Tag Archives: Scientist ‘B’

Drdo

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

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

 

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

Hon’ble Sir,

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

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

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

Brief Facts of the Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 19 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965

Special procedure in certain cases

Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18-

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

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

or

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

unqualified for their initial recruitment –

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Drdo

What happened if you are in hit list of Director?

Leave a comment

In DRDO there is no HR policy, although the post of CC R&D HR and a big HR directorate under him working in DRDO Hqrs but they are working with sole aim and object that how to execute and manage the unethical/ unconstitutional demands of DG, DRDO to all establishment heads.

Generally these demands are to adjust their beloved by any means like Smt. T Chandra Bhanu or Ms Geetha or Ms Swati Srivastva or Ms Dolly Bansal recruitment cases. Some cases come out from the four walls of DRDO but inside DRDO everyone knows this practice is continue carryon in DRDO by so called DRDO,HRD like adjustment of Commander Patel, Ex- SA’s daughter, CEPTAM Chairman’s son, Ex- Scientist ‘G’ in DEAL who was head of HRD, DEAL adjust his son Sh Saket Jain with all farzi certificates.

It is very well proven DRDO HRD can do any dam thing under wish of their AAKAS whether harassment of any individual from class IV employee to Scientist ‘H’. There is no moral exists in DRDO, HRD n numbers of examples available of transfers cases, manipulating in ACR/APAR’s, Awards to incompetents, authentication of false claims, list is too long.

The following case of Sh M R Gupta, TO ‘C’ is a clear cut case of dictatorship of DRDO officials, several years torture now Sh M R Gupta become chronic depression case.

Sh M R Gupta joined as JSA-II in 1979 in GTRE, DRDO, Bangalore, transferred to IRDE, Dehradun and subsequently joined DEAL as SSA in October 1987.

Up to 1986 his ACR’s was very good and enjoyed regular growth, but the day when then Director, IRDE Dr O P Nijhawan raised his eyebrow and put him in hit list, the bad days started and Sh M R Gupta’s service journey till date exposes the DRDO HR policy.

His 1987 ACR reflects the real bossism of Mr O P Nijhawan number dropped to 62

As IETE graduate Sh M R Gupta applied for the post of Assistant executive engineer in I & B through UPSC and got selected but Dr O P Nijhawan not supplied his 1987 ACR so he was deprived to get post.

Dr. O P Nijhawan’s effect also passed to DEAL and it was always made confirm that any advantage should not passed to Sh M R Gupta,

Sh M R Gupta qualified 9 times LDCE examination of Scientist ‘B’, the RTI revealed that RAC maintained the boss wishes. No one imagine the act of RAC officials.

Sh M R Gupta‘s ACR/ APAR of 1995 and 96 was found blank.

The 2004 ACR/APAR was reviewed by Sh Y P Sehgal, Ex Sc ‘G’ illegally as Sh M R Gupta was never worked with him and put adverse remark “ One disciplinary case is with DRDO Hqrs”  and remark was duly approved by the Director, Sh Ashok Sen and it was not even communicated to Sh M R Gupta.

DRDO having very common scenarios that if one official is in hit list then all chamchas never leave any chance to fix him to make happy the boss.

In case of Sh M R Gupta same thing happened, several attempts were done to harm, Dr. B S Jassal throw his wife’s medical bill for unforeseen reason and exchanged heat argument, in those argument frustrated Sh M R Gupta told him that I will jumped from the building, very next movement the explanation call with initiation of disciplinary action raised against him.

In 2004 Sh Mahakar Singh, Sc ‘G’ also demonstrated the extreme loyalty and one incident he scrimmage with Sh M R Gupta in his office room, next moment the room was sealed and an ION was served and an inquiry was constituted in a hurry and stage was set for dismiss Sh M R Gupta. By grace of God Sh M R Gupta approached local police and case was registered, subsequently after lower court to high court and again to lower court Sh Mahakar Singh rendered his apology in front of Session Judge, Dehradun and matter was closed.

This is not a single case, the HR policy ingest lot of DRDO officials by heart attack, High blood pressure, increasing number of bye passes, inserting stunts, depressions or exodus.

You can rate DRDO HR policy 5 stars, 4 stars, 3 stars, 2 stars or 1 star after going through the following papers.

