Tag Archives: appointment

Drdo

Farewell Trip of SA to RM, Sh Avinash Chander?

4 Comments

SA to RM, Sh Avinash Chander is visiting today Institute of Technology Management (ITM), Mussoorie where he will enlighten the modus oprandi of Director in DRDO to newly appointed Director of various DRDO labs.

ITM, Mussoorie
ITM, Mussoorie

Misinterpretation of laid down government rules and misappropriation of fund are the main hidden agenda.

Examples are the contractual appointments of few of his pals ex TO’s, ex account officers, ex JCDA man are among them and some of them are continuing their contract since 2005, they are basically masters in manipulation of funds,   during missile launchings up to certain extent they accumulated unaccountable money.

Ms Tessy Thomas
Ms Tessy Thomas

Sh Avinash Chander proved his might when he forced the selection committee to promote Ms Tessy Thomas as scientist ‘H’ by superseding 100s of competent eligible scientists. Sh. Avinash Chander further given appointment of her husband Cmdr SK Patel as scientist ‘G’ creating tailor made advertisement and afterwards made him Director QRS, GOD is great but Sh Avinash Chander is also great for incompetents.

Like his predecessor he also did not accepted a technical officer or junior scientists being appreciated by user, Sh B B Sarkar of DIPAS like unsung hero succumbed to injury after doing so many good works particularly in Siachen but more ever his work was never ever recognize by DRDO but in dynasty of Sh Avinash Chander he was harassed. GOD will see – …….

This above orientation program may consume crore of rupees as directors and DRDO top officials are attending with family all guest houses around Dehradun and Mussoorie are booked.

Unfortunately, A will cut short his visit, Honorable defence minister is schedule to visit DRDO Bhawan tomorrow at 3.30 PM.

SA to RM just save his contractual appointment gave full page advertisement in leading national papers and publish the photographs of Sh Modi Ji & Sh Parrikar Ji are being beefooled along with 125 crores people. The cow dunk has the said microbes as claimed by DRDO to use in Bio digester, as spin off technology for rural sanitation.21_11_2014_011_005

The Idea behind of this that he believes in photo puja, in DRDO every director’s office having good framed SA’s photograph not first SA of DRDO but Sh Avinash Chander’s photograph.

Almost 20 to 25 lakhs spend by DRDO for this advertisement Parrikar shahib almost more than 200 toilet can built from this amount in rural area which was spends only to please you from public money.

Further Sh Avinash Chander will ensure that Agni- V is successful contribution by test fire before 30th November 2014 ?

Honorable Defence Minister is requested to formulate a method, so that incompetency, lethargies, nepotism and most important misuse power for corruption can be checked and only easy way is allowed RTI. Now in DRDO everywhere procurement drive is going on to just finish the budget amount before 31st March in any means, they replacing the intact flooring if young scientist opposing they are harass by so called works managers, fast manner tenders are floating for high rise buildings and best part is that DRDO only utilizing 30-40% of existing infrastructure only, Sir please check this.

Rest GOD is great if DRDO ke ache din 30th November 2014 se ane wale hai.

Regards

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.

20 Comments
To                                                                                            14th 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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,

or

(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.

 

  1. Mere reading of the provisions of said OM dated 19.05.1993 stipulates that:
  2. If he has become a permanent Government servant, an inquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be held.
  3. if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service.
  • In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed.
  1. 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:
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  1. In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed.
  2. To annul the appointment is totally illegal as there is no such provision to annul the appointment in CCS(CCA) Rules 1965.
  3. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. Whole exercise and conspiracy was planned by Dr. A. K. Singh , DOP to patronage and protect the interest of Ms. Swati Srivastava , Scientist ‘C’.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.comswati srivastava annuling order page 1
swati srivastava annuling order page 2
swati srivastava annuling order page 3
swati srivastava annuling order page 4
swati srivastava CAT case OA Number
 

 

(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.

  1. 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.”

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.

  1. 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”.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

Senior IAS officer sent to jail in recruitment scam in Odisha

2 Comments

PTI Nov 8, 2014, 10.19PM IST – The Economic Times

BALANGIR: Senior IAS officer and former district magistrate-cum-collector Debraj Mishra was today remanded to 14 days’ judicial custody by a local court.

Additional district judge, Balangir, Santosh Kumar Behera, rejected the bail petition of Mishra when he was produced before him at his official residence as the original court was closed because it was the second Saturday of the month.

The 2001 batch officer was arrested yesterday on charges of his involvement in a scam relating to recruitment of Revenue Inspectors, Assistant Revenue Inspectors and Amins in Balangir district.

In September, the state government had suspended Mishra for alleged irregularities committed in the appointment of the revenue department posts during his tenure as Collector of Balangir district from August 2012 to July 2013.

