Tag Archives: Action

Drdo

Breach of trust, criminal misconduct and gross violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 to misguide Hon’ble Defence Minister by Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel) , DRDO HQ, New Delhi.

November 14, 2014 Prabhu 20 Comments

To 14^th November 2014

Hon’ble

Shri Manohar Parrikar,

Defence Minister,

Room No -104, South Block,

New Delhi-110011

SUBJECT: Breach of trust, criminal misconduct and gross violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 to misguide Hon’ble Defence Minister by Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel) , DRDO HQ, New Delhi.

Hon’ble Sir,

I would like to draw your kind attention towards mischievous acts of Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO HQ who is Scientist ‘G’ belonging to Life Sciences discipline. Though renowned Nuclear Medicine Scientist he is posted in Directorate related to HR like Staff Officer to CCR&D, Director, CEPTAM, DHRD and DOP since the year 2004. He has no knowledge and understanding of HR, Government Rules and Government Orders rather he is expert in manipulation of rules short term gains. Former Hon’ble Defence Minister, himself a renowned lawyer of India was mislead by Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO resulted day by several court cases against DRDO in various courts across the country. Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO is solely responsible for humiliation to DRDO, waste expenditure of public money and trouble to innocent scientists and employees of DRDO.

Due to this DRDO derailed from real task i.e. development of weapon technologies and most of top senior officials busy to tackle court cases and country’s precious time wasted on court formalities and height of this is CC (R&D) HR, DRDO fighting to save himself from jail punishment and wasting poor taxpayers money by engaging 4 top lawyers.

Hon’ble Sir, being an honest and simple person you are traveling in economy class to save public money but senior scientists of DRDO including Dr. A.K. Singh are enjoying business class travel and collecting flying points for family members.

Brief Facts of the Case

A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel) issued Order No. MON.GP/120576/M/01 dated 10 October 2014 by which states that “Competent Authority has come to the conclusion that the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava, Scientist ‘B’ (now Scientist ‘C’ ) in DRDO is irregular ab initio. Therefore , the President being the Competent Authority has dispensed with the requirement of holding another enquiry and has decided to annul the appointment of said Ms. Swati Srivastava, Scientist ‘B’ (now Scientist ‘C’) in DRDO with immediate effect invoking the provisions of DOP&T OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993 read with the Rule 19(ii) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965“. Copy of the Order dated 10 October 2014 is enclosed as Annexure-1.
Therefore it is pertinent to understand the provisions of said DOPT OM dated 19.05.1993 and Rule 19(ii) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965.

DOP&T OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993

Action against Government servants to be taken if they are later found ineligible or unqualified for their initial recruitment –

Attention of the Ministries/Departments is invited to Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 39/1/67- Ests.(A) dated 21.02.1967 wherein it was clarified that departmental action can be taken against Government servant in respect of misconduct committed before his employment. Attention is also invited to the Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 5/1/63-Estt. (D) dated 30.04.1965 wherein Ministries/Departments were requested to make use of the provision of ‘warning’ inserted in the Attestation Form for taking action against Government servant furnishing false information at the time of appointment.

A question has now arisen as to whether a Government Servant can be discharged from service where it is discovered later that the Government servant was not qualified or eligible for his initial recruitment in service. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the District Collector, Vizianagram vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990(4) SLR 237 went into this issue and observed as under :-

“It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint a person with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.”

The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has now been decided that wherever it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc, for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service. If he is a probationer or a temporary Government servant, he should be discharged or his services should be terminated. If he has become a permanent Government servant, an inquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be held and if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service. In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed.

Such discharge, termination, removal or dismissal from service would, however, be without prejudice to the right of the Government to prosecute such Government servants.

[Deptt. Of Personnel & Training OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993]

Rule 19 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965

Special procedure in certain cases

Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18-

(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules,

(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:

Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under clause (i):

Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule.

