Tag Archives: Charge Sheet

Drdo

DRDO Chief is serious to handle sexual harassment cases

5 Comments

DRDO Chief Dr. Selvin Christopher dealing sexual harassment case in good spirit but the mindsets of senior officials not ready to co-op him for change of existing rotten handling process of DRDO. The getting justice in sexual harassment case is near to impossible in DRDO women scientist and employees.

There are number of example exists where DRDO management failed to deliver justice and always successes to buried the complaints.

The DRDO workforce of more than 30000 and nearly 20% women are working different level top to bottom, even in good positions like DG, Directors etc but harassment complaints are reaching to national women commission, national schedule cast commission etc is the clear evidence the failure of dealing these incidents by existing system of DRDO inspite of having good number of women official.

The reason is also very crystal clear the top existing women officials are not competent and got their position not on the basis of merit. That is the reason like so called famous scientist not able to give justice to victimized SRF.

In this darkness suddenly DRDO Chief Dr. Selvin Christopher sends direction to IRDE and ITM to deal these sexual harassment cases in seriously as per rule.

But unfortunately both the labs not taking it seriously the following enclose letter is showing the mindset of senior official of IRDE, who are openly violating the VISHAKHA guidelines of Honorable Supreme Court.

In following letter is clear example that how accused is trying to hostile the witness with putting through Director and the letter is trying to perusing through divisional head to witness.

The DRDO Hq directed to Director IRDE to take appropriate action against Admin Officer who gave false evidence in support of accused officer but till date Director IRDE not dare to take any action.

In ITM accused is enjoying his post/position after getting charge sheet. Here interesting fact of DRDO working that during the period three director handle the file, Mr M Kishor, Dr R S Pundir, as additional Charge and Sh Sanjay Tandon but no one able to shift the accuse from post of admin officer. As per rule everyone knows that what action is required after issuing such serious charge sheet.

The best part of Director’s order is the inquiry should be done as per DOPT F. No. 11013/2/2014-Estt (A-II1) Dated July 16th, 2015 but they forgot the following the rules or just giving privilege to accused to harass and manage the witness as he is holding all executive powers of ITM.

 

As per DOPT F. No. 11013/2/2014-Estt (A-II1) Dated July 16th, 2015

Suspension

  1. A Government servant may also be placed under suspension before or after issue of a Charge Sheet where his continuance in office will prejudice the investigation, for example if there is an apprehension that he may tamper with witnesses or documents. Suspension may also be resorted to where continuance of the Government servant in office will be against wider public interest such as there is a public scandal and it is necessary to place the Government servant under suspension to demonstrate the policy of the Government to deal strictly with officers involved in such scandals. It may be desirable to resort to suspension in case of misdemeanor involving acts of moral turpitude.

Special provisions to deal with threats or intimidation

  1. Disciplinary Authority may also dispense with inquiry under Rule I 9(ii), and action may be taken without the inquiry when the Disciplinary Authority concludes that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry. The circumstances leading to such a conclusion may exist either before the inquiry is commenced or may develop in the course of the inquiry. Such situation would be deemed to have arisen:

(i) where the Government servant, through or together with his associates terrorizes, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal in order to prevent them from doing so; or

(I) where the Government servant himself or with or through others threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the Disciplinary Authority, Members of the Committee, the Presenting Officer or members of their family.

It is requested DRDO officials please go through the Vishakha Guidelines were a set of procedural guidelines for use in India in cases of sexual harassment. They were promulgated by the Indian Supreme Court in 1997 and were superseded in 2013 by The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Drdo

DRDO RTI Cell Trying to take shelter of High Court Order

Leave a comment

DRDO RTI cell doing propaganda that Honorable High Court declared DRDO 100%   exempted  organization from RTI Act-2005 and started giving denial  to each and every RTI request without seeing the merit and facts that the request pertain to corruption. And best part of this now they are stop writing “except information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations”

RTI cell including First appellate authority also cited the Delhi High Court Judgment passed in WP © 83/2014 DR. NEELAM BHALLA .. Petitioner Through: Mr. R. Sathish, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..Respondents Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Advocate for R-1 and 2.