Vigilance sleuths have seized a number of documents, besides about 300 grams of gold from his residence during a raid.

 

Drdo

Ex-DRDO Chief Gets Jail Sentence

2 Comments

By T S Sekaran Published: 26th September 2014 The New Indian Express

CHENNAI: Dr V K Saraswat, former Scientific Adviser to the Minister of Defence and Director General, DRDO and Dr G Malakondaiah, former Director of DMRL in Hyderabad have been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks by the Madras High Court for not obeying the court’s orders passed way back in in 2009.

A division bench of justices S Rajeswaran and P N Prakash awarded the punishment while allowing a contempt application from S Joseph Raj, on Wednesday.

Raj lost his job as the school in which he was working as a librarian was closed. Holding that he was not a Central government employee, the government refused to reinstate him. Confirming the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, a division bench of the Madras High Court had directed the government to consider Raj for the post of Senior Technical Assistant.

Contending that this order had not been complied with, Raj filed the present contempt petition. “Even though an appointment order had been issued on July 14, 2009 to Joseph Raj, the duo did not allow him to join duty. Thereafter, they suppressed this fact before the Supreme Court. Therefore, we find that the duo have wilfully disobeyed the orders of this court,” the court said in its order.

Drdo

Former DRDO chief sentenced to 3 weeks in jail

2 Comments

PTI Chennai, September 26, 2014 Hindustan Times

Former DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat and another senior scientist were on Thursday sentenced to three weeks simple imprisonment by Madras High Court for committing contempt of court by disobeying its April 2009 order related to re-employment of a clerk in a school run by a wing of the organisation.

Taking a serious view of the non-implementation of its order, a division bench comprising Justice S Rajeswaran and Justice P N Prakash awarded three weeks simple imprisonment to Saraswat and Director of Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Dr G Malakondaiah and directed them to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 each personally.

The court was allowing a contempt of court petition by S Joseph Raj, who was an employee of the school run by Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE) at suburban Avadi here. The bench directed the Government to take appropriate departmental action against them for the “reckless, negligence and willful disobedience of the order of the Court”.

The court held Saraswat, a Padmabhushan awardee and former Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister and Director General of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), guilty of Civil Contempt under the contempt of courts Act, 1971. When CVRDE closed the school, he and other employees approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging it.

Even after several rounds of litigations before CAT and the High Court and Supreme Court, he was made to suffer, it noted. On April 30, 2009, the High Court directed the two officials to appoint Joseph Jaj as Senior Technical Assistant (Library Science) within a period of two months.

However, the officials on April 13, 2012, passed an order stating that Joseph Raj was not eligible to be considered as Senior Technical Assitant (Library Science) and that he was not a government servant, prompting him to file the present contempt petition.

“We find the above officers were doing everything within their powers to deny a just benefit to Joseph Raj. We are aware that the officers are occupying very high position in the government, but ensconced in a pedestal, their vision became blurred when it came to the travails of an ordinary employee who was suddenly thrown out of employment, for no fault of his,” the judges said.

It said that even during the contempt proceedings, there was no tinge of remorse or an attempt to correct the mistake by the two officials. “Therefore, we propose to impose punishment of sentence of imprisonment on the above officials for their willful disobedience of this court order,” it held.

The court also warned the above officials that it was not an end of the matter and directed them to comply with the order forthwith in the matter of appointment.

Drdo

Role model and an inspiration for women scientist’s husband appointment case

Leave a comment

DRDO advertised RAC Advt No. 110, December 2012 for the post of Scientist ‘G’ specially to accommodate CMDR S K Patel Husband of Ms Tessy Thomas but unfortunately due to lot of  resistance from DRDO senior scientists Sh Avinash Chander could not succeeded to obliged ? as he was not the big boss that time and Dr V K Sarswat turned down the case and thus RAC Advt No. 110 for Scientist ‘G’ mere wasted.

DRDO advertised RAC Advt No. 112/ October 2013 for the post of Scientist ‘G, this time  Sh Avinash Chander was boss and ignoring 485 available scientists G, CMDR(Retd.) S K Patel husband of Ms Tessy Thomas was selected and he joined DRDO as Scientist ‘G’ on 27 March 2014. He was appointed as Director in Directorate of QRS(DQRS) on 31 March 2014″ at DQ, DQRS as Director. The all eligible and more experienced DRDO scientists who are grown with DRDO Missile program now blowing the trumpet – Mera Kya, Mujhe Kya

 
To,                                                                                                  12th September 2014
Dr. RB Sharma,
Scientist ‘F’ & Central Public Information Officer
DRDO HQ,
Room No. 314-A, RTI Cell
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
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 following

