Tag Archives: Pradip R Sagar

PMO

Delhi High Court revokes suspension of BEL whistleblowers;

Leave a comment

By Pradip R Sagar October 16, 2019 18:34 IST THE WEEK

The officials have exposed the alleged irregularities in a multi-crore project


Causing embarrassment to the defence public sector undertaking, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), the Delhi High Court has quashed the suspension order of three of its senior officers, who have exposed the alleged irregularities in a multi-crore confidential project for the Indian Air Force.

On the basis of inputs on alleged irregularities in awarding a contract to a private firm by violating norms for Integrated Air Command and Control Systems (IACCS) for the IAF worth 79,00 crore, BEL in July 2018 had set up a three-member investigation panel. The panel was headed M.M. Pandey, general manager (Product Support), and comprised R.K. Goyal, senior deputy general Manager (Vigilance), and Sumit Krishna, manager, (Product Support). On October 3 last year, the committee submitted its report which said shell companies were used to gain contract. The investigation panel also pointed irregularities in awarding consultancy contract to a private firm for IACCS project at 10 locations across the country.

On March 29, 2019, the chief vigilance officer submitted its final report to the Chairman and Managing Director of the BEL, supporting the panel’s view. The report had stated: “A company that came into existence in April 2010 showed its employees had an experience of five years in 2013.” Moreover, the report also mentioned role of senior Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) officers, who were under the scanner, since it was the DRDO which recommended the name of the private firm to BEL.

However, instead of taking action against the corrupt officials on the basis of CVO’s report, the BEL authorities suspended all three members of the committee on disciplinary charges. A chargesheet and suspension order was issued against the whistleblowers on May 17, 2019.

While delivering the judgment, the court observed that on perusal of chargesheet-cum-suspension order (dated May 17, 2019), it is specifically mentioned that M.M. Pandey, GM, product support, was appointed as Investigation Officer by CVO (vide letter dated July 18, 2018) to conduct a detailed investigation into the alleged irregularities reported in the execution of civil construction works in the IACCS project. It is further stated the he submitted his report October 3, 2018 to the CVO which was received in CVO’s office on October 8, 2018.

“Thus, it is established that the chargesheet-cum-suspension order was issued in pursuance to CVO letter dated July 18, 2018 to conduct a detailed investigation into the alleged irregularities,” Delhi High court stated in its order.

“Since the disciplinary authority concerned for the petitioners have not initiated departmental proceedings, therefore, in my considered view, the order dated May 17, 2019 is illegal and accordingly set aside.” said Justice Suresh Kumar Kait in his order dated October 9, 2019.

IN THE  HIGH COURT OF DELHI  AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 09.10.2019

+                      REVIEW PET. 360/2019 and CM APPL. 39523/2019 (Stay)

in W.P.(C) 8188/2019

MAN MOHAN PANDEY AND ORS.                                ….. Petitioners

Through:          Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr. B.K.Pandey, Advs.

                          versus

BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED AND ORS. ….. Respondents

Through:          Ms.  Maninder  Acharya,  ASG  withMr.   Manish   Paliwal,   Mr.   Vikas Kumar, Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advs. and  Mr.  B.V.  Ramaiyya,  DGM, Legal, BEL./ R-1 Mr. Vijay Joshi, Sr. Panel Counsel for R-2/UOI

Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC withMr. Rohan Anand, Adv. and Mr. Waize Ali Noor, GP

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH  KUMAR KAIT

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1.       Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to recall the order dated 31.07.2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.8188/2019.

2.       At  the  outset,  it  is  pointed  out  that  in  Para  19  of  order  dated31.07.2019,  it  is  recorded  that  the  petitioners  are  above  level  E-VIII; however, which is factually incorrect.

3.       It is clarified that the petitioner No. 1 is the only officer who comes under the category of level E-VIII whose Disciplinary Authority is CMD. The other two petitioners are below level E-VIII. The grade of the Petitioner no 2 is of level E-VI A and Petitioner no 3 falls under the category of level E-V. Their Disciplinary Authority is the Functional Director.

4.      Further clarified that in Para 19 of the order that the Disciplinary Authority under the delegated powers is the Functional Director also suffers from error which is clear from the Office Order No.HO/144/22 read with CDA-Rules dated 10.04.2001.

