Tag Archives: Adv.

PIL STATUS – DMSRDE Case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3610/2015 & CM No.6436/2015 (for directions).

PRABHU  DANDRIYAL ….. Petitioner

Through: Mr. R. Sathish, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ….. Respondents

Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC and Naginder

Benipal, Adv. for R-1 to 3.

Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh,

Advs. for R-5.

Mrs. Rajdipa Behura, SSP with Mrs.

Monica Gupta, Adv. for R-8.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

O R D E R

27.05.2015

Heard both parties.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 to 3 states that the report of the Fact Finding Inquiry is ready and the same will be filed in a sealed cover during the course of the day.

Judgment reserved.

CHIEF JUSTICE

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

Strange thing of this case is no above mentioned respondents Advocates were physical present there.

Second is  the request of respondents no.1 to 3 for  submit the report of  Fact Finding Inquiry will be filed in a sealed cover.

It itself proves that DRDO afraid to show the fact finding committee reports because the corruption will be expose or manipulation in fact finding inquiry will be expose.

Same report is also asked by Loksabha unstarred question no 6929, any how matter will going to expose either by High court or by Loksabha.

PIL status – Fact Finding Inquiry has already been held and he undertakes to place before this Court the inquiry report.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT New Delhi

+ W.P.(C) 3610/2015 & C.M.No.6436/2015 (directions)

PRABHU DANDRIYAL ….. Petitioner

Through: Mr.R.Sathish, Adv. with Mr.Mohan Das K.K., Adv.

 Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS…..

Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG

with Mr.Anil Soni, Ms.Aastha Jain, Mr.Akash Nagar, Advs. for R-1 to 3.

Mr.R.V.Sinha, Adv. for R-5/CVC. Mr.R.V.Sinha.

with Mrs.Monica Gupta, Adv. for CBI.

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

ORDER  29.04.2015 C.M.No.7764/2015 (exemptions) Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) No.3610/2015

The learned ASG appearing for the respondents, on instructions

States that the Fact Finding Inquiry has already been held and he undertakes to place before this Court the inquiry report.

Re-notify on 27.05.2015. CHIEF JUSTICE APRIL 29, 2015/‘anb’ RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

Dear Friends see the DRDO statement in Delhi Court, the whole country is witness the unprecedented delays in all major projects and same manner DRDO misleading the honorable High Court, Delhi

DRDO is applying same tactics in Delhi High Court by stating that Fact Finding Inquiry has already been held and he undertakes to place before this Court the inquiry report in second appearance and again asked for time.

See the facts

The First Fact Finding Inquiry Committee headed by Dr S S Negi, Sc H, members Shri Manoj Bali , Scientist ‘G’ and Shri Jagdeep, Scientist ‘F’ visited A on 13th – 14th, March 2014 for inquiry on the complaint submitted against Dr. A K Saxena

What submitted by First Fact finding Committee

As per Sh D N Tripathi, Sc F, Addl. Director Administration and Finance, DMSRDE, Kanpur submitted supplementary counter affidavit to Honorable  CAT, Allahabad on 4 June 2014

  1. Fact finding not found any truth for complaint submitted by Sh Navin Praksh Gupta and Prabhu Dandriyal and thus dropped and rejected.
  2. Prabhu Dandriyal was terminated by DRDO (Stated without proof and will pay for that will be filed criminal case against Sh D N Tripathi, Sc F, Addl. Director Administration and Finance, DMSRDE, Kanpur in Dehradun Court)
  3. Photo copy of Fact Finding Report submitted in honorable CAT Allahabad as annexure SCA-3. (It means DRDO having readily available fact finding report the why they wasted precious time of honorable Delhi High Court)

As per Dr A K Singh Letter DOP/DS/008/M/01 dated 28 May 2014to Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

Brief facts on the basis of Fact Finding committee – Interestingly fact finding was constituted to find out facts of corruption related allegations within the procurement files.

But Chairman FFIC, Dr S S Negi who is Dr (PhD) on Semiconductor Devices turns Dr on psychology and forgot the procurement related corruption allegation, started the analyses of behavior and life style of Sh R P Bhatt, Sc’F’ and Sh N P Gupta, Sc ‘C’

Committee certified that – Sh R P Bhat, Sc’F’ is a habitual drunkenness, misbehavior, threatening and harassment to others, including the transfer to other lab. The question is it was in the purview of Dr. Negi & team or if it is correct than how Sh R.P Bhatt promoted up to Sc ‘F’, is Dr Negi team gone through the last 5 years APAR of Sh R P Bhatt any negative comment of Dr A K Saxena was there?

Committee suggested that – Necessary action to be initiated against Sh R P Bhat, Sc’F’

Dr. Negi & team can able to stand with their statement in front of High Court, Allahabad?

As Sh R P Bhatt challenged is transfer on the basis of recommendations of Fact Finding Committee

Basically Dr. Negi is very good in scientific work but very poor in administration and management, after assumption of charge as Director, IRDE every day he is facing lot of irregularities of employees and scientists, Union running the local administrations of IRDE, like internal posting /transfer, safety shoe purchase without proper specification, who will go for TD, who will be chair for different investigation enquiries, whom to serve warnings, to whom to give AMC, to whom to give man power supplies, who will sit in security and all sundry things

Second Fact finding Committee

Shri Avinash Chander , DGR&D and SA to RM constituted second four members  FFIC under Chairmanship of Dr. D C Pande, Outstanding Scientist, LRDE, Bangalore  and members Shri Hari babu Srivastva, Director, LASTEC, New Delhi, Shri R S Mehta, Joint Director, Dte of Vigilance& Security, DRDO Hqrs, Shri Jagdeep, Scientist ‘F’,Dte of Materials Management DRDO Hqrs  reached at Kanpur on 9th July early morning 5:00 AM at DMSRDE, Guest House, Kanpur by Rewa Express.

As per sources the second Fact finding Committee asked all procurement related files and found lot of irregularities, but the Sh Avinash Chander and Dr A K Singh both were given assurance to Dr A K Saxena, the reason only know to them or GOD.

The website have all documentary evidences to prove the corruption allegations, it is expected that DRDO have no choice to send all these cases for CBI inquiry and website will submit all those evidences to CBI, which website continuously receiving.

See the DRDO efficiency till date DRDO not take any action on the basis of second fact finding committee reports or neither had they submitted the fact finding report to CVO, MOD.

As Director (Vigilance), MOD has sought Director (Vigilance & Security), DRDO for consolidated report by his letter dated 04 August 2014.

PIL – Dr A K Saxena- Respondent Seeks time – Next Date – 29 April 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3610/2015, CMs No.6436/2015 (for directions) & 6437/2015

(for exemption)

PRABHU DANDRIYAL ….. Petitioner

Through: Mr. R. Sathish, Adv.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ….. Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Anil Soni and Mr. Naginder BEnipal,

Advs. for R-1 to 3.

Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh,

Advs. for R-5/CVC.

Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Adv. for

R-8/CBI.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

O R D E R

15.04.2015

Mr. Anil Soni, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents seeks time to get instructions.

Re-notify on 29th April, 2015.

CHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

APRIL 15, 2015

bs

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

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

Poor Tax payer money wasted to save corrupt DRDO officials – RTI – MOD (Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO, (DOB 1-Jan-1951Retiring on 31st December )(Supreme Court Stay Order)

To                                                                                            30th September 2014
Sh A. M. Manichan,
Under Secretary (IC-IV), CPIO,
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence,
Sena Bhavan, 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 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. Subsequently Sh.G MALAKONDIAHfiled   an appeal   in      SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 25th September 2014 and got stay on Madras High Court order of 24th September 2014. In Supreme Court there are four advocates were present for appellant Sh.G MALAKONDIAH  

For Appellant(s)      Mr.   Mukul Rohtagi, AG
                                    Mr.   R. Bala, Adv.
                                    Mr.   R.K. Verma, Adv.
                                    Mr.   B. V. Balaram Das, Adv.
  1. Provide the Ministry of Defence rule position for providing advocates to government servant.
  2. Number of advocates
  3. Limit of fees
  4. The criteria for providing advocates
  5. In case of Sh.G MALAKONDIAH provide the total expenditure done by Ministry of Defence.
  6. Provide the advocate fee given to each one for Sh.G MALAKONDIAH case.

   

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com                                                      Registration Number            MODEF/R/2014/61806 

 

ITEM 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