Tag Archives: government

Drdo

Perform or perish

2 Comments

by Harsh Pant Wednesday, 4 February 2015 dna

The Modi government has done the right thing by jolting an ossified bureaucracy

India’s ossified bureaucracy is being shuffled like never before. The most recent development in this realm has been the rather dramatic sacking of Sujatha Singh from the post of the Foreign Secretary and the appointment of S Jaishankar to that position. The rumours about this development were floating around for quite some time. Still, when the decision actually came to replace Singh about seven months before the end of her tenure, it ended up sending shock waves through the complacent Indian foreign policy establishment.

No one seems to be contesting that Jaishankar is a great choice. Yet the critics of the decision have largely focused on bureaucratic niceties by suggesting Jaishankar’s appointment not only curtailed Singh’s career but also ended up blocking the career prospects of some senior Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officers. The reaction of the Congress Party has been rather strange with former information and broadcasting minister Manish Tewari trying to link the action to the Khobragade episode involving an IFS officer who was jailed in the US two years ago for allegedly mistreating her maid. He tweeted: “Is sacking of Foreign Secretary late retribution for her stand on Devyani Khobragade affair? Removal after a Presidential visit ‘coincidental’?”

Such criticisms of the government’s decision are missing the key point. This decision should be viewed as part of a larger, and much needed, bureaucratic shake-up that the Prime Minister is engendering. Just two weeks ago, the government had also terminated the appointment of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) chief Avinash Chander, 15 months before his contract was to end.

Prime Ministers till now have devoted, at best, occasional interest in nuclear and strategic policy issues, mainly preferring to delegate substantial levels of policy making discretion to organisations like the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). The conduct of the DRDO has been largely driven by an effort to protect its direct communicative link to the Prime Minister, secure recurrent generous funding, and maintain a high level of autonomy. Given its significant budgetary resources in the context of a developing nation, DRDO has repeatedly failed in delivering quality output. Major projects of the DRDO including the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, Nag missile, Long-range Surface-to-Air missile project and the Airborne Early Warning and Control System have either not been completed on time or have resulted in huge cost overruns. It took the agency almost a decade and a half to operationalise the Agni-I.

The inattention or inability of the Prime Minister’s office so far to take concrete steps to improve the DRDO’s performance and compel it to cooperate with other defence bureaucratic stakeholders has permitted it a remarkable degree of self-governance in budgetary prioritisation, project design and delivery time-scale planning, and setting operational policy through regular statements outlining the doctrinal meaning of DRDO products. Prime Minister Modi had criticised the DRDO for its chalta hai attitude during an address in Kargil in August last year when he had said, “If a project was conceived in 1992, it should not be the case in 2014 we are still saying it will take some more time.” And in December last year, India’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence had censured the DRDO, accusing it of shoddy research, chronic inefficiency, inordinate delays, corruption and its penchant for reverse engineering. The government seems to have taken the bull by the horns and removed Chander to ensure some semblance of accountability in the organisation.

The appointment of Jaishankar as foreign secretary is also along the same lines that merit would be rewarded. The Indian Foreign Service (IFS) needs to recognise that business as usual is no longer enough. At a time when India’s global imprint is expanding rapidly, a risk-averse foreign policy bureaucracy will not be able to meet the aspirations of the nation. The idea that seniority should determine who should be the nation’s top diplomat is an idea whose time has long gone. But bureaucratic resistance has prevented any substantive reforms in the service. There are hardly any incentives to perform and hardly any penalties for underperformance.

As a result, nearly everyone in the diplomatic service manages to rise to the upper echelons. Despite the fact that the best and the brightest are no longer attracted to the IFS, there have been few attempts to cultivate outside expertise, with hardly any opportunities for lateral entry or temporary rotations. In fact, it was Manmohan Singh who had wanted to introduce lateral entry in the Indian bureaucracy in his first term but the idea was quietly killed by the bureaucracy (who else?). Personnel are scarce and demands are growing on the IFS but Indian diplomats have not managed to transform the service and change its character to suit the needs of the time. Is it any wonder then that ad hocism pervades Indian foreign policy thinking?

Bureaucracies, if not competently led and directed, tend to morph into interest groups with a focus on preserving their own institutional privileges. In democracies, effective political control and guidance is absolutely critical if the role of bureaucracies is not to become corrosive on policymaking. It is in the nature of bureaucracies to be risk-averse. Leave them alone and they will muddle along the path of least resistance, trying to increase their power by resisting change. The Modi government is right in shaking things up and making Indian bureaucracies more accountable and effective. But much more remains to be done!

The author teaches at King’s College, London

Drdo

‘Sacking Not a Good Word to Hear After 42 Years’, India’s Agni Man Says

1 Comment

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/sacking-not-a-good-word-to-hear-after-42-years-india-s-agni-man-says/355104

Top scientist Avinash Chander, who was recently ousted as chief of the Defence Research and Development Organisation or DRDO has said the termination of his contract was “totally unexpected” and that he was taken by “surprise” by the swift move of the government. “Sacking is not a good word to hear after 42 years of service,” Mr Chander told NDTV, also saying that Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar was well within his rights to choose his team. The minister had said the government wanted younger scientists on the team.

 

Drdo

RTI – PMO – Interact with Hon’ble Prime Minister of India

2 Comments
To                                                                                                   Date – 26th January 2015
Shri Syed Ekram Rizwi,
Director & Central Public Information Officer,
Prime Minister’s Office,
South Block,
New Delhi – 110011

 

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of  PMO website regarding Interact with Honorable Prime Minister of India. It is observed that when citizen of India submitted some feedback, suggestions to improve system or information regarding misuse of fund & power by authorities, PMO officials are taking these inputs as personal grievances of individuals rather than taking inputs in national interest. The PMO officials forwarding that information directly to concern organizations without concealing the name of individuals, it may be affect the carrier of individual or authorities can target to harass the individual.

  1. Kindly provide the PMO policy for handling the inputs receiving in Interact with Honorable Prime Minister of India.
  2. Whether government officials can send feedbacks of their respective organization.
  3. PMO officials who are handling these inputs/feedbacks/infarctions are permitted to disclose the name of individual to his/her department superiors.
  4. Whether government officials who are submitting inputs in PMO website in Interact with Honorable Prime Minister of India are violating CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964, Rule 20 or any other CCS Rules (Yes/No)

 

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
 Registration Number     PMOIN/R/2015/60215
Drdo

Missile boss axe swivels glare on rot

11 Comments

SUJAN DUTTA New Delhi, Jan. 14: The sacking of Avinash Chander as the country’s top defence technocrat yesterday has brought back into focus allegations of murky deals with international arms lobbies, corruption and nepotism, professional jealousies at the top and a failure to deliver usable and accurate weapons.

The rot had institutionalised itself over the years — long before Chander was appointed to the post on May 31, 2013 — and marked even the tenure of his predecessor, V. K. Saraswat. Saraswat was last week appointed as a full member of the Niti Ayog, which took over some functions of the Planning Commission, with the rank of a minister of state.

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar said today that even he had learnt of the sacking of Chander from the media though he had recommended that the office should be held by a younger person. Like Antony, the defence minister in the UPA II regime, Parrikar has also promised a revamp of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) that Chander headed.

In addition to his job as the head of the DRDO, Chander was also the scientific adviser to the defence minister.

In New Delhi, the headquarters of the DRDO is a gleaming block of Jaipur sandstone behind South Block. Entry is restricted. The terrace on the third- floor offers a view of the central vista rivalled only by the buildings on Raisina Hill. It is from here every other month, year on year, that the DRDO makes claims of successful missile tests, and of being avant- garde in technology.

The claims only make for a smokescreen that barely dispels the rot that has set into the government outfit that this year has a budget of more than Rs 15,000 crore for 52 establishments and 30,000 employees, including 7,500 technologists.

DRDO insiders believe Saraswat and Chander never got along though both had similar profiles before rising to the top. Both Saraswat and Chander are missile technologists, both protégés of the original missile man, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. While Saraswat was credited within the organisation for the development of the surface- to- surface Prithvi missile and its variants, Chander was honoured for his contribution to the Agni series.

Parrikar said the impression that Chander had been given an extension by his government after superannuating in November ” was wrong”. Chander’s appointment for three years was approved in May 2013. Under the terms of the order by the appointments committee of the cabinet, he would retire in November and continue to serve for a further 18 months on a contract.

” And my contention was that such a post of that importance cannot be held by a person on contract,” the defence minister said.

In the UPA regime, Saraswat, Chander’s predecessor, ran into tough times with the establishment himself.

Antony restricted his fiscal powers and instituted an audit of the DRDO by the Controller General of Defence Accounts ( CGDA).

The report by the CGDA said, among other things, that the DRDO was entering into agreements with Israeli firms unnecessarily. It specifically named one Israeli firm, Semi- Conductor Devices Ltd, with which DRDO had entered into an arrangement that the auditors questioned.

” Chander was actually against this,” DRDO insiders say. ” He was trying to source components for missiles from other countries and that probably angered his masters,” alleges Prabhu Dandriyal, a right to information activist who is almost always investigating the operations of the DRDO. The CGDA audit also said that barely 10 per cent of the projects undertaken by the DRDO were eligible for consideration by the users ( the armed forces).

On November 29 last year, a day before Chander was to superannuate, the Prime Minister’s Office, in response to an RTI request from Dandriyal, said it had received three complaints against Chander. Two had been forwarded to the national security adviser and the cabinet secretary. A third complaint was still being studied.

The third complaint was from Navin Prakash Gupta, who is with the DRDO’s Advanced Systems Laboratory ( ASL), a Hyderabad- based outfit that Chander himself headed before moving to New Delhi.

In the seven- page complaint ( with 17 annexures), Gupta questioned the appointment of Chander as the head of the DRDO after two extensions ( till he was 64 years of age) and doubted if he could be called a scientist of ” international stature” as the ACC (appointments committee of cabinet) had remarked in May 2013 ( under the UPA regime).

In other complaints, the DRDO technologists alleged that Chander had promoted Tessy Thomas over other more qualified peers. Thomas was described in media as India’s first ” missile woman” after she was made project director for the Agni- IV missile.

In the complaints, Chander was also alleged to have created a post for Thomas’s husband, a retired commodore from the navy, and accommodated him in a DRDO laboratory, overriding the claims of qualified DRDO employees.

The responses of the government to the complaints are still pending.

Saraswat, after retirement, joined the Centre for Technology and Scientific Studies as its dean. The centre is associated with the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF), the think tank that used to be headed by Ajit Doval, now the national security adviser.

Sources in the defence ministry said that although Chander would technically serve till January 31, he had been ” attached” to the PMO. He was to have met a delegation from a western country this morning but the appointment was cancelled.

Defence minister Parrikar has said that ” things will happen” in the DRDO. In the weeks ahead, the DRDO will have to be consulted on important technologytransfer issues with the US. An India- US framework agreement on defence is due to be renewed during the visit of President Barack Obama later this month. A revised list of items for technology transfer under a Defence Trade and Technology Initiative ( DTTI) is in the works.the telegraph 15 jan 2016

Drdo

Real reasons behind DRDO chief Avinash Chander’s sacking

17 Comments

Thursday, 15 January 2015 – 7:05am IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: dna
Jyotika Sood, Iftikhar Gilani

Avinash Chander (left) has been terminated from the post of DRDO Chief File Photo dna Research & Archives
Avinash Chander (left) has been terminated from the post of DRDO Chief File Photo dna Research & Archives

Three major complaints against Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) chief Avinash Chander, including two anonymous ones, were pending before the Prime Minister’s Office in November 2014, when he was given a contract of 16 months on his retirement. It is reliably learnt that investigations into the complaints went against him and thus he was summarily sacked two months after the extension in service.

What were the complaints about?
According to RTI by Uttarakhand-based Prabhu Dandriyal in December 2014, and accessed by dna, PMO had stated that it had received three complaints against Avinash Chander. The details of the two complaints could not be ascertained. The third complaint was filed by R K Gupta of Advance System Laboratory, Hyderabad. According to PMO sources, Gupta had made an allegation against DRDO chief Avinash Chander for favouring his junior. Gupta was apparently superseded by his junior scientist by bending the rules, sources added.

Why was the PM peeved?
Chander had to face PM’s ire also because of the mess in the DRDO. As per the PMO estimates losses worth around Rs 29,000 crore were accrued due to time and cost overruns in acquisitions/developmental projects. For example, the indigenous Aircraft Carrier will now cost Rs 19,341 crore from its original cost of Rs 3,241 crore. Similarly, in case of the Stealth Guided Missile Destroyer, the cost has been revised from Rs 3,850 crore to Rs 11,662 crore and timelines have been revised from 2010-11 to 2015-16.

What did dna report highlight?
In December, dna had exposed how Parliament Standing Committee on defence had rapped up DRDO for its shoddy research, inordinate delays, corruption and its fancy for reverse engineering.

What’s Parrikar’s justification for sacking Chander?
On Wednesday, defence minister Manohar Parrikar said, “It was my recommendation that the DRDO chief’s post should be held by a young person and not by someone on contract.”

Interestingly, the government has taken action against Chander, but there are many more scientists in DRDO working under extension rules even after their retirement. As on September 1, 2014, around ten scientists in category of distinguished scientists i.e. special secretary level and over a dozen scientists on grade H — outstanding scientists i.e. additional secretary level – are still working in DRDO. But no termination orders have come against them.

The government’s reason seems to be also ironical as it has recently appointed Vijay Kumar Saraswat, former DRDO chief, as full-time member of newly formed Niti Aayog. Saraswat had worked as DRDO director general post 60 years. He had got an extension of two + two years and finally retired on May 31, 2013. Saraswat is Chander’s predecessor and according to a senior scientist in DRDO, “both have ideological differences which was known to scientific fraternity.”

What are Chander’s credentials?
Avinash Chander is an IIT Delhi graduate and joined DRDO in August 1972. He has won several awards, including DRDO medal for scientist of the year for AGNI I, and is called the chief architect of the long range ballistic missiles in India. He had retired on November 1, 2014 but was given an extension, on contractual basis, till May 2016.

Drdo

“I am hearing this from you. It has come as a shock to me. I haven’t received any order from the government,” Chander told HT exclusively.

8 Comments

Mr.Chander – Honest scientists of DRDO shocked when you delayed result of scientist ‘H’ in 2013 and October when they seen the name of Ms Tessy Thomas who superseeded well deserved.

DRDO shocked when you made Ms Tessy Thomas as Director, ASL ignoring the deserve ones

DRDO scientists again shocked when you advertised tailor made post for Ms Tessy Thomas’s husband CMDR Saroj Patel and selected him and made director without fear of Government rules and GOD

DRDO honest scientist were shocked when you protected Dr A K Saxena after seeing all documentary evidences of corruption and instead to save the national interest punished honest scientists.

List is very long………………

So don’t pretend that you shocked to hear government decision, now your best friend is sitting in government hope he will going to give you more shocks.

Best of Luck

Drdo

DRDO chief booted out 16 months before end of tenure

5 Comments

Hidustan Times – Rahul Singh, Hindustan Times New Delhi, January 13, 2015
The government on Tuesday sacked Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) chief Avinash Chander, putting up the exit order on the Department of Personnel and Training website even before informing him.
“I am hearing this from you. It has come as a shock to me. I haven’t received any order from the government,” Chander told HT exclusively.

The appointments committee of the cabinet (ACC) approved the termination of Chander’s contract with effect from January 31, a good 16 months before it was to end. Strangely, the ACC order was taken off the DoPT website later in the day.

The sacking was first reported by HT on its website.

“It is the government’s decision to end my contract but I had no indication this was coming. No idea why it has happened,” the 64-year-old added.

The reasons for Chander’s unceremonious exit could not be immediately ascertained but the DRDO had in August come in for sharp criticism from Prime Minister Narendra Modi over delays and cost overruns in key military programmes. Modi had said India had the potential to be a world leader in the defence sector but was being held back by a “chalta hai” attitude.