5.       Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said office order which  relates  to  sub-delegation  of  powers  would  show  that  in  fact  the powers delegated under CDA-Rules amended from time to time/notification of sub delegation of power (SDOP) are unchanged and same as on date contained in CDA-Rules 2001. The said Rules read with office order dated 10.1.2019 is very clear that the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority for an officer upto Grade E-VII is Functional Director. Chairman and Managing Director is the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority for an officer of Grade E-VIII & IX only. CMD has not sub delegated his power for the officers of Grade E-VIII & IX any further. He has sub delegated his powers of being Disciplinary/Punishing Authority for officers upto Grade E-VII to the Functional Director. In other words, the position of CDA Rules 2001 read with sub delegation of powers dated 10.1.2019 is very clear that CMD is the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority in case of petitioner no. 1 and that the Functional Director is the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority in case of petitioner nos. 2 and 3. The said order 10.01.2019 is very clear that the sub- delegated powers will be exercised only by the Executives entrusted with the responsibilities for the concerned work/assignment.

6,         Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the issuance of Charge- sheets cum suspension orders by Director (Marketing) in the case of petitioner no. 1 and by GM in case of petitioner no. 2 and AGM in the case of the petitioner no 3 is illegal and unsustainable, which is evident from the table at Page 10 of the Review Petition.

7.       On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the officers competent to award the minor punishments cannot initiate the proceedings for major penalties. However, it is submitted that the CDA Rules  bearing  Office  Order  No.  HO/772/019  dated  10.04.2011  do  not require the Disciplinary authority to issue a charge sheet for Major Punishment as mentioned in Rule 5(a). The said Rules only provide for the imposition  of  punishments  and  therefore,  the  same  cannot  be  made applicable for initiation of the Disciplinary proceedings.

8.      Learned Additional Solicitor General further submits that BEL has defined the Disciplinary Authority based on the punishments. Though the Disciplinary Authority is referred in the context of the punishment in BEL CDA Rules, the approval for initiation of the Disciplinary proceedings, issuance of charge sheet etc. is based on the formal approval by the Disciplinary Authority as defined in CDA Rules. The punishment will be later on the basis of misconduct and the punishing authorities have been mentioned in the CDA Rules. Once the charge sheet is approved by the Disciplinary Authority, the charge sheet is served by the respective Department /Division/Unit Head or an officer who is at least one level above to the charge-sheeted executive. Such an officer just initiates the enquiry and does not impose the punishment. The imposition of punishment is a separate issue which is decided later by the competent authority within the organisation.

9.       To strengthen her arguments on the above issued, learned AdditionalSolicitor General relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Inspector General of Police vs. Thavasiappa, (1996) 2 SCC 145, whereby it is held that a charge sheet need not be issued by the appointing authority and any authority who is the controlling authority can initiate departmental proceedings by issuing a charge sheet. The Hon’ble Court further observed that the charge sheet need not to be issued by the authority empowered to impose the proposed penalty.

10.     Learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  has  further  relied  on  P.V. Srinivasa  Sastry  &  Ors.  vs.  Comptroller  and  Auditor  General  &  Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 419, whereby in the context of Article 311(1), it was held that in absence of a rule any superior authority who can be held to be the controlling  authority  can  initiate  a  departmental  proceeding  and  that initiation of a departmental proceeding per se does not hold the officer concerned with any evil consequences.

11.     Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that Bharat Electronics Limited is a Public Sector Undertaking and it is incorporated under the Companies Act and therefore, the employees do not enjoy the protections as available to the government servants.

12.     In case of Tekraj Vasandi Alias K. L. Basandhi vs. Union of India &Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 236, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the only prohibition, if any, is the inability to pass a final order in the departmental proceeding. However, the charge sheet can be issued by the officer lower than the disciplinary authority but higher than the charged officer. The dismissal or removal of the officer or even the enquiry could be done at his instance. It was also held that the only right guaranteed to a civil servant under that provision is that he should not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. It was further held by the Supreme Court that it is not necessary that the charges should be framed by the authority competent to award the proposed penalty or that the enquiry should be conducted by such authority as there is nothing under the rules which would induce the Court to read in the rules such a requirement. It  is  thus  established  from the  ratio  in  Transport  Commissioner  vs.  A. Radha Krishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC 332 of the aforesaid decision that initiation and conducting an enquiry could be done by an authority other than the authority competent to impose the penalty. Therefore, unless a statutory rule specifically requires that such proceeding is to be initiated and conducted only by a disciplinary authority, the same could be so done even by  a  subordinate  authority.  Thus,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General argued that there is no merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

13.     On perusal of Charge Sheet-Cum-Suspension order dated 17.05.2019, it is specifically mentioned that Sri M.M. Pandey, Staff No. 205757, GM (Product Support/CO) was appointed as Investigation Officer by CVO vide letter dated 18.07.2018 to conduct a detailed Investigation into the alleged irregularities reported in the execution of civil construction works in the IACCS project being executed by NCS SBU of GAD Unit. It is further stated that he submitted his report dated 03.10.2018 to CVO which was received in CVO’s office on 08.10.2018. Thus, it is established that the Charge Sheet-Cum-Suspension Order was issued in pursuance to CVO letter dated 18.07.2018 to conduct a detailed investigation into the alleged irregularities.

14.     Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon Vigilance Manual and in Para 7.3.1 regarding framing of Charge Sheet and in Para 7.3.2, it is specifically mentioned that the charge sheet comprises the memorandum, informing the concerned employee about initiation of proceedings against him and giving him an opportunity to admit or deny the charge(s) within a period not exceeding 15 days. The memorandum is to be signed by the disciplinary authority himself.

15.     As  argued  by  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  that  since  the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners are in pursuance of letter dated 18.07.2018 issued by the CVO, therefore, Vigilance Manual is applicable in the case of the petitioner.

16.     On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General has argued that in the present case, the departmental proceedings are not initiated pursuant to vigilance departmental inquiry, therefore, the Vigilance Manual is not applicable in the present case.

17.     It is not in dispute that in case of A. Radha Krishna (Supra), it is held that  unless  a  specific  rule  so  requires  that  such  proceedings  are  to  be initiated or conducted only by a disciplinary authority, the same could be done so even by the subordinate authority.

18.    In the present case, the charge sheet is issued without specifically mentioning therein whether a charge-sheet is issued for major punishment or the minor punishment. The aforesaid judgment would be applicable only in case where there is no specific rules or guidelines to this effect. However, in the present case, as per Para 7.3.2. of Vigilance Manual of BEL, the charge- sheet  comprising  the  memorandum,  informing  the  concerned  employee about the initiation of proceedings shall be signed by the disciplinary authority himself.

19.     In  the  present  case,  admittedly,  petitioner  No.  1  is  E-VIII    level employee and undisputedly, the disciplinary authority for the same is CMD, whereas the charge-sheet is issued by Functional Director (Marketing), who is not disciplinary authority.

20.     Regarding the charge sheet issued against the other petitioners, the said charge-sheet was also issued to the petitioner No. 2 by the G.M. Radar, whereas the disciplinary authority is the Director. To petitioner no. 3, the charge-sheet has been issued by the AGM, whereas disciplinary authority is the Functional Director.

21.     As per the charge sheet-cum-suspension order, the said order is issued in pursuance of the letter issued by the CVO as mentioned above. Therefore, it cannot be said that disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioners are not a vigilance case.

22.     Be that as it may, as stated by learned Additional Solicitor General that the Ministry of Defence has seized with the matter and instructed the respondents not to proceed further. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings   against   the   petitioners   is   kept   in   abeyance   till   further instructions from the said Ministry.

23.     It is pertinent to mention here that if the charge sheet is accepted and at the end, the disciplinary authority is of the view that major penalty is to be issued, in that eventuality, the authority under the statutes is not competent to issue the major penalty. Thus, while issuing further proceedings against the petitioners, if any, it shall be specifically mentioned that the charge-sheet is issued against the petitioners for minor or major penalty.

24.     Admittedly, since the suspension  order has not been extended further beyond the statutory period of 90 days, in view of the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India & Anr., (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 291, suspension is illegal thereafter. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that more than 90 days of the suspension have been elapsed. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners forthwith. The period of suspension shall be treated as per the rules.

25.     In view of above discussion and legal position, since the disciplinary authority concerned for the petitioners have not initiated departmental proceedings, therefore in my considered view, the order dated 17.05.2019 is illegal and accordingly set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings as per the statutes and the Vigilance Manual, if so advised, against the petitioners. Accordingly, the order dated 31.07.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 8188/2019 is hereby recalled.

26.          The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR  KAIT) JUDGE

OCTOBER 09, 2019

Drdo

How a CAG report exposed DRDO’s mishandling of AEW&CS programme

3 Comments

The CAG report showed irregularities in the selection of aircraft for the programme

By Pradip R Sagar August 29, 2018

Indian Air Force’s indigenous AEW&CS in action during ‘Exercise Iron Fist’ in Pokhran | PTI

THE WEEK

As the indigenous Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AEW&CS)—aircraft fitted with a radar system—flew over the Rajpath during the 2017 Republic Day parade, India joined an elite group of five countries that had this capability. But, before it could be formally inducted into the Air Force fleet, the ‘Eye in the Sky’ has flown into turbulence.

A report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which was recently tabled in Parliament, has made startling observations about the programme, on which the Defence Research and Development Organisation has spent more than Rs 2,500 crore.

