To 20-11-2019 Wg Cdr Suman Adhikari, CPIO, Room No. 160, Dte of PS, Air HQ (VB), Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110
Hello, Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of appeal submitted to Higher Court by BEL against order of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait dated October 9, 2019 to respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners Sh M.M. Pandey, General Manager (Product Support), Sh R.K. Goyal, Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), and Sh Sumit Krishna, Manager, (Product Support).
As per appeal page no 49 and 50 para xi line 5 – In this regard on 25-09-2019 the Asstt,
Chief of Air Staff vide his confidential letter has brought to notice of the
CMD, BEL that confidential documents relating to the said contract have been
found in the custody of un authorized elements and that: owing to the
sensitivity of the project involving national
security, investigation in this regard be carried out on highest priority and
report submitted at the earliest.
Provide that above mention
confidential letter dated 25-09-2109 whether sent to CMD, BEL by Asstt, Chief
of Air Staff. Yes or No
Does Air force taken any action against un authorized elements who possesses the sensitive project
information Yes or No
IACCS project sites security
managed by Air Force or BEL.
IACCS project sites CCTV
is managed by Air Force or BEL
IACCS project sites
contractors manpower verified by police Yes or No
Whether IACCS project
sites In-charge verify that the contractor manpower is from authorized contractors like L&T or from unauthorized
Sublette contractor like C S Construction or S R Ashok etc.
Whether IACCS Directorate or
Asstt, Chief of Air Staff above aware the unauthorized Sublette working equation
of BEL in IACCS sites Yes or No
By Pradip R Sagar October 16, 2019 18:34 IST THE WEEK
The officials have exposed the alleged irregularities in a multi-crore project
Causing embarrassment to the defence public sector undertaking, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), the Delhi High Court has quashed the suspension order of three of its senior officers, who have exposed the alleged irregularities in a multi-crore confidential project for the Indian Air Force.
On the basis of inputs on alleged irregularities in awarding a contract to a private firm by violating norms for Integrated Air Command and Control Systems (IACCS) for the IAF worth 79,00 crore, BEL in July 2018 had set up a three-member investigation panel. The panel was headed M.M. Pandey, general manager (Product Support), and comprised R.K. Goyal, senior deputy general Manager (Vigilance), and Sumit Krishna, manager, (Product Support). On October 3 last year, the committee submitted its report which said shell companies were used to gain contract. The investigation panel also pointed irregularities in awarding consultancy contract to a private firm for IACCS project at 10 locations across the country.
On March 29, 2019, the chief vigilance officer submitted its final report to the Chairman and Managing Director of the BEL, supporting the panel’s view. The report had stated: “A company that came into existence in April 2010 showed its employees had an experience of five years in 2013.” Moreover, the report also mentioned role of senior Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) officers, who were under the scanner, since it was the DRDO which recommended the name of the private firm to BEL.
However, instead of taking action against the corrupt officials on the basis of CVO’s report, the BEL authorities suspended all three members of the committee on disciplinary charges. A chargesheet and suspension order was issued against the whistleblowers on May 17, 2019.
While delivering the judgment, the court observed that on perusal of chargesheet-cum-suspension order (dated May 17, 2019), it is specifically mentioned that M.M. Pandey, GM, product support, was appointed as Investigation Officer by CVO (vide letter dated July 18, 2018) to conduct a detailed investigation into the alleged irregularities reported in the execution of civil construction works in the IACCS project. It is further stated the he submitted his report October 3, 2018 to the CVO which was received in CVO’s office on October 8, 2018.
“Thus, it is established that the chargesheet-cum-suspension order was issued in pursuance to CVO letter dated July 18, 2018 to conduct a detailed investigation into the alleged irregularities,” Delhi High court stated in its order.
“Since the disciplinary authority concerned for the petitioners have not initiated departmental proceedings, therefore, in my considered view, the order dated May 17, 2019 is illegal and accordingly set aside.” said Justice Suresh Kumar Kait in his order dated October 9, 2019.
