Tag Archives: CVC

Drdo

Antony defends fired DRDO staff

2 Comments

By Gautam Datt in New Delhi   Saturday May 25, 2013

ak antony

A DRDO employee, sacked on the grounds that he was a perpetual troublemaker after blowing the lid off alleged irregularities in the recruitment procedure, has sought protection from the Central Vigilance Commission ( CVC) claiming he was harassed for being a whistleblower.

The CVC had sought response from the defence ministry’s vigilance wing before taking any action on the complaint filed by Prakash Singh, an administrative officer, who has been at loggerheads with the DRDO for some time now.

Singh was forced to go on premature retirement last year for alleging that his boss A. K. Maini had indulged in malpractices in the recruitment process. He had forwarded the complaint to the CBI. The DRDO claimed that Singh was sacked because the allegation levelled by him was baseless and caused embarrassment to the organisation and defamation to his senior. It also said the officer had “ acquired a habit of complaining against his colleagues, superior officers and other agencies like DCDA.” The other charge against Singh was that “ he had been involved in creating problem to the organisation by the hostile attitude towards his colleagues and officers that shows, he has not been performing his duties with the requisite quality”. In its reply to the CVC, the defence ministry said that Singh has sought defence minister A. K Antony’s intervention for getting reinstated.

It also said that allegations made by Singh about a scam in the recruitment exercise were being investigated by a high level committee in DRDO on the direction of the defence ministry.

The defence ministry has instructed DRDO to submit its report within a month.

The officer had complained to the CBI against some officers occupying key positions in the defence scientific establishment claiming irregularities in recruitment. But his identity was disclosed after the CBI referred his complaint to the DRDO’s vigilance wing.

Singh had approached the CVC earlier this year seeking protection under Whistleblower Resolution. The CVC on March 18 sought response from the vigilance wing of the defence ministry which came up with the reply on April 25.

DRDO employee sacked after blowing lid off alleged irregularity in recruitment procedure

‘ BASELESS’ ALLEGATIONS

The DRDO claimed that Prakash Singh was sacked because the allegation levelled by him was baseless and caused embarrassment to the organisation and defamation to his senior

Singh has sought defence minister A. K. Antony’s intervention for getting reinstated

High- level committee in the DRDO, on the direction of the defence ministry, will investigate the allegations made by Singh

 

Drdo

Dr.Arun Kumar’s CAT Case – Right Decision – A perfect warning signal for corrupt DRDO officials

6 Comments

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-4075/2012

Reserved on : 09.04.2013.

Pronounced on :17.04.2013.

Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Dr. Arun Kumar,
R/o P-25/5, DRDO Residential
Complex, Lucknow Road,
Timar Pur, Delhi-54. . Applicant

(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)

Versus

1. Union of India through
Secretary, Deptt. Of Defence
R&D and DG, DRDO, DRDO Bhawan,
Rajaji Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Sh. Sameer Kumar Khare,
Chief Vigilance Officer,
Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi. . Respondents

(through Sh. Rajesh Katyal, Advocate)
O R D E R

Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
This is a second round of litigation. Earlier this applicant had filed OA-3293/2012, which was disposed of by this Tribunals order dated 24.11.2012. Operative part of the order reads as follows:-
24. Considering the aforesaid two sets of infirmities in the decision making process in the matter, we are of the considered views that the impugned communications dated 23.08.2012 and 05.09.2012 cannot be sustained and, therefore, those needs to be quashed. We accordingly set aside the same. We further provide that it would be open for the RM to consider the report of the Expert Committee first on the allegations against the applicant in a dispassionate manner, without getting influenced by the advice of the CVC or prejudiced by the views already expressed in the notes/files when the matter was subjudice before this Tribunal and take a considered view to accept or reject the recommendations of the Expert Committee. Obviously, if he does not accept the recommendations of the Expert Committee, appropriate decision should be taken at his level as per law, without being influenced by our observations in the order.

25. In view of the above, the Original Application stands disposed of in terms of our orders and observations leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Now the applicant has sought the following relief:-
(i) To Quash and set aside the impugned suspension order dated 30.11.2012 being illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to release all retirement dues of the applicant without any delay.

To direct the respondents to issue relevant order for joining of applicant as Chairman CEPTAM as approved by ACC.

To allow the OA with costs.

Any other order or further order as the Honble Tribunal thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. Facts of this case have been gone into in great detail in OA-3293/2012 filed earlier by the applicant. We propose to only briefly mention them and then concentrate on the developments in the case subsequent to this Tribunals order dated 24.11.2012. We also do not propose to adjudicate again on the issues which have been covered in the earlier judgment of this Tribunal.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the applicant was working at the level of Outstanding Scientist in DRDO in the pay scale of Rs. 67000-79000. According to him, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet had also approved his appointment as Chairman, CEPTAM in DRDO for a period of three years from the date of joining. On the complaint of one Dr. Neelam Bhalla, Scientist-F of DRDO, submitted to various authorities, such as, CVC, Honble Raksha Mantri (RM), Cabinet Secretary, Womens Commission in Delhi, Secretary, DRDO and Vigilance Department of MOD, it was decided by RM to constitute an Expert Committee to enquire into the issue and ascertain whether there is any truth in the allegations made by Dr. Neelam Bhalla. The main allegation was that the applicant had committed irregularities and maneuvered the recruitment of Group-D Scientist in DRDO in such a way that he was able to secure appointment for his daughter Swati Srivastava. In the earlier OA, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the Chief Vigilance Officer of MOD had sought CVC advice on the action to be taken on the complaint without taking orders of RM. CVC had advised initiation of major penalty against the applicant. In that OA, the applicant had pleaded before the Tribunal that CVCs advice is bound to influence the decision of the DA i.e. Honble RM, who was supposed to first take a decision on whether to proceed against the applicant or not and thereafter seek CVC advice. It was also pleaded before the Tribunal that the Expert Committee constituted by RM had exonerated the applicant and the recommendations of the Expert Committee had been accepted by the RM. Thus, the matter should be treated as closed. The Tribunal after hearing the pleadings of both sides had given the above mentioned judgment in the said case by which it was directed that it would be open for Honble RM to consider the report of the Expert Committee first on the allegations against the applicant in a dispassionate manner without getting influenced by the advice of CVC or prejudiced by the views already expressed in the notings in the file and take a considered view whether to accept or reject the recommendations of Expert Committee. On 30.11.2012, the respondents have passed the impugned order by which the applicant has been placed under suspension with immediate effect. Now, the applicant has assailed the suspension order before us through this O.A.