The CAG report showed irregularities in the selection of aircraft for the programme. The auditor slammed the DRDO for the cost overrun—the initial cost was Rs 1,800 crore—and its claims about indigenousness. Moreover, preferred vendors were selected to benefit certain companies, said the report. Though the Air Force had accepted the AEW&CS last year, it is yet to get the final operational clearance.
The AEW&CS is a moving surveillance platform, making it difficult for the enemy to locate the exact position of the aircraft. With its long range and detection capabilities, it gives a 360 degree view of the sky and can track many aircraft simultaneously.

China currently has 20 such airborne warning systems, while Pakistan has eight. The Indian Air Force has only three—Israeli Phalcon radar systems mounted on Russian IL-76 aircraft. India had bought the radar systems from Israel in 2004. According to experts, India currently does not have the capability to cover its entire airspace during a war.

A programme to develop an indigenous early warning system was taken up in 1994, but was shut down after a fatal crash. Subsequently, the defence ministry in 1999 approved the import of three airborne warning systems (the ones from Israel) and decided to meet further requirement through indigenous development.

In October 2004, the cabinet committee on security approved indigenous development of AEW&CS at a cost of Rs 1,800 crore. The deadline was April 2011. Under the project, two AEW&CS were to be supplied to the Air Force. DRDO’s Bengaluru-based laboratory, Centre for Air Borne Systems (CABS), was the nodal agency for design and development.

Considering the operational importance of this project, the CAG carried out an audit to know whether the system had everything that was promised. K. Subramaniam, principal director of audit, Air Force, recently sent the classified report to Dr S. Christopher, the then secretary of the Department of Defence Research and Development—which found serious irregularities in the programme.

The report has come down heavily on the programme over its claim of indigenousness. Despite the project being called home made, it was only 48 per cent indigenous. The DRDO had claimed it to be 81 per cent. And, the cost of foreign consultancy, about Rs 106 crore, was categorised as indigenous.

The CAG’s observations draw strength from the ongoing CBI investigation into alleged kickbacks in the process of selecting the aircraft. The Embraer EMB-145 aircraft from Brazil was shortlisted for the project in 2007. However, Brazilian media reported that Indian officials were bribed to swing the deal in Embraer’s favour. In 2016, the CBI registered a case against NRI arms dealer Vipin Khanna and two private companies based abroad. The case was about the alleged payment of more than $5.70 million as kickbacks to seal the deal for the aircraft.

The CAG report also pointed out inadequacies in management, which stretched the development period to 13 years. “And, the operational requirements, instead of being based on the functional needs of the Air Force, were being adjusted according to the aircraft that was ‘pre-selected’. It took seven years to finalise the operational requirements,” said the report.


During the design and development stage, some operational parameters were compromised because of the Embraer’s limitations. Also, there was no competitive bidding while selecting the aircraft. The Embraer was shortlisted through a nomination. Notably, several aircraft, such as the IL-76, and models from Gulfstream, Bombardier and Boeing were available at the time.

“The justification given for the selection of EMB-145 was not tenable,” the CAG observed. “No objective assessment of the merits and demerits of available options was done. The selection of EMB-145 was arbitrary and based on preconceived preference.”

Initial operational requirements stipulated that the system should be able to operate from high-altitude locations like Leh to have a much deeper view into the Chinese army’s activities. As the EMB-145 was incapable of doing so, claims the report, the Air Force had to drop this requirement in February 2006.

The report also said that the Air Force officials working with the DRDO reiterated that Embraer was not the suitable aircraft.

The CAG also criticised the project for the way the pilots were trained. “From the scrutiny of the expenditure on training, the audit found that the training commenced in June 2007. At this point, the procurement contract for EMB-145 was yet to be awarded and negotiations were underway between the CABS and M/s Embraer. Therefore, training of pilots on an aircraft even before finalising its purchase is highly unjustified,” CAG pointed out. Six pilots were trained abroad at a cost of Rs 23 crore.

Of the 18 requirements specified by the Air Force, AEW&CS could not fully achieve ten important ones. Despite this, the Air Force accepted the first system in February 2017.

“Since EMB-145 was selected, the weight of the mission system had to be adjusted to the optimum payload capacity of EMB-145, which was 3,000kg. The radar along with its associated systems, which was to be mounted on the fuselage, had to be limited to 1,500 kilos due to structural limitations,” the CAG said.

The probable date of completion was revised four times and the final date of completion was extended by over six years, said the report. The Air Force kept changing its requirements. In the middle of the programme, the Air Force demanded air-to-air refuelling and a de-icing system. It led to a delay of nearly two years.

Christopher, who was the head of CABS, said the repeated modifications in the operational requirement by the Air Force played a major role in the delay of the project. “It is all recorded in official documents and no one can find fault with me for it,” he said. “However, I believe that operational requirements is a prerogative of the user and you, as a developer of the equipment, cannot challenge it.”

Regarding the aircraft, he said, “Embraer was a well-proven aircraft. The decision to buy Embraer was taken in consultation with the then IAF chief S. Krishnaswamy. Four countries were using this platform as AWACS—the generic term for such a system. Moreover, the IAF decided that it has to be a turbo jet, not propellant. Turbo engine gives them the desired speed and efficiency.”

When contacted, Krishnaswamy said the selection of aircraft was purely DRDO’s decision. “The IAF was using Embraer for its VVIP fleet and thought of commonality if it is selected for AEW&CS. Since AEW&CS was DRDO’s project and budget was allocated to them, the final decision for selecting aircraft was DRDO’s only,” he said, adding that any modification in the operational requirements was a collective decision of the Air Force and the DRDO.

Drdo

Race for next DRDO chief heats up, incumbent eyes extension

3 Comments

By Pradip R Sagar May 02, 2018 18:29 IST  – THE WEEK

DRDO chief S. Christopher (left) with Arun Jaitley, during his brief tenure as defence minister in 2017 | Facebook account of DRDO

With the tenure of S. Christopher, current chief of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), coming to an end later this month, the race for the top post in the country’s premier defence research organisation has begun. Christopher, who was given a one-year extension at the last moment in May 2017, though, is also eyeing another extension. But whether he will be second time lucky is unclear.

Hectic parleys have begun for the coveted post. The key players who are in the race to lead the DRDO include Sudhir Mishra, director general of BrahMos missile system division, and G. Satheesh Reddy, who is presently serving as director general (Missiles & Strategic Systems) and scientific advisor to the defence minister. Besides Mishra and Reddy, P.K. Mehta, who is currently heading the office of the director general of armament and combat engineering systems, is considered to be in the race to head DRDO, which has an annual budget of nearly Rs 20,000 crore.

According to sources in South Block, Reddy is the senior-most scientist in the organisation after Christopher. His name figured prominently last year also, but Christopher managed to get an extension at the last minute, meaning Reddy would need to wait for a year. Former defence minister Manohar Parrikar had bifurcated the post of DRDO chief and scientific advisor to the defence minister, which earlier used to be occupied by one person. Christopher is completing his tenure on May 29.

Mishra, head of BrahMos missile system division—a joint venture between India and Russia— is also among candidates vying for the top post in DRDO.

Mehta, who is heading the Pune-based cluster of armament and combat engineering systems, can be a dark horse in the race due to his proximity with top BJP leaders, sources claimed.

Christopher, who took over as the head of DRDO in May 2015, did his best to impress Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman by showcasing the work done under his leadership towards self-reliance in the recently concluded DefExpo in Chennai. A special pavilion under the ‘Make in India’ theme was inaugurated by Modi, in which all major equipment designed and developed by DRDO were showcased. Last year, Christopher had directed all the labs to remove his photographs, just two weeks before he was to retire. But only at the last minute, he was given extension for a year by the government.

DRDO has often been criticised for delayed projects, as most of its ventures, ranging from the Tejas light combat aircraft to long-range surface-to-air missile systems, have been repeatedly missing deadlines, with huge cost overruns. In the absence of self-reliance in defence, the Indian armed forces continue to be heavily dependent on imports. India continues to top the list of global importers of military hardware, with over 70 per cent of armed forces’ requirements being met by foreign firms. Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his first interaction with DRDO scientists in 2014 had sent a stern message to the defence research agency against their ‘chalta hai’ attitude.

Drdo

Army moves to court martial officer accused of sexually abusing subordinate

Leave a comment

By Pradip R. Sagar March 24, 2018 -THE WEEK

Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman with a group of women Army officers | Facebook account of Indian Army’s ADGPI

The Indian Army has initiated court martial proceedings against the former commanding officer of a Alwar-based military unit after a 27-year-old woman Army captain levelled allegations of sexual harassment against the officer.

Captain Poonam (name changed) joined the Army’s Signals Corps as a technical officer in 2013.

In August 2015, she filed a sexual harassment complaint against the commanding officer of her unit while she was posted at the Alwar military station in Rajasthan.

In her complaint to higher authorities, the woman officer alleged that her commanding officer started sexually abusing her soon after joining her unit. He allegedly touched her private parts and made remarks like “Do you have a boyfriend?”

When her complaint went unheeded, the victim wrote to then Army chief general Dalbir Singh Suhag, saying she approached him “bypassing all channels for redressal of my grievances because an earlier attempt through proper channel failed to provide justice.”

In fact, her father wrote to then defence minister Manohar Parrikar by making an emotional appeal, “If this is the way the Indian Army treats its daughters, I’m not sure if any parent will ever send their daughters to the Army.”

Eventually, Army Headquarters started a court of inquiry in late 2015, when her issue was highlighted by the national media.

After two years of extensive proceedings of the court of inquiry and subsequently the summary of evidences, which established prima facie guilt of the commanding officer, court martial proceedings were ordered to commence from Saturday (March 24).

“General Court Martial of the former Commanding Officer of 12 Field Sub area will commence from March 24,” an Army order stated; the order mentions two brigadiers have been made witnesses.

Drdo

DRDO scientists bunk meet, canteen boy gives presentation on security

1 Comment

By Pradip R Sagar | Express News Service | Published: 09th October 2016
NEW DELHI: During his first interaction with the DRDO scientists, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had conveyed a stern message to them — “Shed this ‘chalta hai’ attitude.”

However, it seems that things have plunged to a new low.

drdo_scien-diberAt a conference, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) asked a canteen boy to give a presentation on ‘border security’ because the scientists who were supposed to hold the session didn’t turn up.

There’s more to the story. In the absence of experts, and to make up numbers, the DRDO sent peons, drivers, mechanics, storekeepers and other non-technical staff to attend the conference.

“We didn’t have suitable candidates to represent us, so some laboratories sent administrative and non-technical staff, including Class-4 employees to fill in the chairs,” said a DRDO official.

Quoting a senior official, an insider told Express, “I was told, ‘let them (peons, drivers, store attendants, canteen boys) also enjoy and have a picnic.’”

The conference, which was regarding the DRDO’s contribution in managing border security in the Himalayan region, was held on Thursday and Friday.
It was organised by the DRDO’s Uttarakhand-based Defence Institute of Bio-energy Research (DIBER), which is engaged in research in the first of bio-energy and non- conventional energy for defence forces. Six key laboratories were asked to send their representatives to participate in the conference.

The idea behind the two-day conference titled ‘Vaigyanik Evam Takniki Sanghoshti’ was to promote use of Hindi language.
Sources claim that since the conference was organised in Pithoragarh district (Uttarakhand), which is close to the China border, many senior scientists expressed their unwillingness to travel 600 km in the hilly terrain and cited “ill health” or “personal” reasons for saying “no”.
The institutes which sent their representatives included Institute of Technology Management (Mussoorie), Defence Electronics Application Laboratory (Dehradun), Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (Chandigarh) and Snow and Avalanche Study Establishment (Chandigarh) and DIBER. The DRDO has often faced criticism for its tardy performance, resulting in more than 70 per cent dependence of India’s armed forces on foreign players.the-sunday-standard-9-oct-2016diber1

Drdo

DRDO goes young with Modi

3 Comments

By Pradip R Sagar
Published: 02 Oct 2016 The Sunday Standard

Prime Minister Narendra Modi
Prime Minister Narendra Modi

NEW DELHI: In order to weed out the dead woods, country’s premier defence research agency Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), which is often faced criticism for its tardy performance, is looking for young scientist to head one of its laboratory. It was Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s advise to DRDO to hire young scientists, not over the age of 35 years to head at least five laboratories of defence research agency.

Following PM’s advise, Uttarakhand based Defence Institute of Bio-energy Research (DIBER), which is engaged in research in the first of bio energy and non conventional energy for defence use, has invited applications from candidates before the age of 35 years to head the lab. Officials claim this is the first step in the chain of events to give important role to young scientists, as Modi government has already banned giving extensions to scientists who have completed their tenure. It is notable that till two years back, DRDO’s top 15 scientists were on extension of service.
drdo-logoPM Modi in his first interaction with DRDO scientists had sent a stern message to defence research agency for their ‘chalta hai’ attitude, as most of DRDO projects, ranging from Tejas light combat aircraft to long-range surface-to-air missile systems have been missing repeated deadlines with huge cost overruns.
But sources in the agency said, appointing youch scientists to head laboratories may not go down well with senior scientists working with defence research.

But, officials said that hiring of Director of lab below the age of 35 years will send message to everyone working in DRDO to deliver. Modi has last year short listed Satish Reddy, the youngest ever scientific advisor to the defence minsitry.

“Certainly it’s an effort to get rid of non-performing scientists. Merely age seniority will not matter. If India wants to be a superpower, our defence research has to be cutting edge. India remains to be top buyer of military hardware globally with nearly 70 per cent defence requirements meet by imports,” said an officer. It is the successful government’s failure to build a strong domestic defence industrial base due to sluggish performance of 52 DRDO laboratories, five defence PSUs , four shipyards and 39 Ordnance factories.diber-director

Drdo

DRDO sets timeline for fixing grievances to discourage direct complaint to PM Modi

1 Comment

By Pradip R. Sagar 14 September 2016 The New Indian Express
modi_afp-14-sept-16

NEW DELHI: As scientists involved in defence research continue to write to Prime Minister Narendra Modi with their grievances, DRDO headquarters has asked all its department heads to take timely action on these complaints to avoid direct communication with PM or Defence minister.

Following series of complaints, the DRDO’s vigilance department has now fixed a deadline to complete probe into any grievance within in ten days of receipt of complaint.

Days after assuming office, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had asked government officials to give their suggestions directly to his office. But, within months, the PMO’s desk handling grievances was flooded with hundreds of representations. To address complaints, Cabinet Secretary P K Sinha, in August 2015 issued an instruction that writing directly to the PMO by violating the prescribed channel of communication has to be viewed ‘seriously’ and is liable for ‘disciplinary action’.

But, despite strict instructions from the Cabinet Secretariat, several scientists have been continuously approaching prime minister’s office and defence minister.

“In absence of appropriate action to be taken on such complaints, the complainant addresses his grievances to various authorities including the Raksha Mantri (defence minister) and Prime Minister’s Office,” according to an stinker from the vigilance department head of the DRDO, Dr. JP Singh, Director, Vigilance and security writes..

“It has been noted with concern that neither any timely action is taken by the head of Clusters or establishment on complaints which are addressed to them, nor any action taken report is forwarded by them headquarters,”

Vigilance department believe that because of in-action by concerned Clusters or Establishments in the DRDO, ‘copious correspondence among various government agencies take place as all the complaints were processed as per extant of guidelines of the DoPT.

“All heads of Clusters/ Laboratories/ Establishments and Units are requested to take timely action on complaint directly addressed to them and forward Action Taken Report to the Chief Comptroller with ten days of the receipt of complaint,” Dr. JP Singh, Director, Vigilance and security writes.

Citing a Cabinet Secretary note on official communication channel, the DRDO headquarters in August last year, had issued detailed instructions to all its laboratories for strict compliance regarding representations being sent directly to higher authorities bypassing the prescribed channel of communication.14-sept-16-the-new-indian-express

Drdo

Parrikar protects whistleblower and takes action against his DRDO harassers

2 Comments

By Pradip R Sagar | Express News Service Published: 30th May 2016
Manohar-Parrikar
NEW DELHI: Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has been in South Block for just 18 months, but the 61-year-old has taken several strong measures. In a recent order with a far-reaching impact, Parrikar has not only given protection to a whistleblower, but has also ordered action against officials harassing him.

Prakash Singh, a 53-year-old Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) official, was sacked on the grounds that he was a “perpetual troublemaker”. In reality, Singh had blown the lid off alleged financial irregularities and malpractices in recruitment procedures in the country’s premier defence research agency.

As his series of complaints led to unease, he was sent on compulsory retirement in 2012.
ParrikarDespite complaining to then defence minister A K Antony, nothing was done. Last year, Singh apprised Parrikar of the root cause of his harassment and held 22 DRDO officials responsible for his persecution. Parrikar then ordered quashing of charges against Singh and action against the officials.
“The case has been examined in the light of advice of CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) and after detailed deliberations, the competent authority has ordered quashing of the charges framed against Prakash Singh,” says a Ministry of Defence order. “Those who trumped up false charges and committed a number of procedural irregularities with the single-minded objective of harassing Prakash Singh need to be identified and taken to task for their malafide action.”

Singh’s complaints of corruption in the agency and 10 DRDO scientists recruiting their family members in the organisation by flouting all norms is being investigated by the CBI.

Prakash Singh’s complaints to CBI, CVC

Laser Science & Technology Centre (LASTEC) failed to utilise the pressure recovery system (PRS), a hi-tech equipment imported from Russia for Rs 16.58 crore. Singh alleged that the equipment was burnt in a “mysterious” fire, but DRDO said that the project was successful.