In this judgment is nothing new every one clearly knows DRDO was an exempted organization under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In other words, the Act would apply to DRDO only to the extent of information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

In DR. NEELAM BHALLA case  DR. NEELAM BHALLA  prayer to honorable court that information supplied by then CPIO, DRDO  Sh Bundella was incorrect and inaccurate and court says

“4. It is a matter of fact that Shri Bundela had provided inaccurate and incorrect information to the appellant but Shri Bundela’s contention that he had transmitted information as received by him from CPIO of RAC cannot be disregarded. It is important to bear in mind that Shri Bundela was not the holder of information. The holder of information was CPIO, RAC. Whatever information was W.P.(C) No. 83/2014 Page 1 of 4 forwarded to Shri Bundela by CPIO, RAC, he transmitted the same to the appellant.

6. Even so, before parting with this matter, I would like to caution Shri Bundela to exercise due diligence in responding to the RTI application in future.”

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption.

But in whole judgment there is nothing new and not giving extra immunizing to DRDO from RTI act, if there is any extra facilitation in judgment than DRDO should quote specifically that.

  1. DRDO RTI cell also go through the judgment of  CWP No. 12904 of 2009

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE  MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

under Section 24(4) of the Act which envisaged that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organizations A combined reading of these provisions would reveal, only that information is exempted, which is directly effecting and co-related to the “Intelligence” and “Security” of that organization of the State and not otherwise.

The matters pertaining to recruitment/appointments and day to day administrative nature information, where it is also found that DRDO top officials did lot of irregularities. Therefore honorable defence minister approved CBI intervention against 10 top DRDO officials including 2 ex- DRDO chiefs one Dr V K Saraswat and other one Sh M Natrajan  for their ugly acts.

It was establish facts till date all senior officials of DRDO who were fixed by CVC and CVO, MOD were exposed with the help of RTI’s only.

So DRDO officials are afraid of RTI’s if they are honest then why they worries from RTI’s . The Ex CPIO, DRDO Dr A K Tyagi who is facing charge sheet in corruption case was the big manipulator and protector of corrupt officials.

I request to DRDO RTI cell you people are serving to our nation; please not to protect culprit’s corrupt officers, your younger generation will ask you what did you contributed for justice. Now in the age of IT revolution era kid can explore what are the score of my grandpa, because these documents are alive forever.

I want to appeal all information seeker from DRDO please don’t dishearten from these act of these corrupt DRDO officials who are taking false shelter.

Please mail/post/send ordinary dak all your queries to www.corruptionindrdo.com postal address or mail address, we will took the matter up to higher ups. We are also planning to filled a PIL for request supreme court for delist the name of DRDO from Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005. As we collected lot of of informations from all over the country.

regrads
www.corruptionindrdo.com
prabhudoon@gmail.com
21- Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun- 248001
Drdo

DRDO corruption’s Heights that they even not leave the Knowledge Corner (Library)

1 Comment
To                                                                                                    3rd March 2014
Sh A K Antony.
Defence Minster,
Room -104, South Block,
New Delhi – 110011

Subject: DRDO corruption’s Heights that they even not leave the Knowledge Corner (Library)

Honorable Sir,

To enhance the knowledge of DRDO scientists and make them updated, Ministry of Defence provide library grant generously. Apart from this the pay commission has recommended special assistance for the purchasing of books/journals to individuals scientist.

The library budget of DRDO’s laboratory is a lucrative assignment for corrupt scientists. The scientist library in-charge has direct access to head of establishment.