MR. M R Gupta's 1987's ACR
MR. M R Gupta’s 1987’s ACR
MR M R Gupta ACR 1987
MR M R Gupta ACR 1987
Amazing score card of LDCE, RAC
Amazing score card of LDCE, RAC can anyone believe the DRDO HR policy

LDCE score details

Fast act of Sh Ashok Sen if he was right the why Sh Mahakar Singh rendered his apology in court for same incident
Fast act of Sh Ashok Sen
if he was right the why Sh Mahakar Singh rendered his apology in court for same incident
The Sh Ashok Sen's white washing team Sh.P C Sharma, CAO, Dr.B.S. Jassal, Sc 'F', Sh K.Sivakumar, Sc 'F', Sf Ajay Malik, Sc 'E'
The Sh Ashok Sen’s white washing team Sh.P C Sharma, CAO, Dr.B.S. Jassal, Sc ‘F’, Sh K.Sivakumar, Sc ‘F’, Sf Ajay Malik, Sc ‘E’
Sh Mahakar Singh rendered his apology in court
Sh Mahakar Singh rendered his apology in court
Sh Mahakar Singh rendered his apology in court
Sh Mahakar Singh rendered his apology in court

mrg letters

mrg letters1mrg letters2

Health condition of Mr M R Gupta or DRDO HR policy
Health condition of Mr M R Gupta or DRDO HR policy

mr gupta Max

 

Drdo

Policy bankruptcy in DRDO – hype to create artificial crisis

1 Comment
डीआरडीओ में नीति का दिवालियापन – कृत्रिम संकट पैदा करने के लिए प्रचार
To                                                                                                                                 28th May 2014
Sh. Narendra Modi,
Prime Minister,
Room No – 152, PMO,
South Block, NEW DELHI -110011

With 64 Crores annual budget in 1980, when Dr. V S Arunachalam took over as Scientific Adviser, the budget allocation enhanced to 1100 crores with missions made to develop missiles under IGMDP program.

That was the beginning of infrastructure development and deteriorating of scientific research and development. By March every year i.e. the closer of financial year, everyone from Scientist ’B’ to SA to RM office were looking for procurement cases only and those who met the expenditure by any means were rewarded with scientist of the year award.

However the conscious financial officers use to raise objections, so special provisions were made and duly approved by ministry. SA to RM was given special powers to procure under single quotation more than Rs. 10 lakh where procurement committee could be bypassed. This decision was taken to facilitate the speedy development of technology for missiles.

The incumbent after Kalam, further modified the single tender purchase and the SA office granted permission for procurement of one lakh rupees only.

The cases were raised left and right on single tender procurements, where hefty sums were returned to indenter as kickback. This procedure became a culture of DRDO and when in 2006 DRDO Purchase Manual was introduce and policy was framed, Directors powers were raised to 50 Lakhs rupees with Hqrs. rep in crores and SA’s power raised up to 50 crores.

When previous Defence Minister Sh. A K Antony noticed the foul smell, he ordered CGDA for special audit of DRDO. CGDA found that DRDO Directors including Scientific Adviser misused the funds by splitting procurement orders within their limit of sanction power. They fooled the country in all possible ways. A well known fact is that 70% of DRDO requirements come from foreign countries; it means that DRDO is wasting precious foreign currency which is hard earned by the country.

DRDO procured, in last 10 years, thousands of crores of rupees equipments and these equipments are lying idle in various Lab premises and waiting for their departure to the scrap house.

With the passage of time DRDO has become a dumping ground of obsolete technology and a way to needlessly waste the poor tax payers’ money without any end result.

Honorable Prime Minister is requested to overhaul the DRDO structure totally and take strong actions to implement Accountability.

With warm regards

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

DOP, DRDO – Dr Arun Kumar’s Deeds & Acts – I

Leave a comment

8th August 2011

To
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

Honorable Sir,

I wish to bring to your notice another case of irregularities being committed by Dr. Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO Hqrs. in the matter of recruitment of appointment to the post of Scientist ‘B’ ( A Group ‘A’ Gazetted Post in DRDO)