Highlighted nepotism in DRDO recruitment by senior scientists who “recruited their family members by flouting rules”. During a CBI probe, two scientists were asked to leave on the same grounds

Drdo

Defence Secrets in Danger

5 Comments

By Pradip R Sagar
Published: 26th Apr 2015 06:00:00 AM -The Sunday Standard
DRDO logo1It’s akin to contract killing of the country’s defence research establishments. With their easy access to classified and secret information, thousands of people working on contractual or temporary basis in India’s top secret defence projects have turned out to be the biggest threat to national security. A spate of arrests for spying has alarmed the government. But the country’s premier defence research agency—Defence Research and Development Organisation—has a strength of more than 50,000 temporary or casual employees who have complete access to all its classified and research activities.
The recent arrest of a photographer employed on contractual basis at DRDO’s Integrated Test Range in Chandipur (Odisha) for passing confidential information on various missiles test-fired from Wheeler Island to his ISI conduit in Kolkata has raised the alarm bells in the corridors of the Ministry of Defence (MoD).Sunday-Standard-26 April - 2May-2015 pic

Soon after, a contractual employee working for the MoD was picked up by the Delhi Police for espionage. The issue put South Block in panic mode and an alert was issued in March, which clearly said that ‘Contractual/ casual employees should not be posted in sensitive locations and not allowed to given access to the classified information’.
A senior defence ministry official recalled how a high-level inquiry was ordered during AK Antony’s tenure as defence minister in 2010 into the episode of giving out a critical missile design project to a private contractor by a top DRDO scientist.
Despite such cases in the past, over 55 laboratories of the DRDO, mandated to develop products and technologies to modernise our armed forces ranging from missiles to combat aircraft, have roped in over 50,000 casual employees to assist scientists. According to an insider, contractual employees are generally hired under two categories—technical and non-technical.Sunday-Standard-26 April - 2May-2015

 

 

Drdo

Top DRDO Scientist Accused of Sexual Harassment – The New Indian Express

13 Comments

Author: Pradip R Sagar

Published Date: Mar 8, 2015 6:00 AM

Last Updated: Mar 8, 2015 5:10 AM

A 25­ years­ old Junior Research Fellow has filed a complaint against D Majumdar, additional director of DIPAS, of making sexual advances.

NEW DELHI: After well­ known environmental scientist Dr R K Pachauri faces allegations of sexual harassment by his junior woman colleague, a senior scientist of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO),the country’s premier defence research body, too is facing similar charges by a junior researcher.

A 25 ­year ­old Junior Research Fellow has accused 59­ year­ old Dr D Majumdar, the additional director of the DRDO’s Delhi ­based Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences (DIPAS), of sexually harassing her. Taking cognizance of the woman’s complaint, Majumdar has been shunted out in ‘public interest’ following the recommendations of a high ­level committee, which was set up by the DRDO, to look into the allegations

According to official sources, the woman, who joined DIPAS in December last year, filed a complaint with the head of the organisation in February. In her complaint to Dr Shashi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS, the woman accused Majumdar of making sexual advances towards her and she also sought her transfer from the particular group of Ergonomics. The woman alleged that Majumdar used to sexually harass her on his office premises. Over 40 other fellow researchers also came in support of the woman complainant and gave their representation against Majumdar. Subsequently her complaint was forwarded to the DRDO headquarters and a five­ member committee headed by Hina Gokhale, Director HRD of the DRDO, was formed to look into the allegations, as per the Vishakha Guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court.

Majumdar, who is retiring by the end of 2015, has been transferred to a Gwalior ­based laboratory where he has been directed to report by March 16. When contacted, Majumdar defended himself and said that the allegation was a conspiracy. “I completely denied such allegations and it is a conspiracy to defame me. Surprisingly, hours after appearing before the committee on March 3, I received my transfer orders from the headquarters,” said Majumdar, Scientist G of the DRDO, which is equivalent to a Joint Secretary ­rank officer. While deposing before the committee, he reportedly handed over six testimonials from junior scientists in his favour.

However, the complainant didn’t comment. When contacted, Dr. Shashi Bala Singh said, “I will not be able to make any comment on it. Please contact my headquarters.”

But DRDO Spokesperson Ravi Gupta said, “We (DRDO) follows strict regulations, whenever such allegations come out in the department. Since in this matter, a committee is already constituted and looking into the matter, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on its proceedings.”

Experiment with Controversies DIPAS was recently in the news for carrying out a study for faster deployment of troops for high ­altitude operations in case of war ­like situation, which was rubbished by the Indian Army. In fact, army severely criticised the methods adopted by the DIPAS scientists to collect data sample for its study. DIPAS was set up after the Indo ­China war in 1962 with the thrust area identification of high altitude physiology, nutrition and biochemistry of human in and also with the urgent need felt for ergonomic assessment of workstations and machine interface. The laboratory carries out various researches and studies to look into the aspect of high altitude warfare.