To 28 May 2014
Sh Subandhu Basu,
US (SM-I), CPIO,
Room no. 23, North Block,
New Delh -110001
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Recent Supreme Court Judgment dated 9 January 2014 on CIVIL APPEAL NO. 192 of 2014
Major General H.M. Singh, VSM- AppellantVersusUnion of India and Anr.- Respondents
The proceedings recorded by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet while rejecting the appellants claim for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General are also being set out below:
Point No 8. The orders issued by the Department of Personnel and Training lay down that while extension could be granted in exceptional circumstances, there can be no promotion during the period of such extension. These orders apply to the civilian establishment. The instructions which apply to the Defence forces permit extension in service only if the exigencies so demand. DRDO is mainly civilian, and the Rules, as mentioned above, do not permit promotion on extension.
Please provide the copy orders of Department of Personnel and Training rules related to extension of civilian establishment beyond the service of 60 years
Please provide the orders of Department of Personnel and Training rules related to extension of civilian establishment beyond the service of 62 years
Please provide the copy of above mentioned issued orders of Department of Personnel and Training rules related to extension “there can be no promotion during the period of such extension.”
Nikki Hailey,
Governor, South Carolina; Shri Avinash Chander, SA to
RM, Secretary, Department of Defence R&D and DG,
DRDO; Ms Nirupama Rao, Indian Ambassador in US;
Dr John Holdren, Senior Adviser to the US President
on S&T; Ron Somers, President USIBC; Dr A Didar
Singh, Secretary General, FICCI; Ms Faye Crowe,
CEO, Crowe & Co; Shri S Sundaresh, DS and CC R&D
(ACE&SI), DRDO; Shri S Radhakrishnan, Director,
Industry Interface and Technology Management (IITM),
DRDO; Shri KVR Murty, IFA, R&D; Dr SN Asthana and
Dr Rennie M Roy.
US Firm Signs Pact to Acquire DRDO’S Technology for Explosive Detection Kit
A USA based firm Crowe & Company, LLC has entered into a licensing agreement with DRDO to acquire the technology of Explosive Detection Kit developed by the High Energy Material Research Lab (HEMRL), Pune, one of the constituent laboratories of DRDO. An MoU to the effect was signed by Dr. Subhananda Rao, Director HEMRL on behalf of DRDO, and Ms. Faye Crowe, President, Crowe & Company, LLC, USA here today.
HEMRL has developed the kit for quick detection and identification of explosives that can detect and identify explosives based on any combination of nitro esters, nitramines, trinitrotoluene (TNT), dynamite or black powder. The testing requires only 3 to 5 mg of suspected sample and only 3 or 4 drops of reagents. The explosive detection kit comes packed in a box the size of a vanity case and in miniature vials that can be kept in shirt pockets. It contains reagents capable of detecting explosives, even in extremely small, trace quantities.
Crowe & Company had approached FICCI under DRDO-FICCI, ATAC programme to enter into MoU for licensing agreement with DRDO for the said technology. In the past FICCI has also facilitated a similar kind of licensing agreement for explosive detection kit between DRDO an Indian company, named, Vantage Integrated Security Solutions (P) Ltd. The DRDO – FICCI Accelerated Technology Assessment & Commercialisation (ATAC) programme is a unique initiative that aims for commercialisation of cutting edge technologies developed by various labs of DRDO for civilian applications.
Speaking on the occasion Dr. Prahlada, Distinguished Scientist & Chief Controller R&D (Aeronautics & Services Interaction), DRDO, the key architect of DRDO-FICCI ATAC initiative, said “the ATAC programme has achieved a major milestone with the US Company taking DRDO technology for use by US homeland security and for international markets.” Dr Prahlada further said that the present technology can also be helpful to control illegal trafficking of the explosive materials as it can equally detect and identify explosive materials in the pre- and post-blast scenarios.
Mr S. Sundaresh, Distinguished Scientist & Chief Controller R&D (Armaments & Combat Engg.) stated that the technology is very effective and is in use by Indian security forces and would now help the international community also. Speaking on the occasion Dr. Subhananda Rao, Distinguished Scientist & Director HEMRL, Pune informed that through the explosive detection kit, the security forces can instantly identify the explosive that was used for the detonation in the aftermath of a blast. They just have to take a sample of the residues from the scene of the crime and test it against the chemicals given in the kit. The change in colour tells them if the explosive used is RDX, TNT, PETN or any other chemical. Highlighting the features of the technology Mr S. Radhakrishnan, Director, DIITM, DRDO informed that the present technology is being widely used by the bomb detection squads of the Indian Army, paramilitary and police in Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Mr Radhakrishnan further informed that the present licensing agreement with M/s Crowe & Company is a major milestone and it also signifies DRDO solution for a global problem.
