Tag Archives: Personnel

HUMANITY PUT TO UTTER SHAME BY DMSRDE DIRECTOR, Dr. A K SAXENA ON 01-05-2015

To                                                                                1st May 2015                                               Hon’ble Shri Manohar Parrikar,                                                                                     Defence Minister,Room No -104,                                                                                             South Block, New Delhi-110011

Subject: HUMANITY PUT TO UTTER SHAME BY DMSRDE DIRECTOR, Dr. A K SAXENA ON 01-05-2015

Sir,

With utter dismay and disgust, I the dishonor of informing you that HUMANITY have been put to SHAME by the INFAMOUS Dr. A K Saxena, Director DMSRDE, who is fighting his last / lost battle of his corrupt practices due to my PIL before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

I am a committed INDIAN whose sole motto is to fight corruption, particularly in DRDO. It was because of my efforts that Dr. Arun Kumar (erstwhile Director of Personnel, DRDO); and Dr. A K Taygi (erstwhile Director RTI Cell, DRDO) have been charge sheeted and Dr. AK Mani (erstwhile Director LASTEC,Delhi) took VRS to avoid charge sheet because the fire case of COIL laser project was enough against him.  I am sure SIR, that you would have been briefed about the submissions made by Mr. Anil Soni (counsel for MOD) before the Hon’ble Chief Justices of Delhi Court on 29-04-2015 in reference to my PIL (W.P.(C) 3610/2015) that as to why DRDO should not file an FIR against Dr. A K SAXENA with CBI for adopting corrupt practices to LOOT exchequers money for his personal benefit.

On 01-05-2015, an employee of DMSRDE, Mr. Raj Kumar, Technician-A entered the premises of DMSRDE at 1020 Hrs. He punched his attendance card and while signing the late register he collapsed at the gate itself.  This INSENSITIVE Director of DMSRDE kept his body at the gate till 1300 hrs. The question is that when last month Dr. A K Saxena took his mother to PGI, Lucknow in DMSRDE ambulance and accompanied her in his staff car, why didn’t he show this basic courtesy to Mr. Raj Kumar. Director of a laboratory is supposed to be the guardian of his officers and staff. As per the laid down SOP he ought to have informed the police immediately and sent the body to a govt. hospital. Dr. A K SAXENA didn’t do either of the two and allowed the body to remain at the gate for three hours. The disgusting thing is that the body wasn’t even covered with a piece of cloth.

Mr. Raj Kumar, Technician-A was basically being harassed by Dr. A K Saxena. Mr. Raj Kumar, Technician-A had made several verbal requests to Dr. A K Saxena for a transfer to a technical group that would have benefitted him in his promotion. The question is that why was Mr. Raj Kumar, Technician-A posted in a group which only does paper work. Dr. A K Saxena is a master of using posting and transfers as TERROR TOOL within the laboratory. Till now he has effected hundreds of transfers in his span as a Director and now he plans to transfer Head of Works for the THIRD Time.

Dr. A K Saxena visited the body of Mr. Raj Kumar after two hours and the important functionary of laboratory, Mr. R K Jain, Head Administration was missing from the laboratory. Incidentally Mr. R K Jain as Chairman of Vendor Registration Committee is INFAMOUS for registering Vegetable Vendors  for supply of chemicals and costly equipments to DMSRDE at the direction of Dr. A K Saxena.

Officers and staff of DMSRDE, Kanpur are suffering at the hands of Dr. A K Saxena and today all of them were shattered by his DISGUSTING INHUMANITY.  These days he only busy in making his PENSION Papers for a safe exit from DMSRDE. He doesn’t realize that like  Dr. Arun Kumar (erstwhile Director of Personnel, DRDO) and Dr. AK Mani (erstwhile Director LASTEC,Delhi), he will also not get clearance from vigilance for their crimes.

It is therefore requested that CORRUPT and INHUMAN Director Dr. A K Saxena be removed with immediate effect and thus stop him from DESTRUCTION of EVIDENCE of his crimes.

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,                                                                                                                             21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun – 248008                                                                           Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,                                                                                 e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

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 HR of DRDO- The Great Nuclear Medicine Scientist Dr. A.K. Singh posted as Director of Personnel at DRDO HQ

To                                                                                                       Date 16th October 2014
Hon’ble
Shri Narendra Modi,
Prime Minister of India,
Room No -152, PMO, South Block,
New Delhi-110011
 

Subject : Request to   utilized scientific potential of Dr. A.K. Singh, DOP, DRDO HQ to Lab/Estt under Life Sciences Cluster 

Hon’ble Sir,

Human Resource is an asset of an organisation and proper utilisation and deployment of its HR/Manpower is challenging job for an organisation especially on DRDO which holding very significant responsibility for the nation. In the past several years   DRDO cannot meet its target well within time and seeking extensions in PDC again & again in several major projects of national significance. This drawback of DRDO has been noticed by Hon’ble Ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh, Ex- Defence Minister Shri A.K. Antony, CAG, CGDA, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence (15th Lok Sabha). This has been also noticed and criticised by you in DRDO Award Function on 20th August 2014 by saying “Chalta Hai wala attitude nahin chalega“.

Poor HR planning and deployment of scientists in various Lab/Estt of DRDO is major reason for not delivering the products and timely completion of project. Almost each and every lab/Estt all sundry work (Admin/Stores/Security/MTO/Library/works/ conservancy etc) are managed by qualified scientist and technical officials (more than 15% of total strength of DRDO) Simultaneously they are drawing all perks which is provided towards incentive in the name of scientific encouragement and also enjoying flexible complementary scheme on promotions which is also strictly for those who dedicatedly involve in scientific and technical assignments.

HR of DRDO comes under CCR&D (HR) which consisted of DOP, DHRD, RAC, CEPTAM, DESIDOC, ITM, MILIT, DIAT, DPI and RTI Cell. Presently Dr. G. Malakondiah, Distinguished Scientist is holding the charge of CCR&D (HR) and he was convicted by Madras High Court for imprisonment of three weeks in case of contempt of court this the highest example of ignorance of constitutions provision.

One such example of poor HR planning of DRDO is of Dr. A.K. Singh, Director, Directorate of Personnel, DRDO HQ, New Delhi. Dr. A.K.Singh, Scientist ‘G’ is great Nuclear Medicine scientist of India with five patents granted, fourteen patents filed, one copy right and more than fifty publications in international & national journals.Bio-Data of Dr. A.K. Singh is annexed.

As a matter of fact, despite having so many scientific contributions in area of Nuclear Medicines which is primarily used for treatment of cancer, brain tumours and complex diseases.

Dr. A.K. Singh was basically recruited for projects of DRDO in its New Delhi based unique laboratory working in Nuclear Medicine, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences (INMAS). He worked in INMAS till the year 2004 but all of sudden he was transferred in DRDO HQ and assigned non-technical clerical assignments like Staff Officer to CCR&D.

Since the year 2004, the great Nuclear Medicine scientist is working non-scientific work like Director, CEPTAM, Director, DHRD and presently DOP. The work assigned to Dr. A.K. Singh is of administrative nature for which DRDO is having it’s another HR cadre known as administrative cadre and from this cadre manpower should be appointed in DOP.

Being a bonafide life science scientist, Dr. A.K. Singh, DOP not having any expertise in field of HR, therefore, he made several wrong decisions due to which DRDO faces lot of embarrassment and bad fame in media, it also affected various officials of DRDO who are facing several court cases in various courts all over India, even 15th October 2014 he received notice from CAT Delhi for his misadventure towards a senior scientist who belong to minority.  This created lot of expenditure in term of fees to lawyers, TA/DA to attend court cases and cause of derailing scientific research tempo of DRDO.

Government of India is paying more than Rupees twenty lakhs to Dr. A.K. Singh, DOP for his non-productive and non-scientific work that can be carried out by any of the officer of Joint Director/Additional Director of DRDO from the admin cadre. DRDO wasting poor tax payers money.

Dr. A.K. Sigh is great Nuclear Medicine Scientist which is rare in DRDO. The discipline of Dr. A.K. Singh is from Life Sciences so proper utilization of his potential to  posted him in Laboratory/ Establishment of DRDO under Life Sciences Cluster so he can contribute more in the national interest.

There are nine (09) Lab/Estt under Life Sciences Cluster of DRDO spread over all India. These are DEBEL, DIPAS, DIPR, INMAS, DRL, DIBER, DFRL, DIHAR & DRDE. Life sciences scientists are 120+ out of 7500 total DRDO scientist’s strength so proper utilization of these 9 labs can only possible when all life science scientists dedicatedly posted in Life Sciences Cluster of DRDO not in HR related Corporate Directorate. Dr A K Singh qualified life science scientist but he convert his field into technical services in the official records while as per his biodata he is fit for life sciences activities.

Sir you know the maxim “wrong shoe in right leg- “. Similar is the case of Dr. A.K. Singh who has been wrongly posted in HR assignments of DRDO while he is great Nuclear Medicine scientist with international fame scientific contributions in Nuclear Medicine. He is very much required in Lab/Estt of DRDO that are working in specialization of Dr. A.K. Singh like Defence Research Laboratory, Tezpur, Defence Research & Development Establishment, Gwalior, DEBEL, Bangalore and INMAS, New Delhi. Since Dr. A.K. Singh had already worked in INMAS, New Delhi for more than 16 years and his experience was bitter at INMAS thereby he was expelled from projects and scientific assignments at INMAS, New Delhi. Therefore the ,most suitable  work places for getting output from his scientific knowledge and experience is DRL, Tezpur, DRDE, Gwalior and DEBEL, Bangalore.

Keeping in view of the facts stated above, to save public revenue and streamline HR of DRDO, it is very much required that scientists of the DRDO having educational qualification and experiences in life sciences should be posted in Lab/Estt under Life Sciences Cluster of DRDO.

Therefore I kindly and earnestly request you to start “operation clean- Swachta Abhiyan” in DRDO by transferring Dr. A.K. Singh, DOP from DRDO HQ to any of the Life Sciences Cluster Lab/Estt like DRL, Tezpur, DRDE, Gwalior or DEBEL, Bangalore so that poor & dirty  HR of DRDO may be rich & clean.

Regards

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

 

Annexure-

  1. Bio-data of Dr. A. K. Singh, Director, DOP
  2. Corporate Structure of DRDO (Download from DRDO website)

 

 

Dr A K Singh, DOP, DRDO's Biodata
Bio-data of Dr. A. K. Singh, Director, DOP
drdo copr
Corporate Structure of DRDO

 

Alarming Situation in DRDO for HR Management – DOPT Great stand

To                                                                                                       12th September 2014
Shri Sanjay Kothari,
Secretary (Personnel),
Department of Personnel and Training,
North Block, New Delhi -110001

Subject:  Alarming Situation in DRDO for HR Management

Reference: DOPT letter No.14029/1/2014-Estt.(L) dated 3rd September 2014.

Dear Sir,

               With reference to above subject and in the interest of larger public interest, the case study with evidences gathered by RTI replies from DRDO was submitted to then Defence Minister which subsequently endorsed to your department by then Defence Minister.

Surprisingly, today I have received above referred letter from your under secretary Sh S G Mulchandaney, in which he attracts my attention to DOPT OM No.11013/08/2013-Estt.(A)-III. (Copy enclosed for your ready reference)

It seems that your officials sitting there dealing such serious matter/ information blindly they even not bothered that it was duly endorsed by honorable minister. Can DOPT tell me that information submitted by me is related by any means with the DOPT OM No.11013/08/2013-Estt. (A)-III dated 6th June 2013.

It is requested that please take appropriate action to theses irresponsible officials who are trying to discourage honest approach for clean governance.

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

Enclosed:

  1. Letter to Sh A K Antony Subjected Alarming Situation in DRDO for HR Management dated 31st March 2014
  2. DOPT letter No.14029/1/2014-Estt.(L) dated 3rd September 2014.
Copy to-
  1. Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi, Prime Minister, Room No -152, PMO, South Block, New Delhi-110011   
https://corruptionindrdo.com/2014/04/01/alarming-situation-in-drdo-for-hr-management/ 
 

  1. Dopt Reply on alarming HR        
 

There can be no promotion during the period of such extension – DoPT

To                                                                                                               28 May 2014
Sh Subandhu Basu,
US (SM-I), CPIO,
Room no. 23, North Block,
New Delh -110001

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Recent Supreme Court Judgment dated 9 January 2014 on CIVIL APPEAL NO. 192 of 2014

Major General H.M. Singh, VSM- Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Anr.- Respondents

The proceedings recorded by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet while rejecting the appellants claim for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General are also being set out below:

Point No 8. The orders issued by the Department of Personnel and Training lay down that while extension could be granted in exceptional circumstances, there can be no promotion during the period of such extension. These orders apply to the civilian establishment. The instructions which apply to the Defence forces permit extension in service only if the exigencies so demand. DRDO is mainly civilian, and the Rules, as mentioned above, do not permit promotion on extension.

  1. Please provide the copy orders of Department of Personnel and Training rules related to extension of civilian establishment beyond the service of 60 years
  2. Please provide the orders of Department of Personnel and Training rules related to extension of civilian establishment beyond the service of 62 years
  3. Please provide the copy of above mentioned issued orders of Department of Personnel and Training rules related to extension “there can be no promotion during the period of such extension.”

Regards

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

Registration Number     DOP&T/R/2014/62037

DoPT RTI reply regarding Sh R K Agarwal, Sc H, DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun

My RTI request to DoPT

To                                                                                                             27th  May 2013
The Under Secretary (RR- II  )
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
Department of Personnel and Training
Room No. 268 – B , North Block
New Delhi- 110011

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun

As per SRO- 36 dated 9t May 2011 ( FileNo. DHRDn6205IDRDSlRRlClP/10/1022/D(R&D))

Para 2

“(iv) The Peer Committee as specified in Schedule ID shall assess suitability for appointment of Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist in Defence Research and Development Service”.

In DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO. Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL   “ his main contribution has been the development of , the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14 (Copy enclosed)

Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.

The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to Sh Surendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best  in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.

The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism and castism. (Copy enclosed)

Kindly provide the following informations under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005

1.    The certified copy of  Sh R K Agarwal’s credentials submitted to then Peer Committee by DRDO for consideration for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist).

2.    The certified copy Peer Committee recommendation for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist) in respect of Sh R K Agarwal

RTI reply

dopt reply0001

 

dopt reply0002

 

dopt reply0003

DRDO Outstanding Scientist

To                                                                                                                28th May 2013
The Under Secretary (RR- II  )
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
Department of Personnel and Training
Room No. 268 – B , North Block
New Delhi- 110011

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun

As per SRO- 36 dated 9t May 2011 ( FileNo. DHRDn6205IDRDSlRRlClP/10/1022/D(R&D))

Para 2

“(iv) The Peer Committee as specified in Schedule ID shall assess suitability for appointment of Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist in Defence Research and Development Service”.

In DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO. Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL   “ his main contribution has been the development of NARAD, the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14 (Copy enclosed)

Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.

The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to Sh Surendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best  in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.

The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism and castism. (Copy enclosed)

Kindly provide the following informations under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005

  1. The certified copy of  Sh R K Agarwal’s credentials submitted to then Peer Committee by DRDO for consideration for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist).
  2. The certified copy Peer Committee recommendation for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist) in respect of Sh R K Agarwal

Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.

I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II

“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty” 

Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order  98E 528553

Regards,

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id  prabhudoon@gmail.com ,  website- www.corruptionindrdo.com

Appointment scandal brews, 2 DRDO scientists under cloud

Indian Express

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 4

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001190

Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan
Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012
Date of decision 09.08.2012

Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.
2. The appellant submits that there are a large number of senior scientists who have lived or are living in Government guest houses and yet claiming House Rent Allowance which is contrary to the rules. Thus, they are defrauding the Government. He provides a list of such scientists which is as follows :-

1. Dr. Prahlada, Chief Controller(R&D);
2. Sh. S. Sundaresh, Chief Controller(R&D);
3. Dr. K. Sekhar, Chief Controller(R&D);
4. Dr. r. Sreehari Rao, Chief Controller(R&D);
5. Dr. K.D. Nayak, Chief Controller(R&D);
6. Shri Ravi, Scientist ‘G’, CPIO;
7. Shri S. Sankaran, Director, ER&IPR;
8. Sh. H.V. Ssrinivasa Rao, Director, ISSA;
9. Sh. Ajay Ssingh, Chief Executive;
10. Sh. S. Shanker, Director, DCV&E;
11. Shri R.C. Katoch, Chief Tech Examiner;
12. Sh. B. Choubey, CCE and
13. Sh. Abhay Kumar, CCE.