  1. RAC Advt No. 110, December 2012 under direct recruitment scheme for recruitment of 01 Scientist G (Lab: DRDO, Subject: Mechanical Engineering, Essential Qualification: At least first class Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized University or equivalent, Experience / Specialisation: Experience in the field of Quality, Reliability and Safety management of weapons and Armament Systems with involvement during development/ production/ induction and life cycle management. Knowledge of guided weapons is also desirable) and
  2. RAC Advt No. 112/ October 2013 under direct recruitment scheme for recruitment of 01 Scientist G (Lab: DQRS,DRDO, Essential Qualification: At least First class Bachelors Degree in Engg./Technology in Mechanical Engg./Aeronautical Engg./ Electrical Engg./Electronics & Communication Engg. only; from a recognized University, Experience / Specialization: At least 15 years experience in areas of quality planning, quality assurance, quality control, and quality improvements related to weapons/sensors/combat vehicles/armaments).

Kindly provide following information under Section 6 of RTI Act 2005.

I.            With reference to RAC Advt No. 110/December 2012

  1. The name of candidate/scientist selected as Scientist G.
  2. The list of candidates with credentials that shortlisted and appeared in Interview.
  3. The list of chairman & members of selection board for Interview.
  4. Name of the Lab/Estt where the said recruited Scientist G was posted.
  1. With reference to RAC Advt No. 112/October 2013
  2. The name of candidate/scientist selected as Scientist G.
  3. The list of candidates with credentials that shortlisted and appeared in Interview.
  4. The list of chairman & members of selection board for Interview.
  5. Name of the Lab/Estt where the said recruited Scientist G was posted

The abuse/misuse of power for personal gain is corruption. The information sought in this RTI Application pertains to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act 2005.

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

  Registration Number  MODEF/R/2014/61666

Scientist G tailor made advertisement for CMDR S K Patel (Ms Tessy Thomas's Husband)
Scientist G tailor made advertisement for CMDR S K Patel (Ms Tessy Thomas’s Husband)
Drdo

RTI- Cabinet Secretariat – Shri Avinash Chander’s Contractual Appointment

Leave a comment
To                                                        1st August 2014
Shri Rajesh Nagpal,
Under Secretary & CPIO,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 004

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Para (2) of appointment letter No. I2/9/2013-EO (SM.I) dated 31st May 2013 regarding appointment of Shri Avinash Chander, Distinguished Scientist & Chief Controller Research & Development (Missiles &Strategic Systems), DRDO as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri for a period of three years. “The appointment of Shri Avinash Chander beyond his date of retirement i.e. 30.1 1.2014, would be on contract basis with the same terms and conditions as he would be entitled to Secretary (DRD) before the date of retirement”.(Copy Annexed)

  1. Provide copy of Contract Agreement between Government of India and Shri Avinash Chander for the reemployment on contract basis during the period 01 Dec 2014 to 31 May 2016.
  2. Provide provisions and rules of Government of India under which Shri Avinash Chander was appointed on contract basis as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri after his normal retirement and completion of two extensions upto the age of 64 Years.
  3. Whether an official appointed on contract after retirement can function as Head of Office for all administrative & financial matters in the department.(Yes/No)
  4. File noting for appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri.
  5. Whether appointment after age of 64 years violates provisions of FR 56(d). (Yes/No)
Regards
Prabhu  Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun
Ph   0135 2787750, Mobile 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website   www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number     CABST/R/2014/60302sa-appointment-letter6 CPC HAG Recomguideline of contract appointmentguideline of contract appointment page2guideline of contract appointment page3guideline of contract appointment page4contract appointment agreement page1contract appointment agreement page2contract appointment agreement page3contract appointment agreement page4

Drdo

DRDO senior scientists feel that DRDO Admin cadre is the biggest hurdle in their day to day manipulations

1 Comment

In DRDO Directors’ Conference 2010, above mentioned view was unopposed accepted by almost all top brasses of DRDO.

Then to defy DOPT guidelines of FCS (Flexible Complementing Scheme) DRDO started to assign scientists, the admin allied and other non technical jobs as full time. Like Administration, Stores, Library, Conservancy, Works, Security, Motor Transport, etc.

As a result, now you see the chaos created by these incompetent scientists everywhere in DRDO. The number of court cases increased multifold. More than hundreds cases are running in various judiciary bodies all over the India. It can be verified by the amount spending by DRDO after 2010 onward.

Now scientists are running after these non scientific assignments because they witnessed in last several  years the promotion jumps of scientists who are engaged in sundry work.

Interestingly, senior scientists who enjoyed these non scientific assignments are also able to pitch their after retirement assignments as consultants on contracts, etc. or members/chairman post of various committees where there are no age limits boundaries.