The case of corruption in library procurement was first exposed at DIAT, Pune, where then In-charge Library Dr A K Tyagi, Sc ‘F’ did financial manipulation in Library. CVC has been found prima facie material against Dr A K Tyagi.  And Regular Disciplinary action was recommended on: 9/9/2013. Consequently DRDO Hqrs finally charge sheeted on 8th October 2013. Charge Sheet signed by Honorable Defence Minister, Sh A K Antony.

The case of Dr A K Tyagi, Sc ‘G’ is not an isolated case but DRDO labs in general have misusing the library grants and if serious enquiry is set up every lab will give foul smell.

The recent example of DMSRDE, Kanpur’s library procurement cases revealed the astonishing facts and figures of library procurement. The RTI helped to expose the corrupt practice prevailing in library procurements.

Enclosed case revealed that the DMSRDE officials are not following the DRDO Purchase Manual -2006. Even after cancellation of Supply Orders on 23 August 2012 the invoices dated 02 May 2012 were accepted while Supply Orders were placed on 27 April 2012. Thereby mischievously & fraudulently the supply of books were accepted in back date to get fatty commission from these vendors. This gross violation of rules & blunder took place even after cancellations of Supply Orders establish conspiracy against Government by Mr.  Jitendra Yadav and Dr. A.K. Saxena.

DRDO has become hub of corruption and honorable defence minister is requested to take a strong action to prevent further damage of moral and ethics.

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
Enclosed : Copy Complaint to CVC dated 3rd March 2014
 
To                                                                                                                                            3rd March 2014The Central Vigilance CommissionerCentral Vigilance CommissionSatarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INANew Delhi-110023SUBJECT: CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL BOOKS at DMSRDECOMPLAINT AGAINST Mr. JITENDRA YADAV, SCIENTIST ‘E’, Head, Technical Library and Dr. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR, DMSRDE, KANPURSir,

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT

 

  1. Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  2. Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and Mr. Jitendra Yadav, Scientist ‘E’ are posted in DMSRDE, Kanpur. Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena is Director, DMSRDE with effect from 01 January 2011.
  3. Complainant is retired Government servant from DRDO. Presently complainant is working as RTI activist and social worker to expose the Corruption in DRDO and other Government departments. Complainant is running a website corruptionindrdo.com for posting information related to Corruption and Financial irregularities in various establishments under DRDO.
  4. Technical Library, DMSRDE is having annual budget of about Rs. 1.50 crore for procurement of Printed Journals (Periodicals S&T – Rs. 1.10 crore), Online Science Direct e-Journals (Rs. 25 Lakh) and S&T Books (Rs. 15 Lakh).
  5. Mr. Jitendra Yadav, Scientist ‘E’ was appointed as Head, Technical Library in DMSRDE Kanpur vide Daily Order-I No. 29/AD dated 19.02.2012.
  6. An application under RTI Act 2005 was filed to Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’, Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur by complainant on 25th July 2013 regarding “Procurement of Scientific & Technical Books in Technical Library of DMSRDE”. Copy of the RTI dated 25th July 2013 is enclosed as Annexure-1.
  7. CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur replied by letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26th August 2013. Copy of CPIO reply dated 26th   August 2013 is enclosed as Annexure-2. CPIO, DMSRDE provided partial information and it was informed by CPIO that fund expenditure in procurements of S&T Books in Technical Library in DMSRDE in respective years was as follows:

libtable1

8.     Complainant was not satisfied with reply of CPIO and First Appeal dated 07 Sep 2013 was filed to First Appellate Authority, DRDO. By Order No. RTI/02/2091/F/2013/0142 dated 14 Oct 2013, First Appellate Authority DRDO ordered CPIO, DMSRDE to provide full information sought in RTI dated 25th July 2013. Copy of First Appellate Authority Order dated 14 Oct 2013 is enclosed as Annexure-3

9.     CPIO, DMSRDE seek additional fee for information vide his letter dated 30 October 2013. Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure-4. Vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/FAR/2013/0013 dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO provided information in 60 pages and in covering letter CPIO informed that No supply Order has been placed in FY 2010-2011 and No tender was called during FY 2010-2011 and 2012-2013. Copy of the letter dated 14 Nov 2013 is enclosed as Annexure-5..

1o.   The figures in information provided by CPIO were found self-contradictory and false as evident from summary of the information provided by CPIO.

libtable211.    On perusal of the documents provided by CPIO, following noticeable information has been found. 

           a.     Seven invoices were found for the financial year 2009-2010 with following details: 
libtable3libtable4libtable5libtable6libtable7libtable8

         b.      Supply Orders were issued by Head, Technical Library in FY 2012-13 for Procurement of Scientific & Technical books with following details:

  1. Terms & Conditions of Supply Order as per DRDO Manual is enclosed as Annexure-13.
  2. libtable9libtable10libtable11
  3. c.       Supply Order-1, Supply Order-2, Supply Order-3 and Supply Order-4 dated 27 April 2012 as mentioned in point(b) above were cancelled after 117 days on 23 August 2012 by Mr. Jitendra Yadav, Head Technical Library due to non-supply of books within delivery period of 90 days. It was mentioned in Para (2) of Terms & Conditions of Supply Order “This supply order shall automatically stand cancelled w.e.f. the next day after the date of delivery mentioned in this order”. Therefore supply orders were automatically stand cancelled after 90 days from issue of Supply Order (27 April 2012) i.e. w.e.f.  27 July 2012. Copies of letters No. TL/0510/WBF-2012 dated 23rd August 2012 issued for cancellation of supply orders to four vendors are enclosed as Annexure-24 to Annexure-27.
  4. d.         Twenty two invoices were found for the financial year 2012-2013 with following details:libtable12libtable13libtable14libtable15
  5. e.  Books were supplied against four supply orders that were cancelled on 23 August 2012. The fake invoices were fabricated from back date but actual supplies of books were made after cancellation of supply order. This smack conspiracy, manipulation and tampering of records for Corruption.
  7. 12.      During the FY 2012-2013 the following irregularities, gross violations of rules, loss of public fund and Corruption took place in procurement of Books.

  8. MAJOR FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES & BLUNDERS IN PROCUREMENT OF BOOKS BY  MR. JITEDNRA YADAV, SCIENTIST ‘E’ & DR. A.K. SAXENA, DIRECTOR

    1)          DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries and TIC 1999 as amended and Purchase Management 2006 as amended are being used in DMSRDE, Kanpur for procurement of books & periodicals. Rule 4.2 of Chapter 4 (ACQUISITION) of Manual is applicable for procurement of Books & Monographs. Copy of relevant rules of chapter 4 are enclosed as Annexure-50.

    2)           As per Rule 4.2.2 of this Manual selection of vendors should be made on the basis of their past services provided to the library, distributorship of publishers and infrastructure available with them. In the years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 there was almost no supply of books and only three vendors get supply orders in 2009-2010 and supplied books. Also these vendors offered 30% discount on books (Foreign & Indian).

    3)          In the FY 2009-2010 mode of tendering was limited tender of PM 2006 to get better discount and competition to save public money and this results 30% discount on books.

    4)          In FY 2012-2013 violations of rules and procedures of procurement of books were grossly violated to achieve fatty commission that results financial loss to exchequer. Supply Orders were issued to vendors without keeping in view the past services of the vendors. This results cancellation of all supply orders that took place on 27 April 2012. Hence these vendors should be blacklisted for further procurement of books in Library. But even after non-supply and automatic cancellation of supply orders after expiry of delivery period of 90 days, the supply orders were issued to same vendors on 17 August 2012.

    5)          Supply Orders were placed on single tender and 10% discount to pet vendors of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director and all vendors were from New Delhi only. Adopting the process of single tender with 10% discount without following previously adopted procedure of limited tender where vendors were offering discount of 35% – 40% on purchase of foreign books, resulted huge loss of public money and commission making by Mr. Jitendra Yadav and Dr. A.K. Saxena.

    6)          Even after cancellation of Supply Orders on 23 August 2012 the invoices dated 02 May 2012 were accepted while Supply Orders were placed on 27 April 2012. Thereby mischievously & fraudulently the supply of books were accepted in back date to get fatty commission from these vendors. This gross violation of rules & blunder took place even after cancellations of Supply Orders establish conspiracy against Government by Mr.  Jitendra Yadav and Dr. A.K. Saxena.

    7)          There was no procedure followed for selection of books. In fact there was no requirement of books from Scientists as no demands were made. There was no procurement of books in past two years and only Rs. 94833.00 was expenditure in purchase of books in FY 2009-2010.

    8)          It is crystal clear that Corruption took place in FY 2012-2013 where all of sudden books of Rs. 1467810.00 has been procured while in previous years it was “NIL” or very less Rs. 94833.00 only in 2009-10. Demand of books which was NIL (Zero) in 2010-11 and 2011-12 has increased all of sudden near about to the Rupees 15 Lakh. As compared to purchase of books in FY 2009-10 the hike in 2012-13 is about 15.5 times. This indicates that books were purchased without any need and requirement just to earn fatty commission.

    9)          DRDO is having very old manual issued on 11 January 1999 regarding Management of Library/TIC of DRDO. This manual is called as “DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres“. After issuance of Purchase Manual -2006 of DRDO this old Manual became ineffective & obsolete. Most of the DRDO Labs/Estt. are using Purchase Manual for procurement of books, Print Journal and Online E-Journals. DMSRDE is also using PM-2006 from last six years for procurement of books, Print  Journal and Online E-Journals as can be verified from records of Technical Library of DMSRDE, Kanpur. All of sudden making purchase of books on the basis of old manual smacks malafide intentions and leads corruption in purchase of books in FY 2012-2013. In fact in year 2012-2013 provisions of DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres has not been fully followed. Purchase procedures of DRDO Manual are for small & urgent procurement not for big procurements in tune of lakh or crores.

    10)      Fatty Commission in Procurement of books in FY 2012-2013: Books of Rs. 1467810.60 were purchased at discount of 10% only while in year 2009-2010 the discount on books was 30%. Even in FY 2011-2012 the offered discount by vendors were 35% and now days vendors are offering 40% discount on foreign books. Therefore books were purchased at very high prices on very low discount of 10% only with gross violation & spirit of Purchase Procedures to get maximum discount in open competition under limited tender to save public money. Therefore Rs. 440343.00 (30% of 1467810.00) had taken as fatty commission by Mr. Jitendra Yadav and Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE.

    11)      Fraudulent supply of books with fake invoices: In FY 2012-2013 four vendors   submitted invoices dated 02 May 2012 against the supply orders dated 27 April 2012 while these Supply orders were cancelled on 23 August 2012 by Mr. Jitednra Yadav, Scientist ‘E’ , Head, Technical Library. The supply on 02 May 2012 was impossible as it takes at least 5 days to reach speed post from DMSRDE dispatch section to the respective vendor. The details /entries of invoices shows that these invoices were not diarised at Director Office central registry and directly entertained by Head, Technical Library. Besides the verification records like receiving of invoices & books at Technical Library, envelops of invoices, CRV, payments by ACDA & records at Finance Division will disclose the whole conspiracy made in procurement of books in back date even after cancellation of supply orders.

    12)      Splitting of consolidated demand of books in four parts: Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena split the consolidated demand of books in four parts and misused his official position & powers so that he can get fatty commission from his pet vendors. The books should be procured in one consolidated demands with proper negotiations with vendors to get maximum discount offered in open market. Four supply orders were issued on 27 April 2012 to four vendors that were not made any supply in past four financial years in DMSRDE. This splitting of books demand leads loss to public fund and Corruption of Rs. 440343.00 by Mr. Jitendra Yadav and Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE. Sprit of Purchase Rules and CVC Guidelines is that “The proposals shall not be split merely to bring them within the delegated powers”.