4. We propose to deal with each of the grounds on which the applicant has challenged the suspension order:-
(i) The first ground taken by him is that the impugned suspension order has been issued in defiance of the orders of this Tribunal dated 24.11.2012. According to the applicant, the Tribunal had specifically directed that Honble RM would take decision without being influenced by the advice of CVC or the notings made during the pendency of O.A. However, the respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Defence has himself taken the file to Honble RM for passing the suspension order on the basis of same complaint and already quashed communications dated 23.08.2012 and 05.09.2012. Further, the applicant has alleged that the suspension order is biased because the respondents were determined to humiliate the applicant by all means. They have done so to satisfy false ego of respondent No.2 and complainant Dr. Neelam Bhalla.

4.1 In this connection, we have perused the original record of the department. In File No. 13011/6/D(Vig.II)/10 (Part File) on page-32/N, Honble RM has passed the following order:-
As advised by the Honble CAT P.B. New Delhi, I have gone through the report of DRDO expert committee and I am of the view that the report of the expert committee is full of contradictions as they have not considered the issues before them with proper application of mind. The issues are as under:-

(i) Ms. Swati Srivastava, daughter of Dr. Arun Kumar, the then Additional Director, RAC, DRDO, had applied for the post of Scientist B in DRDO in 2004. Although dealing with the instant recruitment process of Scientist B in his official capacity, Dr. Arun Kumar did not inform the office in writing and did not recluse himself from the recruitment process.

Dr. Arun Kumar, manipulated the selection process to include the subject Environmental Biology under the advertised subject Biotechnology, without issuing corrigendum or public notification. This was done solely in spite of the fact that there were 300 odd candidates with the requisite qualification in Biotechnology and was done solely to make Ms Swati Srivastava eligible for the post since she was having qualification Environmental Biotechnology.

Dr. Arun Kumar unjustifiably changed the criteria for shortlisting of applicants for the interview, such as introducing preference for NET qualified/ cut off marks for university toppers etc. with the sole objective of extending undue benefit to his daughter, who would not have qualified for the interview if the existing criteria were followed and not manipulated in her favour.

2. From the above, I am of the view that the report of the expert committee could not give satisfactory and convincing reasons on the above mentioned issues, and therefore, the report is not accepted.

3. Hence, I find that it is a fit case where a departmental inquiry should be instituted as per applicable rules and guidelines. I hereby order that Dr. Arun Kumar may be placed under suspension with immediate effect before the action on disciplinary proceeding is processed. Since the first stage advice is required to be taken, let the matter be referred to CVC in accordance with the applicable rules.
We find from the aforesaid order that there is no reference to the advice of CVC or the communications dated 23.08.2012 and 05.09.2012. The order passed by Honble RM is well reasoned. He has ruled that the report of the Expert Committee was full of contradictions as they had not considered the issues before them with proper application of mind. Ms. Swati Srivastava D/o Dr. Arun Kumar (applicant and the then Additional Director, RAC, DRDO) had applied for the post of Scientist-B in DRDO in 2004. The applicant although dealing with this recruitment did not inform the office that his daughter was a candidate in the said selection process and did not recluse himself from the recruitment process. Honble RMs order further says that the applicant had manipulated the selection process to include the subject Environmental Biology with the advertised subject Biotechnology. This was done without issuing a corrigendum or public notification with the sole purpose of making Ms. Swati Srivastava eligible for the post since she was having qualification of Environmental Biotechnology. Further, the order says that the applicant unjustifiably changed the criteria for short listing the candidates for interview and introduced preference for NET qualified/cut off marks for university toppers etc. with the sole objective of extending undue benefit to his daughter, who would not have qualified for the interview if the unchanged criteria had been followed. Rejecting the report of the Expert Committee, Honble RM has directed that this was a fit case where a departmental inquiry should be instituted as per applicable rules. He has also directed that Dr. Arun Kumar be placed under suspension with immediate effect. Further, he has ordered that CVCs first stage advice may be taken in accordance with applicable rules.

4.2 In our considered opinion, the order passed by Honble RM is well reasoned and logical based on the material pertaining to the case. He has not been influenced by the advice of CVC as alleged by the applicant nor it appears that it has been done to satisfy false ego of respondent No.2 and complainant Dr. Neelam Bhalla. There is also nothing on record to show that Respondent No.2 has taken the file to Honble RM himself. Honble RMs order is of a date subsequent to the date on which Respondent No.2 saw the file. Thereafter, the file has been seen by Additional Secretary and Defence Secretary before being put upto Honble RM.

4.3 The second ground taken by the applicant is that respondent No.2 had no legal right to keep all the files containing the details of decision of Honble RM after receipt of High Power Committee report with him and after disposal of the OA by this Tribunal. As per rules and terms of this Tribunal, the decision on the Expert Committee report was required to be taken only by Honble RM on the filed to be submitted by Secretary, DRDO and not by MOD (Vigilance).

From the records produced by the department, we notice that the decision by Honble RM has been taken in the file of MOD(Vigilance). Respondent No.2, the Chief Vigilance Officer has made the following noting while submitting the case to Honble RM Honble RM may like to decide future course of action as mentioned in Para(4) of Note 28 above. The relevant Para-4 of the Note at page 28 is as follows:-
In view of the position explained above, the file is re-submitted to Honble R.M. for taking a decision on the findings of the DRDO committee in the matter as under:-

(a) To accept the recommendations of the Expert Committee/DRDO and close the case, in which case no action is required to be taken against Dr. Arun Kumar/shri A.K. Bansal.
OR
(b) To reject the report on the ground that the report was contradictory and has not covered major allegations as mentioned in the Table A (placed opposite) and to proceed ahead with the departmental enquiry based on the examination of the case by D (Vigilance). However, in this case Shri Arun Kumar will have to be placed under suspension [Under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965-F/Y] with immediate effect as he is retiring on 30.11.2012 to avoid the case being time barred as per Rule 9(2)(b)(iii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (F/X). It may be stated that as per Rule No.9(6)(a) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972(F/Z), the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted from the date the Government Servant is placed under suspension.
We have also seen the order of this Tribunal dated 24.11.2012 and we find that there is no mention in that order that Respondent No.2 was not required to keep the file with him or that Honble RM has to take decision on the report of the Expert Committee in the DRDO file and not on the file of MOD (Vigilance). Thus, the contention of the applicant in this regard is without merit.