Mere reading of the provisions of said OM dated 19.05.1993 stipulates that:
If he has become a permanent Government servant, an inquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be held.
if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service.

In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed.

All the above three provisions of said OM dated 19.05.1993 were grossly violated in Order No. MON.GP/120576/M/01 dated 10 October 2014 issued by Dr. A.K. Singh under planned conspiracy and mischief the Hon’ble Defence Minister. The major irregularities and facts related to the Order dated 10 October 2014 to annul the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava, Scientist ‘C’ are as under:
It is quite obvious from order that charges of illegal appointment on Ms. Swati Srivastava was established as she was not having requisite qualification and submitted false information at time of her initial recruitment.
She became permanent employee of DRDO in past ten years after his appointment in DRDO.

In case of permanent employee if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service.

In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed.
To annul the appointment is totally illegal as there is no such provision to annul the appointment in CCS(CCA) Rules 1965.
Ms. Swati Srivastava was recruited in DRDO for post of Scientist ‘B’ and the case is of recruitment of Ms. Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’.

The DOPT OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993 deals with “Action against Government servants to be taken if they are later found ineligible or unqualified for their initial recruitment”. The whole case of Ms. Swati Srivastava , Scientist ‘C’ was related to her illegal initial recruitment not the appointment.
A. K. Singh, DOP mentioned illegal recruitment as irregular appointment.

Inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 was knowingly dispensed/dropped by misusing Rule 19(2) so that penalty of dismissal or removal should not be imposed upon Ms. Swati Srivastava by Dr. A. K. Singh, DOP by DRDO.
Whole exercise and conspiracy was planned by Dr. A. K. Singh , DOP to patronage and protect the interest of Ms. Swati Srivastava , Scientist ‘C’.
Illegal order dated 10 October 2014 was knowingly issued by Dr. A. K. Singh , DOP so that Ms. Swati Srivastava , Scientist ‘C’ can challenge the order dated 10 October 2014 to annul her appointment and come back in DRDO based on court order.
Establishing the above narrated facts, Ms. Swati Srivastava , Scientist ‘C’ moved to Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal vide A./3809/2014 with first hearing on 12.11.2014. Copy of cause list of 12.11.2014 , CAT, New Delhi is attached for ready reference.
Therefore in the interest of DRDO and public of the nation justice should be meted out as per Law and following actions are requested to your honest and transparent office.
Order for dismissal or removal from service of Ms. Swati Srivastava, Scientist ‘C’ should be issued as per obligation of the DOP&T OM 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) Dated 19.05.1993.
A.K. Singh, Director(Personnel) should immediately be removed from post of Director(Personnel) and proper high level inquiry should be conducted for his role in nepotism , conspiracy, breach of trust,violations of conduct rules and wastage of public money.
As all four cases of Recruitment Scam is under probe of CBI vide CVO, MOD note approved by former Hon’ble Defence Minister Sri A.K. Antony on 29.10.2013, therefore this irregularity and misconduct for nepotism by Dr. K. Singh, Director(Personnel) should be referred to CBI to investigate role of Dr. A.K. Singh in issuance of such illegal order dated 10 Oct 2014 to favour Ms. Swati Srivastava, Scientist ‘C’.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,

21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun,

Ph 0135 2787750, Mobile 9411114879,

e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website www.corruptionindrdo.com

(10) Action against Government servants to be taken if they are later found ineligible or

unqualified for their initial recruitment –

Attention of the Ministries/Departments is invited to Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 39/1/67-Ests.(A) dated 21.02.1967 wherein it was clarified that departmental action can be taken against Government servant in respect of misconduct committed before his employment. Attention is also invited to the Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 5/1/63-Estt. (D) dated 30.04.1965 where in Ministries/Departments were requested to make use of the provision of ‘warning’ inserted in the Attestation Form for taking action against Government servant furnishing false information at the time of appointment.

