To Date 13th May 2015 Shri Manohar Parrikar, Defence Minister, Ministry of Defence, Room No -104, South Block New Delhi-110011
Subject
High Level Inquiry on complaints against Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DOP, DRDO HQ, DRDO, Min. of Defence, New Delhi.
Sir,
I have submitted following complaints against Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DOP, DRDO HQ, DRDO, Min. of Defence, New Delhi to Hon’ble Prime Minister as well as to your office. Details of the complaints are given below
As a matter of fact, Dr. A.K. Singh, Scientist ‘G’ is posted in New Delhi since his joining at INMAS, New Delhi since 1988. He is posted at New Delhi continuously since past 27 years and never been transferred out from Delhi.
Being posted as Director (Personnel) at DRDO HQ, Dr. A.K. Singh is misusing his official position to influence the inquiry of complaints filed against him. You may surprise that till date no action has been taken against Dr. A.K. Singh by Ministry of Defence despite my all complaints submitted to PMO were forwarded to MOD by PMO for necessary action.
No action against corrupt officers by competent authority lead frustration in mind of complainant and this forces the complainant to approach to Hon’ble Court by means of PIL to request to Court for action against Corrupt officer(s).
Recently, I was compelled to file one PIL on Corruption cases at DMSRDE, Kanpur against one Dr. A. K. Saxena, while in that case MOD was helpless because DRDO CVO and DRDO Hqrs did not taken any action against Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. The two fact finding committees constituted for only for eye wash.
Sir, you will appreciate that our judiciary is overloaded from court cases and whistle blowers and anti-corruption/RTI activists should not be forced to approach again and again to Hon’ble Court for filing PIL for proper action on complaints.
It is requested kindly, transfer Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (DOP) urgently from DRDO HQ to any other Lab from Life Sciences Cluster and order the High Level Inquiry to investigate my complaints against Dr. A.K. Singh as stated above in speedy and time bound manner.
To Date 27th March 2015 Shri R.K. Mathur Defence Secretary,Secretary, Dte Research & Development (Addl. Charge) &DGR&D, DRDO, Min. of Defence, Room No 101, South Block New Delhi-110011
SUBJECT: CONSTITUTION OF FAIR FACT FINDING INQUIRY COMMITTEE IN CASE OF COMPLAINT AGAINST DR. A.K. SINGH, DIRECTOR, Dte of Personnel (DOP), DRDO HQ
REFERENCE
Complaint dated 14 Nov 2014 submitted to Hon’ble Defence Minister on the 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”.
Letter No. DVS/02/2053/P/63 dated 12 Feb 2015 from Dte of Vigilance & Security, DRDO, Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,New Delhi
Sir,
DRDO HQ is expert in constituting Fact Finding Committees in such a way that the first and final agenda is to any mean give the clean chit to allege officiasl. DRDO Hqrs. having a great track record for this.
Sh Avinash Chander gave clean chit to Dr Arun Kumar, Ex DOP for involved in appointment of of his daughter, Dr W Selvamurthy’s daughter, Sh Bansal’s Daughter, Dr G. Elangovan’s wife etc. After intervention of Ex Defence Minister, Dr run Kumar suspended, facing disciplinary proceeding, his daughter Ms Swati & Mrs T Chandra Banu’s service annulled and rest Ms Geetha & Ms Dolly Bansal’s are in queue. The key person helping in this corrupt practice is Dr A K Singh, DOP, DRDO being staff officer of Dr W Selvamurthy the CC R&D (HR)
Dr V Bhujanga Rao then CC R&D (HR) gave clean chit to Dr A K Maini, E Director LESTEC for giving CRS to Sh Praksh Singh, SAO, LASTEC, but what happened Sh Praksh Singh reinstate and Maini is fighting for his pension till date. The key person helping in this corrupt practice is Dr A K Singh, DOP, DRDO.
Sh Avinash Chader made two Fact Finding Committees to find out Dr A K Saxena’s corrupt practices but only GOD or Dr A K Singh knows the truth. Now we are looking High Court Delhi for revealing the facts of Dr A K Saxena’s, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. The key person helping in this corrupt practice is Dr A K Singh, DOP, DRDO. Dr A K Singh submitted illegal affidavit to CAT Allahabad & High Court Allahabad to support most corrupt DMSRDE Director.
Maj. Gen Ajay Gupta, Director, Vigilance is under pressure of Dr. A K Singh, DOP, DRDO, Hqrs because of Dr. A K Singh, DOP, DRDO, Hqrs aware all earlier co-operations done by Ajay Gupta with ex SA to RM.
It is requested that please see personally the investigation against Dr. A K Singh, DOP, DRDO, Hqrs. As you also aware that Dr. A K Singh role for harass Dr. Gauasal Khan, Sc D and Dr S Majumadar, Sc G in DIPAS. The reputation of DRDO administration is in the stake because of incompetent DOP, court cases are increasing day by day, officials are suffering sundry things like transfer/posting, SC/ST harassment and minority harassment cases are not dealing properly by DOP. After termination of Sh Avinash Chander Dr A K Singh’s illegal activities are down 50% but still your intervention is requested to give relief to DRDO officials from the panic of Dr A K Singh.
Dear friends please go through the parliament question 789 asked by Hon Shri Nishikant Dubey and others regarding DRDO projects. Our Hon Defence Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar answered the question as a same way like Ex defence Minister Sh A K Anthony because both only read the paper supplied by Dr. J.P. Singh, Scientist ‘G’ Director of Parliamentary Affairs. As a matter of fact Dr. J.P. Sigh is highly qualified scientist of DRDO with M.Sc. (Physics), MLISC and Ph.D. but since several years he is posted at DRDO HQ and looking after Parliamentary Affairs in DRDO. Dr. J.P. Singh was promoted as Scientist ‘G’ wef 01 July 2012 and having seniority no. 346 among all Scientist ‘G’ of DRDO as seniority roll as on November 2013, still by superseding all his seniors he was appointed as Director, Dte of Parliamentary Affairs , DRDO HQ with blessings of his God Father.
You all be happy to see the answer same old story repeating since last 15 years friends we have great hope from Shri Manohar Parrikar because he is IIT’ans but without investigating the answer supplied by Dr. J.P. Sigh he state read same way like Sh A K Anthony.
It is requested that to our Defence Minister please see the answers earlier given by Sh A K Anthony on same matter. Also request don’t believe the reply given by Dr. J.P. Sigh some time he also not know the real facts, he only does galvanizing the inputs. We want to see the difference between technical qualified politician with other one. It will the great loss for our country if DRDO incompetent scientists are able to bluff the technical sound person like Parrikar ji.
Shri Sultan Ahmed Ramachandran Shri Krishnan Narayanasamy
Will the Minister of DEFENCE be pleased to state:-
(a) whether several projects of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) are lagging behind schedule and if so, the details thereof and the reasons for delay in completion of these projects, project-wise;
(b) the details of funds required, budget allocated, released and utilized by the DRDO for the purpose during each of the last three years and the current year, project-wise;
(c) the steps taken / being taken by the Government for completion of such projects;
(d) whether DRDO proposes to open Centre of Excellence in the country and if so, the details thereof; and
(e) whether the Government proposes to change the policy relating to the appointment of scientists in DRDO to meet the shortage if so, the details thereof?
ANSWER
MINISTER OF DEFENCE (SHRI MANOHAR PARRIKAR)
(a) & (b): Project-wise details regarding original and revised date of completion, sanctioned cost, expenditure made during last three years and current year along with reasons for delay in completion of major ongoing projects of DRDO is attached at Annexure `A`.
(c): The following corrective/remedial measures have been taken/being taken to complete ongoing projects in-time.
# Consortium approach is being used for design, development and fabrication of critical components
# Three-tier project monitoring approach has been instituted in the major projects.
# Project Monitoring Review Committee (PMRC) and Project Appraisal and Review Committee (PARC) meetings are held regularly to monitor the progress of ongoing projects.
# Concurrent engineering approach has been adopted in technology intensive projects to minimize time-lag between development and productionisation of the systems.
# Information Technology and modern management techniques are being applied.
# Encouraging joint funding by users to ensure their commitment towards earliest completion.
# Promoting synergy and better co-ordination among User Services, DRDO and production agencies through cluster meetings.
(d) Yes, Madam. DRDO has already established seven Centers of Excellence in various disciplines and taken initiative to establish the following four more Centers in the areas of interest to defence.
# Bi-nodal Center of Propulsion Technologies (CoPT) at IIT, Bombay.
# Jagdish Chandra Bose Center for Advanced Technology (JCBCAT) at Jadavpur University, Kolkata.
# Joint Advanced Technology Center (JATC) at IIT, Delhi.
# Center for Advanced Materials & Electromagnetics (CAMEL) at IIT, Jodhpur.
(e) No, Madam. The present policy relating to appointment of scientists in DRDO is functioning effectively. However, there is shortage of scientists in DRDO as there has been no increase of scientific manpower since 2001 while a number of projects have grown multifold in terms of size and technological complexity over the past fifteen years. DRDO has initiated a Cabinet Note for augmentation of manpower by 1316 posts (1260 scientists and 56 works cadre Officers). These are proposed to be filled in phased manner in three recruitment years.
To 20th February 2015
Hon’ble
Shri Manohar Parrikar,
Defence Minister,
Min. of Defence, Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi-110011
SUBJECT
Request for assign scientific work to DR. A.K. SINGH, DIRECTOR, Dte of Personnel (DOP), DRDO HQ so that he could not influence the probe and temper the evidences and not able to protect DRDO’s corrupt officials and also not able to support corrupt DRDO Directors to harass the whistle blowers.
Honourable Sir,
It is requested to sake of DRDO image, productivity, to save money to curtailing in court cases, to protect honest scientists and whistle blowers please reshuffle immediately the DRDO scientists who are involved in non scientific assignments since 10 -15 years and main reason of DRDO’s current non productive image. These incompetent scientists are great example of exemplary carrier growth without doing science in DRDO. Dr. A.K. Singh, Director, Dte of Personnel (DOP), DRDO HQ case is on the top, Dr R K Jain who is the boss of Scientists recruitment centre master mind of pushing all incompetent scientists on the top and country facing tremendous loss in respect of technology development, in respect of wastage in money and he was enjoyed his three consequent out staying promotion without doing science.
Sir, if you ask young real scientists, not incompetent ones, who come through LDCE will certainly going to pin point these two great scientists the main reason behind the downfall of DRDO.
The DRDO is great organisation in term of HR qualification enhancement. There are hundreds of examples where someone joined DRDO as peon/security guard or casual labour or Technician and within five to 10 years year span he become Technical Officer or in some cases scientists.
If you enquire DRDO regarding this kind of example of fake qualifications you will found thousands of degree diploma cases from unrecognised centre without doing study only managed. This is the major reason of DRDO’s corruption, nepotism and above all degradation of DRDO HR quality.
On 15th February 2015 DRDO, RAC conducted the limited departmental examination for scientist ‘B’ post for DRDO’s employees, you will find more than 90% cases candidates not having properly UGC or ACETE or DCE approved degrees. The certificates they enclosed are from recognised universities or institutes but the process of acquiring degrees are totally not recognised as per UGC norms.
And best part is that these two duos (Dr A K Singh & Dr. R K Jain) are the key persons to organise the game plan the application format was designed such a way that the degree acquiring process not able to revealed the ineligibility of candidate..
But interestingly till date they have not found single case only with the help of RTI four high profile cases were exposed resulted two scientists job was annulled and two are under process and Ex Defence Minister approved for CBI inquiry on 14th October 2013 and also given approval for reconsider the DRDO recruitments through UPSC,
Sir, if government is serious about to revamp DRDO and make it productive worth organisation than first thing scarp RAC & CEPTAM immediately. These two bodies are engaged almost more than 25 scientists and number of technical manpower. Both establishments are den of corruption and nepotism. Because of these two establishments DRDO getting third grade manpower.
Main evidence of these establishments working screens the recruitments and promotions and court cases and RTIs which are sufficient to justify the above statement.
I have filed following complaints against Dr. A.K. Singh, Director, Dte of Personnel (DOP), DRDO HQ.
DM letter table 20 feb
In this connection I got Letter No. DVS/02/2053/P/63 dated 12 Feb 2015 from Dte of Vigilance & Security, DRDO, Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi for confirmation to my complaint dated 14 Nov 2014 to Hon’ble Defence Minister (mentioned at sr. no. 4 above). Copy enclosed as Annexure-1 and I sent the confirmation vide letter dated 20 Feb 2015. Copy enclosed as Annexure-2.
Sir, on 25 March 2014 the Supreme Court of India told N. Srinivasan to step down as BCCI president so that a fair investigation may be conducted. The court found it “nauseating” that he should hold on to the post despite various courts censuring him.
On 27th November,2014 the Supreme Court said that N Srinivasan’s conflict of interest was “obvious” as he also owned a team i.e. CSK in the IPL. The court also asked BCCI if it was open to have fresh polls for a new board without N Srinivasan.
Accordingly Mr. N.Srinivasan announced that he was stepping aside from the post of President of the BCCI until the probe was completed ostensibly.
[CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4235 OF 2014 with CIVIL APPEAL NO.4236 OF 2014 and SLP (C) No.34228 of 2014 , Supreme Court Of India]
In the light of the above facts stated above, I kindly request that for fair probe on complaints against Dr. A.K. Singh, Director, DOP, and request assigned him some other scientific assignment as per his credentials so that he could not influence the probe and temper the evidences. Because he always boast up that his father was great police officer and that’s why I have able to retain bungalow at 14-B, Mother Teresa Crescent, New Delhi-110011 along with ministers. He also protects corrupt DRDO officials and supports them in lodging false FIR against the whistle blowers.
As Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO HQ, New Delhi using his position to harass number of DRDO scientists like
Dr Gausal Azam Kahn, Sc ‘D’, DIPAS on the demand of his sister Dr Sahshi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS He cooked false charge sheet against him who was joined DRDO direct Scientist D in DRDO NRI scheme,
Sh N P Gupta, Sc ‘C’, DMSRDE a computer science background scientist thrown to Life Science Lab, DRL, Tezpur just because to protect corrupt Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE,
Sh D Muthuraja, Scientist E was shunted to ACME Nashik without work as he did complaint against the wrong deeds of Sh Guruprasad, Director, R&D Eng. of making Rath in R&D premises without any fear and wasted precious poor tax payers money and DRDO manpower (two parliamentarian already raised question in zero hour on 18th December 2014)
As per sources you might be received answer from Sh Guru Parsad , Director, R&D Eng., DRDO, Pune the bullock story “making of Rath was not just devotional activity but also interesting technical task. Apart from saving bullock burden”
On last August DRDO award ceremony our Prime Minister mentioned to DRDO scientist please do something to reduce weight of our soldiers uniform like light weight shoes etc. That time our PM not aware of DRDO’s kind hearted scientists who already spent 5 corers Rs to saving bullock burden.
Dr A K Singh gave his all administrative supports to harass above scientists, Sir there are 100 of cases available their Dr A K Singh supporting Lab directors in ACR/APAR cases, promotions cases specially in minorities etc, Sir, It is requested please ask the total amount spend by DRDO in various court cases like CATs/District Courts/High courts and Supreme Court in Dr A K Singh tenure it is self explanatory of his administrative capability and degrading HR quality and image of DRDO.
Reference: You’re Letter No. DVS/02/2053/P/63 dated 12 Feb 2015
Sir,
I, Prabhu Dandriyal, resident of 21- Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008 confirm and verify that the complaint dated 14 Nov 2014 addressed to Hon’ble Defence Minister on the 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 ” was made by me with my signature.
Hope that authorities will take appropriate timely action on subject matter. As Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO HQ, New Delhi using his position to harass number of DRDO scientists like Dr Gausal Azam Kahn, Sc ‘D’, DIPAS on the demand of his sister Dr Sahshi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS and Sh N P Gupta, Sc ‘C’, DMSRDE to protect corrupt Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE and lot
Regards
(Prabhu Dandriyal)
21- Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
E-Mail- prabhudoon@gmail.com, Web www.corruptionindrdo.comLetter of Shri R.S.Mehta, Joint Director, Vigilance & Security, DRDO, New Delhi
To 14th November 2014
Hon’ble
Shri Manohar Parrikar,
Defence Minister,
Room No -104, South Block,
New Delhi-110011
SUBJECT: Breach of trust, criminal misconduct and gross violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 to misguide Hon’ble Defence Minister by Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel) , DRDO HQ, New Delhi.
Hon’ble Sir,
I would like to draw your kind attention towards mischievous acts of Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO HQ who is Scientist ‘G’ belonging to Life Sciences discipline. Though renowned Nuclear Medicine Scientist he is posted in Directorate related to HR like Staff Officer to CCR&D, Director, CEPTAM, DHRD and DOP since the year 2004. He has no knowledge and understanding of HR, Government Rules and Government Orders rather he is expert in manipulation of rules short term gains. Former Hon’ble Defence Minister, himself a renowned lawyer of India was mislead by Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO resulted day by several court cases against DRDO in various courts across the country. Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO is solely responsible for humiliation to DRDO, waste expenditure of public money and trouble to innocent scientists and employees of DRDO.
Due to this DRDO derailed from real task i.e. development of weapon technologies and most of top senior officials busy to tackle court cases and country’s precious time wasted on court formalities and height of this is CC (R&D) HR, DRDO fighting to save himself from jail punishment and wasting poor taxpayers money by engaging 4 top lawyers.
Hon’ble Sir, being an honest and simple person you are traveling in economy class to save public money but senior scientists of DRDO including Dr. A.K. Singh are enjoying business class travel and collecting flying points for family members.
Brief Facts of the Case
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mere reading of the provisions of said OM dated 19.05.1993 stipulates that:
If he has become a permanent Government servant, an inquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be held.
if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service.
In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed.
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:
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.
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.
In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed.
To annul the appointment is totally illegal as there is no such provision to annul the appointment in CCS(CCA) Rules 1965.
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.
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.
Whole exercise and conspiracy was planned by Dr. A. K. Singh , DOP to patronage and protect the interest of Ms. Swati Srivastava , Scientist ‘C’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
(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.
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.
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 IndiaDepartment of Personnel and TrainingEstablishment (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”.
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.
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.
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]
To
Hon’ble
Shri Narendra Modi
Prime Minister of India
PMO, South Block
New Delhi-110011
Subject: Scraps the promotions for Scientist ‘F’ to Scientist ‘G’ in DRDO year 2011
Hon’ble Sir,
Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) is an organisation under MOD having annual budget of Rs. 15000 crore for FY 2014-2015. This organisation is having about 7500 scientists under DRDS cadre who are comprising of more than 50 scientific disciplines and working in their respective area based on his qualification and discipline.
Prior to the formation of the Recruitment & Assessment Centre(RAC) in DRDO the recruitments and promotions of scientists in DRDO were made by UPSC. Later on Government of India allowed DRDO to have its own recruitment & assessment body for recruitment and assessment of scientists under DRDS cadre. Consequently an in-house Recruitment & Assessment Centre (RAC) was created in DRDO in 90’s. RAC conducts recruitment of scientists in DRDO and assessment of scientists for promotion from the grade of Scientist ‘B’ to Scientist ‘H’.
All scientists of DRDO comes under the Defence Research & Development Services(DRDS) cadre and under the provisions of Article 309 of Constitution of India, Government of India framed The Defence Research & Development Service Rules 1979 (DRDS Rules 1979) as Recruitment & Promotion Rules for DRDS cadre.
DOPT, GOI framed Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) for faster promotions of scientists working in all S&T Department/Organisations under Central Government. Consequently from past 35 years DOPT issued various OM & Notifications for FCS from IIIrd CPC to VIth CPC.
The OM No. 2/41/97-PICdated 9th Nov 1998 and OM No. AB-1401713712008-Estt(RR)dated 10th September, 2010issued by DOPT are umbrella notifications for FCS.
Vide SRO 11(E) dated 10th August 1990, FCS was introduced in DRDS Rules 1979 and under the provisions of Rule 8(2)(a) of DRDS Rules 1979 it clearly mentioned that promotions from the rank Scientist ‘B’ to Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist) are covered under the FCS. Copy of the Rule 8(2)(a) is annexed as Annexure-1.
In DRDO scientists are recruited based on the requirement of various Lab/Estt which were sent to RAC through DRDO HQ and then RAC recruits the scientists based on their discipline, qualifications, experience and other requirement as sought by Labs/Estt of DRDO.
Under the provisions of OM No.AB-1401713712008-Estt(RR) dated 10th September, 2010of DOPT the promotions under FCS are applicable to the scientist who are working in S&T organisation/department and involved in Scientific &Technological work. Scientists/ Technical experts doing management/ administrative work in the Ministries should not be considered for up gradation under FCS, they should only be given benefit of up gradation under MACP. Copy of page no. 06 of the OM annexed as Annexure-2.
Procedure of promotion from grade of Scientist ‘F’ to Scientist ‘G’ till 2010 were followed as provided under Rule 8(2)(a) of DRDS Rules 1979 and the same procedure supposed to be followed in 2011 for promotions from grade of Scientist ‘F’ to Scientist ‘G’but the RAC, DRDO adopted the new procedure illegally without amending the DRDS Rules 1979 by issuing SRO under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution.
DRDS Rules 1979 clearly stipulates that DRDS Rules can be amended only by issuing an SRO under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. DRDO violated the Article 309 by implementing interview/interaction in promotion of scientist ‘F’ to scientist ‘G’ grade in 2011 without proper amendment in SRO.
In this matter Dr. A.K. Singh, Scientist ‘G’ (then Director, DHRD) issued letter No. DHRD/76145/C/M/01 dated 21 March 2011 on the Subject ” Assessment of Sc ‘F’ for promotion- revised procedure of” to Director, RAC. Copy of the letter dated 21 March 2011 is annexed as Annexure-3.
Dr. A.K. Singh issued the said letter illegally without issuing of any SRO in the subject matter as in the year 2011 Dr. A.K. Singh himself was appearing in assessment as candidate for promotion from grade of Scientist ‘F’ to Scientist ‘G’ and wanted to be get benefitted by the said new procedure for assessment.
Based upon the letter of Dr. A.K. Singh dated 21 March 2011, Dr. P.S. Goel, then Chairman, RAC issued his DO letter No. RAC/01/Assessment/PSG, dated 22 March 2011 regarding “Promotions for grade of Scientist ‘F’ to Scientist ‘G”. Copy of the letter dated 22 March 2011 is annexed as Annexure-4.[How quickly the letter by Dr. P.S. Goel was issued on 22 March 2011, this establish planned conspiracy]
Dr. P. S. Goel and Dr. A.K. Singh planned whole conspiracy of the said illegal assessment in the year 2011 in DRDO with help of then Dr. V.K. Saraswat then DGR&D, DRDO.
Dr. P.S. Goel introduced this illegal mechanism to give favour to few incompetent DRDO scientists and for this act in return he got Prof. MGKMenon Chair, RCI, Hyderabad which fed him 84 lakhs per year. It is pure kick back or DRDO should provethe justification of his appointment. Dr. A.K. Singh himself promoted in the year 2011 by misusing this illegal mechanism for assessment in the year 2011.
There was noassessment interview requirement for promotion from scientist ‘F’ to scientist ‘G’ as per the DRDO service rule-1979-Rule-8(2)(e) till 2011 , but Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC) of DRDO forwarded name before promotion committee after “ INTERACTION ’’ .
The SRO No. 21 for the amending DRDS Rules 1979 was published in official gazette of Government of India on 23 March 2012. Copy of the SRO 21 dated 23 March 2012 is annexed as Annexure-5.
The list of Scientist ‘F’ that were illegally promoted to Scientist ‘G’in the year 2011 is annexed asAnnexure-6.
Sir , all these promotion from grade of scientist ‘F’ to scientist ‘G’ in the year 2011 were illegal and liable to be scrapped as it amounts corruption , nepotism and misuse of power for personal gain by Dr. A.K. Singh being Director, DHRD who issued illegal letter dated 21 March 2011.Therefore promotion of Dr. A.K. Singh, Scientist ‘G’ , Director of Personnel should be quashed/scrapped and through investigation in the matter may be ordered to give justice to the all affected Scientist ‘F’ of DRDO and fix the accountability of the corrupt culprits in the matter.
To Date 16th October 2014Hon’bleShri 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.