4.4 The next issue raised by the applicant is that even the relevant rules and instructions have been violated while passing the impugned order. According to CCS(CCA) Rules, suspension should not be made in a routine and casual manner. It can be issued only where continuation of an officer in service is either likely to prejudice investigation or subvert discipline or after holding preliminary inquiry a prima facie case is made out, which is likely to lead to major penalty. According to the applicant, none o these conditions are applicable and the applicant himself was to leave the office on account of attaining the age of superannuation.
The respondents in their reply have stated that the DA has taken the decision after careful perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the material on record. The charges against the applicant were grave and he had failed to maintain absolute integrity while discharging his duty. The respondents have also denied the allegation of mala fide and have prayed for these to be ignored by the Tribunal.

5. We have perused the order of Honble RM by which the suspension has been ordered. It clearly brings out the grave charge of nepotism against the applicant, namely, that he had manipulated the recruitment process of Scientist-B of DRDO to favour his daughter. We do not feel that this has been done in a routine and casual manner. Since it is a grave charge which could lead to a major penalty, the respondents were justified in placing the applicant under suspension.

6. However, we do find that there is some merit in the contention of the applicant that since he was already retiring on 30.11.2012, the date on which Honble RM ordered his suspension, the suspension was not warranted inasmuch as the applicant would have otherwise left the office on account of attaining the age of superannuation. It is settled legal position that suspension is not a punishment and it is resorted to keep the delinquent officer away from office so that he does not get chance to tamper with the evidence so that the inquiry against him could proceed unhindered. In the instant case, the suspension order was issued on the last day of the service of the applicant on which day he would have, in any case, left the office and would not have been able to either tamper with the evidence or interfere with the inquiry. In our opinion, this appears to have been done in haste to meet the requirement of Rule-9(2)(d)(ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, which prescribe that no proceedings shall be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. The charge against the applicant pertains to recruitment that had taken place in the year 2004. The inquiry under CCS(Pension) Rules could not have been instituted against the applicant after 30.11.2012 since it pertained to an event which took place more than 4 years before his date of retirement. The respondents were, therefore, keen to institute the proceedings during the service time of the applicant. For doing so, either a charge sheet was to be served or the employee had to be placed under suspension. Only then the proceedings can be deemed to have been instituted. On 30.11.2012, when the suspension was order by Honble RM, the issue of charge sheet was not possible since before doing so CVCs first stage advice was to be taken. Therefore, the respondents resorted to issuing the suspension order.

7. While this may be so, we have to examine whether the suspension order gets vitiated for this reason and whether suspension order issued on the last date of retirement is unsustainable in law. It is an admitted fact that the order of suspension was served on the applicant at 2.30 P.M. on the date of his retirement. The applicant has contended that the relationship of the employer and employee had come to an end on that day and as such the suspension order was not valid. In this regard, the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Honble High court of Tamil Nadu in the case of G. Subramanian Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1988(2) MLJ 418 in which the Writ Petition was allowed and the order of dismissal passed against the applicant was quashed. In that case the applicant was due to retire on afternoon of 30.06.1977 on attaining the age of superannuation. That afternoon, he was informed by a telephonic message that Government of Tamil Nadu was placing him under suspension and not permitting him to retire. Thereafter, Government of Tamil Nadu issued an order on that very date stating that criminal offence was under investigation against the petitioner and, therefore, in public interest he was placed under suspension with immediate effect. He was also not permitted to retire. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted in which two charges against the petitioner were proved. He was issued a notice to show cause why he should not be removed from service. At that stage, the petitioner had approached the Honble High Court of Tamil Nadu.

8. While going through the facts of the case, we find that it is not applicable in the instant case. The reason is that in the case quoted above, the petitioner was not allowed to retire and was subsequently given notice for removal from service. The Honble High Court of Tamil Nadu had ruled that after the date of retirement of the petitioner, proceedings against him could have continued only for determining whether pension or a part thereof could be withdrawn from the petitioner. They, therefore, found that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner for removal from service was unsustainable in law. However, in the instant case, while the suspension order has been issued under CCS(CCA) Rules, the petitioner has been allowed to retire and now the proceedings are continuing under the CCS(Pension) Rules. This is obvious from the Annexure A-1 of the rejoinder, which is an order from the applicants Ministry transferring him to Pension Establishment w.e.f. 01.12.2012 (F/N).

9. The applicant has also relied upon the ruling of Honble Madras High Court in the case of P. Pandaram Pillai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (WP(MD) No. 10032/2009) dated 27.06.2011 in which it was observed as follows:-
7.."5.(i) the Disciplinary authority should not resort to last minute suspension of the Government servants (i.e) on the date of their retirement. A decision either to allow Government servant to retire from service or suspend him from service should be taken well in advance (i.e.) three months prior to the date of retirement on superannuation and orders issued in the matter and such a decision should not be taken on the date of retirement, if final orders could not be issued in a pending disciplinary case against a Government servant retiring from service due to administrative grounds

"13.Time and again, the Supreme Court and this Court has deprecated the initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings against an employee of the fag end of his retirement and keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the employee under suspension. Further when the petitioner had pleaded that there was official prejudice and enmity between him and the third respondent in the matter of use and maintenance of the official vehicle, the Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the case in proper perspective while dismissing the Original Applications. The Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner when there was hardly fifteen days left for his retirement. More over, when his date of retirement is on 11.3.1987 and the order of suspension was passed on 25.3.1987 by invoking G.O.No.173. Therefore, when once the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 11.3.1987, the placing the petitioner under suspension after his date of superannuation is without authority and that when the relationship of master-servant ceased to exist, no Disciplinary Proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner. On this ground also, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
10. Honble High Court has observed that last minute suspension of a Government servant should not be resorted and a decision either to allow the Government servant to retire or suspend him from service should be taken well in advance. The Honble High Court has also quoted the observations of Honble Supreme Court deprecating the initiation of disciplinary proceedings of an employee at the fag end of his retirement and keeping the matter pending for a long time.