Ms Faye Crowe, President of Crowe & Company said that after getting the necessary approvals from the US regulatory institutions they are planning to introduce the explosive detection kit to the US army and US homeland security forces and in other international markets.
On the occasion of the signing of MoU, Mr Nirankar Saxena Director, FICCI said that he was delighted to see DRDO technology entering into the international domain for addressing one of the major concerns related to homeland security.
The Punjab Technical University (PTU) has been restrained by the Delhi High Court from admitting students in its distance education programme courses till IGNOU accords approval on the issue for the current academic year.
A bench of Chief Justice D Murugesan and Justice V K Jain told ”We direct the second respondent university not to admit any student pursuant to the advertisement made on December 3, 2012 without specific approval from respondent No. 6 Distance Education Council of IGNOU.”
The court’s order came on a petition filed by one Tilak Singh, a resident of Delhi, alleging that the University was inviting applications despite the fact that it’s plea for extension for running the distance education programme courses was pending with IGNOU.
“Vide communication dated October 12, 2012, the Distance Education Council (of IGNOU) has also directed the Punjab Technical University not to admit any student till the application for extension/approval of recognition is pending.
“In spite of the above communication, it appears that the University in question has published advertisement…Calling for applications of the students. Now, in our opinion, in the absence of of any recognition or approval, the University cannot make any admission and that too when the it has been specifically told by the Council concerned that the students should not be admitted,” the court said.
The court has asked the PTU and others to file their responses to the petition and fixed the matter for hearing on March 11.
During the hearing, the counsel for Singh said the PTU was playing with the career of lakhs of students and have duped them to the tune of crores of rupees
A DRDO employee, sacked on the grounds that he was a perpetual troublemaker after blowing the lid off alleged irregularities in the recruitment procedure, has sought protection from the Central Vigilance Commission ( CVC) claiming he was harassed for being a whistleblower.
The CVC had sought response from the defence ministry’s vigilance wing before taking any action on the complaint filed by Prakash Singh, an administrative officer, who has been at loggerheads with the DRDO for some time now.
Singh was forced to go on premature retirement last year for alleging that his boss A. K. Maini had indulged in malpractices in the recruitment process. He had forwarded the complaint to the CBI. The DRDO claimed that Singh was sacked because the allegation levelled by him was baseless and caused embarrassment to the organisation and defamation to his senior. It also said the officer had “ acquired a habit of complaining against his colleagues, superior officers and other agencies like DCDA.” The other charge against Singh was that “ he had been involved in creating problem to the organisation by the hostile attitude towards his colleagues and officers that shows, he has not been performing his duties with the requisite quality”. In its reply to the CVC, the defence ministry said that Singh has sought defence minister A. K Antony’s intervention for getting reinstated.
It also said that allegations made by Singh about a scam in the recruitment exercise were being investigated by a high level committee in DRDO on the direction of the defence ministry.
The defence ministry has instructed DRDO to submit its report within a month.
The officer had complained to the CBI against some officers occupying key positions in the defence scientific establishment claiming irregularities in recruitment. But his identity was disclosed after the CBI referred his complaint to the DRDO’s vigilance wing.
Singh had approached the CVC earlier this year seeking protection under Whistleblower Resolution. The CVC on March 18 sought response from the vigilance wing of the defence ministry which came up with the reply on April 25.
DRDO employee sacked after blowing lid off alleged irregularity in recruitment procedure
‘ BASELESS’ ALLEGATIONS
The DRDO claimed that Prakash Singh was sacked because the allegation levelled by him was baseless and caused embarrassment to the organisation and defamation to his senior
Singh has sought defence minister A. K. Antony’s intervention for getting reinstated
High- level committee in the DRDO, on the direction of the defence ministry, will investigate the allegations made by Singh
Posted By M.Sreedhar On November 3rd, 2012 08:52 PM | General News HYDERABADDAILYNEWS.COM
The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on Thursday took the unprecedented action of sacking an officer who claimed to be a whistleblower . Senior administrative officer Prakash Singh, posted at the Defence Science Centre at Metcalfe House in North Delhi, was served with compulsory retirement order.
Singh was due to retire on December 31, 2023. But a DRDO team visited his house at Timarpur and pasted the retirement notice on the wall. Sources said Singh, who had taken leave from work on medical grounds, was not at home at that time.
Singh plans to challenge the move in court. He claimed the action against him was taken by officiating DRDO head H. Selvamurthy in the absence of scientific advisor to the Defence Minister, V.K. Saraswat, who is on leave.