In another snub to him, the NDA government had last year turned down a DRDO request for grant of extension to four senior scientists who had attained the age of retirement.

Chander had retired on November 30, 2014 but was to hold charge till his contract expired on May 31, 2016. This was in line with his appointment order issued on May 31, 2013. The government had even issued an order on November 27 last year saying Chander would “continue to be in operation” for the next 18 months — making his sacking on Tuesday all the more unexpected.

As chief of India’s premier defence research agency, Chander also held the posts of scientific adviser to the defence minister and secretary, department of defence R&D. He is credited with shaping India’s strategic missile programme.

The DRDO was set up in 1958 to develop indigenous military technology and cut back on arms imports. But India holds the dubious distinction of being the world’s largest weapons importer, sourcing 70% of its defence requirements from abroad.

A search panel headed by the cabinet secretary will pick Chander’s replacement from among top DRDO scientists.

Uncategorized

Chennai: Police arrest RTI applicant for refusing to stand at hearing

Leave a comment

Chennai: Police arrest RTI applicant for refusing to stand at hearing
08-01-2015
CHENNAI: Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC), in an unprecedented assault on the spirit of the Right to Information Act, under whose provisions the commission is set up, called in the city police to arrest an applicant for refusing to remain standing up and asking to be allowed to sit down in front of a two-member bench hearing an appeal by the applicant at the commission’s headquarters in Teynampet here on Wednesday.
There is no rule that an RTI applicant should remain standing during an appeal, but when NGO Satta Panchayat Iyakkam (Legal Panchayat Movement) president Siva Elango asked for a chair during the hearing of a second appeal after TNSIC rejected his RTI application and first appeal, chief information commissioner K S Sripathi and commissioner S F Akbar refused to accede to the request.
When the SPI president took a chair, the commissioners informed the Teynampet police and lodged a formal complaint. Police picked up Elango from the TNSIC headquarters and booked him under IPC Sections 353 (preventing a government servant from discharging his duty), 294 (b) (obscenity) and 506 (1) (criminal intimidation).
Police presented Elango in a magistrate’s court, which remanded him in judicial custody for 15 days. Elango is currently in Puzhal Central Prison here.
RTI activists seeking to expose corruption have been at the receiving end of threats and attacks by politicians and bureaucrats, and some of them have even been murdered for their efforts, but this is the first time that a state information commission has gone out of its way to stymie an appeal for information and intimidate an applicant, activists in the city said.
Elango, who has filed several RTI applications and represented various applicants, said TNSIC members and staff have routinely sought to derail his petitions for information and harass him. “On Wednesday commission staff even deflated the tyres of my motorcycle,” he said.
Wednesday’s hearing of Elango’s second appeal was on an RTI application he filed on February 22, seeking details of advertisements issued by the state government from 1991 to 2014. “I approached TNSIC after the government failed to reply to my application,” he said. “Instead of penalising the PIO concerned for not providing the information on time, the commissioners have been misbehaving with me during the proceedings.”
Chief information commissioner Sripathi was unavailable for comment, but commissioner Akbar said TNSIC had given Elango “sufficient opportunities” to obtain the information he requested. “He did not follow some procedures,” he said. Asked what specific procedures he was referring to, Akbar said, “I cannot divulge everything that happened during the hearing.”
SPI general secretary Senthil Arumugam said information commissioners in the state continue to be lax even after applicants protested against them. “They should treat applicants with some dignity. Unfortunately, they safeguard errant PIOs instead,” Arumugam said.
Enraged by Elango’s arrest, RTI activists said they will organise a sit-in protest at the TNSIC headquarters on Friday. Lok Satta Party (TN) spokesperson N Narayanan issued a statement condemning the TNSIC after Elango’s arrest.
Activists have been urging the commission to webcast proceedings on its site and allow applicants to record proceedings. In July 2014, SPI released a video that captured commission member P Thamilselvan abusing an applicant during the hearing of an appeal.
TOI recently reported that the number of RTI appeals disposed of by TNSIC plunged by more than 50% in 2014 from the previous year. Statistics from the commission’s website (Tamil Nadu Information Commission) show the number of appeals the commission attended to dropped from 19,889 in 2013 to 8,121 till November 2014. The commission receives an average of 60,000 RTI applications a year.

Chennai: Police arrest RTI applicant for refusing to stand at hearing – The Times of India

Uncategorized

Chennai: RTI activist jailed for refusing to stand at hearing

Leave a comment

Anna Isaac, CNN-IBN
Chennai: In a bizarre case, an RTI activist has been jailed for refusing to stand at a hearing. The RTI activist had asked for a chair so that he could sit in front of a 2-member bench hearing an appeal at the headquarters in Chennai.
The victim, NGO Satta Panchayat Iyakkam President Siva Elango, asked for a chair during the hearing of a second appeal after Tamil Nadu State Information Commission rejected his RTI application. When the RTI activist took the chair, they lodged a complaint with the Teynampet Police.
He has been booked under IPC Sections 353 (preventing a government servant from discharging his duty), 294 (b) (obscenity) and 506 (1) (criminal intimidation) The court has remanded the RTI applicant Elango in judicial custody for 15 days.

Drdo

Request for the sanction of fund from Prime Minister’s relief fund for filing PIL

17 Comments
To                                                                                                             9th December 2014
Honorable Shri Narendra Modi
Prime Minister
PMO, Room No -102 South Block
New Delhi-110011

SUBJECT: Request for the sanction of fund from Prime Minister’s relief fund for filing PIL

Honorable Sir,

                          The foul smell coming out of DRDO in particular the misuse of government funds and misinterpretation of government rules have been sent to successive government since 2001.

So far barring a few dent the fundamental change expected by countryman have not been observed, may the reason known to successive Defence Ministers.

There was growing hope of countries scientific fraternity and as well as common man of India that Honorable Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji will take appropriate action against the corrupt officials of DRDO. When several cases of extensions were put up for approval it was denied. The culprits were furious and looking for safe exit, however, when the contractual appointment of Sh Avinash Chander, DG, DRDO, SA to RM, Secretary, DRD was continued, the message delighted the corrupt officials, operating within the four walls of DRDO.

DRDO can spend government fund for manufacturing Silver Rath of Rs 2.5 Crores without having any approval from competent authority. The existence of Controller Defence Accounts is also not visible. And above all our government is keep mum on this unethical, irresponsible act of DRDO bosses.

Sir, an enclosed PIL is almost ready for submission to honorable court and we seek financial assistance for national interest from Prime Minister’s relief fund as court expenditure for the sake timely action to save premier defence organisation of the country.

Thanking You

Prabhu Dandriyal
www.corruptionindrdo.com
21-Sunderwala, Raipur.Dehradun-248008

Enclosed –  Public interest litigation (PIL)                 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI

*****

I N D E X

IN

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.                 OF 2014

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

(DISTRICT: DELHI)

Prabhu Dandriyal

…Petitioner

Versus

  1. Union of India through the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi and others.

…Respondentsindex1

index2

index3

 

Dated _____________ 2014

(                                                    )

Advocate

Counsel for the petitioner

Chamber No.         High Court, Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

*****

LIST OF RELEVANT DATES & EVENTS

IN

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.                 OF 2014

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

(DISTRICT: DELHI)

Prabhu Dandriyal son of Late Shri R N Dandriyal

Resident of 21, Sunderwala, Raipur Road, Dehradun-248008

…Petitioner

Versus

  1. Union of India through the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.
  2. Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India, North Block , New Delhi-110011.
  3. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011
  4. Shri Bhanu Pratap Sharma, Special Secretary and Establishment Officer, DOPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India, North Block , New Delhi-110011.

…Respondentsevents1

 

events2

 

events3

 

Dated _____________ 2014

(                                                    )

Advocate

Counsel for the petitioner

Chamber No.         High Court, Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

*****

         CIVIL MISC.  STAY APPLCIATION No.               OF 2014

(Under Chapter XXII Rule 1 of the High Court Rules)

         On behalf of:-

PRABHU DANDRIYAL, 21, SUNDERWALA, RAIPUR ROAD , DEHRADUN-248008

…Petitioner

IN

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.                 OF 2014

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

(DISTRICT: DELHI)

Prabhu Dandriyal son of Late Shri R N Dandriyal

Resident of 21, Sunderwala, Raipur Road, Dehradun-248008

…Petitioner

Versus

  1. Union of India through the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.
  2. Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India, North Block , New Delhi-110011.
  3. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011.
  4. Shri Bhanu Pratap Sharma, Special Secretary and Establishment Officer, DOPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India, North Block , New Delhi-110011.

…Respondents

To,

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his other companion  judges of the aforesaid court.   The humble application on behalf of above named, Petitioner, Most     Respect fully Showeth as under:

That the full facts and circumstances of the case have been stated in the accompanying writ petition (PIL), which forms part of this application.

PRA YER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the appointment letter dated 31 May 2013 and direct the Respondent No. 1 & 2  to ensure the cancellation of appointment on contract (contractual appointment) of  Shri Avinash Chander who is presently holding charge of Director General R&D, DRDO, Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and  Secretary , Department of Defence R&D on contract with effect from 01 December 2014.

It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue orders to respondent no. 1 to investigate all the complaint made against Shri Avinash Chander to Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, PMO in time bound manner and submit the inquiry report before this Hon’ble Court within one month.

During the pendency of the present Writ Petition(PIL) , and/ or pass such other and further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of  the  case.

Dated _____________ 2014

(                                                    )

Advocate

Counsel for the petitioner

Chamber No.         High Court, Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI

*****

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.                 OF 2014

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

(DISTRICT: DELHI)

Prabhu Dandriyal son of Late Shri R N Dandriyal

Resident of  21, Sunderwala, Raipur Road, Dehradun-248008

…Petitioner

Versus

  1. Union of India through the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.
  2. Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India, North Block , New Delhi-110011.
  3. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011.
  4. Shri Bhanu Pratap Sharma, Special Secretary and Establishment Officer, DOPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India, North Block , New Delhi-110011.

…Respondents

To,

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his other companion Judges of the aforesaid court.

The humble application on behalf of above named, Petitioner, Most Respectfully Showeth as under:

  1. That this is the first Public Interest Litigation filed on behalf of the petitioner on the subject before this Hon’ble Court and no other Writ Petition/Public Interest Litigation has been filed with the same cause of actio
  2. That the Petitioner has not received any caveat as yet from any of the respondents. The expenditure of the petition is managed by the petitioner himself.
  3. That the petitioner has no personal grudge against any one and the purpose of filing this Public Interest Litigation is not to harm anyone with any personal motive.
  4. That the Petitioner has neither personal interest in the matter nor any grudge against anybody in filing the Public Interest Litigation. The Petitioner is totally devoted to promote transparency and accountability and ensure to contain corruption in post-retirement appointment on contract of Shri Avinash Chander posted on contract as Director General R&D, DRDO, Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and Secretary , Department of Defence R&D  for 18 weeks with effect from 01 December 2014 to 31 May 2016.
  5. That under the provisions of Government of India(Allocation of Business) Rules 1961 , Allocation of Business – The business of the Government of India shall be transacted in the Ministries, Departments, Secretariats and Offices specified in the First Schedule to these rules and the distribution of subjects among the departments shall be as specified in the Second Schedule to these Rules.
  6. That Department of Defence Research and Development (Raksha Anusandhan aur Vikas Vibhag) is under Ministry of Defence in First Schedule of AOB Rules 1961 and under the provisions of The Second Schedule (Rule 3) of AOB Rules 1961, the Distribution of Subjects Among The Departments for the Department of Defence Research and Development is annexed as Annexure-A1 to this PIL.
  7. That under the provisions of Rule 2(i) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 the Head of Department is defined as “head of the department” for the purpose of exercising the powers as appointing, disciplinary, appellate or reviewing authority, means the authority declared to be the head of the department under the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules or the Civil Service Regulations, as the case may be.
  8. That under the provisions of Rule 2(j) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 the Head of Office is defined as “head of the office” for the purpose of exercising the powers as appointing, disciplinary, appellate or reviewing authority, means the authority declared to be the head of the office under the General Financial Rules.
  9. That Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) is an organisation under Department of Defence R&D, Ministry of Defence. Head of Department and Head of Office in DRDO is Secretary , Department of Defence R&D who is also holding posts of Director General Research & Development and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri simultaneously.
  10. That Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) is having vision ” Make India prosperous by establishing world class science and technology base and provide our Defence Services decisive edge by equipping them with internationally competitive systems and solutions ” and Mission ” Design, develop and lead to production state-of-the-art sensors, weapon systems, platforms and allied equipment for our Defence Services , Provide technological solutions to the Services to optimise combat effectiveness and to promote well-being of the troops and Provide technological solutions to the Services to optimise combat effectiveness and to promote well-being of the troops”.
  11. That DRDO is having budget of Rs. 15283 crore for the FY 2014-2015 in Union Budget 2014 and this is fund is controlled by Secretary, Department of Defence R&D, DGR&D and SA to RM.
  12. That DRDO is having 52 establishments and approx. 30000 employees including 7500 Scientists. The Head of DRDO is holding three post simultaneously DGR&D, SA to RM and Secretary, DRD. He is having control over 30000 employees, 52 establishments and Rs. 15283 crore of public money.
  13. That DRDO is having seven technology based domain cluster with seven Director General(DG) and more than 20 Corporate Directorate headed by more than 8 Chief Controller Research & Development(CCR&D) . Most of the DG and CCR&D are on extension in service beyond 60 years. The copy of the Organisation Chart of DRDO is annexed as Annexure- A2 to this PIL.
  14. That statutory Recruitment & Promotion Rules for DRDO Scientists under Defence Research & Development Service (DRDS) cadre of DRDO are called as Defence Research & Development Service Rules 1979 (DRDS Rules 1979). All recruitment and promotions of scientist are made under these Rules. There is no provision of appointment on contract in recruitment methods  under DRDS Rules 1979.
  15. That Establishment Officer’s Division (EO Division) , DOPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,  Government of India processes all proposals for senior appointments in the Government of India that require approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet under the Government of India Transactions of Business Rules, 1961. These include Board level appointments in Public Sector Undertakings and appointments to the posts at the level of Joint Secretary. In addition, all appointments by promotion that require ACC approval are processed through the E.O. Division. For this purpose, the Establishment Officer functions as the Secretary to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.
  16. That  Appointments Committee of the Cabinet(ACC) approves  appointments to several top posts under the Government of India. The committee is composed of the Prime Minister of India (who is the Chairman), the Minister of Home Affairs and the Minister in-charge of the concerned Ministry. The Establishment Officer’s Division (EO Division) processes all proposals for senior appointments in the Government of India that require approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet under the Government of India Transactions of Business Rules, 1961. The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, reconstituted in June 2014. Now Prime Minister and Home Minister to constitute Appointments Committee on Cabinet and will no longer have ‘minister in-charge of the concerned ministry’ as member.
  17. That Shri Ajit Kumar Seth, IAS (DOB: 24 Nov 1951) appointed as Cabinet Secretary, Government of India by Appointment Committee of Cabinet(ACC) for two years with effect from 14.06.2011 to 13.06.2013. His tenure was further extended for one year with effect from 14.06.2013 to 13.06.2014. His tenure was again extended for 06 months with effect from 14.06.2014 to 13.12.2014. His tenure has been again extended for six month beyond 13 Dec 2014 by ACC.
  18. That Shri Bhanu Pratap Sharma, IAS was appointed as Establishment Officer & Additional Secretary, DOPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions by Appointment Committee of Cabinet(ACC) on 23.11.2011 and by order dated 03.11.2014 of ACC , he has been appointed as Special Secretary and Establishment Officer, DOPT.
  19. All the extensions in service beyond age of 60 years are made through DOPT, DPRC, Screening Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary and ACC headed by Hon’ble Prime Minister. ACC is constituted of three members- Hon’ble Prime Minister, Hon’ble Home Minister and Hon’ble Minister of concerned Ministry.
  20. That Shri Avinash Chander (DOB: 06.11.1950) joined DRDO in August 1972. He was appointed as Chief Controller Research & Development (Missiles & Strategic Systems) on 11 May 2011 and that time he was holding rank Distinguished Scientist in 75,500-80,000/- (HAG+ Scale)  with effect from 14.06.2006. His date of retirement was 30 November 2010 but Government gave extension in service to him for two years beyond  60 years and up to 62 years from 01 December 2010 to 30 November 2012. Government gave further extension of two years beyond 62 years and up to 64 years age from 01 Dec 2012 to 30 November 2014.
  21. That procedure to Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation covered by DOPT OM 26012/6/2002-Estt. (A) dated 09 December 2002 , DOPT OM No. 26012/8/2011-Estt. (A) dated 16 May 2011 and DOPT OM No. 22/35/2011-E0 (SM.I1) dated 24 September 2014. Copies  of the DOPT OMs dated 09 December 2002 and dated 16 May 2011 is annexed as Annexure-A3 ,  Annexure-A4 and Annexure A5 to this PIL.
  22. That the for consideration of cases of extensions in service beyond age of 60 years for scientists in DRDO are covered by Office Memorandum of DOPT issued time to time. These OMs are OM No. 26012/15/2010-Estt(A-IV) dated 4th May 2011, OM No. 26012/7/2013/Estt.(A-IV) dated 26th June 2013 and OM No. 26012/7/2013-Estt(A-IV) dated 26th September 2014. All the proposals for extension in service are processed through DPRC constituted by these OMs of DOPT. Copies of OMs dated 4th May 2011, 26th June 2013 and 26th September 2014 are annexed as Annexure-A6  , Anexure-A7 and Annexure-A8 to this PIL.
  23. That the Screening Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary for considering the proposals for extensions beyond  62 years and up to 64 years of age is constituted by DOPT OM No. 26012/15/2010-Estt/A-IV dated 4th May 2011 and DOPT OM No. 26012/12/2013-Estt.(A) 13th June 2013.  Copies of DOPT OMs dated 4th May 2011 and 13th June 2013 are annexed as Annexure-A9 and Anexure-A10.
  24. That under the provisions of DOPT OMs at Annexure-A3, Anexure-A4 and Anexure-A5 and FR 56(d) for extension beyond 62 year and up to 64 year age two conditions should be fulfilled-(i) the Scientist should have international stature (ii) such extension should not  block promotion opportunities of others in the Department.
  25. That Bio-Data of Shri Avinash Chander, DS & CCR&D (MSS) is annexed as Annexure-A11 to this PIL. Bio-data of Sri Avinash Chander, DS & CCR&D(MSS) shows that he was not having International Stature in field of Science & Technology. Therefore DPRC headed by DGR&D, SA to RM and Secretary, DRD and Screening Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary illegally recommended the name of Shri Avinash Chander for extension from 62 to 64 year age in gross violation of FR 56(d) and DOPT OMs. The ACC approved the extension of Shri Avinash Chander based on recommendations of DPRC and Screening Committee and did not applied their mind to see the rule position and documents on record in file. Besides these DPRC, Screening Committee and ACC violated provisions of the FR 56(d) and second condition as Shri Avinash Chander was Distinguished Scientist from 14.06.2006 and his second extension blocked  the promotion opportunity of other senior Scientists having rank of Outstanding Scientists as vacancy of   Distinguished Scientist in DRDO is very limited 08-10 during the 2010-2012. Fundamental Rules are statutory rules and extension in violation of Fundamental Rules 56(d) was unconstitutional.
  26. That in any circumstances DRDO Scientists cannot get extension beyond 64 year age under the provisions of FR 56(d) and DOPT OMs on grant of extension in service.
  27. That Appointment Committee of Cabinet(ACC) headed by Prime Minister as Chairman, Home Minister and Defence Minister as members approved the  regular appointment and appointment on contract after retirement of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or until further orders, whichever is earlier by order 31 May 2013.   Copy of the order    I2/9/2013-EO (SM.I) , Secretariat of the Appointment Committee of Cabinet, DOPT dated 31 May 2013 is annexed as Annexure-A12 of this PIL.
  28. That according the appointment letter dated 31 May 2013 of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary DRD -cum- DGR&D and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri , ACC approved  that “The appointment of Shri Avinash Chander beyond his date of retirement i.e. 30.11.2014 would be on contract basis with the same terms and conditions as he would be entitled to Secretary (DRD) before the date of retirement”.
  29. That , the list of Scientists of DRDO considered for the post of Secretary (DRD) by ACC in May 2013 is enclosed as Annexure -A13 to this PIL.
  30. That Shri Avinash Chander retired on 30th November 2014. In this connection Press Release was issued by PIB, MOD on 28th November 2014 at 18:48 IST. Copy of Press Release of PIB , MOD dated 28  November 2014 is annexed as Annexure-A14 to this PIL. According to press release of PIB “The appointment of Dr. Avinash Chander beyond his date of retirement i.e. 30.11.2014 for 18 months would be on contract basis, with the same terms and conditions as he would be entitled to Secretary (DRD) before the date of retirement. His contractual term will end on 31 May 2016”.
  31. That DOPT issued two OMs No. AB.14017/34/2008-Estt. (RR) (Pt.) dated 17th June, 2013 and AB.14017/34/2008-Estt. (RR) (Pt.) dated 16th June, 2014 regarding need for contract appointment in the Ministry/Department. These two OMs of DOPT clarified that till date Government has not finalised the policy/rules for appointment on contract in SAG/HAG scale. Copy of OMs dated 17th June, 2013 and 16th June, 2014 is annexed as Annexure-A15 to this PIL.
  32. That in reply to Unstarred Question NO-2871 put by Sri E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan, MP in Rajya Sabha on 06.09.2012 on Appointment of Secretaries on contract basis, it was informed by Hon’ble Shri V. Narayanasamy, Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office that “there is no policy formulation for appointing the Secretaries in Union Ministries and Departments on contract”. Copy of the reply dated 06.09.2012 is annexed as Annexure-A16 to this PIL.
  33. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), in its reply to Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi, has stated that “Government servants are allowed to continue in service after 60 years in rare and exceptional cases.” It is relevant to mention here that the news was published on 28 May 2012 in Hindustan Times stating “Contractual appointment post-retirement not in rules” based on reply given by DOPT, Ministry of Personnel in 15th Lok Sabha. Copy of the News published in Hindustan Times dated 28 May 2012 is annexed as Annexure-A17.
  34. That several complaints against Shri Avinash Chander are pending before PMO and MOD and  according to rules without vigilance clearance any retired Government employee cannot be appointed on contract as Secretary cum DGR&D and   Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and Head of the DRDO.
  35. That Shri Navin Prakash Gupta resident of Kanpur filed complaint to Hon’ble Prime Minister, PMO regarding “Cancellation of illegal appointment of Sri Avinash Chander, Director General Research & Development, Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and Secretary, Department of Defence R&D by Appointment Committee of Cabinet , Govt. of India” dated 06 August 2014. Copy of the complaint is annexed as Annexure-A18 to this PIL. The said complainant has been disposed of by Group of Secretaries headed by Cabinet Secretary on 12.11.2014 and it was informed by CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat vide his letter dated 26 November 2014. Copy of the letter dated 26 November 2014 is annexed as Annexure-A19 to this PIL. The complainant has not been informed about  outcome/decision of Government on the complaint.
  36. That Shri Navin Prakash Gupta resident of Kanpur filed complaint to Hon’ble Prime Minister, PMO regarding “Doubtful Integrity, Criminal Misconduct, Breach of Trust & Nepotism by Shri Avinash Chander, Secretary, Department of Defence R&D   Ministry of Defence, Government of India” dated 13 November 2014. Copy of the complaint  dated 13 November 2014 is annexed as Annexure-A20 to this PIL. The complaint is still pending before the PMO.
  37. That the petitioner has filed complaint against Shri Avinash Chander to PMO on the subject “Shri Avinash Chander, SA to RM, DG DRDO, Secretary (DRD) patronizing organized corruption in procurement by Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur” dated 13 September 2014. Copy of the complaint dated 13 September 2014 is annexed as Annexure-A21 to this PIL
  38. That the petitioner has filed complaint against Shri Avinash Chander to PMO on the subject ” Example of Shri Avinash Chander’s feudalism in DRDO” dated 14 September 2014. Copy of the complaint dated 14 September  2014 is annexed as Annexure-A22 to this PIL.
  39. That the petitioner has filed complaint against Shri Avinash Chander to Central Vigilance Commissioner(CVC) on the subject “Recruitment of Shri Saroj Kumar Patel, Scientist ‘G’ and Appointment on post of Director, Directorate of Quality, Reliability &Safety (DQRS), DRDO HQ Complaint against Shri Avinash Chander, DG, DRDO, SA to RM, Secretary, DRD” dated 14 September 2014. Copy of the complaint dated 14 September 2014 is annexed as Annexure-A23 to this PIL.
  40. That petitioner has filed complaint against Shri Avinash Chander to Hon’ble Defence Minister on the subject “Shri Avinash Chander is not interested to take any action on DMSRDE corruption cases” dated 01 November 2014. Copy of the complaint dated 01 November 2014 is annexed as Annexure-A24 to this PIL.
  41. That petitioner has filed complaint against Shri Avinash Chander to PMO on the subject “Request for cancellation Post Retirement Contractual Appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as DG, DRDO to save the premier organization from the clutches of corrupt and incompetents officials” dated 26 November 2014. Copy of the complaint dated 26 November 2014 is annexed as Annexure-A25 to this PIL.
  42. That Government is having view that the extensions in service  beyond age of retirement should not be granted to scientists in DRDO as well as other S&T Organisation/Departments. This view of Government has come in media. Specially an article published in issue of 13 October 2014 of India Today. Copy of the article “DRDO has become ageing body with top scientists on extension” is annexed as Annexure-A26 to this PIL.
  43. That despite being so many complaints pending against Shri Avinash Chander, the Government continued his appointment on contract as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri and he is working on this post on contract with full administrative and financial powers.
  44. That in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent no. 1 & 2  to ensure the cancellation of appointment on contract of on contract as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri and issue order to keep away from post of Secretary, DRD cum DGR&D and SA to RM  during the pendency of the present Writ Petition (PIL).
  45. That the Petitioner has no other efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
  46. That the Petitioner is filing the instant (PIL) writ petition inter-alia on the following among other grounds:-