A question has now arisen as to whether a Government Servant can be discharged from service where it is discovered later that the Government servant was not qualified or eligible for his initial recruitment in service. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the District Collector,Vizianagram vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990(4) SLR 237 went into this issue and observed asunder :-

“It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint a person with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless itis clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.”

Such discharge, termination, removal or dismissal from service would, however, be without prejudice to the right of the Government to prosecute such Government servants.

[Deptt. Of Personnel & Training OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993]

Action against Government Servants who get appointment on the basis of false SC/ST/OBC certificates.

No.36011/1/2012-Estt. (Res.)

Government of India

Department of Personnel and Training

Establishment (Reservation) Section

North Block, New Delhi-110001

Dated the 10th January, 2013.

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Sub:- Action against Government servants who get appointment on the basis of false SC/ST/OBC certificates.

The undersigned is directed to invite reference to this Department’s OM No.11012/7/91-Estt.(A) dated 19.5.1993 which provides as under:-

“Wherever it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc., for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service. If, he is probationer or a temporary Government servant, he should be discharged or his services should be terminated. If he has become a permanent Government servant, an inquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be held and if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service. In no circumstances should any penalty be imposed”.

The position was reiterated vide this Department’s OM No.42011/22/2006-Estt.(Res.) dated the 29th March, 2007 that the cases other than those protected by the specific order of the Apex Court should be dealt with in accordance with the instructions contained in the aforesaid O.M. However, it has been observed that disciplinary proceedings in the cases involving appointments on the basis of false/fake caste certificates take considerable time and the persons who have secured employment on the basis of false caste certificates enjoy the benefits of Government service whereas such Government servants should be removed / dismissed from the service at the earliest.
It is requested that disciplinary inquiries involving the matter of securing jobs on the basis of false/fake certificates should be completed in a time bound manner and unscrupulous persons who have got appointment on the basis of fake/ false caste certificates should not be retained in service and should be dismissed / removed thenceforth.
Contents of this OM may be brought to the notice of all concerned.

sd/-

(Sharad Kumar Srivastava)

Under Secretary to the Government of India

Source : www.persmin.nic.in

[http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02adm/36011_1_2012-Estt-Res.pdf]

Drdo

By The Way, I Dropped It

May 7, 2014 Prabhu 1 Comment

EXCLUSIVE
INTELLIGENCE SECURITY BREACHES
By The Way, I Dropped It
India’s defence data could be an open secret. Ask the NTRO bosses who lost their laptops.
SAIKAT DATTA – OUTLOOK INDIA.COM

MAGAZINE | AUG 30, 2010

**The Agni missile: India’s nuclear delivery mechanism could well be in enemy knowledge**

In 2006, Ravind Sistala was one among a clutch of scientists on deputation from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) in New Delhi. Set up in the aftermath of the 1999 Kargil War, NTRO was meant to be a single technical intelligence facility to keep watch on India’s hostile neighbours. It was also supposed to issue warning signals to those manning India’s missile systems and nuclear warheads in real time so that they could retaliate in case of a possible enemy strike. Sistala’s was a crucial job. The fortysomething was the centre director of NTRO’s missile monitoring division, a position that called for high levels of responsibility and secrecy. But very few within India’s security apparatus are aware, even today, that Sistala was involved in one of the biggest security breaches in India’s post-Independence history. He compromised a Rs 1,850-crore intelligence-gathering programme that had key linkages to India’s growing nuclear arsenal and missile systems. Unencrypted ‘Top Secret’ data pertaining to these was stored on Sistala’s Hewlett-Packard laptop (given to him by NTRO) which disappeared mysteriously while he was on his way to the Delhi airport in early 2006. Did the information-packed computer fall into the wrong hands? Was it stolen by an enemy agent? Even today, no one knows where the laptop is. If still in enemy hands, it has the potential to inflict immense damage.

Ideally, such a security leak should have set alarm bells ringing and occasioned a swift and thorough investigation by the IB, RAW and Delhi Police. But rather than give the incident the attention and inquiry it deserved, a small but extremely powerful group of people—comprising a PMO official, DRDO scientists on deputation to NTRO and intelligence officials—helped Sistala escape any indictment by holding just an in house inquiry, which unearthed little. The missing laptop forgotten, Sistala continued as the head of the sensitive missile programme for another two years, and then returned to the DRDO.

Two years after the Sistala episode, another security breach took place in the NTRO. Arun Dixit, the centre director of the organisation’s atomic explosion division (AED), lost his laptop somewhere in Washington DC during an official trip to the US with the NTRO chairman. The laptop was crammed with top secret data on India’s intelligence on the nuclear weapons programmes of several countries, including Pakistan, China and North Korea. But like in Sistala’s case, the powerful lobby of defence scientists once again scuttled a thorough investigation. The leak was buried and kept out of the files. Dixit too escaped any scrutiny and still serves in the NTRO in the very same post.
Lost Laptops And Their ‘X’ Files

Place Delhi
Year 2006
Official Involved Ravind Sistala
Designation Centre Director (missile monitoring division)
Organisation National Technical Research Organisation
Incident Laptop goes missing from his car

Secret Data Lost

Presentations on Indian efforts to monitor missiles of neighboring countries
Details on the capabilities of the nuclear delivery systems of Pakistan and China
Response options available to India’s nuclear forces (Strategic Forces Command)
Deployment of radars to counter incoming missiles
Vulnerable points in India’s air defence network
Action taken None. Laptop not recovered. Official transferred to DRDO in a more sensitive position.

***

Place Washington DC
Year 2008
Official Involved Arun Dixit
Designation Centre Director (atomic devices division)
Organisation NTRO

Secret Data Lost

Defence nuclear programmes of neighbouring countries
Nuclear proliferation in Asia
Dirty bombs being made in neighbouring countries
Action taken None. Laptop not recovered. After probe, errant official retained in the same organisation.

***

Place Delhi
Year 2003
Organisation Defence Research and Development Organisation
Incident 53 computers go missing; later found with hard disks removed

Secret Data Lost

Secret coding of all communication used by the Intelligence Bureau (IB), Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the defence forces, and the paramilitary forces, including Border Security Force
Logs of intercepted Pakistani communications
Action taken Case still unsolved. None of the hard disks have been recovered. DRDO has practically closed the case.

Sistala and Dixit clearly violated OSA, but escaped. They were also liable to 14 years’ imprisonment.

The NTRO was set up in the summer of ’03. A year earlier, a Group of Ministers had handpicked RAW special secretary R.S. Bedi to set up the new intelligence outfit. Bedi started the process by setting up an office in room no. 326, Sardar Patel Bhavan, in the heart of Delhi, on March 29, 2003. The organisation was formally notified in July.

Set up to plug gaps in India’s security establishment post the Kargil debacle, the NTRO’s charter eventually went much beyond the mere act of gathering intelligence. It became a key element within the security apparatus, hitting headlines recently when Outlook reported its ability to pluck GSM phone calls off the air. Bedi had served in RAW’s Aviation Research Centre, which monitored the missile and atomic programmes of neighbours. NTRO took on this responsibility after it came into being.

NTRO’s task thus was to monitor and gather intelligence on all missile programmes in the region and convey the data in real time to the Strategic Forces Command (SFC), a special military organisation that mans India’s nuclear arsenal and would deploy it in the event of a nuclear war. The SFC would also, based on NTRO data, periodically review and upgrade its positioning of nuclear missiles, and coordinate with the defence forces in launching a counter-strike against any nuclear threat.

This called for a credible linkage between a vast and intricate network of ground-based radars, satellites, secret command codes and SFC’s nuclear arsenal. NTRO’s missile monitoring division established these linkages and set up an early warning network for the SFC. Sistala had a key role in creating these linkages and as such had access to the most sensitive data on India’s capabilities, response time and secret codes. Naturally enough, all these details were part of the presentations, notes, documents, files and folders—all marked ‘Top Secret’—he had on the laptop he was given by the NTRO. Standard rules mandate that a laptop given by the organisation cannot be taken home or used to connect to the Internet. But these being early days for NTRO, Sistala was travelling around the country making presentations to security officials, beginning with then NSA M.K. Narayanan to the three service chiefs, the SFC commander, the intelligence chiefs and other top DRDO scientists who were to work on the technological aspects of the project.
This is the time his laptop went missing. Shockingly, NTRO buried the episode in no time. A preliminary inquiry was ordered to be carried out by Brigadier Anil Malhotra, its counter-intelligence official, but it was quickly wound up. By this time, Bedi had retired from NTRO. A powerful lobby of defence scientists, led by R. Chidambaram, the principal scientific advisor to the government, had already determined his successor: DRDO scientist K.V.S.S. Prasad Rao. Rao had no previous experience in intelligence but he had served as the staff officer to Chidambaram for several years. Sistala, also from the DRDO, got a much-needed reprieve from the ongoing inquiry. He continued with the missile monitoring division for two more years before returning to the DRDO to work on air defence radars.

Outlook’s attempts to elicit an official comment from NTRO via a detailed questionnaire sent a week before going to print met with silence. Phone calls and text messages to NTRO chairman Prasad Rao, its advisor P.V. Kumar, Sistala and Dixit evoked no response either. DRDO, in a cryptic response to an Outlook query, said it wasn’t aware of any lapses by Sistala at NTRO.

Such security breaches are nothing new for the clique that still lords it over DRDO and NTRO. In Oct ’03, 53 computers were stolen one night from two DRDO labs—the Systems Analysis Group and the Institute for Systems Analysis and Studies—in Metcalfe House in Delhi. The computer carcasses were found later, but the hard disks had been removed. They contained secret encryption codes and communications of the army, navy, air force and all central police organisations. Till date, no DRDO scientist has been blamed. Many have even been promoted. A police investigation made no headway, while an internal inquiry remains alive on paper even though many of its members have retired.

It’s also ironical that while many other officials have been prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) on flimsy and concocted cases (see following story), Sistala and Dixit have escaped, despite being in clear violation of the OSA. In fact, since the leaks were related to India’s nuclear defence as well as secret codes, they could easily have attracted a penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. Instead, the duo has continued in their careers. Should India’s intelligence agencies really be allowed to operate without even a modicum of accountability?

Drdo

RTI ONLINE PORTAL – Supporter of Corruption & Corrupt Officials

April 16, 2014 Prabhu 3 Comments

To 16^th April 2014

Honorable Dr Man Mohan Singh,

Prime Minister,

PMO, North Block,

New Delhi -110011

Subject: Unconstitutional act of DoPT officials who are managing the Online RTI Portal and supporting corrupt officers of DRDO

Honorable Sir,

I Prabhu Dandriyal, ex DRDO employee and resident of Dehradun, Uttarakhand fighting against corruption since 1999.

When the RTI Act 2005 implemented through our Honorable Parliament, it was a historical decision to empowerment common man of India.

Today, Sh Rahul Gandhi ji, Smt Sonia Gandhi ji daily quoting in election rallies that RTI Act 2005 is their gift to common man of India; it is 100% true that day one common man experiences his strength to correct the corrupt system and RTI Act helped mass common people of India.

Since its inception, I have filed several RTI applications to expose the corruption and slowly the corrective measures are taken by concern departments, but still long way to go on.

Sir, DoPT is the nodal agency for implementing RTI Act-2005 and I was found some officials from DoPT are supporting corrupt officials of DRDO.