Recently, scientists also established one more area in the recruitment of admin assistant process for the interview board CEPTAM asked for admin rep. In LASTEC, Dr. A K Maini turned down the name of Sh. Prakash Singh, Senior Administrative Officer -II the single available official for required demand. Instead he sent the name of Ms. Sangeeta Talwar, ineligible for said interview board member as Admin Rep.

Second example that for the same recruitment of admin assistant process for the interview board, Jodhpur, CEPTAM asked for admin rep from DEAL Dehradun. The Director, DEAL, Sh. R C Agarwal proposed the name of his staff officer Sh. Vipin Kaushik, Scientist ‘F’ instead of Sh. K K Mishra, Joint Director, Administration.

There are several examples recently of Sh. Ashok Gupta, Technical Officer ‘C’ INMAS, DRDO who got deputation appointment of Senior Administrative Officer -I through UPSC in SSPL then shifted to DRDO Hqrs., DRDO. This foolish act shows DRDO situation is really very pitiable. How can a technical officer who is recruited for technical job avails the arbitration being a technical person got certified by Director, INMAS and concurrence by DRDO Hqrs that he did administrative /stores assignments.

Government of India has looked in to this DRDO rules manipulation game because these manipulations are a major cause of unproductiveness of this white elephant.

Drdo

RTI – DRDO Chair Game

1 Comment
To,                                                                                                   31 May 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
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 Dr S K Salwan, Ex Lab Director of DRDO who was appointed to –Dr B D Nagchoudhuri Chair for three years at a total cost of 83.064 Lakhs. The appointment was made by Ex DG, DRDO Dr V K Saraswat in a discretionary manner on nomination basis, The DRDO Chair was not reserved for Ex DRDO employees and no public notice was issued seeking applications for this highly paid post by DRDO authorities. Instead of paying monthly remuneration to Dr S K Salwan, DRDO released the first installment of Rs 27.688 on 28 April 2011 advance to Dr S K Salwan without deducting tax at source.  Dr S K Salwan joined on 2 May 2011 and as per audit report such seeking of paid expertise of ex employees on nomination basis is against the General Financials Rules of Govt. of India. Audit report says appropriate recoveries need to be effected forthwith. The above information related to clearly case of corruption and not exempted under section 24 (1) of RTI Act 2005.

  1. Please provide total amount released to Dr S K Salwan against his appointment to Dr B D Nagchoudhuri Chair
  2. Please provide total amount tax deducted from remuneration of Dr S K Salwan
  3. As suggested by Audit to appropriate recovery from remuneration of Dr S K Salwan. The total amount recovered by Dr S K Salwan.
  4. Present status of financial clearance with Dr S K Salwan, whether all amounts is cleared or pending.
  5. If pending than please provide total amount and then recovery initiation status.
Regards
Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com
Registration Number            MODEF/R/2014/61009
Drdo

Contractual appointment post-retirement not in rules

Leave a comment

HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times New Delhi, May 28, 2012
First Published: 00:18 IST(28/5/2012) | Last Updated: 00:23 IST(28/5/2012)

Faced with uncomfortable questions on the lack of clarity in allowing some of its officials to continue in service after retirement, the government has conceded that post-retirement appointment on contract basis is not covered by the rules defining extension of service.
The government’s view has come in the form of replies to questions in both Houses of Parliament on the grant of extension for coal ministry secretary and appointment of law secretary on contract basis for a period of a year and 11 months.

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), in its reply to Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi, has stated that “government servants are allowed to continue in service after 60 years in rare and exceptional cases.”

Owaisi wanted to know why the continuation in service of Central government officials beyond the age of 60 years was not being treated as a violation of government’s own rules.

The DoPT has made it clear that decisions in such matters are taken “on a case-to-case” basis and has also given its view on officials being employed on contract. “Appointment of an officer after superannuation (after retirement) is not covered by the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56, which deal with extension of service,” the department said in its reply.

The DoPT has stated that All India Services Rules, 1958, provide for extension in service in public interest “only to the incumbents of five posts — cabinet secretary, defence secretary, home secretary, director of Intelligence Bureau, and director of Central Bureau of Investigation.”

On the question of promotion chances of serving officers being hampered by extensions and employment on contract of retired officials, the DoPT has stated that the government is committed to ensure “promotion aspects of long-serving bureaucrats are not hampered.”

The DoPT’s reply, however, is not in line with law minister Salman Khurshid’s reply in the Rajya Sabha last week on the appointment of law secretary on contract.

Khurshid had stated that such an appointment was done “since there was a need for a high-level technical person towards handling of law”. This particular criterion does not find mention in the existing list of government rules which allow continuation of officials beyond the age of 60 years in particular fields.

Apart from the five posts mentioned above, the government rules allow specialists in health services, scientific field, those dealing with budget work and full-time members of a committee to be wound up soon, to continue in service after retirement.