Tag Archives: New Delhi

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

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:-

RTI – Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) – MOD

To                                                                                            24th November 2014
Sh A. M. Manichan,
Under Secretary (IC-IV), CPIO,
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence,
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of government funds using by DRDO in the name of CSR. It is observed that senior DRDO official (Dr. S Guru Prasad, Director, R&D E, Pune  told to Sunday Standard on 23rd November 2014 about a silver Chariot made for a temple in Maharashtra under head of corporate social responsibility (CSR).

  1. Provide the copy of approval of Ministry of Defence for create head of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in DRDO.
  2. The year wise allotted budget since its (corporate social responsibility) approval.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com www.corruptionindrdo.com   

Enclosed  -The Copy of the Sunday Standard 23rd November 2014

rathyatra main2

RTI- Full Page Advertisement by DRDO – MOD

To                                                                                            24th November 2014
Sh A. M. Manichan,
Under Secretary (IC-IV), CPIO,
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence,
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi

 

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of government funds using by DRDO full page colored advertisement in leading national on 21st November 2014.

  1. Provide the copy of approval of Ministry of Defence for publishing full page colored advertisement in leading national on 21st November 2014.
  2. Total amount spend on above mentioned advertisement by DRDO.
  3. List of news papers in which this advertisement was published.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com www.corruptionindrdo.

Enclosed – The Copy of Advertisement

Registration Number     MODEF/R/2014/62188

21_11_2014_011_005

Breach of trust, criminal misconduct and gross violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 to misguide Hon’ble Defence Minister by Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel) , DRDO HQ, New Delhi.

To                                                                                            14th November 2014
Hon’ble
Shri Manohar Parrikar,
Defence Minister,
Room No -104, South Block,
New Delhi-110011

 

SUBJECT: Breach of trust, criminal misconduct and gross violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 to misguide Hon’ble Defence Minister by Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel) , DRDO HQ, New Delhi.

Hon’ble Sir,

I would like to draw your kind attention towards mischievous acts of Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO HQ who is Scientist ‘G’  belonging to Life Sciences discipline. Though renowned Nuclear Medicine Scientist he is posted in Directorate related to HR like Staff Officer to CCR&D, Director, CEPTAM, DHRD and DOP since the year 2004. He has no knowledge and understanding of HR, Government Rules and Government Orders rather he is expert in manipulation of rules short term gains. Former Hon’ble Defence Minister, himself a renowned lawyer of India was mislead by Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO resulted day by several court cases against DRDO in various courts across the country. Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO is solely responsible for humiliation to DRDO, waste expenditure of public money and trouble to innocent scientists and employees of DRDO.

Due to this DRDO derailed from real task i.e. development of weapon technologies and most of top senior officials busy to tackle court cases and country’s precious time wasted on court formalities and height of this is CC (R&D) HR, DRDO fighting to save himself from jail punishment and wasting poor taxpayers money by engaging 4 top lawyers.

Hon’ble Sir, being an honest and simple person you are traveling in economy class to save public money but senior scientists of DRDO including Dr. A.K. Singh are enjoying business class travel and collecting flying points for family members.

Brief Facts of the Case

  1. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel) issued Order No. MON.GP/120576/M/01 dated 10 October 2014 by which states that “Competent Authority has come to the conclusion that the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava, Scientist ‘B’ (now Scientist ‘C’ ) in DRDO is irregular ab initio. Therefore , the President being the Competent Authority has dispensed with the requirement of holding another enquiry  and has decided to annul the appointment of said Ms.  Swati Srivastava, Scientist ‘B’ (now Scientist ‘C’) in DRDO with immediate effect invoking the provisions of DOP&T OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993 read with the Rule 19(ii) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965“. Copy of the Order dated 10 October 2014 is enclosed as Annexure-1.
  2. Therefore it is pertinent to understand the provisions of said DOPT OM dated 19.05.1993 and Rule 19(ii) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965.

DOP&T OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993

Action against Government servants to be taken if they are later found ineligible or unqualified for their initial recruitment

Attention of the Ministries/Departments is invited to Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 39/1/67- Ests.(A) dated 21.02.1967 wherein it was clarified that departmental action can be taken against Government servant in respect of misconduct committed before his employment. Attention is also invited to the Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 5/1/63-Estt. (D) dated 30.04.1965 wherein Ministries/Departments were requested to make use of the provision of ‘warning’ inserted in the Attestation Form for taking action against Government servant furnishing false information at the time of appointment.

  1. A question has now arisen as to whether a Government Servant can be discharged from service where it is discovered later that the Government servant was not qualified or eligible for his initial recruitment in service. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the District Collector, Vizianagram vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990(4) SLR 237 went into this issue and observed as under :-

“It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint a person with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.”

The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has now been decided that wherever it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc, for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service. If he is a probationer or a temporary Government servant, he should be discharged or his services should be terminated. If he has become a permanent Government servant, an inquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be held and if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service. In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed.

  1. Such discharge, termination, removal or dismissal from service would, however, be without prejudice to the right of the Government to prosecute such Government servants.

[Deptt. Of Personnel & Training OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993]

Rule 19 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965

Special procedure in certain cases

Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18-

(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules,

or

(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:

Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under clause (i):

Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule.

 

  1. Mere reading of the provisions of said OM dated 19.05.1993 stipulates that:
  2. If he has become a permanent Government servant, an inquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be held.
  3. if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service.
  • In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed.
  1. All the above three provisions of said OM dated 19.05.1993 were grossly violated in Order No. MON.GP/120576/M/01 dated 10 October 2014 issued by Dr. A.K. Singh under planned conspiracy and mischief the Hon’ble Defence Minister. The major irregularities and facts related to the Order dated 10 October 2014 to annul the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava, Scientist ‘C’ are as under:
  2. It is quite obvious from order that charges of illegal appointment on Ms. Swati Srivastava was established as she was not having requisite qualification and submitted false information at time of her initial recruitment.
  3. She became permanent employee of DRDO in past ten years after his appointment in DRDO.
  • In case of permanent employee if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service.
  1. In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed.
  2. To annul the appointment is totally illegal as there is no such provision to annul the appointment in CCS(CCA) Rules 1965.
  3. Ms. Swati Srivastava was recruited in DRDO for post of Scientist ‘B’ and the case is of recruitment of Ms. Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’.
  • The DOPT OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993 deals with “Action against Government servants to be taken if they are later found ineligible or unqualified for their initial recruitment”. The whole case of Ms. Swati Srivastava , Scientist ‘C’ was related to her illegal initial recruitment not the appointment.
  • A. K. Singh, DOP mentioned illegal recruitment as irregular appointment.
  1. Inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 was knowingly dispensed/dropped by misusing Rule 19(2) so that penalty of dismissal or removal should not be imposed upon Ms. Swati Srivastava by Dr. A. K. Singh, DOP by DRDO.
  2. Whole exercise and conspiracy was planned by Dr. A. K. Singh , DOP to patronage and protect the interest of Ms. Swati Srivastava , Scientist ‘C’.
  3. Illegal order dated 10 October 2014 was knowingly issued by Dr. A. K. Singh , DOP so that Ms. Swati Srivastava , Scientist ‘C’ can challenge the order dated 10 October 2014 to annul her appointment and come back in DRDO based on court order.
  4. Establishing the above narrated facts, Ms. Swati Srivastava , Scientist ‘C’ moved to Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal vide A./3809/2014 with first hearing on 12.11.2014. Copy of cause list of 12.11.2014 , CAT, New Delhi is attached for ready reference.
  5. Therefore in the interest of DRDO and public of the nation justice should be meted out as per Law and following actions are requested to your honest and transparent office.
  6. Order for dismissal or removal from service of Ms. Swati Srivastava, Scientist ‘C’ should be issued as per obligation of the DOP&T OM 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) Dated 19.05.1993.
  7. A.K. Singh, Director(Personnel) should immediately be removed from post of Director(Personnel) and proper high level inquiry should be conducted for his role in nepotism , conspiracy, breach of trust,violations of conduct rules and wastage of public money.
  8. As all four cases of Recruitment Scam is under probe of CBI vide CVO, MOD note approved by former Hon’ble Defence Minister Sri A.K. Antony on 29.10.2013, therefore this irregularity and misconduct for nepotism by Dr. K. Singh, Director(Personnel) should be referred to CBI to investigate role of Dr. A.K. Singh in issuance of such illegal order dated 10 Oct 2014 to favour Ms. Swati Srivastava, Scientist ‘C’.

 

Regards
 
Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun,
Ph   0135 2787750, Mobile 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website   www.corruptionindrdo.comswati srivastava  annuling order page 1
swati srivastava  annuling order page 2
swati srivastava  annuling order page 3
swati srivastava  annuling order page 4
swati srivastava  CAT case OA Number
 

 

(10) Action against Government servants to be taken if they are later found ineligible or

unqualified for their initial recruitment

Attention of the Ministries/Departments is invited to Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 39/1/67-Ests.(A) dated 21.02.1967 wherein it was clarified that departmental action can be taken against Government servant in respect of misconduct committed before his employment. Attention is also invited to the Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 5/1/63-Estt. (D) dated 30.04.1965 where in Ministries/Departments were requested to make use of the provision of ‘warning’ inserted in the Attestation Form for taking action against Government servant furnishing false information at the time of appointment.

  1. A question has now arisen as to whether a Government Servant can be discharged from service where it is discovered later that the Government servant was not qualified or eligible for his initial recruitment in service. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the District Collector,Vizianagram vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990(4) SLR 237 went into this issue and observed asunder :-

“It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint a person with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless itis clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.”

The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has now been decided that wherever it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc, for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service. If he is a probationer or a temporary Government servant, he should be discharged or his services should be terminated. If he has become a permanent Government servant, an inquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be held and if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service. In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed.

  1. Such discharge, termination, removal or dismissal from service would, however, be without prejudice to the right of the Government to prosecute such Government servants.

[Deptt. Of Personnel & Training OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993]

 

Action against Government Servants who get appointment on the basis of false SC/ST/OBC certificates.

No.36011/1/2012-Estt. (Res.)
Government of India
Department of Personnel and Training
Establishment (Reservation) Section
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Dated the 10th January, 2013.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Sub:- Action against Government servants who get appointment on the basis of false SC/ST/OBC certificates.

The undersigned is directed to invite reference to this Department’s OM No.11012/7/91-Estt.(A) dated 19.5.1993 which provides as under:-

“Wherever it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc., for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service. If, he is probationer or a temporary Government servant, he should be discharged or his services should be terminated. If he has become a permanent Government servant, an inquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be held and if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service. In no circumstances should any penalty be imposed”.

  1. The position was reiterated vide this Department’s OM No.42011/22/2006-Estt.(Res.) dated the 29th March, 2007 that the cases other than those protected by the specific order of the Apex Court should be dealt with in accordance with the instructions contained in the aforesaid O.M. However, it has been observed that disciplinary proceedings in the cases involving appointments on the basis of false/fake caste certificates take considerable time and the persons who have secured employment on the basis of false caste certificates enjoy the benefits of Government service whereas such Government servants should be removed / dismissed from the service at the earliest.
  2. It is requested that disciplinary inquiries involving the matter of securing jobs on the basis of false/fake certificates should be completed in a time bound manner and unscrupulous persons who have got appointment on the basis of fake/ false caste certificates should not be retained in service and should be dismissed / removed thenceforth.
  3. Contents of this OM may be brought to the notice of all concerned.
sd/-
(Sharad Kumar Srivastava)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Source : www.persmin.nic.in
[http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02adm/36011_1_2012-Estt-Res.pdf]

 

Sh Avinash Chander – थाली का बैंगन – Modi ji How can our country trust such person who has no meaning of honesty.

Sh A K Antony gave responsibility to find out the truth of appointment of Ms Swati Srivastava as scientist ‘B’ post by RAC.

The nation is witnessed that same person first gave clean chit under influence of corrupt officials of DRDO and now he has approved the order of annulment  the appointment of Ms Swati Srivastava. Unfortunately, the country of 125 crores population, our government is not able to found any honest and responsible person for secretary, DRD, DG, DRDO and SA to RM post.

They are still shielding concern duo (Father Daughter) and other involved officials by terming the illegal recruitment of Ms Swati Srivasta as irregular appointment with the clear motive of department escape from the duty of lodging of criminal case against the manipulation done under the influence of Dr Arun Kumar in the direct recruitment of Ms Swati Srivastava in RAC Delhi

Hope Modi ji will look seriously this very important issue it is directly related to moral of our honest scientist whose fortune / fate is in hand of such man who has no respect of moral and honesty who only believes in his own growth.

Jaihind

Central Administrative Tribunal – Delhi

Dr. Arun Kumar vs Union of India on 24 November, 2012

Principal Bench, New Delhi

OA No. 3293/2012

Reserved on    : 09.11.2012 Pronounced on   : 24.11.2012

Ho’ ble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman, Hon’ble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)

Para 9

Seen. This is serious. As already ordered, a fresh inquiry into the allegations of irregularity by an independent agency against Dr. Arun Kumar, the then Director, RAC may be got conducted immediately. It may also be inquired as to how my note sheet containing specific orders to this effect is missing from the file.

/sd/
(A.K. Antony)
Raksha Mantri
11th March, 2011

Para 10.          Pursuant to the above directions, a High Power Inquiry Committee was constituted to inquire into the allegations of irregularities against the applicant with the approval of RM vide his order dated 15.07.2011 with following Members:

(i) Dr. S. K. Salwan, former Director, ARDE, Pune and Vice Chancellor, Bhagwant University, Ajmer;

(ii) Dr. Avinash Chander, Distinguished Scientist and Director, ASL, Hyderabad;  

(iii) Mrs. Nabnit R. Krishnan, Director DMIST.         

The Enquiry Committee enquired into the matter and submitted its report on 08.06.2012. The executive summary of the report was placed before RM indicating that the Inquiry Committee opined that no favour or undue advantage was given to Ms. Swati Srivastava, daughter of the applicant during her recruitment as Scientist ‘B’ in DRDO and the same was conducted following normal practices and procedures. The file was processed through SA to RM who recorded the following on 15.07.2011:

“The report of the Independent Enquiry Committee”. Constituted to investigate the appointment of Mr. Swati Shrivastava D/o of Dr. Arun Kumar, is placed opposite for perusal of Hon’ble RM.

The above recording was endorsed by the RM by signing on 18.07.2011.

The copy of DRDO order of annul of appointment of Ms Swati Srivastava, Scientist C, daughter of Dr Arun Kumar, Ex-DOP. The Order is signed by Dr A K Singh, DOP (another gem of DRDO)swati srivastava  annuling order page 1swati srivastava  annuling order page 2swati srivastava  annuling order page 3swati srivastava  annuling order page 4

Extension plea of top scientists rejected, govt bats for younger directors

Manu Pubby New Delhi, November 4, 2014 | UPDATED 20:04 IST- Indiatodayin

The government has struck down a request by the DRDO to grant four of its top scientists a service extension with the Prime Minister stepping in personally to ensure that the organisation does not add to its massive bank of scientists who have been working well past their retirement age.

In a move that has brought cheer to the younger scientists of the organization, the PMO refused to entertain a request by the DRDO’s departmental peer review committee to extend the service of four of its lab directors beyond the age of 60 years.

In the past, recommendations of the peer review committee were routinely accepted by the government and in most cases scientists were given an extension of two years to four years. However, as reported by the India Today, the new government is keen to have a younger profile of scientists in the organization and has already expressed concern about the increasing age profile in a field that requires cutting edge technology and expertise.

Sources said that four scientists including Prof MP Kaushik (DRDE Director), Dr VC Padaki (DEBEL Director) and DS Sistla Ravind (LRDE Director) had been recommended by DRDO Chief Avinash Chander for an extension of service. While the file made it all the way through the appointments committee of cabinet, sources said that the request was turned at the Prime Minister’s desk. The DLRL Lab director is also not to get an extension of service.

Officials said that the decision not to grant an extension was taken as part of the government’s new policy to promote younger talent with PM Narendra Modi already instructing that at least five labs should have directors below the age of 35.

However, as things most top scientists at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) who are tasked with creating weapons for future have passed the retirement age of 60 and are on service extensions.

The old age problem starts from the very head of the organization with DRDO chairman Avinash Chander already on two extensions. The previous government even approved a extraordinary contract to give Chander a 18-month contractual tenure from November when he turns 64, the maximum age till which service extensions can be given.

As reported by the India Today, most director generals at the headquarters and the heads of six of DRDO’s 54 labs and establishments are currently on extension. As many as 10 of the 16 top DRDO scientists are on extension. Internal surveys have found that nearly 87 per cent of the young scientists who join DRDO soon get disenchanted with the archaic, rigid structure of the research body that does not reward extraordinary performance with proportional career growth.

RTI- PMO – Service Extensions

To                                                                      Date – 27th October 2014
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 OFFICE MEMORANDUM  F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014 Sub: Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.  In Para 1 – The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.

  1. Please provide the copy of order issued by PMO for cases of services extensions which found without obtaining approval of ACC.
  2. Please provide the names of individuals with name of respective department who were given extensions without obtaining approval of ACC.
  3. Please provide  the names of  individuals who were retired from service as per Para- 4 of above referred OM – that in absence of specific approval of ACC towards extension of his services beyond the date of superannuation, an officer should stand retired on his date of superannuation.
  4. As per Para- 1 of above referred OM  – (The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.) As per above statement it is  understood that ACC found such cases where individuals were given service extension without getting first obtaining approval of the ACC. Provide the action taken by PMO on these illegal service extensions till date.

Regards

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

Enclosed – OFFICE MEMORANDUM  F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014

Registration Number            PMOIN/R/2014/61451

OFFICE MEMORANDUM  F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014

F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
(Office of the Establishment Officer)
 
North Block, New Delhi
24th September, 2014

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Sub: Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation

Attention of all the Ministries/Departments is invited to the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules which prescribe that the ACC is the competent authority to decide the cases of extension in service beyond the age of superannuation. Attention is also invited to DoPT’s OM. No. 26012/6/2002-Estt, (A) dated 09.12.2002 on the subject mentioned above laying down instructions/criteria for grant of extension in service to the categories of personnel referred in proviso to F.R. 56(d). The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.

2. It has also been observed that Ministries/Departments often submit proposals late to the EO Division as a result of which submission of cases for consideration of the ACC also gets delayed.

3. In view of the above, all the Scientific Ministries/Departments are hereby advised to take timely action for constitution of the DPRC for considering the cases for extension of service of specialists in medical or scientific fields, beyond the normal date of superannuation and ensure that proposals seeking approval of the ACC be invariably submitted at least two months in advance of the date of superannuation.

4. It is also reiterated that in absence of specific approval of ACC towards extension of his services beyond the date of superannuation, an officer should stand retired on his date of superannuation and under no circumstances should the Ministry/Department concerned extend his services beyond superannuation unilaterally without the approval & ACC.

sd/-

(Anand Madhukar)

Director (ACC)

 

Poor Tax payer money wasted to save corrupt DRDO officials – RTI – MOD (Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO, (DOB 1-Jan-1951Retiring on 31st December )(Supreme Court Stay Order)

To                                                                                            30th September 2014
Sh A. M. Manichan,
Under Secretary (IC-IV), CPIO,
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence,
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi

 

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO  held guilty for civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and   punished with Simple Imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ by Honorable Madras High Court on 24.09.2014. Subsequently Sh.G MALAKONDIAHfiled   an appeal   in      SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 25th September 2014 and got stay on Madras High Court order of 24th September 2014. In Supreme Court there are four advocates were present for appellant Sh.G MALAKONDIAH  

For Appellant(s)      Mr.   Mukul Rohtagi, AG
                                    Mr.   R. Bala, Adv.
                                    Mr.   R.K. Verma, Adv.
                                    Mr.   B. V. Balaram Das, Adv.
  1. Provide the Ministry of Defence rule position for providing advocates to government servant.
  2. Number of advocates
  3. Limit of fees
  4. The criteria for providing advocates
  5. In case of Sh.G MALAKONDIAH provide the total expenditure done by Ministry of Defence.
  6. Provide the advocate fee given to each one for Sh.G MALAKONDIAH case.

   

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com                                                      Registration Number            MODEF/R/2014/61806 

 

ITEM NO.56                              COURT NO.4               SECTION XII

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal Diary No(s).                 31977/2014

 G MALAKONDIAH                                                                Appellant(s)

VERSUS

  S. JOSEPH RAJ AND ORS                                              

Respondent(s)

(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and permission to file appeal. And office report)

WITH C.A. D 31978/2014

(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and appln.(s) for permission to file appeal. and Office Report)

Date : 26/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT

 

For Appellant(s)                  Mr.   Mukul Rohtagi, AG
                                    Mr.   R. Bala, Adv.
                                    Mr.   R.K. Verma, Adv.
                                    Mr.   B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.
  For Respondent(s)                 Mr. V. Balaji,Adv.
                                    Mr. Asai Thambi, Adv.
                                    Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Permission to file appeal is granted.Perused the photocopy of the certified copy of the order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Signature Not Verified Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711 of 2012.

Digitally signed by

Rajni Mukhi

Date: 2014.09.29

12:12:10 IST

Reason: Petitioner is allowed two weeks’ time to file affidavit enclosing the copy of the said order.

Notice be issued on respondents returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1.   He may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder   Affidavit, if any, be filed   within a week thereafter.

In the meantime, the order dated 24 th September, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711/2012 arising out of Writ Petition No. 13067/2005 and sub Application No. 602 of 2012 shall remain stayed.

(Rajni Mukhi)                                    (H.S. Parasher)

Sr. P.A.                                                       Court Master

PM scraps DRDO’s ‘retirement benefits’ committee

ABHINANDAN MISHRA New Delhi | 20th Sep 2014 – The Sunday Gaurdian
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has decided to scrap the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRCs) of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) in an attempt to revamp the outfit. The main job of this committee of DRDO scientists is to grant extensions to fellow scientists. The committee has come under scrutiny after complaints that all that these scientists do is to park retiring and retired colleagues in important posts year after year. “The PM has ordered the scrapping of the committee that reviews cases to grant extension of service to scientists who are superannuating. Giving repeated extensions to scientists, whose capabilities could be questioned, is one of the major problems with the DRDO,” a DRDO official said.sunday gaurdians clip

Sources said that 15 top scientists in DRDO, including Director General (DG) Avinash Chander, are on extension. After getting two extensions, Chander is now on contract. “What should have been an exception, has become a norm here. Every year, six to eight senior people in DRDO get extensions. This has led to an alarming attrition rate in the organisation,” said a scientist who has been working with DRDO for the last 12 years. In the seven years between 2007 and 2013, at least 687 scientists left the organisation, which comes to a rate of 100 scientists leaving the organisation every year.

The DRDO, best known for missing manufacturing deadlines, is gearing up for a hard time after PM Modi told its scientists and officials that their lackadaisical approach would not be tolerated anymore. Last month, while addressing the annual award function of the organisation in the national capital, the PM expressed his unhappiness over the way things were working in the organisation.

“The Prime Minister is clearly unhappy with the way the DRDO has been functioning, as most of our projects are running years behind schedule, resulting in cost overruns and compromising of national security. During the event, he made sure that that senior officials were made aware of his views on the subject and the fact that such lackadaisical approach would not work anymore. With the government approving 49% FDI in defence, we need to start performing now,” said a senior DRDO official. Modi, while commenting on DRDO said that the organisation “should not say in 2014 that a project conceived in 1992 will take some more time”.

DRDO, founded in 1958, has a network of 54 laboratories, employs close to 35,000 employees including 7,500 scientists. In July this year, the BJP-led NDA government increased DRDO’s budget from Rs 5,985 crore — as provided by the UPA’s interim Budget in February — to Rs 9,298 crore, the largest ever increase in the organisation’s history.

However, despite being treated with extreme care by successive governments, DRDO has still not been able to shake off the negative image associated with it. Most of its projects, ranging from Tejas light combat aircraft and long-range surface-to-air missile systems to NAG missiles are running years behind schedule.

According to officials, at least ten major projects that are being worked on by the DRDO have exceeded their stipulated date. “The major ones among these are the light combat aircraft, naval light combat aircraft, aero engine Kaveri, airborne early warning and control aircraft, long range surface-to-air missile, air-to-air missile Astra, advanced lightweight torpedo, dual colour missile approach warning system for fighter aircraft. If you include the minor ones, like the NAG missile system, then the number of incomplete projects will become even more,” the official stated.

According to a former bureaucrat, who had worked in the Ministry of Defence, the government has been always generous when it came to funding the DRDO. “The DRDO has never suffered from any paucity of funds. The main problem with the organisation is at the top. No accountability is fixed on them. There is no other place where you will find senior officials being given repeated extensions despite doing nothing.”

The former bureaucrat added that he had come across instances where the country’s defence preparedness suffered because the DRDO first made a commitment that it would manufacture the product, but when the deadline arrived, it did not have the product. And in cases where the product was there, the quality was not acceptable. “It is a shame that due to DRDO’s inefficiency the country has to import more than half of its defence requirements,” he said.

Even the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has time and again come down heavily on the DRDO. “Year after year, the CAG has revealed the kind of mismanagement that has been happening in the DRDO. In February this year, CAG audits revealed that the DRDO spent Rs 52 crore to buy a cooling substance, which was to be used in the NAG missile system in 2007. The interesting part is that the NAG was not operational at the time and it is still not operational. Can you expect such kind of mismanagement from any other defence organisation in the world elsewhere?” an official with the DRDO said.

According to him, the onus of revamping the DRDO is with the Defence Minister. “The DRDO officials and the defence ministry bureaucrats will not take the bull by the horn; no one wants to disturb the status quo. It is the Defence Minister who needs to do it. The minister needs to implement the recommendation of the first-ever external review report of the DRDO, which was prepared by an independent committee of experts headed by P. Rama Rao, former secretary, Department of Science & Technology, and former ISRO man Dr Brahm Prakash. It had recommended a massive restructuring of the 50-year-old body to make it more effective,” the official said.

However, Ravi Kumar Gupta, Director, Directorate of Public Interface, DRDO, said that the PM was very appreciative of the work being done by the organisation during his interaction with the officials last month. “He has positive views about the organisation and said that the organisation had a lot of potential and whatever we were doing, we were doing it in a professional way. He also said that just as it holds true for any other organisation, we too should not lose focus and follow the chalta hai attitude,” Gupta said.

RTI-II- Sri Saroj Kumar Patel, Husband of Smt. Tessy Thomas, Missile Women

To,                                                                                               17th September 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011                             

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect selection proceeding of Director Quality, Reliability & Safety (QRS) in DRDO Hqrs.

  1. Directorate of Quality, Reliability & Safety (QRS) has been created at DRDO HQ, New Delhi vide Govt. of India, MOD letter (NS&M)/QARS/C/M/01/2638/D(R&D) dated 27th September 2012.
  2. RAC issued Advt. No. 110/December 2012 for recruitment of 01 Scientist G with Discipline Mechanical Engg. & Experience in the Quality, Reliability and Safety.
  3. Letter No. DOP/11/110059/QRSM/M/02 dated 14 August 2013 of Directorate of Personnel, DRDO, MOD, New Delhi on the Subject- Appointment of Director, QRS, DRDO HQ, New Delhi.
  4. RAC issued Advt No. 112/ October 2013 for recruitment of 01 Scientist G for DQRS, DRDO with Essential Qualification: At least First class Bachelor’s Degree in Engg./Technology in Mechanical Engg./Aeronautical Engg./ Electrical Engg./ Electronics & Communication Engg. only and Experience: At least 15 years’ experience in areas of quality planning, quality assurance, quality control, and quality improvements.
  5. Recruitment of Sri Saroj Kumar Patel as Scientist G in DRDO against Advt No. 112/October 2013 in March 2014 at seniority no. 486 who joined DRDO on 27 March 2014.
  6. Appointment of Sri Saroj Kumar Patel, Scientist G as Director, Directorate Quality, Reliability & Safety (QRS) with effect from 31 March 2014 vide order No. DOP/05/53269/DQR&S/M/02 dated 31 March 2014.

Kindly provide following information under Section 6 of RTI Act 2005.

  1. The total number of applications received by DOP/DRDO HQ against the letter of DOP dated 14 August 2013 mentioned above at point (iii) and number of candidates appeared in interview/screening for the said post.
  2. Whether any Scientist G serving in DRDO was found suitable for post of Director, DQRS.(Yes/No)
  3. If yes then provide his details like name, seniority & establishment.
  4. File noting for appointment of Sri Saroj Kumar Patel, Scientist G as Director, DQRS, DRDO HQ, New Delhi.
  5. Whether any other names were considered for post of Director, DQRS, DRDO HQ in March 2014 by DRDO.(Yes/No)
  6. If yes then provide the names of Scientist G that were considered along with Sri Saroj Kumar Patel, Scientist G.

“The abuse/misuse of power for personal gain is corruption”. The information sought in this RTI Application pertains to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act 2005.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com  
 
Registration Number            MODEF/R/2014/61705