  1. Sh. Dharmender Kumar was the Senior Technical Assistant -‘B’ (Non Gazetted Post) in SPIC, DRDO, Delhi. On his selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor( Mathemetics) in NDA, Khadakwasla, Pune, he resigned from the post of Senior Technical Assistant -‘B’ , which was accepted by the competent authority and he was relived on 20th December 2010 from   SPIC, DRDO, Delhi. He joined the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics) in NDA, Khadakwasla, Pune on 22nd December 2010.
  2. Sh. Dharmender Kumar on his selection for appointment to the post of Scientist ‘B’ in DRDO through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Scientist ‘B’ in DRDO vide DOP, DRDO letter No DOP/05/56002/LDCE 09-20 dated 23th December 2010.
  3. As per clause 2 (h) of terms & condition of offer of appointment letter, Sh. Dharmender Kumar was required to assume the appointment of Scientist ‘B’ within one month from the date of issue of above referred offer letter (23rd December 2010),failing which the offer of appointment will be cancelled( as mentioned in the)
  4. Further, as per terms & condition of offer of appointment issued to the Sh. Dharmender Kumar on 23rd December 2010 i.e. after 3 days of his being SOS from DRDO, and 1 day after joining the NDA, Pune, he was required to undergo a medical test by the prescribed medical board and required essentially to undergo a training course of Scientist ’B’ at DIAT, Pune. Further as per Directorate of Human Resources, DRDO letter No DHRD/17050/DIAT/POINTS16/C/M/1 dated 31st March 2011 that 20 weeks duration mandatory  training course for Scientist ’B’ has been scheduled w.e.f 20th April 2010.
  5. Sh. Dharmender Kumar should had not been issued with the letter of offer of appointment to the post of Scientist ‘B’ in DRDO on 23rd December 2010, when he  at own resigned and SOS from DRDO on 20th December 2010 and joined NDA, Pune on 22nd December 2010. The post of Scientist ‘B’ against which he was selected was meant out for the departmental candidate of DRDO as such, when he was not entitled to be given the offer of appointment to the post of Scientist ‘B’ in DRDO
  6. When the last date(22nd January 2011) bu assumption of charge of appointment to the post of Scientist ‘B’ in DRDO and joining the mandatory training course in DIAT, Pune by 20th April 2011 has already expired, his request for joining the post of Scientist ‘B’, DRDO should not have been entertained.
  7. Sh. Dharmender Kumar vide his letter dated 3rd February 2011 written directly to Scientific Adviser to RM (and not through proper channel of his office NDA, Pune) requested to extend the period of joining in DRDO as Scientist ‘B’ for a period of 2 months. The extended period of joining time expired on 22nd February 2011.
  8. As per the terms & condition of offer of appointment to the post of Scientist ‘B’ in DRDO as well as under the provision of DRDS Rules 1979 and amendments made thereof, the offer of appointment was required to be cancelled when he has failed to adhere to the terms & condition, a offer of appointment.
  9. From the contents of letter dated 3rd February 2011 of Sh. Dharmender Kumar it is  under that he was bypassed the official channel by writing directly to Scientific Adviser to RM, when he has holding the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics) in NDA, where he was supposed to taught lesson overall discipline, including with regards to correspondence, command & control. He has left DRDO and NDA not for the sake of nation, but consideration (refer to para of his letter 3rd February 2011) both the offer being equally lucrative, more ever; the growth prospect and financial incentive were higher in the said venture. He has send the copy of his letter directly to the DOP, DRDO and not to his earlier controlling authority i.e. SPIC, DRDO

It is highly regretted to say that instead of taking any action against him for the acts of subordination, which are subversive of discipline, and cancelling the offer of appointment to the post of Scientist ‘B’ in DRDO, he has been allowed to join the post of Senior Technical Assistant -‘B’ in SPIC, DRDO on 2nd May 2011 and the very next day i.e. 3rd May 2011 itself the DOP processed his case vigorous  speed to evaluate him to join the post of Scientist ‘B’ in DRDO, thus violating the provision of:

a)     Terms & Condition of the offer of appointment letter to the post of Scientist ‘B’

b)     DRDS Rules 1979

c)      Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rule 1964

d)     DHRD,DRDO Letter No DHRD/17050/DIAT/POINTS16/C/M/1 dated 31st March 2011

I would like to request you to kindly consider the above facts and ask the Defence Secretary to conduct a thorough inquiry into cases of misuse, abuse and unauthorized use of office and position of DOP,DRDO by Dr Arun Kumar, Scientist ’H’ Outstanding Scientist,  DRDO Scientist of the Year Award in the year 2008. So that rule of law is allowed to prevail in the organization in a transparent manner.

We all look forward to your statements “Nurture talent, ensure fairness” “fairness at all levels”, but Sir, DRDO’s honest employees are eagerly waiting for implementing your statements, I ensure on behalf of all DRDO’s honest employees if the day this is implemented, the whole nation will see the great output of DRDO.

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. Copy of Sh. Dharmender Kumar vide his letter dated 3rd February 2011
  2. Inputs of DRDO Officials

Copy To

  1. Prime Minister Office 011-23019545 /  23016857
  2. Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, UPA  Fax no.23018651
  3. Scientific Adviser to RM, Room No 531, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi