Kanpur

2 Comments
To
Hon’ble
Shri Pranab Mukherjee
President of India,
Rashtrapati Bhavan
New Delhi – 110011

Subject: DRDO giving false information to Rashtrapati Sachivalaya (President Secretariat) regarding Transfer and victimization of whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta of DMSRDE, Kanpur

Reference:DOP/05/53123/DMSRDE/M/02 dated 22 Sept 2014 of DOP, DRDO

Hon’ble Sir,

Top management of DRDO is infamous for ill-treat to whistle blowers and officials that belonging to SC/ST and minority community in DRDO. The increasing number court cases, representations to President House, SC/ST commission and minority commission are self explanatory of failure of DRDO HR management

Currently Honorable Madras High Court punishedtwo top DRDO scientists with simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/each. It clearly shows the DRDO losing day by day its credibility and responsibility towards national goals scientifically & administratively as well as welfare of employees and officers working in the organisation. Sir, you can assume the worst situation of DRDO that the top senior officer Dr. G. Malkondiah who was convicted by Hon’ble Madras High Court is Head of HR Department of DRDO.

With reference to the above cited letter , Shri Navin Prakash Gupta, scientist ‘C’ raised his voice against corruption and send lot of complaints to various agencies including Hon’ble Defence Minister with proof.

The representation send to you by whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta on 24 July 2014 ,  which subsequently your good office send to DRDO for their comments and with above reference  DRDO send a reply to ShriNavin Prakash Gupta mentioning in

Para -2 “ Competent authority has approved your transfer from DMSRDE, Kanpur to DRL, Tezpur in public interest keeping in the view the exigencies of work. It is neither is punishment nor an act of victimize as you alleged.”

Shri Avinash Chander constituted a fact finding committee and subsequentlytransfer whistle blower ShriNavin Prakash Gupta to DRL, Tezpur without justifying the issue in public interest. The only aim was to save corrupt scientist and message to others beware don’t make noise against his loyal corrupt officials. It is nothing but abuse of power by Shri Avinash Chander, DG, DRDO, who is working in illegal second extension in service after retirement.

Shri Avinash Chander again constituted second fact finding committee to enquire further the corruption charges against Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

Question is why Shri Avinash Chander constituted two fact finding committees, if there was no corruption evidences on record. As DRDO wrote in above reference letter that allegation are baseless. In case the allegations were baseless then why not DRDO disclosed the first FFIC report to whistle blower and sought explanation from him for false complaint to Defence Minister.

THE WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT, 2011, NO. 17 OF 2014 of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 9th May, 2014, and is hereby published for general information on Monday, May 12, 2014.

Under the provisions of sad Act complainant means

(c) “complainant” means any person who makes a complaint relating to disclosure under this Act;

(d) “disclosure means a complaint relating to,—

(i) an attempt to commit or commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;

(ii) wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion by virtue of which demonstrable loss is caused to the Government or demonstrable wrongful gain accrues to the public servant or to any third party;

(iii) attempt to commit or commission of a criminal offence by a public servant, made in writing or by electronic mail or electronic mail message, against the public servant and includes public interest disclosure referred to in sub-section (2) of section 4;

Under the provisions of the CHAPTER V- Safeguards against victimisation the Act provide the protection to whistle blowers

PROTECTION TO THE PERSONS MAKING DISCLOSURE

11. (1) The Central Government shall ensure that no person or a public servant who has made a disclosure under this Act is victimised by initiation of any proceedings or otherwise merely on the ground that such person or a public servant had made a disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry under this Act.

(2) If any person is being victimised or likely to be victimised on the ground that he had filed a complaint or made disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry under this Act, he may file an application before the Competent Authority seeking redress in the matter, and such authority shall take such action, as deemed fit and may give suitable directions to the concerned public servant or the public authority, as the case may be, to protect such person from being victimised or avoid his victimisation:

(3) Every direction given under sub-section (2) by the Competent Authority shall be binding upon the public servant or the public authority against whom the allegation of victimisation has been proved.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the power to give directions under sub-section (2), in relation to a public servant, shall include the power to direct the restoration of the public servant making the disclosure, to the status quo ante.

(5) Any person who wilfully does not comply with the direction of the Competent Authority under sub-section (2), shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to thirty thousand rupees.

The fact is as vigilant citizen of India I have sent more than one dozen corruption cases with complete proof to CVC and CVC duly register the case and send to CVO, MOD for further investigations against Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

Question No 1–

The meaning of the exigencies:The state or quality of requiring much effort or immediate action,  A pressing or urgent situation, Urgent requirements; pressing needs – This all are bogus the DRL, a life science deserted lab, the Director sitting there also very corrupt, lot of complaints also pending against him. This is only example of abuse of power by Shri Avinash Chander to protect his corrupt colleague. The DRL lab , Tezpur is working in life sciences and where the exigencies of work,

Question No 2-

In DRDO there are more than 7500 scientist are available to Shri Avinash Chander and out of these computer science experts scientist, the 425 scientists are senior to Shri Navin Prakash Gupta and 447 are junior to him, strangely Shri Avinash Chander picked only the whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta for said exigencies of work   at DRL, Tezpur.

Question No 3 –

The transfer order was as punishment based on allegation & charges and not in any public interest which is quite evident from letter No. DOP/DS/08/01 dated 28th May 2014 issued and signed by Dr. A.K. Singh, DOP.

Therefore, it is requested that please protect whistle blower Shri Navin Prakash Gupta, Scientist ‘C’ from the clutches of corrupt scientists of DRDO and kindly issue orders to Hon’ble Defence Minister to provide immediate protection and relief to whistle blower scientist by cancellation of his transfer order.

The responsibility for execution of Act passed by Parliament after due sanction by Hon’ble President of India is on concerned ministries and ministers. As per this new Act, every ministry should have competent authority to address the matters of victimization of whistle blowers but the requests from whistle blower and his family are being ill-treated by Government officials, ignoring the provisions of whistle blower protection Act 2011.

DRDO is wasting lakhs and lakhs rupees every year in hundreds of court cases running across the country in various courts because of ego satisfaction of top DRDO brass, as well as because of poor HR management victimization of middle class Government servants.

Sir, kindly save this premier organization from the corruption, nepotism and favoritism and give the justice to honest whistle blower scientists and officials of DRDO who are devoted for the Nation.

Regards

PrabhuDandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com www.corruptionindrdo.com

Drdo

RTI – Madras High court directed the Government to take appropriate departmental action against Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO

1 Comment
To                                                                                                                 6th October 2014
Sh A. M. Manichan,
Under Secretary (IC-IV), CPIO,
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence,
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi – 110011

 

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO   held guilty for civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and   punished with Simple Imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ by Honorable Madras High Court on 24.09.2014. Further court directed the Government to take appropriate departmental action against them for the reckless negligence and willful disobedience of the orders of this Court.Madras High Court Contempt Petition No. 1711/2012 arising out of Writ Petition No. 13067/2005

  1. Provide under which CCS Rules the departmental action taken by Ministry of Defence as directed by Honorable Madras High Court on 24.09.2014 against Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO.
  2. Provide the policy and guideline of Ministry of Defence to take actions/ implement on various court orders.
  3. Provide if any time limits to implement court directions in Ministry of Defence.
  4. Provide the file No of case initiate by Ministry of Defence as directed by Honorable Madras High Court on 24.09.2014 against Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com www.corruptionindrdo

Registration Number      MODEF/R/2014/61834

Drdo

Request to PM for DEEMED SUSPENSION OF DR. G. MALKONDIAH, DS AND CCR&D (HR), DRDO AS under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965

4 Comments
To                                                                                                                         6th October 2014
Hon’ble
Shri Narendra Modi,
Prime Minister of India,
Room N0 -152, PMO, South Block,
New Delhi-110011

 

SUBJECT:  DEEMED SUSPENSION OF DR. G. MALKONDIAH, DS AND CCR&D (HR), DRDO AS under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965

Hon’ble Sir,

Hon’ble Madras High Court Judgment dated 24 Sept 2014 in Contempt Petition No.1711 of 2012 inW.P.No.13067 of 2005 and Sub Appln.No.602 of 2012 in which Dr. G Malkondiah, Distinguished Scientist and Chief Controller Research & Development (HR & TM) was one of the respondents. By the order dated 24 Sept 2014, Hon’ble Court pronounced following order:

Para 40 of judgement – Therefore, we propose to impose punishment of sentence of imprisonment onthe respondents 2 and 3 for their wilful disobedience of this Court’s order. In the facts of this case, we feel that merely imposing fine on the second and third respondents would be inadequate and ends of justice would be served, only if they are awarded imprisonment and fine.

Para 41 of judgement – In the result, respondents 2 and 3 are held guilty for civil contemptunder Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and they are punished with Simple Imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- each personally. The Government is directed to take appropriate departmental action against them for the reckless negligence and wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, which lead to insurmountable sufferingsfor the petitioner for more than a decade.

Para 42 of judgement –  The contemnors are directed to surrender for undergoing the punishment of imprisonment within one week from today, failing which the Registry is directed to issue warrant of commitment to prison for undergoing the sentence imposed upon them.

Para 43 of judgement- By this order, the issue has not come to an end and the liability ofthe petitioners/contemnors in W.P.No.13067 of 2005 to comply with the orderdated 30.04.2009, does not abate. Therefore, they are directed to comply with the order forthwith.

  1. Dr. G. Malkondiah has been punished with simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Therefore Dr. G. Malkondiah, CCR&D (HR&TM) has been convicted by Hon’ble Madras High Court for civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
  1. Hon’ble Madras High Court stated in their order “A sleeping man can be woken, but not a man who pretends to sleep. Here the Contemnors belong to the latter category and they can never be woken up unless orders in this Contempt Application are passed. Therefore, we hold that the second and thirds respondents have wilfully committed contempt of the order of this Court dated 30.04.2009 in W.P.No.13067 of 2005 as affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court”.
  1. Provisions of Rule 10.(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 reproduced here for ready reference:

(2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority –

(a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours;

(b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.

  1. Provisions of Rule 10(5)(a) CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 reproduced here for ready reference:

(5)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shallcontinue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authoritycompetent to do so.

  1. Therefore, under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) , Dr. G. Malkondiah is now under deemed suspension wef 24.09.2014 and his deemed suspension shall remain continued  until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.
  1. The formal orders of deemed suspension has not been issued till date by the authority competent to do so in MOD and he is continue as CCR&D(HR&TM).
  1. Vide [G.I. , MHA, Letter  No. 39/72/51-Ests., dated the 23rd October 1951] and [G.I. , MHA, O.M. No. 25/70/49-Ests., dated the 26th December, 1949], conviction of Government servants to be promptly communicated to administrative authorities. Whether Dr. G Malkondiah has informed to authority competent so about his conviction or not, is matter of investigation by the competent authority, if not then it will be regarded as suppression of material information and will render him liable to disciplinary action on this ground alone.
  1. Under the provisions of Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, the authority competent to do so in case of Dr. G. Malkondiah, should take necessary action as per rules.
  1. Dr. G. Malkondiah challenged the said order dated 24.09.2014 of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court vide civil appeal D No. 31977/2014 dated 25 Sept 2014.
  2. The hearing of the civil appeal D No. 31977/2014 along with civil appeal D No. 31978/2014 took place at Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.09.2014 and Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the order dated 24.09.2014 of Hon’ble Madras High Court in contempt petition no. 1711/2012.
  3. Dr. G. Malkondiah knowingly victimizing & mentally torturing the employee of minority community since past ten years by misusing his official position and deliberately disobeying the Court orders. Hon’ble Madras High Court makes comment on his act as “wilful disobedience of Court orders “. This act of Dr. G. Malkondiah is of moral turpitude and should not be ignored by authority competent to do so.
  4. Dr. G. Malkondiah, Distinguished Scientist, took over as Chief Controller R&D (HR) at DRDO HQ on January 01, 2013. As matter of fact Directorate of Personnel (DOP) report to CCR&D (HR) and all legal matters of DRDO be taken care by DOP under CCR&D (HR). Thereby Dr. G. Malkondiah misused his official position to satisfy his ego by contemning the Hon’ble Court order and on the other hand victimizing the man of minority community who was unemployed since the year 2004. Thereby Dr. G. Malkondiah wasted lakhs of rupees from public fund in fighting the cases from Hon’ble Tribunal to Hon’ble Supreme Court since 2004 to 2014.

Therefore, in light of the facts stated above suitable disciplinary action may kindly be initiated by Government against Dr. G. Malkondiah, CCR&D(HR&TM), DRDO and he should be placed under deemed suspension by written order by the competent authority so that  justice and rule of law could be establish in DRDO.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com, website www.corruptionindrdo.comDr.Malakondiah

Annexures:

  1. GOI OM 23 October 1951 under Rule 19 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965
  2. SC order dated 25.09.2014
  3. SC order dated 26.09.2014cca rulesITEM NO.56                              COURT NO.4               SECTION XII

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Civil Appeal Diary No(s).                 31977/2014

     G MALAKONDIAH                                                                Appellant(s)

    VERSUS

      S. JOSEPH RAJ AND ORS                                              

    Respondent(s)

    (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and permission to file appeal. And office report)

    WITH C.A. D 31978/2014

    (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and appln.(s) for permission to file appeal. and Office Report)

    Date : 26/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

    CORAM :

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT

     

    For Appellant(s)                  Mr.   Mukul Rohtagi, AG

                                        Mr.   R. Bala, Adv.

                                        Mr.   R.K. Verma, Adv.

                                        Mr.   B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.

      For Respondent(s)                 Mr. V. Balaji,Adv.

                                        Mr. Asai Thambi, Adv.

                                        Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv.

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

    O R D E R

    Permission to file appeal is granted.Perused the photocopy of the certified copy of the order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Signature Not Verified Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711 of 2012.

    Digitally signed by

    Rajni Mukhi

    Date: 2014.09.29

    12:12:10 IST

    Reason: Petitioner is allowed two weeks’ time to file affidavit enclosing the copy of the said order.

    Notice be issued on respondents returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

    Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1.   He may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder   Affidavit, if any, be filed   within a week thereafter.

    In the meantime, the order dated 24 th September, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711/2012 arising out of Writ Petition No. 13067/2005 and sub Application No. 602 of 2012 shall remain stayed.

    (Rajni Mukhi)                                    (H.S. Parasher)

    Sr. P.A.                                                       Court Master

Drdo

An old age problem -DRDO has become ageing body with top scientists on extension

7 Comments

For a country that boasts of one of the youngest populations in the world, it is strange that the field that perhaps deals with the most cutting-edge technology is dominated by scientists past their prime. Most top scientists at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) who are tasked with creating future weapons are past the retirement age of 60 and are on service extensions.

Indeed, such is the state of affairs that the head of the research organisation, which encompasses 54 establishments and labs dealing with fields as diverse as ballistic missile defence and insect repellent cream, will get an 18-month contractual tenure from November when he turns 64, the maximum age till which service extensions can be given. This extraordinary contract, beyond the remit of extensions, was specially approved by the previous UPA government more than a year in advance for the present DRDO Chairman Avinash Chander.

Though not new, the old age crisis of the lumbering organisation has worsened as private sector prospects have brightened for young scientists. Internal surveys have found that nearly 87 per cent of the young scientists who join DRDO soon get disenchanted with the archaic, rigid structure of the research body that does not reward extraordinary performance with proportional career growth. Annual intake of new scientists has dropped to just 70, barely enough to replace those who take early retirement, thereby, rapidly increasing DRDO’s age profile.

It is still early to judge the Narendra Modi Government’s policies, but the perception that it is taking a strong stand on the issue has brought cheer to hundreds of young scientists itching to prove their worth in DRDO’s labs across India. A series of events, from the Prime Minister’s remark on promoting young scientists to the cabinet secretariat’s stinging order curbing DRDO’s unilateral age extensions to its scientists, have raised hopes that the problem is finally being addressed.

It’s about time, too. As many as 10 of the 16 top DRDO scientists are on extension. Apart from Chander, nine of the top-graded `Distinguished Scientists should have retired, but most are now on their second extension.

Rules mandate that DRDO scientists must retire at 60. They can, however, be given two two-year extensions under,extraordinary circumstances. Beyond the age of 64, there is no provision for service extension. Yet, the UPA government, in May 2013, approved an Appointments Committee of the Cabinet note to give an 18-month extension to Chander following his “date of retirement of 30.11.2014 on contract basis, with the same terms and conditions as he would be entitled to before the date of retirement”.

By doing this, the UPA went back on its promise to appoint a younger head to DRDO. (Both V.K. Saraswat and M. Natarajan, who preceded Chander, retired at 64.) The special provision made for Chander has become the subject matter of several complaints, the latest by one of DRDO’s own, younger scientists to the cabinet secretariat in August. “The post-retirement contract is not legal and has been made against the rules. A contractual employee can be taken for an advisory role but not to head an organisation,” Navin Gupta, the Kanpur-based DRDO Scientist ‘C’, said in his complaint.

While a convincing argument can be made that age is no criterion for innovation and that experience and continuity is needed to deal with certain technology areas, most scientists on extension in the DRDO are handling primarily administrative positions- from most director generals at the headquarters to the heads of six of DRDO’s 54 labs and establishments.

The impact of the extensions policy on DRDO’s talent pool is immense: an internal survey found that most of its entry-level scientists are unhappy about their career prospects and some 57 per cent of all scientists leave the organisation prematurely due to lack of professional satisfaction. Since 2008, nearly 500 entry and mid-level scientists have resigned or taken early retirement while intake of new scientists has barely kept pace. At a seminar on August 20, Chander admitted this was a problem that required urgent attention. “DRDO’s annual intake of young scientists has dipped to 70 per year, resulting in a rapidly rising average age which certainly is not a good sign for an innovation-centric organisation,” he said. The average age of DRDO scientists is creeping closer to 40.

When Modi, speaking immediately after Chander at the same function, said that at least five DRDO labs should only employ scientists under 35, it was the first indication that his Government was addressing the problem. Many thought that the PM picked the number, five, randomly, unaware that it had come from the most in-depth review of the DRDO ever done.

The review, conducted by the Rama Rao Committee in 2008, had identified five labs working in critical fields such as solid state physics, metallurgy, cryptology and lasers for ‘empowered‘ status in order to give them the liberty to quickly induct young talent, bypassing the cumbersome selection process.

The voluminous report suggested other far-reaching reforms, but the UPA government never fully implemented it. The new Government has dusted it and top officials are studying its recommendations. These include revamping the human resource structure to enable DRDO to hire talent from outside, including Indians working abroad, for key technologies; identifying a set of ’empowered labs’ that have the freedom to hire and fire scientists; lowering the age of entry of talent; and looking abroad for key innovators. “A balance has to be struck. The optimised path may be being selective in granting extensions for specific research projects and not for administrative roles,” says Air Marshal Ajit Bhavnani (retd), who was a member of the review committee.

As for the old age issue, one of the first things the Modi regime has done, at least, is get the cabinet secretariat to issue a terse circular on September 26, directing DRDO to stop the practice of unilaterally granting age extensions to its scientists without the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, which is headed by the Prime Minister. Sources say extensions have been put on hold and all such future requests would be critically examined. Whether the Government is firm in this resolve will be tested by the upcoming grant of a contract extension to the DRDO chairman.

India Today
India Today
DRDO Chairman Avinash Chander with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
DRDO Chairman Avinash Chander with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

 

Drdo

Cabinet nod must for service extension of scientists

2 Comments

TNN | Sep 27, 2014, 05.54AM IST
NEW DELHI: The Centre has made approval of appointments committee of the cabinet (ACC) mandatory for extending the service of scientists employed with the government, beyond their superannuation.

“All the scientific ministries/departments are hereby advised to take timely action for constitution of the departmental peer review committee (DPRC) for considering the cases for extension of service of specialists in medical or scientific fields, beyond the normal date of superannuation and ensure that the proposals seeking approval of the ACC be invariably submitted at least two months in advance of the date of superannuation,” the department of personnel and training said in an order.

The order pointed out cases where scientific ministries and departments have not taken timely action to reconstitute the DPRC, an expert body which meets biennially to consider cases of extension to scientists retiring over the next six months. The recommendations of the DPRC are then sent to the establishment officer for final approval by the ACC.
The note said an officer, in the absence of a specific approval of ACC towards extension of his services beyond the date of superannuation, should stand retired on the day of his superannuation. “Under no circumstances should the ministry/department concerned extend his services…unilaterally without the approval of ACC,” it said.