11. Further, the applicant has relied on the Honble Madras High Court judgment in Writ Petition No. 14786/2011 in the case of V. Meenakshi Vs. The Director of Social Welfare dated 17.11.2011 in which the suspension order was issued on the last date of retirement of the petitioner. The Honble High Court observed as follows:-
11. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the disciplinary action initiated by the department. But in an extraordinary case, like the case on hand, where the petitioner was proceeded with an action on the last day of her service, based on the report in letter No. 031783/V2/1999, dated 9.5.1999, which was issued twelve years back, this Court has no option, but to interfere. The reason given by the respondent for taking such action on the last day that the report dated 9.5.1999 was received by the office of the respondent only on 31.5.2011 is not acceptable. As stated above, the respondent ought to have pursued with the Director of Government Examinations on his request made in 1998 to verify the genuineness of the certificate. For the above said reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and accordingly those orders are quashed.
12. The respondents have, on the other hand, stated that in the instant case the applicant himself filed OA before the Tribunal in which stay order had been granted putting the proceedings on hold. The OA was disposed of on 24.11.2012 i.e. just a week before the retirement of the applicant. Thus, the time available was very short and, therefore, the suspension order could be served only on the last day of the service of the applicant. However, according to the respondents, this does not vitiate the suspension order or the proceedings against the applicant in any manner. They have placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, AIR 2008 SC 1235 in which it was held as follows:-
In the instant case the show cause notice was issued to the respondent employee on January 13,2000 when he was very much in service. The respondent submitted his explanation on January 15,2000 which was not found to be satisfactory. A regular show cause notice was, therefore, issued by the Corporation on January 31,2000 and was served upon the respondent employee on the same day. The notice was also sent by registered post which was received by the employee on February 11,2000. But it is clear from the documents that show cause notice was issued and replied. A regular show cause as to departmental inquiry was also served upon the respondent employee on the last day of his service which was January 31,2000. Therefore, it could not be said that the proceedings had been initiated against the respondent employee after he retired from service.
The respondents argued that the Apex Court had clearly ruled that when an employee is served with the suspension order on the last day of his retirement, it cannot be said that the proceedings against him have initiated after the employee had retired from service. In view of this, the argument of the applicant that the employer-employee relationship had already ended is not sustainable.

13. We have considered the arguments of both sides and find that in the cases cited by the applicant there was unexplained delay in initiating action against the petitioners which were kept pending till the fag end of his retirement. In one case, the petitioner was not even allowed to retire and was given show cause notice for removal from service. However, in the instant case, the facts are different as the preliminary inquiry had been instituted against the applicant quite some time back through an Expert Committee. The findings of the Expert Committee were under examination. In between the applicant approached the Tribunal and obtained the stay order, which was vacated a week before his retirement. Thus, the respondents were left with very little time to initiate action against the applicant. Moreover, the charge memorandum clearly mentions the rules, namely, rule-9(2)(b)(ii) of CCS(Pension) Rules and Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Thus, after retirement of the applicant and his passing on to the Pension Establishment w.e.f. 01.11.2012(F/N), the proceedings against the applicant can only be continued under the Pension Rules for deciding whether full or any part of his pension may be withheld. We do not find any infirmity in this order.

14. The applicant has also pleaded for quashing of the proceedings on account of delay. His contention is that the first complaint was made by Dr. Neelam Bhalla in the year 2009 i.e. 5 years after the recruitment had taken place. The disciplinary action against him had been started 8 years after that recruitment. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (Appeal (civil) 4901/2005 dated 08.08.2005 in which it was ruled as follows:-
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account o the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistake committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.
The same judgment was relied upon by Honble Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 10694/2005 and connected cases.

15. However, we find that in the same judgment in Para-19, the Honble Supreme Court has also observed as follows:-
It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay.
16. Moreover, in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. V. Appala Swamy, (2007) 14, SCC 49 the same observation was made by the Apex Court. They further have gone on to say that if there has been delay then the delinquent officer should take that plea before the Inquiry Officer and also explain how delay has caused prejudice to his defence. Thus, the position that emerges is that facts and circumstances of each case have to be gone into and proceedings cannot be quashed merely on account of delay. In the instant case, the inquiry has just begun. The applicant can take the plea of delay before the IO and also explain if delay has caused any prejudice to his defence. We are not inclined to quash the proceedings on this ground alone.

17. In their arguments, the respondents counsel has emphasized on the fact that disciplinary proceedings in the instant case are at the interlocutory stage and judicial interference at this stage is not warranted. He has relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. A.N. Saxena, 1992 SCC(L&S) 861 in which the Honble Supreme Court had quashed the order of this Tribunal staying the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant holding that the charges against the applicant were serious and Tribunal had erred in granting injunction in restraining the UOI from taking disciplinary action against the officer. He has also retied on the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Govind Prajapati Vs. UOI & Ors., 150(2008)DLT 435 in which the Honble High Court quoted the Honble Supreme Court guidelines that interference by the Court at the stage of issuance of chargesheet would amount to pre-judging the issue as the correctness of the charges are yet to be looked into by the DA.

18. From the above analysis, we come to the conclusion that none of the grounds taken by the applicant for challenging the suspension order have any merit. Moreover, as laid down by Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Court of Delhi interference in disciplinary proceedings should not be ordinarily resorted to at interlocutory stage. We, therefore, dismiss the O.A. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)

 

/Vinita/

Drdo

Under scanner DRDO official suspended hours before retirement

2 Comments

Press Trust of India / New Delhi November 30, 2012, 20:15 –

Business Standard

A senior DRDO official, who is under scanner for his alleged role in an appointment made against the laid down procedures, was suspended hours before his retirement from service today.

The official, a senior scientist, has been suspended by the department as an inquiry is pending against him in a recruitment-related case where he allegedly recruited his own daughter in the organisation, sources said here.

“The case is sub-judice,” DRDO spokesperson Ravi Gupta said when asked about the details.
The matter had come to light after the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) recommended action against two DRDO officials for their alleged role in the case.
Following the CVC inquiry, DRDO chief V K Saraswat had sought an explanation from the officials.

The official suspended was involved in promotion and selection of scientists in the organisation.

CVC had also recommended review of the appointment of the scientist’s daughter who is now working in DRDO as a ‘Scientist C’.

Drdo

CVC orders penalty against DRDO official

2 Comments

ABHINANDAN MISHRA   Sunday Guardians NEW DELHI | 30th Sep 2012

The officer has been found guilty of appointing his senior’s daughter without following the due process.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has advised the initiation of major penalty proceedings against an additional director rank officer and his superior, a director, with the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO). The officer has been found guilty of appointing his senior’s daughter without following the due process. The proceedings have been advised after a complaint filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was probed by the CVC.

The CVC has recommended the penalty against A.K. Bansal, who was at that time additional director (Recruitment and Assessment Centre) (Scientist F) and Arun Kumar, director, (RAC) (outstanding scientist). Bansal illegally facilitated Kumar’s daughter’s appointment.

The Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC) of DRDO looks after the recruitment and promotion of scientists in the organisation.

The CVC in its memorandum dated 23.08.2012 has stated, “The case has been examined by the commission. On facts of the case, the commission in agreement with MoD, advises initiation of major penalty proceedings against Dr. Arun Kumar, Senior Scientist, DRDO, and Shri A.K. Bansal, Additional Director, RAC.”

The CVC has also asked the ministry to reconsider the appointment of Swati Shrivastava, daughter of Arun Kumar, who is working as Scientist C in DRDO. “Further, the commission advises the ministry to reconsider the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava, daughter of Dr. Arun Kumar.”

“This is a clear case of corruption and misuse of position to appoint close relatives,” an employee of DRDO stated on the condition of anonymity.

Arun Kumar is serving as Director (Personnel) in the DRDO headquarters at present. A.K. Bansal, who retired in 2009, was till last month working with the Institute of Defence Scientists and Technologists (IDST), a registered body of retired DRDO professionals, which claims to provide consultancy, expertise and assistance to DRDO.

The DRDO had earlier tried its best to stonewall an RTI (Right to Information) query filed by an employee of the organisation, seeking to inspect the records related to the employment of Dolly Bansal, daughter of A.K. Bansal. DRDO, while refusing to allow the inspection of records, had said that it was an exempted organisation under the RTI Act.

However, the Central Information Commission rejected the DRDO’s contention and said that since it was related to alleged irregularities in the selection of Dolly Bansal as a scientist and there was no harm in the inspection of the available records.

When contacted, DRDO spokesperson Ravi Kumar Gupta said that the organisation follows a transparent and fair policy of recruitment: “It may be a matter of difference of perception (the findings of CVC). Decisions by RAC related to recruitment are taken by a chairman who is independent of the scientific advisor. However, whatever action is required to be taken, will be taken.”

Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne with DRDO officials during a function in Bangalore earlier this month. PTI

 

Drdo

Appointment scandal brews, 2 DRDO scientists under cloud

3 Comments

Indian Express

 By Yatish Yadav / ENS – NEW DELHI 21st September 2012 10:59 AM

In a fresh blow to Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has advised initiation of major penalty against two of its scientists.

Acting on a complaint alleging irregularities in appointment and promotion of scientists and based on subsequent investigation by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Defence Ministry, the CVC found Arun Kumar and A K Bansal blameworthy.

“The case has been examined by the commission. On the facts of the case, the commission is in agreement with Ministry of Defence and advises initiation of major penalty proceedings against Dr Arun Kumar, senior scientist, DRDO, and A K Bansal, additional director, Recruitment Assessment Centre,” the CVC office memorandum dated August 23 said.

Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC) of the DRDO was set up in July 1985 for the recruitment and promotion of scientists. The RAC is exempted from the purview of Union Public Service Commission.

Sources said the complaint was lodged by a DRDO employee alleging nepotism and lapses in the policy of recruitment and promotion.

It is learnt that the matter was taken up by the defence vigilance based on Defence Minister A K Antony’s directions.

Arun Kumar is currently serving as Director, Personnel – a DRDO department that coordinates recruitment of scientists and appointment of consultants. Kumar was promoted to the grade of an outstanding scientist in 2010. It was alleged that he misused power to induct his daughter in a laboratory functioning under the DRDO, in violation of laid down norms. After examining the probe report, the CVC has also advised the ministry to reconsider the appointment of his daughter.

The DRDO’s image took a beating recently after a secret audit report ordered by Antony unravelled the rot within. Citing various cases, the report claimed that the DRDO’s functioning was not transparent.

Also, no comprehensive database with details of projects sanctioned by the DRDO and how many were declared successful was in place.

The DRDO has a network of 52 laboratories and establishments spread across the country with an annual budget of over Rs 10, 500 crore. Currently, it has over 5,000 scientists and around 25,000 support staff working in several areas of defence technology.

Drdo

CVO / Director (Intelligence & Vigilance) / Add. Director (Intelligence & vigilance) O/o the DRDO; Ministry of Defense involved in corruption to give shelter to corrupt Senior Scientist

5 Comments

From :  

Rajiv Chauhan;
1053/3,Shastri nagar,Meerut(U.P)
09412628314;09258045938;

To,
Mr. Pradeep Kumar,
Central Vigilance Commissioner,
New Delhi;

Subject : CVO / Director (Intelligence & vigilance) / Add. Director (Intelligence & vigilance) O/o the DRDO; Ministry of Defense involved in corruption to give shelter to corrupt senior scientist 

Dear Sir,
I can give you my affidavit whenever you require to put my strong complaint related with the CVO / Director / Add. Director (Intelligence & vigilance); O/o –DRDO that they are working for providing the shelter to the corrupt officers and scientist in DRDO. After having strong evidences they ignored and give the clean chit to the corrupt officers / scientist. This clean chit is used by the corrupt officers and scientist to show their integrity. A lot of honest departmental senior officers and scientist put up complaints against the corrupt DRDO scientist but this Directorate of Intelligence and vigilance give the shelter to corrupt persons and recommended the action against the honest officers and scientist. This is a very good joke in your corruption preventive department. Can you scrutinize the complaints investigated by this CVO / directorate (Intelligence & vigilance) of DRDO? If yes than a lot of honest officers / scientists / NGO’s and individuals will give you strong evidences related high level corruption in DRDO, Ministry of Defense.
Secondly , however RTI is not your jurisdiction but a lot of the RTI file before CPIO, o/o DRDO to take the corruption related information’s, but CPIO never give the corruption related information to the RTI activist and get sheltered from 24(1) of the RTI act. If you can take the notice on RT I applications related with corruption than definitely you can get evidences against the corruption.
Thirdly, a lot of the scientist are involving in spy the researches and leak the classified information’s. This Directorate (intelligence and vigilance) O/o – DRDO is fully aware about these things but after that they are given the shelter to the corrupts.
Fourthly, I put up more than 100 complaints scrutinized by the (intelligence and vigilance) O/o – DRDO and give shelter to the corrupt offices / scientists—-
1- Scientist ’F’ O/o-DRDO; Neelam Bhalla complaint for recruitment of Swati Srivastava Scientist D/o-Mr Arun Kumar, Director O/o- DRDO HQ.
2- Senior Administrative Officer, O/o- DRDO Mr Prakash Singh , more than 40 corruption related complaints.
3- My corruption related more than 20 complaints against RAC OF DRDO.& others.
4- Spy of the research related complaints by the honest DRDO Scientists.
5- More than 50 corruption related complaints through www.drdocorruption.com
TOP senior scientists of the DRDO directly related with corruption, so that CVO / Directorate (intelligence and vigilance) O/o – DRDO give the shelter to his senior involved in corruption.
I request you to re-investigate the all corruption related cases of the DRDO investigated by the CVO / Directorate (Intelligence & vigilance) of DRDO through another investigating agency or directly by the CVC. I assure you that you will find out the heavy corruption in DRDO. I will be highly obliged for your kind consideration and necessary action.

Regards,

 

 

Rajiv Chauhan

COPY TO THE :
1- Hon’ble President of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
2- Hon’ble Prime minister of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
3- Hon’ble Home minister of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
4- Hon’ble Defense Minister of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
5- Hon’ble CIC of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
6- Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, for kind consideration and necessary action.
7-Director, Intelligence Bureau, for kind consideration and necessary action.,

 

 

Rajiv Chauhan

Drdo

CVC probe sought in Navy’s procurement of torpedoes

Leave a comment

Apr 08, 2012 | PTI | New Delhi – The Asian Age

The Navy’s deal for procurement of torpedoes for Scorpene submarines from an Italian company has come in for questioning with a Member of Parliament writing to the Central Vigilance Commission seeking a probe into alleged corruption in the selection.
Jainarayan Prasad Nishad, who had earlier written to Defence Minister A K Antony, has alleged that WASS heavy water torpedo was selected for procurement “without validation of critical parameters at sea for speed and range” as specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP).
The RFP clearly stated that only those vendors who could successfully perform dynamic trials of the offered torpedo would be considered but “this was totally ignored in the case of WASS, Italy and the deal was pushed in favour of WASS, thereby ignoring the technical conditions laid in the RFP, Nishad has said.

Citing “(defence) ministry sources” and articles published in some defence magazines, the JDU MP from Bihar has claimed that in the case of the deal, the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) was “manipulated and violated for pecuniary financial gains”.
In his letter to Antony, Nishad has contended that the then DG Acquisition had recommended re-issuance of the RFP as the Defence Procurement Procedure was “not being followed and the RFP was ab-initio defective” but later, the Navy used the “excuse” of urgency to reverse the decision and sent it to the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) for approval to consider WASS “as a resultant single vendor”.
Alleging wrongdoings in the process that dates back to 2007 and 2008, the MP claimed that to ensure the RFP was not cancelled, the Navy had “deliberately cleared” another bidder ATLAS Elektronik of Germany at the TEC (Technical Evaluation Committee) stage and rejected it after trials.
“Creating a single vendor scenario through manipulation to overcome the DPP, which has happened in this case, and selecting an inferior product, could lead to the security of the nation being compromised for pecuniary financial gains,” he warned in the letter to Antony.
On getting no response from Antony, the MP shot off a letter to CVC Pradeep Kumar along with the one written to the Defence Minister in January this year. “This has vigilance angle,” he wrote, requesting probe into the matter “seriously” and take necessary steps to stop any possibility of corruption in the deal.
Earlier, ATLAS Elektronik had also cried foul play and sent letters of complaint to the Defence Ministry.
Meanwhile, reacting to the allegations levelled by Nishad, Navy spokesperson Commander P V S Satish said, “For the moment all I can say is that all acquisitions undertaken by the Indian Navy are done with due care and adherence to laid down procedures”.
“Trials were conducted as per the procedures approved by the DAC and were acceptable to both the vendors (in the contract),” he added. The Navy has plans of procuring around 100 torpedoes for the fleet of its six Scorpene submarines, which are being constructed by the Mazagon Dockyarads Limited (MDL) in partnership with French DCNS.

Drdo

Helpless India

1 Comment

To                                                                                                       11th September 2011
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

Reference: a)  Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21st March 2011

                       b)  Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th May 2011

The bomb blast at gate No -5 of High Court, Delhi has once again proved that we are helpless. The government is helpless, Prime Minister is helpless, Home Minister is helpless that is all agencies responsible for protection of common man is helpless. Right hand does not know what left hand is doing.

Through this website I raised many issues of DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India and found that no concrete action has been taken because Defence Minister is also helpless.

Accountability is missing in each and every level in the DRDO machinery. Accountability is missing therefore unaccountable assets are growing in individuals bank accounts and benami properties etc.

In DRDO there is no accountability at all; SA to RM is holding four posts simultaneously like SA to RM, DG (R&D), Secretary DRDO, Program Coordinator / Chairman Brahmos aerospace Private Limited etc. He  is enjoys the unaccountable money with the help of Dr Vasudeva of SPIC and many more means but not accountable to national security. In Kargil like scenario SA may say that I am helpless because my past predecessors have not fixed the track of development and 30000 strong scientific/technical force whom I am leading does not listen to me, no where it has been written that DRDO is responsible to develop concurrent technology useful for national defence or DRDO is not responsible for developing a system which can go for batch production.

DRDO is using simply the word like (a) Mission Mode (b) Technology Development           (c) Science and Technology basic research. These words have been borrowed simply to justify the annual expenditure which is forcefully granted by defence ministry.

I am not accountable and none my director is are accountable, SA’s punch lines which is maintained by in all labs meticulously. This the vision of DRDO labs for accountability, this culture is followed every effort is made

Directors are free to misuse the government funds as they have to match the exorbitant projected funds for a particular year.

How DRDO is helping the wasting the government funds is narrated by Sh S Ravind, PD, LLR, LRDE Bangalore to CVC, New Delhi.

Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com,  prabhu@dandriyal.com 
Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed – letter of Sh S Ravind PD,LLR,LRDE Bangalore

letter of Sh S Ravind PD,LLR,LRDE Bangalore
letter of Sh S Ravind PD,LLR,LRDE Bangalore
Drdo

Appeal to All Retired/Serving Officials of DRDO – Please Provide Inputs & Suggestion for PIL’s

2 Comments

Dear friends

To save our premier organization from clutches of corrupt official it is time to submit PIL’s in honorable Supreme Court/ High Court. The people who retired or serving in DRDO are very well know that how much neck deep corruption, nepotism, favoritism and misuse of funds prevailing in DRDO.

So far DRDO has escaped from the attentions of the various agencies like CAG, CVC, CBI, Income Tax, Custom and Sales Tax etc.  The www.corrutionindrdo.com received lot of information which can attract the above all agencies and in few cases the information also about how DRDO fooling or misleading these agencies.

We have to tell the honorable Court that DRDO senior management is as corrupt as Sh P J Thamos, Ex- CVC, or as Justice Soumitra Sen (first judge impeached by Rajyashabha) and some corrupt as Sh Andimuthu Raja (2G scam fame minister) as Smt Kanimozhi Karunanidhi (2G scam fame member of Parliament) as Sh Suresh Kalmadi ( CWG scam fame member of Parliament)  are now in Tihar Jail.

DRDO established in the year 1958 with a humble beginning to technical support to the defence forces, as an integral part Ministry of Defence along with defence production units. The successive war fought by India such as 1962 with China, 1956 & 1971 with Pakistan and 1999 Kargil war it has been proved that DRDO has not played significant role and exhausted billion of billion  poor tax payers money.

The promised were like bring moon on Earth as programs like IGMDP (Missile Program), MBT (Arjun), SAMYUKTA(Electronic Warfare), LCA(Tejas Aircraft), RADARS, SHIPS, SUBMARINE, Bread, Butter, Jam etc.