Serving compulsory retirement notice is the harshest punishment that can be given to a government servant.
DRDO sources said the action was taken strictly in adherence to the government rules. The administrative officer is responsible for the functioning of a laboratory, but Singh had remained absent from work for two years in his previous assignments, they alleged.
The sources said Singh had a history of non-performance and trouble making. He had made complaints against his seniors in the past which were found to be false, they added.
However, reliable sources said Singh was ‘punished’ for highlighting widespread corruption in DRDO. The officer had filed a complaint with the CBI against three senior functionaries: Manas Kumar Mandal (director, institute of psychological research), Dr Anil Kumar Maini (director, Laster Science and Technology Centre) and Dr Arun Kumar (director, personnel, at the headquarters). The CBI referred his complaint to the vigilance department of DRDO.
One of these officers – Arun Kumar – was indicted in a recruitment scam by the Central Vigilance Commission that recommended penalty against him in August. But the DRDO inquiry dismissed the charges of irregularities levelled against the three officials and recommended disciplinary action against Singh for making false complaints.
By GAUTAM DATT PUBLISHED: 20:51 GMT, 2 November 2012 Mail Today
The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on Thursday took the unprecedented action of sacking an officer who claimed to be a whistleblower.
Senior administrative officer Prakash Singh, posted at the Defence Science Centre at Metcalfe House in North Delhi, was served with compulsory retirement order.
Singh was due to retire on December 31, 2023. But a DRDO team visited his house at Timarpur and pasted the retirement notice on the wall. Sources said Singh, who had taken leave from work on medical grounds, was not at home at that time. Singh plans to challenge the move in court.
Building of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) office in New Delhi, India
He claimed the action against him was taken by officiating DRDO head H. Selvamurthy in the absence of scientific advisor to the defence minister, V.K. Saraswat, who is on leave.
Serving compulsory retirement notice is the harshest punishment that can be given to a government servant. DRDO sources said the action was taken strictly in adherence to the government rules.
The administrative officer is responsible for the functioning of a laboratory, but Singh had remained absent from work for two years in his previous assignments, they alleged.
The sources said Singh had a history of non-performance and trouble making.
He had made complaints against his seniors in the past which were found to be false, they added.
However, reliable sources said Singh was ‘punished’ for highlighting widespread corruption in DRDO.
The officer had filed a complaint with the CBI against three senior functionaries: Manas Kumar Mandal (director, institute of psychological research), Dr Anil Kumar Maini (director, Laster Science and Technology Centre) and Dr Arun Kumar (director, personnel, at the headquarters).
The CBI referred his complaint to the vigilance department of DRDO. One of these officers – Arun Kumar – was indicted in a recruitment scam by the Central Vigilance Commission that recommended penalty against him in August.
But the DRDO inquiry dismissed the charges of irregularities levelled against the three officials and recommended disciplinary action against Singh for making false complaints.
NEW DELHI: Defence minister A K Antony had better come up with a “reasonable excuse” for waking up to corruption allegations in the Tatra deal two years after they had been brought to his notice. For, he would otherwise be liable for a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment up to six months.
The belated registration on Friday of a CBI case related to Tatra indicates Antony violated a legal duty when the bribery allegations had first been brought to his notice in writing by his party colleague Ghulam Nabi Azad in 2009 and then verbally by Army chief Gen V K Singh in 2010.
His prolonged failure to take action on the issue till it came out in the open flies in the face of the duty cast on “every person” by Section 39 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
When anybody becomes “aware of the commission of or of the intention of any other person to commit” any of the range of offences listed in Section 39 CrPC, he “shall … forthwith give information” to the nearest magistrate or police officer of “such commission or intention”.
The offences which every person is thus required to report immediately include those related to “illegal gratification”, which come under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Violations of Section 39 CrPC are punishable under Section 176 of the IPC, which prescribes a maximum six months is jail. It penalizes whoever is “legally bound” to give any information relating to “the commission of an offence or… for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence”.
The only loophole available to Antony is to cite some “reasonable excuse” for his failure to refer the Tatra issue immediately to the CBI. But then, Section 39 CrPC is so stringently worded that it casts a “burden” on the person concerned to prove the reasonableness of his excuse for not performing his duty.
It is doubtful whether Antony can cite the absence of written complaint by Singh as a “reasonable excuse” for not acting promptly. The Army chief, too, is liable under Section 39 CrPC for assuming he can leave it to Antony to initiate the legal process. Since the law requires him to report the matter, he cannot cite his communication to his superior as a “reasonable excuse”.