Sir, I filed an online RTI application to DRDO for request information in respect of Dr. AK Singh, DOP, DRDO, Ministry of Defence. The information can expose the wrong doings of DRDO officials. But my RTI application was returned by DoPT official unprecedentedly.

My RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 filed online portal on 31/03/214 addressed to Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO, DRDO under department of Defence was returned online on 15^th March 2014 with this remark which one is unprecedented act of portal manager/ in-charge against the guideline. Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.

As per Guideline – An applicant who desires to obtain any information under the RTI Act 2005 can make a request through this RTI Online Portal to only the Central Public Authorities of main Ministries/Departments located at New Delhi initially. In the first phase, this facility is available to Ministries/Departments/Apex Bodies mentioned in the list available in ‘GUIDELINES’

It is astonishing fact that DoPT official mentioning that DRDO placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 but they forget they are not exempted for corruption and human right violation matters; it seems that the officials involved are biased and supporter of corrupt official of DRDO.

I request you kindly take appropriate corrective measure take action against officials who are involved in unconstitutional act and give strength to claim of UPA government that RTI- Act 2005 is really empowered the common man and fix those who are diluting the effectiveness of strong RTI Act -2005.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal

21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008

Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed: Copy of my RTI application returned with remark by DoPT officials.

Final Status of MODEF/R/2014/60617

Top of Form

Applicant Name	Prabhu Dandriyal
Date of receipt	31/03/2014
Request Filed With	Department of Defence
Text of Application	To, 31st March 2014 Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg New Delhi-110011Hello, Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist G is presently holding the charge of DOP, DRDO at DRDO HQ. He is holding following post in DRDO since January 2007. Details are given as under: SN Post Duration Directorate 1.Staff Officer to CC(R&D) (HR) -Oct 2004- Dec 2006DRDO HQ, DRDO, 2.DirectorJan 2007 Sep 2010CEPTAM, DRDO, 3.DirectorOct 2010 27th Feb 2013Dte. of HRD, DRDO HQ, 4.Director28 Feb 2013 till date DOP, DRDO HQ Note: He was holding the charge of two Directorates as Director, DHRD & Director, DOP from 01 Dec 2012 to 27 Feb 2013 In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005. 1.Procedure/Guidelines/Rules for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM, DRDO duly approved by DOPT, Government of India. 2.Criteria for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM (Seniority/Administrative & Management skill, qualification & experience etc.) 3.Charter of Duties & Nature of work carried out by Scientist appointed as: I.Staff Officer to Chief Controller R&D(HR) II.Director, CEPTAM III.Director, DHRD IV.Director, DOP 4.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Staff Officer to CCR&D (HR) & copy of appointment order 5.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, CEPTAM & copy of his appointment order 6.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD, DRDO HQ & copy of his appointment order 7.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DOP & copy of his appointment order 8.List of Scientist consider in the appointment of following post by DRDO Hqrs. a.Director, CEPTAM Jan 2007- Sept 2010 b.Director, DHRD Oct 2010- Feb 2013 c.Director, DOP March 2013- Jan 2014 9.Administrative & Managerial Experience and Educational Qualification of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist F as on Jan 2007 when he was appointed as Director, CEPTAM, DRDO. NOTE – Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) because Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD was part & parcel of implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO (Violation of Article 309). He was also one of the candidates for scientist F to scientist G promotion in year 2011 assessment. a.Please refer CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO)- b.Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC. Regards Prabhu Dandriyal, 21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008 0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
Request document *(if any)*	document not provided
Status	RTI REQUEST APPLICATION RETURNED TO APPLICANT
Date of Action	15/04/2014
Remarks	Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.

Bottom of Form

Drdo

RTI- DoPT- Dr AK Singh ke hath kanoon se bhi lambe hain

April 16, 2014 Prabhu 1 Comment

Sh R.K.Girdhar, 16^th April 2014
Under Secretary (RTI), PIO,
D/o.Personnel & Training, North Block,
New Delhi

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of my RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 filed online portal on 31/03/214 addressed to Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO, DRDO under department of Defence. My RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 was returned online on 15^th March 2014 with this remark which one unprecedented act of portal manager/ in-charge against the guideline. Remark – Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.

It is astonishing fact that DoPt official mentioning that DRDO placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 but they forget they are not exempted for corruption and human right matters; it seems that the officials involved in are biased and supporter of corrupt official of DRDO.

Provide me certified copy of concerned note of DoPT on the basis of my RTI application MODEF/ R/ 2014/ 60617 dated 31/03/214 was returned by above remark.
Provide me the names and designations of the DoPT officials who initiated proposal and processed the given approval in concern file for returning online RTI application unprecedentedly
Provide the DoPT provision/guideline on the basis of my RTI application MODEF/ R/ 2014/ 60617 dated 31/03/214 was returned by above remark.
Copy of proposal received from DRDO for not accepting in online RTI application in the name department of defence.
Please provide that any ceiling to file RTI application by citizen of India.

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal

21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008

Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number DOP&T/R/2014/61539

Final Status of MODEF/R/2014/60617

Top of Form

Applicant Name	Prabhu Dandriyal
Date of receipt	31/03/2014
Request Filed With	Department of Defence
Text of Application	To, 31st March 2014 Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg New Delhi-110011Hello, Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist G is presently holding the charge of DOP, DRDO at DRDO HQ. He is holding following post in DRDO since January 2007. Details are given as under: SN Post Duration Directorate 1.Staff Officer to CC(R&D) (HR) -Oct 2004- Dec 2006DRDO HQ, DRDO, 2.DirectorJan 2007 Sep 2010CEPTAM, DRDO, 3.DirectorOct 2010 27th Feb 2013Dte. of HRD, DRDO HQ, 4.Director28 Feb 2013 till date DOP, DRDO HQ Note: He was holding the charge of two Directorates as Director, DHRD & Director, DOP from 01 Dec 2012 to 27 Feb 2013 In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005. 1.Procedure/Guidelines/Rules for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM, DRDO duly approved by DOPT, Government of India. 2.Criteria for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM (Seniority/Administrative & Management skill, qualification & experience etc.) 3.Charter of Duties & Nature of work carried out by Scientist appointed as: I.Staff Officer to Chief Controller R&D(HR) II.Director, CEPTAM III.Director, DHRD IV.Director, DOP 4.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Staff Officer to CCR&D (HR) & copy of appointment order 5.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, CEPTAM & copy of his appointment order 6.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD, DRDO HQ & copy of his appointment order 7.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DOP & copy of his appointment order 8.List of Scientist consider in the appointment of following post by DRDO Hqrs. a.Director, CEPTAM Jan 2007- Sept 2010 b.Director, DHRD Oct 2010- Feb 2013 c.Director, DOP March 2013- Jan 2014 9.Administrative & Managerial Experience and Educational Qualification of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist F as on Jan 2007 when he was appointed as Director, CEPTAM, DRDO. NOTE – Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) because Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD was part & parcel of implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO (Violation of Article 309). He was also one of the candidates for scientist F to scientist G promotion in year 2011 assessment. a.Please refer CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO)- b.Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC. Regards Prabhu Dandriyal, 21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008 0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
Request document *(if any)*	document not provided
Status	RTI REQUEST APPLICATION RETURNED TO APPLICANT
Date of Action	15/04/2014
Remarks	Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.

Drdo

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

December 5, 2011 Prabhu 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 29^th 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)

Corruption In DRDO

Tag Archives: Action

Breach of trust, criminal misconduct and gross violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 to misguide Hon’ble Defence Minister by Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel) , DRDO HQ, New Delhi.

By The Way, I Dropped It

RTI ONLINE PORTAL – Supporter of Corruption & Corrupt Officials

RTI- DoPT- Dr AK Singh ke hath kanoon se bhi lambe hain

Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials