How a Defence Lab Contract Vanished: A Case Study in Procurement Capture
A defence contract. A husband’s company. Nine months of silence. A bank guarantee returned without penalty. And the officer who raised the alarm — allegedly punished on his own promotion board by the same person he complained about.
That’s the shape of the case being made against Ms. Suma Varughese, former DG (MED & CoS) and, as of 15 June 2026, a sitting DRDO chair-holder — now proposed for a panel role in the Centre of Excellence appointment process. her inclusion should be paused, not because of one bad contract, but because of an alleged pattern: official position, family company, and institutional pressure, repeating across postings.
Name
Alleged Role
Alleged Leverage Point
Suma Varughese
DG, MED & CoS (former); current DRDO chair
Alleged to have directed procurement toward her husband’s firm and used board positions against a complaining officer
Thomas Varughese
Her husband; director, ComAVIA / Comavia System Technologies Pvt Ltd + two other firms
Alleged beneficiary of contracts said to trace back to her office
Ex-Purchase Officer
Transferred, CABS → CAIR
Alleged to have swapped in a settlement clause ill-suited to the case
Current CAGO
Transferred, CABS → CAIR
Alleged to have fast-tracked the file under pressure
Mr. Christopher
Ex-DRDO Chairman, now at IIT Chennai
Alleged to have shielded the pattern when it was first reported, years earlier at CABS
Mr. Mangal
DG, TM
Alleged to have endorsed the current appointment “under pressure”
The paper trail starts with Contract Agreement/Supply Order No. CAIR/21AT0044/G1S/LP/197, dated 5 February 2021, awarded to Comavia System Technologies Pvt Ltd — the firm run by Ms. Varughese’s husband.
What allegedly happened next reads like a playbook:
A CAIR contractor’s bill — Exhibit A — corroborates part of this trail: a claim of ₹6,34,868 (Claim No. CL-9748169273988883) against this exact contract number, billed 29 November 2023 under the head “Vivad Se Vishwas-I.” That’s real paperwork, not just narrative. What it doesn’t prove on its own is the 9-month delay or the absence of penalty — those live in the contract’s liquidated-damages clause and the closure file, which haven’t been produced yet.
One flag worth resolving: the swapped clause “Vivad se Samvad.” The bill says “Vivad Se Vishwas.” Same family of settlement scheme, not necessarily the same clause — this needs to be pinned down before it goes anywhere official, or it hands a critic an easy way to poke a hole in an otherwise strong document.
The allegation doesn’t stop at procurement. In a separate DRDO HQ review, Ms. Varughese — as chairperson — allegedly leaned on the Project Director to finish an unrelated project faster, while expanding its scope. Then, sitting on his promotion board, she is alleged to have used that position to fail him.
Project Director complained. With evidence. To the highest authorities.
The response: sympathy. No action.Its because DRDO having helpless chairmen.
That’s the line keeps returning to — not that nobody knew, but that everybody who could act, didn’t.
Forget the single contract for a second. The real charge isn’t about one file — it’s about where the habit was learned.
Years before CAIR, before the ₹6.34 lakh guarantee, before the promotion-board retaliation — Suma Varughese was posted at CABS, and Mr. Christopher was running it as Director. That’s the alleged origin point. Not a coincidence of timing — a partnership of convenience, according to the complaint: her authority to place orders, his authority to make sure nobody looked too hard.
And the orders didn’t stop at one. multiple contracts, across multiple years, all flowing to the same address — Thomas Varughese’s company. Every one of them, allegedly reported. Every one of them, allegedly buried — not lost, not overlooked, managed. That word matters. It’s not “missed.” It’s not “an oversight.” The claim is that someone with the authority to stop it chose, repeatedly, not to.
Here’s the part that should stop anyone reading this cold: this didn’t end when Mr. Christopher moved on, and it didn’t end when Suma Varughese left CABS. The same channel kept running — through DARE, through CAIR — and that the combined value of contracts steered this way, over the years, runs into crores of rupees. Not lakhs. Not one bad quarter. Crores — of taxpayer money, moving in one direction, for one family, over one long career.
That’s not a procurement irregularity. That’s a standing arrangement. A ₹6.34 lakh bank guarantee released without penalty isn’t the crime — it’s the residue. It’s what’s left visible above the waterline of something much bigger, much older, and allegedly still running.
One thing has to be said plainly: every figure in this section — “several orders,” “crores of rupees,” “till date” — is an allegation, not yet a filed number. It’s the single most serious claim in this whole account, and it deserves the single highest bar of proof: pull the CABS-era contract register, cross-reference every award to Thomas Varughese’s firms across CABS, DARE, CAIR and other various DRDO Labs, total it. If the number is real, it will show up in black and white. If it’s real, no one should need to take the word for it — the ledger will say it.
This isn’t presented as an isolated file. It’s alleged this pattern started at CABS, under Mr. Christopher’s watch, and never actually stopped — it just changed addresses, moving through DARE and CAIR and other DRDO Labs while the same two names stayed at the center of it. Mr. Mangal’s endorsement of the current appointment is alleged to have come under similar pressure — one more instance, of the same machine finding one more hand to turn the crank.
It’s requested by the Core taxpayers of india to IISc, please check the IB reports before consideration of MS. Suma Varughese for the Center of Excellence Appointment.
A strong story isn’t the same as a provable one. To make this stick:
An official allegedly steered work to her husband’s company, let it fail without cost, then sat in judgment over the man who objected. Strip the drama and it’s still a serious claim — which is exactly why it needs evidence, not adjectives, to carry it forward.
This is an initiative to protect the nation from anti-national networks that treat public defence funds as private income. Every rupee lost to a rigged contract or an unpunished withdrawal is a rupee taken from the taxpayer who funded it in good faith. Institutions built to defend the country cannot be allowed to double as private revenue streams for the well-connected. Accountability isn’t optional when national security budgets are on the line — it’s the minimum the country is owed.
The appointment of the Director General (DG) of BrahMos became the subject of a prolonged legal dispute after concerns were raised regarding the selection process.
Sivan Subramanyam, the senior-most Distinguished Scientist (DS) in DRDO, challenged the appointment before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), contending that the prescribed selection procedure had not been followed. After examining the matter, the CAT directed the DRDO Secretary to revisit the appointment process and conduct a fresh selection in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures.
Instead of implementing the Tribunal’s directions, the DRDO Secretary challenged the CAT order before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. After extensive hearings, the final arguments were concluded on 8 July, and the matter now awaits judgment.
Throughout this legal battle, one individual stood firmly for the cause of justice—Advocate Shri Srinivas Chamarthy. Despite the complexity and significance of the case, he rendered his legal services without accepting a single penny in professional fees. His commitment to the rule of law, fairness, and institutional integrity reflects exceptional dedication and selfless service.
This case is not merely about one appointment; it concerns adherence to established procedures, transparency in public institutions, and the principle that every public authority must remain accountable to the rule of law.
NEW DELHI: Samir V. Kamat is being faulted by some within the DRDO for ‘continuing to sit on the findings of BrahMos’ own internal committee’.
In the first week of September 2022, a three-member Fact Finding and Investigation Committee (FFIC) that was constituted in January 2022, submitted its report to the present Defence and Research Development Organization (DRDO) chief Samir V. Kamat. The said committee was formed on the directions of scientist Atul Dinkar Rane, who was appointed as the chief executive officer and managing director of BrahMos airspace on 20 December 2021 after his predecessor Dr Sudhir Kumar Mishra had retired on 30 November 2021.
While taking over the charge from Mishra, Rane was also given the details of the documents, both sensitive and general in nature, as a part of “handing over”. However, on 28 December, Mishra returned a set of “secret” documents back to BrahMos headquarters, which were not in the list of documents that Mishra had shown to be in his possession during the handing over process earlier. This action prompted Rane to constitute the three-member committee to find out if any other sensitive documents were unaccounted for and if any other things which should not have been taken out from the premises of BrahMos were taken out.
During their probe, the committee members found that from 27 November till 30 November, Mishra had engaged private packers and movers who packed 40 cartons that contained stuff lying in his office. The statement of the packers and movers revealed that 20 paintings, 8 cartons of books, medals in 10 cartons, 10 cartons of liquor amounting to 100 bottles and 8 cartons of blankets, bedsheets and towels were allegedly taken from the BrahMos Headquarters to the residence of Mishra at Vasant Kunj. The Sunday Guardian has accessed the statement of the transporter. No inventory register of these things was maintained, but the committee found videos and stills of the cartons from the cameras that were installed at the entry and exit of X-ray machines.
When the committee sought to check the CCTV footage of these three days, it found that footage of the corresponding days were missing. As a result of these lapses, Lieutenant Colonel R.S. Suri (Retd), the Chief General Manager (CGM) responsible for data security, document handling, and outgoing materials at BrahMos Aerospace, was transferred to Hyderabad, but he chose to resign.
The committee also found that Mishra was still in the possession of over Rs 7 lakh (depreciated value) worth laptops, desktops and mobile phones and inventories that belonged to BrahMOs. When he was asked about it, he sent a cheque of Rs 1.71 lakh on 23 March to BrahMOs in lieu of the stuff that was lying in his possession. The then Personal Assistant of Mishra told the committee members that he took a lot of documents outside the headquarters after photo copying them. Such a claim remains unverified. However, the committee members decided to end their probe abruptly after they found INSAS guns, rocket launchers, ammunition and live bombs inside the BrahMos campus. They decided that the matter was now a case for the probe of specialized agencies like the National Investigation Agency.
The said report was then submitted to DRDO chief Kamat through BrahMos chief in September 2022. Kamat ordered that the said arms and ammunition should be sent to Armaments Research & Development Establishment (ARDE) for further investigation. Till now no action has been reported as being taken on these series of lapses that occurred under the watch of Kamat and Mishra. Kamat, on his part, is being faulted by some within the DRDO for “continuing to sit on these findings of BrahMos’ own internal committee”. The entire incident would have continued to be unknown if Mishra had not recently applied for a non executive advisory consultancy position (Raja Ramanna Chair) in DRDO.
Kamat after receiving the application from Mishra wrote to BrahMos seeking their suggestions on his application, it was then that the officials in the defence establishment and Kamat were made to recall the findings of the three-member committee, which the DRDO chief has allegedly refused to act on for almost 20 months now. Sources said B.P. Sharma, who is the Chairman of Recruitment & Assessment Centre (RAC) in DRDO, has refused to move ahead with the application of Mishra in wake of the findings of the said committee.
Mishra on his part has called the revival of this entire matter as a “malicious campaign and propaganda” against him by some “vested interests” which stems from his application for the consultancy position (Chair) in DRDO. Mishra has said that he retired more than two years ago from DRDO and if there was any security breach then why it was not flagged and reported earlier. According to him, as per protocol, he had handed over all the documents including files marked “classified” and “confidential” to his successor in the presence of the company secretary. He said that on the day of his retirement he did carry back his “personal belongings”—the souvenirs given to him during his seven-year tenure as DG, DRDO; from 2014 to 2021, the degrees and honours he had obtained and other personal belongings in five to six boxes.
While responding to these developments, DRDO had said that it had “received a complaint against Dr Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Ex CEO & MD of BrahMos Aerospace. Based upon the complaint, a Fact Finding Inquiry Committee was formed by Secretary DDR&D and Chairman DRDO. However the committee didn’t find any evidence to back the allegation levied.”
However, sources aware of the matter said that the inquiry committee was not formed on the basis of a complaint, but an internal concern raised by the top officers of BrahMOs. Secondly, the fact finding committee had reportedly found multiple lapses, including the presence of unexplained arms and ammunition inside the campus. A section of DRDO officials said it was a failure of Kamat to “sit on this entire findings” that included unexplained presence of ammunition, failure of working CCTVs which indicates major lapses in the organization.
Messages sent to Mr Kamat seeking his response on the matter including the inaction on the findings of the committee elicited no response till the time the report went to press.
NEW DELHI: Aeronautical Development Establishment, a Bengaluru-based DRDO lab that developed the Lakshya aircraft, has been visited by the CBI.
Possible misuse of hundreds of crores of rupees related to a premier pilotless aircraft system, which was developed by the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), has come to the notice of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) last month, after which the CBI has started its preliminary enquiry in the matter.
Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), a Bengaluru-based lab of the DRDO, that developed the pilotless target aircraft, “Lakshya” has been visited at least twice by the CBI officials in the past one month.
The alleged scam, in which critical components needed for this project like small aircraft and trucks, were procured but only on paper while some went “missing”. Despite the ADE top officials who are handling the project, being made aware of these discrepancies at least since 2015, did not report these to the CBI but rather allegedly victimized the official who brought it to their notice, while refusing to be a part of the coverup.
As per rules, whenever an item or material is purchased for the development of any program, Lakshya in this case, and when it is brought physically to the ADE campus, an entry is done in the ledger detailing the said product. The said ledger is handled by a permanent employee of the DRDO and once he moves out either due to retirement or new posting, the said ledger is then handed over to another employee, who first checks all the inventories are there as mentioned in the books before taking over the possession of the ledger.
There are two ledgers that are used to ensure products don’t go “missing”. The first one is the Personal Ledger (PL) in which an item purchased under the “general head” is entered.
Then there is the Project Personal Ledger or PPL in which items purchased under “project head” are entered.
This is done to ensure that whatever was paid for by the Government of India is actually bought and delivered and it’s the accountability and responsibility of the officer holding the ledgers to make sure that details in the ledgers match the material in the campus and the lab.
As per the details accessed by the CBI, a “PL number 613”, which contains products and materials purchased for Lakshya, was till 31 January 2011 being handled by B.R. Suresh, a Scientist-D with ADE.
When he retired on that date it was revealed that materials including pilotless target aircrafts, trucks, electronic sub system were missing and hence the matter was recorded internally and the post-retirement benefits of Suresh were withheld, but were subsequently released after four years, said sources.
In January 2015, the project director of Lakshya, V. Subramaniam asked one of his juniors to take over the PL that was earlier the responsibility of B.R. Suresh. Sources said that till then, the responsibility of the PL was not entrusted to anyone.
As was required under the rules, the said officer, before taking over the responsibility of PL-613, went to the lab to verify whether all the listed and purchased material were present or not.
crores, that were listed in the PL, were missing.
The missing inventory included at least 5 aircraft, 10 trucks, 50 tow bodies and 10 gyroscopes.
As per the information received by the CBI, Subramaniam asked the said officer to take the responsibility of the PL register, without mentioning the discrepancies, which Subramaniam claimed he would “manage’ by manipulating the content. In lieu, the said officer was promised swift promotion. The said officer, however, refused to accept the responsibility of the ledger.
Upon witnessing the refusal to take the handover of the PL, Subramaniam is alleged to have taken away access of the said scientist to his workplace and started harassing him.
The said officer, who had reached out to the other top officials in the lab to inform them of these discrepancies, received no help and for 28 months, no salary was given to him.
Those close to Subramanian say that such charges against him are baseless and motivated. In a response to The Sunday Guardian’s queries on the matter, DRDO, while confirming that a CBI probe at ADE, Bengaluru with regards to the Lakshya project was going on, stated that, “As per statements of ex Lakshya Project Personnel and available records, no discrepancies related to material needed for this project were communicated to the top officials anytime during 2011 or in 2014.”
Messages sent to Subramaniam did not elicit any response till the time the report went to press.
In 2019, Subramanian, now in the position of “Scientist-G” who was not originally on the interview panel that was constituted to interview and promote his erstwhile junior, made himself a member of the panel and ensured that the junior was denied the promotion. This happened despite the said scientist requesting the Human Resources head to not be interviewed by a panel that had his former boss as the member.
In November 2021, a memorandum of major penalty was filed against the scientist for “unauthorised leave” during the period when his access to his lab was withdrawn by Subramaniam which did not allow him to mark the attendance.
It is pertinent to mention that ADE and DRDO both had come under severe criticism from relevant government bodies for their failure to execute Lakshya on time despite the government releasing funds and other resources without any delay.
Subramaniam, who retired in May 2023, is still coming to the ADE campus regularly despite having been accorded no responsibility that would necessitate his visit to the campus, especially when an inquiry has been going on with regards to the discrepancies in Lakshya ledger that was his responsibility.
Last month, amidst the ongoing CBI investigation, crucial files related to the said project were allegedly dumped in the dump yard of the campus to be destroyed.
This happened after the CBI officials visited the campus on 28 March. The agency officials visited the campus again on 19 April.
Lakshya had a total of four projects—Lakshya, Lakshya LSP (Limited Series Production), Lakshya 1-D (partially digital version) and Lakshya 2, which was the fully digital version. The project has been a huge technical success.
DEHRADUN: The ministry of defence (MoD) has issued an order to stop admissions at all schools aided by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in the country for this academic session while one DRDO school in Mussoorie – the Institute of Technology Management (ITM) School – was shut down on April 1. Former President, APJ who served in DRDO for almost four decades, had mooted the idea of DRDO schools to develop scientific temperament among students He had also envisaged the schools benefiting children of officials of DRDO, which has a network of 50 laboratories working on defence technology. Some of these labs are in remote, isolated areas. DRDO has nearly 30,000 employees
Of the 11 DRDO-aided schools in India, three are slated to be transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS): one each in Bangalore, Hyderabad and Kochi
Seven others, including one each in Dehradun (Raksha Anusand Vidyalaya), Chandigarh (Ballistics Vidyalaya), Pune (R&D E(E) English Medium School), Odisha (Range School, Chandipur Balasore) and Andhra Pradesh (NSTL Visakhapatnam), and two in Telangana (Defence School Lab, Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad and DLS Vignyanakancha, RCI Hyderabad) are to handed over to other agencies.
The order, issued December 21, 2021, bi Vishnu Chandra Jha director, management services MoD reads “The competent authority has decided that there shall be no new admissions tin the entry level classes as well as all other classes in these schools for the next academic session 2022 -23” When quarried about the reasons behind the news, BK DAS, director of instrument and Research Development establishment IRDE of DRDO Dehradun said we are following instruction of the Defence Ministry which said running school doesn’t fall under the mandate of DRDO. The matters are decided at the headquarter level not by is, We are not closing idea is simply to hand over the management of these schools from DRDO to some other reasonable agencies. “ while the reason of handover of the school was not was not made immediately clear, sources pointed to fund crunch as a possible reason. A source in the know said, The decision was taken at the PMO level to curtail the expenses of DRDO”
Teaching staff and the parents of the student in these schools meanwhile expressed disappointment with the MoD decision
Pryanka Bisht, resident of Mussoorie whose children used to study in the ITM School said covid-19 has hit everyone financially my husband works at the small shop and we cannot afford English medium is education for our children at a private school, the fee was affordable at ITM where my son studies in class 1 and daughter in class 4 we are still banking on the school for reopen.
Badal Prakash vice president of Landoir cantonment board in Mussoorie where the school is located wrote a letter on Friday to officials to reconsider the decision to close the school “Teachers in this school have been working for 15 to 30 years. Now they are unemployed. The school currently 106 students who will have to travel far to gett quality education as there are no English medium school within the 5 km radius” Prakash said.
Subject: Request to deployed more staff in ACB, Chandigarh
Sir,
I have sent a complaint to the ACB, CBI, Chandigarh on 16 October 2020 based on a detailed departmental investigation report corruption in the procurement of some equipments by Snow Avalanche Study Establishment. DRDO. Him Parisar, Plot No.1, Sector 37A, Chandigarh – 160 036 (SASE). The equipments were purchased at an inflated cost of shockingly to the tune of 50 times of the original cost. As per the documents it is evident that there is Malafied act of corruption but DRDO seems to be indifferent to act on it. These equipments used in Avalanche forecasting studies which are of very strategic importance. If such level of corruption is happening, it is directly affecting strategic interests of the nation. Because of these corrupt scientists more than 90% equipments are not working and that will be a sabotage of life risk of our great soldiers.
Now I have received the letter from Vigilance DRDO for confirming the complaint after passing 6 months. The DRDO letter enclosed the ACB letter mentioned that “this office has not conducted any open enquiry in to the matter”
To my utter disappointment, instead of conducting an independent enquiry into the allegations based on complaint with all supporting documents, the Chandigarh unit of CBI simply forwarded the information to Director Vigilance of DRDO (Not even to CVO of MoD). Effectively it is simply passing on the buck to the organization which is not interested to tackle corruption in its organization, because the department enquiry document itself shows that after enquiry till date no action have been taken on this matter and buried under the table.
The corruption they are doing in such system which directly deploy in various snowbound border areas and collect the data and on the basis of these data they pass information to defence forces which conduct the patrolling in these snowbound areas. Because of these corrupt scientists more than 90% are not working and that will be a sabotage of life risk of our great soldiers.
I am fighting ageist corruption since last 20 years and lot of CBI officers, IB, Officers met me during this period across the India and most of I have found that they are working hard to get input/lead of corruption and national security and surprisingly in this case I found that ACB, Chandigarh not having any interest first he sit with information for six months and now just passing the ball to same department who are helpless to act against corrupt scientists for unforeseen reasons.
So I personally feel that the ACB, Chandigarh having lot of investigations and is not able to give time for this act of corruption and sabotage of national security case. I urge the Director, CBI to conduct an independent investigation by the responsible official for the corruption in strategic work of DRDO organization and ensure exemplary punishment to the accused through court if law..
To save the life of our defence personal and stop the siphoning of poor tax payer money your early action is required.
1. Copy my letter to ACB.CB, Chandigarh along with copy of DRDO enquiry report.
2. Copy of ACB.CBI, Chandigarh letter address to Vigilance, DRDO Hrs
3. Copy of Vigilance, DRDO Hrs letter
Copy to
Prime Minister of India – At the moment, the entire nation is battling with Corona and lot of funds is required to save the precious lives. Every hard earned penny of tax payer is needed to strengthen health care system. Siphoning of national exchequer should be treated as serious crime in the need of hour.
Defence Minister – I am bringing to your notice a corruption of high level where key defence scientists are involved that may risk life of soldiers who are patrolling in snowbound border areas. Action requested in your end
Chairman, DRDO – for information please, because action …………
Abhinandan Mishra Published Sunday Guardian: February 27, 2021,
New Delhi: An ailing official with the Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO), who was described as a “whistle-blower” by the then Defence Minister, the late Manohar Parrikar, is facing “forceful eviction” from his government house in what he has described as a “vindictive action” by the DRDO. Prakash Singh, who belonged to the Administration cadre of DRDO, was removed from service in August 2020 for being “absent” from the job. However, the facts on record, which The Sunday Guardian has gone through, present a totally different picture. Singh played an instrumental role in bringing to public view the alleged corruption and nepotism done by at least three director level officers with DRDO—one of whom was suspended on the last day of his job—and anomalies related to recruitment of four different scientists—of these four, the appointments of two were annulled. Singh’s immediate ordeal started in August 2016 when he was posted at Joint Cypher Bureau (JCB), a wing of the DRDO, on 18 August 2016 as a senior administration officer. Three days later, he was sent to another sub office of the same wing where he was not given any work until he stayed there till 29 November 2017 despite Singh sending multiple communications seeking “work”. On 30 November 2017, he on his own “rejoined” the JCB office. According to Singh, he went to this office till 11 December and was allotted an access pass, an official email address and departmental work. However, on the afternoon of 11 December 2017, his access was removed and he was stopped from entering the establishment. Despite that, he continued to go outside his office and register his presence by showing his ID card into the CCTV camera that was installed at the gates. He continued to do so till August 2020 when he was removed from service for “absence from duty” and all his pensionary benefits, that came with 33 years of service, were stopped. “I was not given any salary for these 21 months (from December 2017 to August 2020) despite going to register my presence every day in front of the CCTV camera, as I was not allowed to enter the premises. Now, they are coming to my house daily and asking me to vacate the house despite my case of illegal removal from service still pending in multiple forums and both my wife and I are in ill health, the certificates of which I have already submitted to the offices concerned,” Singh told The Sunday Guardian. According to Singh, the DRDO carried out an ex-parte inquiry against him while deciding to remove him from service, and did not give him the charge-sheet and the inquiry officer in the case himself was allegedly “tainted”. Documents accessed by The Sunday Guardian clearly show that the then Defence minister Manohar Parrikar had directed the DRDO and the Ministry of Defence “to identify and take action against the persons who trumped up false charges and committed a number of procedural irregularities with single-minded objective of harassing Shri Prakash Singh” after disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Singh. However, as per Singh, no inquiry was done by DRDO to identify these persons and rather it was he who has been continuously “targeted” since then. The proceedings were started, as per Singh, after he brought out in the open the alleged wrongdoings within DRDO by a few. “Raksha mantri has ordered quashing of the charges framed against Shri Prakash Singh,” reads the official communication. Another official communication by the Vigilance Department of Ministry of Defence, of October 2013, while investigating a case of irregular recruitment that was brought out in the open by Singh, has stated that the CVC was treating Singh as a “whistle blower” while stating that “it is palpable that action by some in handling the three complaints lodged by Shri Prakash Singh to CBI was taken with the motive to cause difficulties to the complainant”. Email sent to DRDO for their response on the matter and whether any action, as directed by Parrikar, was taken to identify the persons who were harassing Singh was taken, did not elicit any response till the time the story went to press.
नोएडा: DRDO का वैज्ञानिक ऐसे हुआ मुक्त, पुलिस टीम को 5 लाख इनाम
घटना सेक्टर-49 थाना क्षेत्र के सेक्टर-77 स्थित प्रतीक विस्टेरीया सोसायटी के बाहर की है. बीते शनिवार को डीआरडीओ के वैज्ञानिक के अपहरण की सूचना मिलते ही नोएडा के पुलिस महकमे में हड़कंप मच गया. सूचना मिलते ही कमिश्नर आलोक सिंह के नेतृत्व में छह टीम बनाई गईं.
दिल्ली से सटे यूपी के नोएडा में रक्षा अनुसंधान एवं विकास संगठन (डीआरडीओ) के जूनियर वैज्ञानिक को पुलिस ने सकुशल बरामद कर लिया. वैज्ञानिक को हनी ट्रैप के जाल में फंसा कर उनके परिवार वालों से 10 लाख की फिरौती मांगी गई थी. बताया जा रहा है कि वैज्ञानिक को शनिवार की शाम नोएडा में मसाज के नाम पर एक होटल में बंधक बनाकर अगवा कर लिया गया था.
घटना सेक्टर-49 थाना क्षेत्र के सेक्टर-77 स्थित प्रतीक विस्टेरीया सोसायटी के बाहर की है. बीते शनिवार को डीआरडीओ के वैज्ञानिक के अपहरण की सूचना मिलते ही नोएडा के पुलिस महकमे में हड़कंप मच गया. सूचना मिलते ही कमिश्नर आलोक सिंह के नेतृत्व में छह टीम बनाई गईं. सभी को अलग-अलग दिशाओं में वैज्ञानिकों की खोज में भेजा गया. रविवार की देर रात वैज्ञानिक को सकुशल बरामद कर एक महिला सहित तीन लोगों को गिरफ्तार कर लिया गया. पुलिस इन बदमाशों के अन्य साथियों को पकड़ने के लिए जगह-जगह दबिश दे रही
पुलिस ने बताया कि शनिवार को मसाज सेंटर का एक आदमी आया और वह उसके साथ नोएडा में ही एक होटल में मसाज के लिए चले गए. थोड़ी ही देर में तीन-चार लोग वहां पहुंचे और वैज्ञानिक को धमकाने लगे. उन पर सेक्स रैकेट में शामिल होने का आरोप लगाया और खुद को पुलिस अधिकारी बताने लगे. फिर उन्हें होटल के कमरे में बंधक बना लिया. फिर परिवार वालों से 10 लाख रुपयों की डिमांड कर डाली.
बदमाशों ने खुद को पुलिस अधिकारी बताते हुए वैज्ञानिक को धमकाया अगर पैसे नहीं मिले तो उसे गिरफ्तार दिखाया जाएगा. जिससे न सिर्फ उसकी नौकरी जाएगी बल्कि बदनामी अलग होगी.
बताया जा रहा है कि पुलिस को सूचना डीआरडीओ मुख्यालय से मिली थी. जिसके बाद पुलिस ने लगातार छापेमारी शुरू की और देर रात उन्हें सफलता मिली और वैज्ञानिक को सकुशल मुक्त करा कर परिवार वालों को सौंप दिया. पुलिस अब इस के अन्य साथियों को तलाश में जुट गई है. जिससे यह पता चल सके कि यह गैंग अब तक कितने लोगों को ऐसे ठग चुका है.
पुलिस को तफ्तीश में पता चला कि ये सारा खेल हनी ट्रैप का था. पुलिस ने बताया कि वैज्ञानिक अजय प्रताप अपने मोबाइल पर मसाज पार्लर और स्पा सर्च कर रहे थे. जहां उन्हें किडनैपर्स का नंबर मिला. किडनैपर्स ने पहले वैज्ञानिक को अपने जाल मे फंसाया फिर अपहरण कर 10 लाख की फिरौती मांगी. पीड़ित परिवार ने थाना सेक्टर 49 नोएडा पर इस घटना की लिखित तहरीर देकर मु0अ0सं0 802/2020 धारा 364ए भादवि0 पंजीकृत कराया.
सर्विलांस की सहायता से जब पुलिस लोकेशन पर पहुंची तो होंडा सिटी गाड़ी में तीन लोग मौजूद थे, जो कहीं भागने की फिराक में थे. लेकिन पुलिस टीम ने ड्राइविंग सीट पर बैठे दीपक पुत्र राजेश निवासी गांव चेहडका, थाना बहल, जिला भिवाडी, हरियाणा को पकड़ लिया. वह वर्तमान में आई 64 ओयो होटल सेक्टर 41 में ठहरा हुआ था. कार में पिछली सीट पर बैठे दो व्यक्ति खिडकी खोलकर फरार हो गए.
पुलिस ने उसी की निशानदेही पर सेक्टर 41 के ओयो होटल के कमरा नंबर 203 में दबिश देकर अपहरणकर्ता सुनीता गुर्जर पत्नी देवेन्द्र गुर्जर निवासी गांव आगाहपुर, सेक्टर 41, थाना सेक्टर 39 नोएडा और राकेश उर्फ रिंकू फौजी पुत्र दिनेश कुमार निवासी गांव चेहडका, थाना बहल, जिला भिवाडी, हरियाणा के कब्जे से अगवा किए गए वैज्ञानिक को बरामद कर लिया. उसी कमरे में वैज्ञानिक को बंधक बनाया गया था.
इस मामले में सफलतापूर्वक वैज्ञानिक को मुक्त कराने और आरोपियों की गिरफ्तारी को लेकर अपर मुख्य सचिव (गृह) ने जनपद गौतमबुद्धनगर की पुलिस टीम को 5 लाख रुपये का नगद पुरस्कार देने की घोषणा की है.
Panel to review duties of DRDO’s 52 laboratories, cut technology overlaps By Pradip R Sagar August 26, 2020THE WEEK
The central government has set up an expert committee to redefine the role of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for the current and futuristic defence and battlefield scenarios. It aims to reduce Indian military’s dependence on imports, as India is the second-largest arms importer in the world after Saudi Arabia. Moreover, its also a move towards Prime minister Narendra Modi’s vision of “Aatmanirbhar Bharat” in the defence sector. On day one of his second innings as DRDO head, Dr G. Satheesh Reddy, who is also the secretary of the department of defence research and development (ministry of defence), constituted the five-member elite panel. Incidentally, the Cabinet’s Appointments Committee had on Monday approved a two-year extension of tenure for Reddy.
The committee is headed by professor V. Ramagopal Rao, Director of IIT, Delhi. Other members include S. Somnath, Director, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre; Air Marshal Sandeep Singh, Deputy Chief of Air Staff; Dr. Samir V. Kamat, Director General-Naval Systems & Materials (NS & M) and Benjamin Lionel, Director, Instruments Research & Development Establishment of DRDO.
The terms of reference of the committee will be to study and review the charter of duties of all 52 laboratories of DRDO and to redefine the same for both current and futuristic defence and battlefield scenarios. Part of the panel’s tasks will be to minimise the overlap of technologies amongst the laboratories.
The committee has given a deadline of 45 days to submit its report and its chairman may co-opt subject specialists as invitees to specific meetings.
But, defence experts are apprehensive about the new panel, hoping it will not meet the fate of other expert committees, such as the P. Rama Rao Committee.
The committee headed by P. Rama Rao, former Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, had submitted its report in 2008. The report, DRDO’s first external review aimed at restructuring the defence R&D body, suggested that DRDO concentrate only on “core technologies” of “strategic importance” instead of venturing into making juices, mosquito repellents, titanium dental implants and so on. The committee had also suggested de-centralization of DRDO management and making it a leaner organization. Subsequently, on the Rama Rao panel’s suggestion, DRDO’s management was decentralised by merging its 52 labs to form seven clusters based on technology domains such as missiles, electronic warfare, radars, aerial vehicles and underwater weapons.
DRDO has often been criticised for delayed projects and missing repeated deadlines with huge cost overruns. And in absence of self-reliance in defence, Indian armed forces continue to be heavily dependent on imports with over 70 per cent of armed forces requirements are met from foreign firms.
On Monday, a delegation by DRDO made a detailed presentation before Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, identifying 108 military sub-systems and components for development by Indian (private) industry and the DRDO will provide support the process. DRDO claims that the design and development of these subsystems would be done over the next couple of years. This announcement follows the negative list of 101 military hardware from imports, which have to be domestically procured in a phased manner.
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.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE
OCTOBER 09, 2019
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