Until 1980 DRDO spread from Kanyakumari to Leh and Gujrat to North East. The huge Infrastructure were built (1 Lakh Crores) and high technical man power recruited                 ( 30000) by passing UPSC and aim was to develop import substitute but with the passage of time:-

  1. DRDO forgot all the commitments to the defence forces and instead of strengthen the forces it played role of obstacles for procurement latest technology.
  2. DRDO directors, Hqrs justify their successive failures but consumed 7-8 % of defence budget annually.
  3. The total failures were reviewed by ministry of defence and 439 projects was short closed/ aborted(before time)
  4. Programs which were initiated by 1990 with the promise of deliverable products were failed measurably the poor tax payer’s money which were supposed to play a positive role in country’s defence were mere wasted.
  5. Today we are importing the import substitute latest example like SDR and befooled the countryman.
  6. In the name of SECRECY article’s of 1927 & 1965 seals the corrupt DRDO top brasses and they are siphoning the precious money in the broad day light to their son’s, daughter’s, spouse, relatives and friends bank accounts.
  7. Orders are placed with foreign firms through open / limited tenders but the case is negotiated with these private pocket firms which are related to them. As a result huge DRDO money goes to massage parlour, Cocktails Party’s  and dowry with Mercedes Benz ( Ex Director DIITM, DRDO Hqrs was generously to give Mercedes Benz to his Son In Law)
  8. Fighting against corruption prevailing in DRDO since 2001 have collected enough information and ready to file PIL .  Through website www.corruptionindrdo.com many many honest, patriotic and nationalist people join their hands and supplied lot information about corruption, nepotism to save our DRDO.

I appeal to my brothers and sisters of serving and retired DRDO officials to join hands in support the PIL’s for cleaning the DRDO from corrupt officials and make DRDO a perfect productive organization so our future talented boys and girls not quit from DRDO due to unethical environment.

The proposed PIL will be submitted through Sh Vinay Kumar Mittal, Ex Scientist ‘G’, DRDO and whistle blower of NTRO. The PIL’s will be presented by Sh Prashant Bhushan the noted advocated   Sh Anna’s right hand.

  1. Extension / contracts/ consultancy of corrupt DRDO officials beyond the 60 years of service
  2. Recruitment/ Assessment tool used to encourage corruption/ nepotism/favoritism and kick backs in recruitment and assessments( DRDO RAC activities and the role of RAC chairman)
  3. To fix the accountability. So far nobody is answerable to anybody in DRDO. It has inculcated a culture to encourage bluff and give benefit to bluff masters.
  4. To expose all DRDO serving/ retire top officials having companies which are involving in unethical business directly or indirectly and siphoning the poor tax payer’s money.

Sh Vinay Kumar Mittal, Ex Scientist ‘G’, DRDO has kindly agreed and offered his services to submit PIL’s who already brought the NTRO corruption in the notice of honorable Supreme Court as well as in the notice of common people of India.

Thanking you

Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com,  prabhu@dandriyal.com                                          Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com

From   Vinay Kumar Mittal vkm021055@gmail.com
To       prabhu@dandriyal.com
Date    Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:48 AM

Subject  Request for information for filing PIL in Delhi High Court against DRDO

Dear Prabhu,

i am an avid reader of your site about what is happening in DRDO.

DRDO of today is not the DRDO of yesteryear’s . There no doubt that there is massive corruption , favoritism , nepotism , misuse of official position and funds in various laboratorieses of DRDO. DRDO Laboratory Director are ‘neo kings’ who are law unto themselves . I remember a Director’s conference in mid 900’s when Dr. Arunachalam was SA and T.N Sheshan was Defence Secretary . He very open  said that  ‘”when you visit a DRDO lab there will be  a long pathway –  you open one gate then second gate and finally a third gate to see the king (Director)  sitting and ruling over his empire. They consider themselves nothing less than kings – the Maharaja with lab staff and scientist as their praja”.

I have personally witnessed all this and deeply saddened

What went wrong with NTRO is this DRDO culture which was imported by DRDO crowd i.e. KVSS Prasad Rao and M.S.Vijayraghavan .This DRDO culture destroyed NTRO. Now Hon’ble Supreme Court taking a very very serious view of happenings in NTRO , things are expected to move in right direction. Based on  the evidence provided by me , I have reasons to believe that some very very senior functioneries will definately be arrested after Hon’ble Supreme Court goes throught CAG and CVC report on NTRO.

I am now filing four more PILs in Supreme Court throught Sh. Prashant Bhushan  to the issue of corruption in NTRO with all the evidnece . This became essentail since there were many issues which could not be covered in my earlier PIL/SLP in the matter related to NTRO.

I have a request to make . Kindly provide me with evidence ( RTI responses, copies of documents if any and details of cases ) about corruption, misuse of official position , favoritism , nepotism in DRDO and I will file PIL in Delhi High Court against DRDO. This is essential since many of you are already working in DRDO and give3n the poor moral character of officials of DRDO , you may not like to take up the issue with you bosses. As far as as I am concerned , i have nothing to loose and worry about – iIhave faced enough threats of liquidation , arrest etc and I have taken this in my stride . When you challenge this corrupt system , this is bound to happen.

Unfortunately DRDO has escaped attention of the agencies/ institutions  because of  general impression that ‘ they are poor scientists only and not Income Tax , Sales Tax or other public dealing departments”. We have to tell the world that DRDO senior management is as corrupt as any other department.

Please do not worry about the cost . This can be worked out separately in an transparent manner.

Please put this appeal on your web site. The documents can be provided either through you or directly to me at following address

Vinay Kumar Mittal
605, Satpura Apartment
Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad 201010
email-vkm021055@gmail.com 
Mobile – +919811333195
Res- 0102-2776171
 
Drdo

Appeal to all young Scientists of DRDO to save DRDO from Blackmailers

1 Comment

Dear friends you are observing in your respective labs that a new trend of extension in service is increasing day by day and the eligible people are missing the goal of top post of lab.   Surprisesly the increasing trend is due to blackmailing of higher-ups. Friends carefully observe the list; you will not find any single deserving candidates who are getting extension, because the deserving scientists are not able to get chance of extension in list recommended from DRDO.    You will be  shocked to know that extension awardees are facing vigilance inquiries and lot of complaints are pending with Criminal cases/civil cases/CVC/Women Cell/CBI/DRDO vigilance cell but due to blackmailing power SA & CC’s are bound to overlook all these and recommend all blackmailers for extensions.

So what is the solution?