3. He also produces a copy of the letter dated 17.8.2011 of Dr. Arun Kumar, Director of Personnel, wherein orders for recovery were made. The said letter, addressed to the Directors of all Labs/Establishments for recovery of HRA is reproduced below :-

4. “1. It has been observed that some officers posted to a Lab have stayed/are
staying in DRDO transit facilities/Guest house from the date of their reporting to that station Officers, if have stayed/staying in the DRDO transit facilities/Guest house for more than a month and have simultaneously claimed /claiming HRA for the said period of stay, is against govt. orders/regulations.

2. In view of the above, officers posted at any station who have stayed/staying in
DRDO transit facilities/Guest house for a month or more from their date of reporting and also have claimed/claiming HRA for the said period are required to refund the amount of HRA wrongly claimed forthwith by 15 Sep 2011 through MRO under intimation to the undersigned.
4. This has the approval of the competent authority.

5. The contents of this letter may please be communicated to all concerned.” He wishes to know as to why no recoveries have been effected so far.

6. To this, Shri Mishra would respond that recoveries have been made from all of the scientists.

7. In my opinion, this does not mitigate the irregularity committed in claiming HRA by the above named scientists. Even so, it is to be noted that recoveries have been made from all concerned. If so, the appellant may be informed accordingly in 03 weeks.

Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.

( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar

Address of parties :-

1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.

2. Shri Rajiv Chauhan,
1053/3, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut-250005.

The Right to Information Act, 2005

Appeal before the Central Information Commission;

Appeal No. ———————– Dated ————————
As I am aggrieved by decision of Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate

Authority, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
1. Details of appellant:

1.1 Full Name: – RAJIV CHAUHAN

1.2. Full Address: R/O-1053/3, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT (U.P)-250005

1.3 Phone/Cell No.: 09412628314 ; 09258045938 ; 0121-4009512;

4 Email ID: rajivchauhan89@yahoo.co.in

2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):

2.1 Name/Designation: Dr.A.K.TYAGI ; SCIENTIST “F’ , CPIO, DRDO HQ;

2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105

2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

3. Details of First Appellate Authority [FAA]:

3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: Dr. ARUN KUMAR

3.2 Full Address of FAA: OS & DIRECTOR; DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL;

ROOM NO- 217, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105

4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:

4.1 To CPIO — 29 OCT 2011

4.2 To FAA: — 17 DEC 2011

5. Particulars of Decisions:

5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-

30 NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0278; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI

5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:-

20 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/121;

6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-

6.1 CPIO— 07 DEC 2011

6.2 FAA: — 27 JAN 2012
7. Details of information sought:-

Kindly inform to you that DRDO; Director of Personnel for DG(R&D) issued a recovery of HRA letter no-DOP/03/31000/M/05 DT-17 Aug.2011 that “It has been observed that some officers posted to a lab have stayed / are staying in DRDO transit facilities / Guest house from the date of their reporting to that station. Officers, if have stayed / staying in the DRDO transit facilities / Guest house for more than a month and have simultaneously claimed / claiming HRA for the said period of stay, is against govt orders / regulations.” It seems that a financial irregularity are carried out by the officers / scientist in DRDO. This is a case of the corruption so that the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice. I hereby enclosed all related documents for your consideration and action. I want the following information’s as under-

S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Pl. provide name of the officers / scientist who availed the facility of the guest house and get / benefited with HRA before issue this above noted letter of DRDO. Pl. provide name of the officers/ scientist.

2. Pl. provide name of the officers / scientist who availed the facility of the guest house and get / benefited with HRA and after issue this above noted letter of DRDO deposited / returned the HRA. Pl. provide name of the officers/ scientist.

3. After knowing this financial irregularity / cheating by the officers / scientist, has DRDO taken any action against the corrupt officers as per the law / CCS conduct rule. Pl provide authentic reply.

I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request to you please provide me the information by the speed post.

8. Brief facts of the case:-

I submitted my RTI application before the CPIO, DRDO, New Delhi on dt.29-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office for HRA benefits in their own financial interest after corrupt practices because “ It has been observed that some officers posted to a lab have stayed / are staying in DRDO transit facilities / Guest house from the date of their reporting to that station. Officers, if have stayed / staying in the DRDO transit facilities / Guest house for more than a month and have simultaneously claimed / claiming HRA for the said period of stay, is against govt orders / regulations.” So that financial losses occurred to govt. funds by the corrupt officers / scientists. CPIO reply is not satisfactory and not as per the law because the RTI is related with the allegation of the corruption and not exempted under section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.