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of
decision: 09.10.2019
+ REVIEW PET. 360/2019 and
CM
APPL. 39523/2019 (Stay)
in
W.P.(C) 8188/2019
MAN MOHAN PANDEY AND ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr. B.K.Pandey, Advs.
versus
BHARAT ELECTRONICS
LIMITED AND ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG withMr. Manish Paliwal, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advs. and Mr. B.V. Ramaiyya, DGM, Legal, BEL./ R-1 Mr. Vijay Joshi, Sr. Panel Counsel for R-2/UOI
Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC withMr. Rohan Anand, Adv. and Mr. Waize Ali Noor, GP
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to recall the order dated
31.07.2019 passed by
this Court in WP(C) No.8188/2019.
2. At the outset, it is pointed out that in Para 19 of order dated31.07.2019, it is recorded that the petitioners are above level E-VIII; however, which is factually incorrect.
3. It is clarified that the petitioner No. 1 is the only officer who comes under the category of level E-VIII whose Disciplinary Authority is CMD.
The other
two petitioners are below level E-VIII. The grade of the Petitioner
no
2 is of level E-VI A and Petitioner no 3 falls under the category of level
E-V. Their Disciplinary Authority is the
Functional Director.
4. Further clarified that in Para 19 of the order that the Disciplinary
Authority under the delegated powers is the Functional Director also suffers from error which is clear from the Office Order No.HO/144/22 read with CDA-Rules dated 10.04.2001.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said office order which
relates to
sub-delegation
of powers would show that in
fact the powers delegated under CDA-Rules amended from
time to time/notification of
sub delegation of power (SDOP)
are unchanged and same as on date
contained in CDA-Rules 2001. The said Rules read with office order dated
10.1.2019 is very
clear that the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority for an
officer upto Grade E-VII is Functional Director. Chairman and Managing Director is the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority for an officer of Grade E-VIII & IX only. CMD has not sub delegated his
power for the officers of
Grade E-VIII & IX any further. He has sub delegated his powers of being Disciplinary/Punishing Authority
for
officers upto Grade E-VII to the
Functional Director. In other words, the position of CDA Rules 2001 read with sub delegation of powers dated 10.1.2019 is very clear that CMD is the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority in case of petitioner no.
1 and that the Functional Director is the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority
in case of petitioner nos. 2 and 3. The said order 10.01.2019 is very clear that the sub-
delegated powers will be exercised only by the
Executives entrusted with the responsibilities for the
concerned work/assignment.
6, Learned counsel for
the
petitioners further submits that the issuance of
Charge- sheets cum suspension orders by Director (Marketing) in the case of petitioner no. 1 and by GM in case of petitioner no. 2 and AGM in the case
of
the petitioner no 3 is illegal and unsustainable, which is evident from the
table at Page 10 of
the
Review Petition.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that
the
officers competent to award the minor punishments cannot initiate the proceedings for major penalties. However, it is submitted that the CDA Rules bearing
Office Order No. HO/772/019 dated 10.04.2011
do not
require the Disciplinary authority
to
issue a charge sheet for Major Punishment as mentioned in Rule 5(a). The said Rules only provide for the imposition of
punishments
and therefore, the
same
cannot be
made
applicable for initiation of the Disciplinary proceedings.
8.
Learned Additional Solicitor General further submits
that BEL has defined the Disciplinary
Authority based on the punishments. Though the Disciplinary
Authority is referred in the context of the punishment in BEL
CDA
Rules, the approval for initiation of the Disciplinary
proceedings, issuance of charge sheet etc. is based on the formal approval by the Disciplinary
Authority as defined in CDA Rules. The punishment will be later on the basis of misconduct and the
punishing authorities have been
mentioned in the CDA Rules. Once the charge sheet is approved by
the Disciplinary Authority, the charge sheet is served by the respective Department /Division/Unit Head
or an
officer who is at
least one level above to
the
charge-sheeted executive. Such an officer
just
initiates the enquiry and
does not impose the punishment. The imposition
of punishment is a separate
issue which is decided later by the competent authority within the organisation.
9. To strengthen her arguments on the above issued, learned AdditionalSolicitor General relied on the decision of
the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of
Inspector General of Police vs. Thavasiappa, (1996) 2 SCC 145, whereby it is held that a charge sheet need not
be issued by the appointing authority and
any authority who is the controlling authority can initiate departmental proceedings by issuing a charge sheet. The Hon’ble Court further observed that the charge sheet need not to be issued by the authority empowered to impose
the proposed penalty.
10. Learned
Additional
Solicitor General
has further
relied on
P.V.
Srinivasa
Sastry &
Ors. vs.
Comptroller
and
Auditor General & Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 419, whereby in the context of Article 311(1), it was held that in absence of a rule any superior authority who can be held to be the
controlling
authority can
initiate a departmental
proceeding
and
that initiation of a
departmental proceeding per se
does not hold the
officer concerned with any evil consequences.
11. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that Bharat Electronics
Limited is a Public
Sector Undertaking and it is incorporated under the Companies Act and therefore, the employees do not enjoy
the
protections as available to the government servants.
12. In case of Tekraj Vasandi Alias K. L. Basandhi vs. Union of India &Ors. (1988) 1 SCC
236, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the only prohibition, if any, is the inability
to
pass a final order in the departmental
proceeding. However, the charge sheet can be issued by the officer lower
than the disciplinary authority but higher than the charged officer. The dismissal or removal of the officer or even the enquiry could be done at his instance. It was also held that the only
right guaranteed to a civil servant
under that provision is that he should not be dismissed or removed by an
authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. It was further held by
the
Supreme Court that it is not necessary that the charges should be framed by
the
authority competent to award the proposed penalty or that the
enquiry
should be conducted by
such
authority
as there is nothing under the rules which would induce the Court to read in the rules such a requirement. It is
thus established
from the ratio
in Transport Commissioner vs. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC
332 of the aforesaid decision that initiation and conducting an enquiry could be done by an authority other than the authority competent to impose the penalty. Therefore, unless a
statutory
rule
specifically requires that such proceeding is to be initiated and
conducted only
by a
disciplinary
authority, the same could be so done even by
a
subordinate
authority. Thus, learned Additional
Solicitor
General argued that there
is
no merit in the present petition and the
same deserves to be
dismissed.
13.
On perusal of Charge Sheet-Cum-Suspension order dated 17.05.2019, it is specifically mentioned that Sri M.M. Pandey, Staff No. 205757, GM (Product Support/CO) was appointed as Investigation Officer by CVO vide letter
dated 18.07.2018 to
conduct a
detailed Investigation into the alleged
irregularities reported in the execution of civil construction works in the
IACCS project being executed by NCS SBU of GAD Unit. It is further
stated that he submitted his report dated 03.10.2018 to CVO
which was
received in CVO’s office on 08.10.2018. Thus, it is established that the
Charge Sheet-Cum-Suspension Order was issued in pursuance to CVO
letter dated 18.07.2018 to conduct a detailed investigation into the
alleged irregularities.
14. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon Vigilance Manual and
in Para 7.3.1 regarding framing of Charge Sheet and in Para 7.3.2,
it
is specifically
mentioned that
the
charge sheet comprises the memorandum, informing the concerned employee about initiation of
proceedings against him
and
giving him
an opportunity to admit or deny the charge(s) within a period not exceeding 15 days. The memorandum is to be signed by the disciplinary authority himself.
15. As
argued by
learned counsel for the petitioner
that
since the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioners are in pursuance of letter dated 18.07.2018 issued by
the
CVO, therefore, Vigilance Manual is applicable
in
the case of
the
petitioner.
16. On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General has argued
that in the present case,
the departmental proceedings are not initiated
pursuant to vigilance departmental inquiry, therefore, the Vigilance Manual
is
not applicable in the
present case.
17. It is not
in dispute that in case of A. Radha Krishna (Supra), it is held that unless a
specific
rule
so requires that such proceedings
are to be initiated or conducted only
by
a disciplinary authority, the same could be done so even by the subordinate
authority.
18. In the present case,
the
charge sheet is issued without specifically mentioning therein whether a charge-sheet
is issued for major punishment or the minor punishment. The aforesaid judgment would be applicable only in
case
where there is no specific rules or guidelines to this effect. However, in the
present case, as per Para 7.3.2. of Vigilance Manual of BEL, the charge-
sheet
comprising the
memorandum,
informing the concerned
employee about the initiation of proceedings shall be signed by the disciplinary
authority himself.
19. In the present case,
admittedly,
petitioner
No. 1 is
E-VIII level employee and undisputedly, the disciplinary
authority for the same is CMD,
whereas the charge-sheet is issued by
Functional Director (Marketing), who
is
not disciplinary authority.
20. Regarding the charge sheet issued against the other petitioners, the
said charge-sheet was also issued to the petitioner No. 2 by
the
G.M. Radar, whereas the disciplinary authority
is
the Director. To petitioner no. 3, the
charge-sheet has been issued by
the
AGM, whereas disciplinary authority is
the Functional Director.
21. As per
the charge sheet-cum-suspension order, the said
order is
issued in pursuance of the letter issued by the CVO as mentioned above. Therefore, it cannot be said that disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioners are not a vigilance case.
22. Be that as it may, as stated by learned Additional Solicitor General that the Ministry of Defence has seized with the matter and instructed the
respondents not to proceed further.
Accordingly, the departmental
proceedings against the petitioners is kept in abeyance till further instructions from the said Ministry.
23. It is pertinent to mention here that if the charge sheet is accepted and at the end, the disciplinary authority is of the view that major penalty is to be issued, in that eventuality, the authority under the statutes is not competent to issue the major penalty. Thus, while issuing further proceedings against the petitioners, if any, it shall be specifically mentioned that the charge-sheet is issued against the petitioners for minor or major penalty.
24. Admittedly, since the suspension order has not been extended further beyond the statutory period of 90 days, in view of the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India & Anr., (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 291, suspension is illegal thereafter. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that more than 90 days of the suspension have been elapsed. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners forthwith. The period of suspension shall be treated as per the rules.
25. In view of above discussion and legal position, since the disciplinary authority concerned for the petitioners have not initiated departmental proceedings, therefore in my considered view, the order dated 17.05.2019 is illegal and accordingly set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings as per the statutes and the Vigilance Manual, if so advised, against the petitioners. Accordingly, the order dated 31.07.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 8188/2019 is hereby recalled.
26. The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending application also stands disposed of.
Hope this mail finds you in a hale and healthy mood.
The stay order on recovery of Pay by CAT,Hyderabad issued on 21/06/2013 in O.A 727 of 2013 filed by All India DRDO Technical Officers Association & other Technical Officers is continuing.The stay vacation petition filed by mighty management was dismissed already.
Pl.find as attachment the plaint filed in CAT,Hyderabad by some of the erstwhile promotee Technical Officers/ TO’A’ requesting for stopping recovery and reduction of pay due to reduction of Grade Pay from Rs.4800/-to Rs.4600/-w.e.f 01/01/2006 and cancellation of promotion from STA’C ‘to TO’A’/ TA’C’ to TO. The hard earned promotion should be protected by placing in the next higher GP of Rs.5400/-.
The following cases filed by DTOA were dismissed
a) CAT,Principal Bench,Delhi O.A No.3593/ 2013 on 21/03/2014,
b)CAT,Chandigarh Bench O.A No.846/CH/2013 & O.A.No.060/00014/2014 on03/07/2014 and
c)CAT,Hyderabad Bench O.A No.1155/2013 & O.A 461/2014 on 14/08/2014 etc.
So far there was no appeal against these judgments by DTOA and no stay was obtained in High Courts.Please extend legal support to them so that they can obtain stay in Delhi High Court.
The negative impact of these pronouncements will definitely be there on our CAT cases and they are also liable to be dismissed.
We have no other alternative except to continue legal battle in CAT & High Court to protect the interests of Tech.Officers.
Pl.send your suggestions for strengthening the cases so that justice is done to the effected Technical Officers.
The Supreme Court has decided to examine whether defence organisations such as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) can withhold information regarding transfer of an employee, claiming that they are exempted organisations under the Right to Information Act.
A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V. Gopala Gowda issued a notice to the Centre and the DRDO on a petition filed by Dr. Neelam Bhalla, a scientist, who was transferred to a different unit and has sought the reasons for her transfer under the RTI Act. Having failed to get relief before the Central Information Commission and the Delhi High Court, she has moved the apex court.
The petitioner contended that only those information which directly affected and correlated to “intelligence and security” could be exempted and would not apply to information which were general in nature.
She said this petition raised an important question of law as to the interpretation of section 24 of the Right to Information Act, vis–a-vis the exclusion of exempted organisations such as the DRDO. She said citizens were deprived of records relating to their services not being related to corruption and human rights violation.
She said the “wilful disclosure of incorrect or false or misleading information relating to routine matters such as transfer not only to the petitioner but also to higher authorities, namely the Minister of Defence and the National Commission for Women, to justify their actions, was an offence under the newly enacted Whistle Blowers Protection Act.”
She said she was a victim of gender discrimination and humiliation at the hands of senior scientists and in this context, filed a complaint before the NCW inter-alia alleging nepotism and lapses in the policy of recruitment and in particular that her task for the recruitment of scientists ‘B’ was selectively taken away. She prayed for a direction to the authorities to disclose the reasons for her transfer.
Holding that Brahmos is a well known and reputed trademark for supersonic missile in the aerospace industry, the Delhi High Court has restrained coaching institute FIIT JEE from using it for its online aptitude test. It said it gives an impression to the engineering students that the institute’s test is affiliated with Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd under the Ministry of Defence.
Brahmos Aerospace, in which the Government of India is a majority shareholder, had moved the High Court after it started receiving queries from engineering students if they would be given any preference for employment in the company by taking the Brahmos aptitude test conducted by the FIIT JEE.
Passing the interim order, Justice Manmohan Singh said: “There is no valid justification given by the defendants (FIIT JEE) before this Court how this trademark Brahmos hit upon them except false and frivolous submissions. It is adopted and used by the defendants deliberately in order to take the advantage of the mark Brahmos of the plaintiff (Brahmos Aerospace).”
Brahmos Aerospace is a joint venture between India’s Defence Research & Development Organisation and Russia’s Military Industrial Consortium NPO Mashinostroyenia.
The FIIT JEEhad been advertising a course and an aptitude test for engineering students by the name of Brahmos in conjugation with the phrase ‘will give you top 03 career options as per your inherent aptitude’.
PTI : New Delhi, Tue Jul 23 2013, 20:17 hrs – The Indian Express
In a significant verdict, the Delhi High Court today ruled that Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) has no “legal authority” either to set up or accord recognition to an institution or college to impart “face-to-face” regular education. IGNOU, set up in 1985 to promote distance education, was dragged to court by various institutions, including Hindustan Aviation Academy, which were first allowed by the University to run B Tech and Diploma programme courses in the area of Aerospace Engineering. However, IGNOU later noticed that its approval to run “face-to-face” programme did not not meet legal requirements and asked the approved institutes to keep the admission process at abeyance.
IGNOU also noticed that the necessary prior approval from AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) for running such courses was also not taken. Disposing of a bunch of petitions of institutions, Justice V K Jain said, “(since) IGNOU had no legal authority to set up or recognise institutions/colleges on the lines of regular colleges where education is imparted by way of face-to-face programmes, requiring students to mandatorily attend classes, the petitioners’ institutes cannot be said to be institutions, constituent colleges, units or affiliated colleges of IGNOU, nor can they be said the ‘study centres’ within the meaning of the IGNOU Act.”
The court also rapped IGNOU for not informing students about its decision to suspend admission for academic years 2012-13. It also said that the university also did not follow the principles of natural justice while restraining institutes from taking admissions as no show cause notice was served on them in this regard. The court, in its 37-page judgement, said, “The respondent university is clearly guilty of gross negligence and inaction. No attempt was taken by it to ensure that students who in the absence of public notice from the university, could not be expected to be aware of its decision to suspend admission for the academic years 2012-13, did not pay fees to petitioners’ institutes and did not take admission.”
The Supreme Court used terms like “blunders committed” and “bungling up” to describe the goings-on in the the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), the government’s ultra-secretive technical intelligence wing under the court’s scanner following allegations of corruption and financial irregularities.
A Bench of Justices H L Dattu and C K Prasad said in ab open court on Monday that the government has filed its third and latest status report. The hearing was based on a PIL filed by V K Mittal, a scientist who had pioneered the formation of the NTRO but later pulled out after being “disgusted” by the agency’s functioning.
Referring to the status report filed in a sealed cover by Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval, the SC informed Mittal’s lawyer, Jayant Bhushan, that “some progress has been made and they are seriously considering some inquiries and even termination of some officers after consulting the Prime Minister’s Office”.
“So far three reports have been filed. These reports go into the affairs of the NTRO… they have pointed blunders committed by these people and where they have committed the blunders. Steps are being taken, they say, and amounts lost should be adjusted,” the Bench observed.
“We will give them time till July 30. If by that time they don’t comply, we will make them comply. On July 30, we will give the matter a final look. Further hearing is not required. There has been bungling,” the court said.
The court had decided to keep an eye on the NTRO after the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) exposed the alleged irregularities involving top NTRO bosses in a special audit report tagged “top secret”.
The apex court had issued notices to the Union of India through the Prime Minister’s Office, Central Vigilance Commission, NTRO through its chairman, and the CAG in August 2011.
Created in 2004 under the Prime Minister’s Office, the NTRO essentially deals with missile monitoring, satellite and airborne imagery, cyber patrolling and security, cyber offensive operations, communication support systems, as well as cryptology.
Mittal had approached the SC after the Delhi High Court on April 16, 2011 refused to take any action, leaving it to the CAG “to proceed in accordance with law”. In his petition, Mittal submitted that mere disciplinary proceedings against the errant officers of NTRO was not enough as the “misdeeds of those officers warrant initiation of criminal proceedings”.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday asked for a copy of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report pointing out alleged irregularities in the purchase of intelligence equipment byNational Technical Research Organisation(NTRO), which was set up in 2004 to provide critical data relating to threats to the nation.
Solicitor general R F Nariman assured a bench of Justices H L Dattu and C K Prasad that the government had already initiated action against erring officials on the basis of the CAG report but petitioner V K Mittal’s counsel Jayant Bhushan wondered why the Centre was shy of bringing the alleged irregularities into the open by placing the report in Parliament.
The bench asked Nariman to produce the CAG report on NTRO scam in a sealed cover by March 19. This is the second time within a year that the apex court has asked for a CAG report, the first being on the irregularities in the allotment of 2G spectrum and licences during A Raja’s tenure as telecom minister.
Nariman was belligerent in trashing Mittal’s PIL, not only accusing the latter of attempting to serve a personal interest but also alleging that his correspondence with the authorities revealing top secret projects with their location could help countries inimical to India.
Bhushan countered Nariman by alleging that the government was deliberately keeping the matter under wraps in the name of security to shield the culprits. But the bench said, “It is not a case where the government has put the issue in cold storage but promised that it was being looked into. We will not pass an order but request the SG to produce the CAG report in a sealed cover on March 19.”
Mittal had alleged that a major portion of the Rs 450 crore NTRO scam pertained to purchase of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from an Israeli firm allegedly at a very high price without the mandatory approval of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).
NTRO, which functions under the Prime Minister’s Office, has been entrusted with the task of missile monitoring, satellite and airborne imagery, cyber patrolling and security, cyber offensive operations and communication support systems including cryptology.
It was on the complaint of Mittal, a former joint director in the government of India who had also served in NTRO, that the PMO had ordered a probe into the scam and later, CAG was asked to look into the organisation’s accounts. Nariman alleged that Mittal wanted to head the NTRO and filed the PIL when he did not succeed.
During the last hearing, Bhushan had alleged that Delhi High Court had dismissed Mittal’s writ petition on April 6, 2011 after the Centre filed a probe status report in sealed cover assuring prompt action against the guilty officials. However, no action was taken till date, he claimed.
Mittal’s petition stated that the independent body answerable only to the national security adviser was allotted approximately Rs 8,000 crore since 2005, but there was no accounting of the spending.
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