All extensions are given on the basis of criteria for grant of extension/re employment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation are laid down in the DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt. (B)  Dated the 18th May, 1977

Please go through the following and send your observation about those blackmailer scientists from your respective labs. These blackmailer scientists put others work in their name and you people only can expose their tactics because the ministry officials who process the file are non technical they cannot assess the game plan of these intellectual scientific mafia’s.

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal 
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com ,  prabhu@dandriyal.com
Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com/

No. 26012/6/2002-Estt. (A)

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions

(Department of Personnel & Training )

New Delhi, dated 9th December, 2002

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject : Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government  servants  beyond the age of superannuation – issue of  instructions regarding.

The undersigned is directed to say that the criteria for grant of extension/re employment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation are laid down in the DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt.(B)  dated the 18th May, 1977.  After May, 1998 and when the age of retirement  of the Central Government employees increased from 58 to 60 years, some  of the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 18th May, 1977 referred to above have lost their relevance.  Accordingly, it has been decided to revise the instructions relating to extension/re-employment to Central Government employees.

2. In the absence of specific orders to the contrary by the competent authority, a Government servant must retire on the due date.  The date of superannuation of a Government servant is known in advance and ordinarily there should not be a question of failure to make arrangements for his release sufficiently in advance.  It is the responsibility of the administrative authority concerned to ensure that the Government servants under their control retire on the due date.

3.  Extension: F.R. 56(d) states that no Government servant shall be granted extension of service beyond the age of 60 years.  However,  provisions exist in the rules to grant extension of  service to certain  category of Government servants only.  Therefore, it must be ensured that no  Ministry/Department  should propose to grant extension in service unless the case is covered by the Rules.

4. The proposal for grant of extension in service to the categories of  personnel referred to in the first, second and third proviso to F.R. 56(d)    -2- shall be referred to the Estt. Division of Department of Personnel and Training two months prior to the date on which the individual concerned is  due for superannuation.   The procedure for grant of extension to the Scientists is laid down in DoPT d.o. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO(SM-II) dated the 10th July, 2000.

5. Procedure for consideration of cases for extension of specialists in the medical and scientific fields:- It should be appreciated that even in the case of extension to specialist in the medical or scientific fields, it is not only the next man who misses promotion but often several people miss consequential promotions all along  the hierarchy.  Thus, too many cases of extension in service or reemployment are likely to cause frustration and affect the morale of the upcoming scientists who have exposure to latest technological developments in connecting fields.  Keeping in view these circumstances, the following criteria and procedure has been evolved with a view to ensure that extensions in service to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances.  The overriding consideration for the grant of extension is that it must be in the public interest and in addition satisfy one of the following two conditions:-

i)    that the retiring specialist is  not just one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest; or

ii)   that other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the  job.

Test (ii) would be satisfied only if there is shortage in particular specialization, or if it is not possible to find a suitable successor or if the specialist is engaged on a work or project of vital importance, which is likely to produce results in a year or two.  If specialists in the next lower post are not eligible for promotion on the ground that they have not put in the minimum service in the lower grade prescribed under the rules, no promotions can be made to the higher grade, unless such specialists put in the requisite length of service.  But specialists who are eligible for promotion  to the post against which extension is recommended, should not be rejected solely on the ground that they do not have as much experience as the retiring specialist.  They should be considered for promotion according to the -3- recruitment rules and if they are found suitable they should be promoted to the posts being vacated by the retiring specialists.

6. Whenever any specialist is considered for grant of extension, his character roll and personal file should be carefully scrutinized and all other relevant information that may be available should be taken into account to judge whether the specialist had good reputation for integrity and honesty.   In cases where the specialist is not considered to have good reputation for integrity and honesty, he should not be considered for grant of extension in service.  The appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry should furnish a certificate of Integrity along with the Annexure-I as follows where it proposes to grant extension of service.

“Having scrutinized in character roll and personal file of

Shri/Smt./Kum._____________________ and having taken into account all other relevant available information, I certify that he/she has a good reputation for integrity and honesty.”

7. While making proposals for extension of service in higher posts, it is all the more necessary to apply higher standards of efficiency to persons whose appointments to the higher posts are recommended for approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.  The number of top posts is bound to be very limited and a few persons should not have them for too long.  No Government servant who is on extension of service after the prescribed date of retirement should be promoted to another post during the period of extension of service.

8. No extension of service should be considered on the ground that a suitable successor is not available unless it is established that action to select a successor had been taken well in advance but the selection could not be finalized in time for justifiable reasons.  A proposal for the grant of extension of service based merely on the consideration that the specialist’s predecessor had been given extension should obviously not be accepted. -4-

9.  Re-employment: No proposal for employing a government servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years shall be considered.  It is also clarified that no person can be appointed/ reappointed to Central Government service after the age of superannuation of 60 years through contract.

10. Re-employment of military pensioners who have not reached the age of superannuation for Central Government employees will not be governed by these instructions.

11. Appointment of Consultant:-

Detailed instructions have been issued for appointment of consultant vide DoP&T’s Office Memorandum No. 16012/7/97-Estt.(Allowance) dated 13th  February, 1998. Hindi version will follow.

                Sd/-

Mrs. Pratibha Mohan

Director (E-II)

To

 All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.

(As per standard list)

 

 

Annexure-I

 

Performa for sending proposals  for approval of Department of Personnel & Training for grant  of extension to Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.

 

1. Designation of the post:

2. Duration of the post     :

3. Scale and terms of the post and perquisite attached, if any:

4. Whether financial sanction for the creation of the post/continuance of post for the    duration shown at (2) has been obtained:

5. Method of recruitment:

6. Name and the terminal date of appointment of the outgoing incumbent of the post:

7. Name of the specialist proposed for appointment and the service to which he belongs:

8. Full service particulars of the Officer with date of birth and pay drawn:

9. Names of other Officers considered:

10. If promotion post, whether copies of proceedings of a D.P.C. are being enclosed? If not, why not?

11. Whether character roll of the specialist proposed and those considered are being sent.  If not, why not?

12. Please indicate:

(i) (a) Whether the post  is scientific or medical specialist.

(b) Periods of extension granted earlier to the officer, if any

(c) Date from which extension is to be granted.

(d) Period of extension of service.

(ii) Justification for grant of extension:

(a)  The date from which it was known that vacancy would occur.

(b) Action taken to select a successor with chronological details.

(c) If selection is being made, reasons why this could not be finalized in good time.

(d) Can some officiating or ad-hoc arrangements be made, pending fresh appointment by proper selection? If not, why not?

(iii) Whether orders of the Minister-in charge have been obtained?

13. Whether the prescribed Integrity Certificate, from the appropriate authority, is enclosed.