In his reply FAA mislead to me with the reference of Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454. However in this Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454,clearly mentioned that- “37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”

I was not satisfied with the reply of CPIO,DRDO HQ, New Delhi, after that I submitted an appeal before FAA to take the information but the FAA of DRDO dismissed the appeal and failed to provide the information with the ref. of second schedule of the RTI Act & section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.

9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:-

1- That this information is directly related with the corruption and misuse of the office and not come under section 24(1) of the RTI Act because Director of Personnel for DG(R&D) issued a recovery of HRA letter no-DOP/03/31000/M/05 DT-17 Aug.2011 . It seems that a financial irregularity are carried out by the officers / scientist in DRDO. So that financial losses occurred to govt. funds by the corrupt officers / scientists.

2- That the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice.

10. Any other information in support of appeal:-

CPIO reply against the CIC decision dt-29 Jun 2011on file no-CIC/LS/A/2011/000412 is a clear cut evidence in support of my RTI application related with corruption.(Encl)

11. Prayer/relief sought for:-
I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the following information’s as under-

S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Pl. provide name of the officers / scientist who availed the facility of the guest house and get / benefited with HRA before issue this above noted letter of DRDO. Pl. provide name of the officers/ scientist.

2. Pl. provide name of the officers / scientist who availed the facility of the guest house and get / benefited with HRA and after issue this above noted letter of DRDO deposited / returned the HRA. Pl. provide name of the officers/ scientist.
3. After knowing this financial irregularity / cheating by the officers / scientist, has DRDO taken any action against the corrupt officers as per the law / CCS conduct rule. Pl provide authentic reply.

I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the information’s by the speed post.
(2)- I request your honor to pass an order in favor of the applicant as deemed fit as an any relief .

Personal Presence at hearing:- — YES

Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with this commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
Place: MEERUT

Date: —————-                                                                             Signature of appellant

RTI reply from DOPT regarding the extension of Dr Shubhananda Rao, CC R&D, (Areo).

  November 1, 2011

Dear friends of DRDO,

Today I have received a RTI reply from DOPT regarding the extension of Dr Shubhananda Rao, CC R&D, (Areo).

The reply is very interesting please see the Dr Arun Kumar’s expertise of manipulation, but in hurry how output generated, it is great example.

Please send your comments and analysis on this RTI Reply.

Thanking you

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

Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed

  1. My RTI request to DOPT
  2. DOPT reply

                                                                                                 Date 10th June 2011

The CPIO
Under Secretary (Estt.A-IV)
R.No.202, North Block, D/o. Personnel & Training, North Block
New Delhi

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL, Sutarwadi, Pune- 411021 granted extension/re-employment as per rule laid down wide OM DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt.(B)  dated the 18th May, 1977 for Central Government servants  beyond the age of superannuation.

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

  1. Please Provide me the copy of  proposal of extension in respect of Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL with copy of certificate of Integrity along with the DoPT prescribed Annexure-I (Enclosed)
  2. In the recommendation for extension of his service beyond 60 years whether any confirmation/ information regarding pendency of any criminal/ civil case against  Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL is mentioned or Not.

Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after

Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order 88E628354

Regards,
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal    
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,  
e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com ,

www.corruptionindrdo.com

No. 26012/6/2002-Estt. (A)
 
Government of India
 
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions
 
(Department of Personnel & Training )
 

New Delhi, dated 9th December, 2002

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Having scrutinized in character roll and personal file of

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

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

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

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

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

11. Appointment of Consultant:-

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

                Sd/-

 

Mrs. Pratibha Mohan

 

Director (E-II)

 

To

 All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.

(As per standard list)

Annexure-I

 

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

1. Designation of the post

2. Duration of the post     :

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

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

5. Method of recruitment:

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

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

 

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

9. Names of other Officers considered:

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

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

12. Please indicate:

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

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

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

(d) Period of extension of service.

(ii) Justification for grant of extension:

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOPT covering letter
integrity ceritificate - see the date?
Dr Arun Kupar's play 1
Dr Arun Kumar's play 2
Dr Arun Kumar's play 3
Dr Arun Kumar's paly 4

Dr Arun Kumar's play 5