    CHARGES ON DR. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR, DMSRDE

    1. Misuse of power & position for personal gain
    2. Splitting of demands of books in four parts to get fatty commission
    3. Planned conspiracy to accept supply even after cancellation of Supply Orders

    CHARGES ON MR. JITENDRA, SCIENTIST ‘E’, HEAD, TECHNICAL LIBRARY

    i.            Planned conspiracy for Corruption in procurement of books in FY 2012-2013 to earn fatty commission from vendors by issuing supply orders on only 10% discount

    ii.            Gross violation of rules in selection of vendors, splitting of demands

    iii.            Acceptance of supply even after cancellation of supply orders with tampering of records in back date

    iv.            Misconduct under Rule 3.(1) (iii) of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964

    Therefore, in light of the above mentioned facts and evidences, I may kindly request  you to issue order for inquiry and disciplinary action against Mr. Jitendra Yadav, Scientist‘E’ and Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE by CVO, Ministry of Defence.

    Regards

    Prabhu  Dandriyal,
    21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
    Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
    e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com
  9.  

 

 

Drdo

Finally Dr AK Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Charge Sheeted yesterday F/N

5 Comments

Status of Complaint No: 569/11/9 against your one great scientist Dr Anil Kumar Tyagi, Sc ‘G’ CPIO, DRDO Hqrs
Date: 8/10/2013
Sent to CVO for Investigation/Action Taken Report on date : 16/3/2011
CVO Report Received on date: 18/7/2013

Prima facie material has been found against the officials involved. Regular Disciplinary action is recommended on: 9/9/2013

Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs finally charge sheeted on 8th October 2013 F/N. Charge Sheet signed by Honorable Defence Minister, Sh A K Antony.

On 26th April 2011 I have posted a letter to Defence Minister regarding “DRDO Prefers to Give RTI Cell Responsibilities to Tainted Officers “

DRDO RTI Cell
1. Dr.Arun Kumar, D.O.P. – First Appellate Authority-Vigilance case is pending
2. Dr A.K Tyagi Scientist ‘F’ – CPIO – Case Registered in CVC No.569/11/9
3. Dr Prahlada, CC R&D – Ex F.A.A.- Case is pending with SC/ST commission
4. Sh S Ravi, Scientist ‘G` – Ex CPIO – Case of embezzlement(ITM Mussoorie)

Two were fixed

Dr.Arun Kumar, Ex – D.O.P. Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist was suspended and Charge sheeted – proceeding initiated
Dr A.K Tyagi , Scientist ‘G’ CPIO, DRDO Hqrs – Charge sheeted –

Next two are under lens of honest employees and both will be fixed

Dr A.K Singh present DOP is supporting Dr A.K Tyagi in all means – it shows his approaches, Dr A.K Singh leave protecting the corrupts and give attentions towards genuine transfer cases of Sh.Sachin, Scientist ‘C’ GTRE and Sh Naval Gupta, Scientist ‘B’ PM-2 Site.

Dr A.K Singh was bothering for image of DRDO but not able to handle Dr CP Ramanarayanan, who was made worst comment in DRDO history.

Some of senior DRDO’s officials are thinking they are GOD and they have power to ruin any one future, now it is not possible because thousands/ lakhs of eyes are watching your every moment.

Wait for GOD’s justice.

[M.O.F. No. F.15(8)-E IV/57, dated 28th March, 1959].
Circumstances under which a Government servant may be placed under suspension –
Cases where continuance in office of the Government servant will prejudice the investigation, trial or any inquiry (e.g. apprehended tampering with witnesses or documents);

Where the continuance in office of the Government servant is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office in which the public servant is working.
Where allegations have been made against the Government servant and preliminary inquiry has revealed that a prima facie case is made out which would justify his prosecution or is being proceeded against in departmental proceedings, and where the proceedings are likely to end in his conviction and/or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service.
Suspension
(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension-
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending