Tag Archives: South Block

Drdo

Each Directors of DRDO Labs is King/ Queen of Small Kingdom

27 Comments
To                                                                                            17th November 2014
Hon’ble
Shri Manohar Parrikar,
Defence Minister,
Room No -104, South Block,
New Delhi-110011

 

SUBJECT:  DRDO Directors running DRDO Labs as their Dynasty 

Sir,

It appears that Dr. Shashi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS, DRDO running Lab as her dynasty.

“Each Directors of DRDO Labs is King/ Queen of Small Kingdom”

Dr Gausal Azam Khan, young energetic life sciences scientist’s research paper was selected for “Developing World Scientist Award” by XXIII Congress of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemotasis, Kyoto, Japan.(July 23-28, 2014)

As per DRDO procedure Dr Khan submitted all required documents and requested to allow him to attend above conference well in advance.

However, he was discriminated being a minority because and has not been allowed to attend conference, Dr. Shashi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS till date not furnished any logical /acceptable reason for denial.

Last movement a senior scientist who was very well understand the DRDO culture advised

Dr Khan who was joined DRDO direct scientist ‘D’ via NRI scheme in 2009 and does not aware the DRDO flattery culture only believes in research  but in last movement a senior scientist who was very well understand the DRDO culture advised to make it personal visit and get NOC.

The advised worked and Dr Khan got NOC and he went Japan.

Dr. Shashi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS took it personally and by unconstitutionally without taking consent from competent authority i.e DG, DRDO she wrote email to organization committee and inquired unethical manner regarding Dr Khan’s where about, when he reached, where he stays, what he received award/finance etc.

Is very shame to DRDO that Dr. Shashi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS was spread a message to all international research family that there are no harmony/ understanding/ team spirit/good faith among the DRDO scientists.

Following enclosed emails from Dr. Shashi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS to executive director of organizing committee speaks a volume.

  1. Whether GOI/ DRDO Hqrs permit any director to write such mails/letter to ask individual’s personal where about, when he was in personal capacity visit.

In case of Dr Khan when he applied official he was denied means for DRDO matter closed. It attracts penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy.

  1. Whether GOI/DRDO hrqs allow to directors who are demoralizing the young scientists, other hand the government asked DRDO “What DRDO is doing to make quality scientific manpower pool larger then what is available, to make it much more competent and qualitative, and what kind of facilities and infrastructure DRDO provide to scientific community including their pay and facilities, other things? (CC R&D, HR).
  2. A board has recommended Dr GA Khan entry in DRDO as Scientist ‘D’ in NRI scheme, being a dedicated and hard working scientist, he has made his own space in the field, recognize internationally. Instead of encouraging such manpower DRDO Hqrs appears to discriminate the scientist on the basis of cast & creed by backing the Dr. Shashi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS.

Sir, it is requested to find out, whether Dr. Shashi Bala Singh  Director, DIPAS could obtain permission from Sh Avinash Chander, DG, DRDO to write such emails which reflects the mistrust among the colleagues and spying of own scientist. This act of shame is being talked with different; they surprised to see the downfall of DRDO scientific culture.

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

 

Enclosed – Emails of Dr. Shashi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS written to organization committee of XXIII Congress of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemotasis, Kyoto, Japan.(July 23-28, 2014)

email 1 Dr Shahsi Bala Singh

 

email Dr Shahsi Bala Singh

 

email Dr Shahsi Bala Singh2

email Dr Shahsi Bala Singh21

 

 

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

Extensions without approval of ACC should be cancelled immediately

7 Comments
To                                                                                                         10th November 2014
Honorable Sh Narendra Modi,
Prime Minister,
Room No -152, PMO,
South Block,
New Delhi -110011

 

Subject: Extension of service after age of 60 years.

Sir,

Recently DOP&T published an OM F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014 Sub: Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.

In Para 1 of above  – The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.

In Para 4 of above –  It is also reiterated that in absence of specific approval of ACC towards extension of his services beyond the date of superannuation, an officer should stand retired on his date of superannuation and under no circumstances should the Ministry/Department concerned extend his services beyond superannuation unilaterally without the approval & ACC.

Sir, with reference to above OM it is clear that ACC has observed that in some cases officials/scientists got service extensions without first obtaining approval of the ACC, and after straight order no one is retired on his date of superannuation.

It shows that system is having still few strong manipulators who are protecting individuals and putting some weird excuses so that above order is not executed after 46 days. It is really very astonishing facts that after your strong message some of rotten minded officials are not working in the national interest.

On 31st October 2014 evening when DRDO & DAE people got message that you have not granted extensions to scientists after series of recommendations of their so called superiors, they welcomed your decision and distributed sweets and celebrated the closing of extension era.

To maintain their spirit and boosting their moral it is requested that weed out those few officials from your system who are the obstacle of our country’s development and execute the above DOP&T OM urgently.

The cases of extensions without approval of ACC should be cancelled immediately and these scientists should be superannuated with effect from the date they got extension.

Regards

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

Snow & Avalanche Study Estt (SASE), DRDO’s corruption input

3 Comments
To                                                                                                          6th November 2014
Honorable Sh Narendra Modi
Prime Minister
Room No -152, PMO
South Block
New Delhi -110011
 

Subject: Snow & Avalanche Study Estt (SASE), DRDO’s corruption input

Sir,

DRDO is totally in grip of corruption, although day by day actions by government improving the scenario but the roots are very deepen because since last 20 years it is flourished and embedded in system.

Snow & Avalanche Study Estt (SASE), Chandigarh is not spare with this corruption habits.

The case of construction of Plinths for prefab housing – 6 NOS and Septic Tanks -6 Nos Vide Supply Order No. MPG/SO/2012-13/8239/130/GEN DATED 19 NOV 2012 3575000/- (Limited Tender) is perfect example of corruption prevailing in SASE, DRDO.

The order was given to M/S ASHIQ HUSSAIN AND CO. POST BOX NO. 27, HEAD POST OFFICE, ANANTNAG, J & K- 192101 for various locations i.e. Z Gali, Baraf, Pharkiyan & Cheema.

As per assigned work given for four outer walls with foundation details, but no foundation was made, walls simply made on a simple plate form? Very Risky, can fail under small snow loads, Plinth Band not made, no foundation were made for intermediate plinth beams

DRDO senior scientists are not serious about their assigned work, their main attention to minting funds with various means, they even not worried about the jwans/ labors life that any accident can happened in heavy snowfall, one such incidents was already happen in Harsil, Uttarkhand, but incident was suppressed because of remote destination.

Along with supply order all drawings are enclosed herewith for your investigation and your personal attention can changed the rotten system, a single strong action from PMO is required on corruption issues of DRDO.  Because recently your strong action towards service extension business given light of hope that one day our premier defence  organization will become real productive.

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

 Enclosed

  1. Copy of supply order
  2. Drawings details
  3. sase work2

SASE work1

 

sase work3

sase work4

 

sase work5

Drdo

RTI-PMO- Sh Avinash Chander, DG, DRDO, Secretary, DRD, SA to RM

6 Comments

To                                                                       2nd November 2014
Shri Syed Ekram Rizwi,
CPIO, PMO,
South Block,
New Delhi – 110011

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Rule 4 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 – “Employment of near relatives of Govt. servants in companies or firms”, GOI [MHA OM No. 25/43/55-Ests.(A), dated 19.01.1956] – “ Propriety of sons and near relatives of Class I (now Group A) officers seeking employment in private firms which enjoy Government patronage” and GOI [MHA OM No. 24/43/56-Ests.(A), dated 26.05.1957] – Awarding of contract to a firm in which son/daughter/dependent of an officer is employed.

Shri Avinash Chander is holding the post of Secretary, DRD since 31 May 2013.
PMO is custodian of information related to Secretary of all Ministries/Department.
kindly provide following information under Section 6(1) of RTI Act.

1. Whether son/daughter/wife of Shri Avinash Chander is proprietor, partner, shareholder or employee of the any company, firm or business group that deals with any procurement /supply /fabrication/business/contracts related activity in any Establishment/Unit/Lab of DRDO. (Yes/No)
2. If answer to point(1) is Yes then provide the following details:
i. Relation with family member (son/daughter/wife)
ii. Name & address of family member/dependent
iii. Name of Company/Firm/Business Group with address
iv. Relation with Company/Firm – Proprietor /Partner /Shareholder or Employee
v. Stake in Company/Firm of the family member in case partner or shareholder
3. If answer to point(1) is Yes then provide the following details regarding contracts awarded/Supply Orders issued by DRDO to that company/firm during the years 2010 -2014
i. Total cost of contracts awarded/supply orders issued to that company/firm
ii. Total number of contracts awarded/supply order issued to that company/firm
4. If answer to point(1) is Yes then whether Shri Avinash Chander declared the facts and desist himself from the dealing of the case while award of contract/supply order or exercise patronage in favour of the company/firm as required under Rules 4 of CCS(Conducts) Rule 1964. (Yes/No)
5. If answer to point (4) is Yes then provide the copies of declarations submitted by Shri Avinash Chander to DRDO/MOD/Government of India
6. .Whether Shri Avinash Chander intimated to Government under provisions of Rule 4 of CCS (Conducts) Rules, 1964 regarding acceptance of employment of his son/daughter/dependent in the company/firm that has official dealing with DRDO. (Yes/No)
7. If answer to point (6) is Yes then provide copy of intimation regarding acceptance of employment by son/daughter/dependent under the provisions of Rule 4 of CCS (Conducts) Rules, 1964.

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

Registration Number PMOIN/R/2014/61523

Drdo

Sh Avinash Chander is not interested to take any action on DMSRDE corruption cases

7 Comments
To                                                                                                        1st  November 2014
Hon’ble
Shri Arun Jaitly,
Raksha Mantri,
Room No 104, South Block,
New Delhi-110011

 

SUBJECT:  Sh Avinash Chander is not interested to take any action on DMSRDE corruption cases.

Sir,

I would like to draw your kind attention towards corruption in tunes of crores at Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur, an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Ministry of Defence, Government of India.

Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena was appointed as Scientist ‘C’ on 28.04.1984 in DMSRDE, Kanpur and since then he is continuously posted at DMSRDE, Kanpur since last 30 years. He has not been transferred even for a day from Kanpur and since the date of his posting he is working at Kanpur.  The roots of the Dr. Saxena while working at DMSRDE, Kanpur has become so deep that he was involved in various activities involving the financial & other administrative irregularities.

Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Scientist ‘G’ was appointed as Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur wef 01 January 2011. In spite of the fact that he has been involved in various financial and administrative irregularities , Dr. Saxena was  promoted to the rank of Scientist ‘H’ wef 02 August 2012 and since then he is  holding the rank of Scientist ‘H’ and working as Director, DMSRDE.

The right from his appointment as Director, he was involved in various kinds of administrative & financial irregularities that lead corruption in tunes of crores. Several complaints were made against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena to then Defence Minister by some scientists of DMSRDE.

Being a RTI activist and social worker running a website corruptionindrdo.com to expose the corruption in DRDO, also made as far as 12 complaints regarding corruption in procurements of various instruments & materials etc in DMSRDE by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE to CVC, Hon’ble Defence Minister and DGR&D, DRDO. These complaints were filed during 29 Nov 2013 to 11 June 2014. Total cost of store items procured against which complaints were filed is about Rs. 7.5 crore. A complete list of complaints filed by me to CVC and Hon’ble Defence Minister is annexed as Annexure No. -1.

All the aforesaid complaints made have been endorsed by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). CVC has taken cognizance of aforesaid complaints and registered on prima facia.  These complaints have been forwarded to Chief Vigilance Office (CVO), Ministry of Defence for further enquiry/investigation of the aforesaid complaints. Under the provisions of RTI Act 2005 the CPIO, CVC vide letter no. CVC/RTI/13/1862/241925 dated 18.03.2014 informed to me that his complaints have been forwarded to CVO (MOD) for investigation.

Under RTI Act, CPIO, CVO MOD informed that all complaints have been forwarded to Director, Vigilance & Security, DRDO for further inquiry and asked the consolidated report from DRDO vide their letter dated 04 August 2014.

Meantime, A FFIC was constituted by Shri Avinash Chander, DG, DRDO to inquire the complaints against Dr. Saxena. The Fact Finding Inquiry Committee visited DMSRDE, Kanpur on 13th – 14th, March 2014 for inquiry on the complaint submitted against Dr. Saxena. The said committee submitted its report to Shri Avinash Chander but no action taken by DRDO against Dr. Saxena, Director.

It is very surprising and interesting that Shri Avinash Chander again set up another four members Fact Finding Inquiry Committee  under chairmanship of Dr. D.C. Pandey, Scientist ‘H’ LRDE and three members Sri Hari Babu Srivastava, Scientist ‘G’, Director, LASTECH, Sri Jagdeep, Scientist ‘F’ and Sri R.S. Mehta, Joint Director. The said committee visited DMSRDE, Kanpur recently on 9-10 July 2014. Therefore constitution of two FFIC by Shri Avinash Chander establishes that there were complaints against Dr. Saxena but to give him patronage and support the Shri Avinash Chander set up illegal FFIC. This second FFIC also submitted its report to Shri Avinash Chander but still no action against Dr. A.K Saxena took place by DRDO.

Interestingly, 31st October in the eve of Vigilance week, Sh. R.S. Mehta, Joint Director, Vigilance, DRDO in his address mentioned to audience that how the corrupt practices adopted by Director, DMSRDE and his team in procurement cases.

Sir, it is not understandable that why Shri Avinash Chander constituted two fact finding committees? Why DRDO is silent on corruption cases of DMSRDE, Kanpur? Why Shri Avinash Chander is protecting Dr. A.K. Saxena?

In light of the above mentioned facts, it is requested that speedy action needed to save precious funds of poor tax payers. Dr A K Saxena openly using same corrupt practices in ongoing procurements cases. He told to his beloved team that Dr. V Bhujanga Rao, DG,NS&IC directed that left Rs 13 crores should be spend up to 31st March 2015 positively.

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

Annexure:-

  1. List of complaints/cases filed to CVC and Defence Minister against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur

    DMSRDE CVC Cases
    DMSRDE CVC Cases
Drdo

RTI- PMO – Service Extensions

Leave a comment
To                                                                      Date – 27th October 2014
Shri Syed Ekram Rizwi,
Director & Central Public Information Officer,
Prime Minister’s Office,
South Block,
New Delhi – 110011

 

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of OFFICE MEMORANDUM  F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014 Sub: Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.  In Para 1 – The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.

  1. Please provide the copy of order issued by PMO for cases of services extensions which found without obtaining approval of ACC.
  2. Please provide the names of individuals with name of respective department who were given extensions without obtaining approval of ACC.
  3. Please provide  the names of  individuals who were retired from service as per Para- 4 of above referred OM – that in absence of specific approval of ACC towards extension of his services beyond the date of superannuation, an officer should stand retired on his date of superannuation.
  4. As per Para- 1 of above referred OM  – (The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.) As per above statement it is  understood that ACC found such cases where individuals were given service extension without getting first obtaining approval of the ACC. Provide the action taken by PMO on these illegal service extensions till date.

Regards

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

Enclosed – OFFICE MEMORANDUM  F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014

Registration Number            PMOIN/R/2014/61451

OFFICE MEMORANDUM  F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014

F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
(Office of the Establishment Officer)
 
North Block, New Delhi
24th September, 2014

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Sub: Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation

Attention of all the Ministries/Departments is invited to the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules which prescribe that the ACC is the competent authority to decide the cases of extension in service beyond the age of superannuation. Attention is also invited to DoPT’s OM. No. 26012/6/2002-Estt, (A) dated 09.12.2002 on the subject mentioned above laying down instructions/criteria for grant of extension in service to the categories of personnel referred in proviso to F.R. 56(d). The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.

2. It has also been observed that Ministries/Departments often submit proposals late to the EO Division as a result of which submission of cases for consideration of the ACC also gets delayed.

3. In view of the above, all the Scientific Ministries/Departments are hereby advised to take timely action for constitution of the DPRC for considering the cases for extension of service of specialists in medical or scientific fields, beyond the normal date of superannuation and ensure that proposals seeking approval of the ACC be invariably submitted at least two months in advance of the date of superannuation.

4. It is also reiterated that in absence of specific approval of ACC towards extension of his services beyond the date of superannuation, an officer should stand retired on his date of superannuation and under no circumstances should the Ministry/Department concerned extend his services beyond superannuation unilaterally without the approval & ACC.

sd/-

(Anand Madhukar)

Director (ACC)

 

Drdo

RTI-DRDO-PMO

1 Comment
 To                                                                      Date – 21 October 2014
Shri Syed Ekram Rizwi,
Director & Central Public Information Officer,
Prime Minister’s Office,
South Block,
New Delhi – 110011

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of following complaints/representations  to Hon’ble Prime Minister with details as under.

  1. DEEMED SUSPENSION OF DR. G. MALKONDIAH, DS AND CCR&D (HR), DRDO AS under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965, dated 06 Oct 2014
  2. Shri Avinash Chander SA to RM , DG DRDO, Secretary (DRD) patronizing organized corruption in procurement by Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur, Dated 13 September 2014
  3. CORRUPTION IN DMSRDE (DRDO), KANPUR BY DR. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR, dated 11 September 2014
  4. Non-Implementation of DOPT, Govt. of India, Office Memorandums regarding submission of IPR and put the same in Public Domain in Defence Research & Development Organisation, Min. of Defence, dated 28 July 2014
  5. DRDO Corruption – Modus Operandi example prevailing corruption in DRDO labs, dated 11 June 2014
  6. The Appointment Committee of the Cabinet appointed Sh. Avinash Chander on contract basis, dated 27 May 2014
  1. Provide the present status of the complaints.
  2. Action taken by PMO on the complaint.
  3. If any reply received by PMO on subject matter from respective matters from ministry of Defence or directly from DRDO please provide the copy of replies.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com, website www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number     PMOIN/R/2014/61418

 
Drdo

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

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

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

Hon’ble Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

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

 

Annexure-

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

 

 

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

 

Drdo

Shri Avinash Chander, SA to RM, DG DRDO, Secretary (DRD) patronizing organized corruption in procurement by Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur

1 Comment
To                                                                                            13thSeptember 2014
Hon’ble
Shri Narendra Modi Ji,
Prime Minister of India,
Room No -152, PMO, South Block,
New Delhi-110011

Subject:Shri Avinash Chander SA to RM , DG DRDO, Secretary (DRD)patronizing organized corruption in procurement by Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur.

Sir,

With reference to above I would like to submit following facts for your mission of corruption free India.

  1. DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur is involved in R&D of polycarbosilane (PCS) since more than 15 years. This material is used for high temperature applications etc.
  2. Polydimethylsilane (PDMS) in form of brisk white powder is used as precursor material required for synthesis of polycarbosilane. Initially the PDMS was manufactured in small scale (quantity)in DMSRDE itself by Scientists of DMSRDE.
  3. The development process of polycarbosilane from Polydimethylsilane (PDMS) was patented by DRDO vide Indian Patent No. 249015 against Indian Patent Application No. 2254/DEL/2004 and the patent was granted on 21 Sept 2011 and published on 30 Sept 2011.
  4. The manufacturing technology of PDMS and polycarbosilane is having only with few countries in world.
  5. When Dr. A. K. Saxena took charge as Director, DMSRDE in January, 2011, he started the procurementof Polydimethylsilane (PDMS) and till date in the period 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2013 he procured 227 Kg PDMS costing around Rs. 1,86,35,780.00 in DMSRDE. PDMS was purchased in DMSRDE @ Rs. 80,000/- per kg approximately.
  6. Procurement was done through 8 demands of limited tender, repeat order and one last order through open tender. The strange fact is that all seven orders of this rare material was placed to M/s Mangalam Traders, Kanpur and the eighth supply order was placed to M/s Paawani Speciality Chemicals, Kanpur which is again the family firm of M/s Mangalam Traders, Kanpur.
  7. As per DMSRDE’s inputs the PDMS material was prepared by ex-DMSRDE employee Shri I. P. Pal, Ex Technical Officer ‘C’ under guidance of Dr. A. K. Saxena under roof of M/s Mangalam Traders, Kanpur of which proprietor is   Mr. Manish Gupta and Director is his brother Mr. Anish Gupta.
  8. The Cost and quantity was so designed and architect as every time the order should not exceed in the tune of Rs. 50 Lakhs so it will always come under sanction power of Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
  9. The Prices of PDMS First Order 4/2/2011 cost @ Rs 45000.00/Kg Second Order 27/4/2012 cost @ Rs 70000.00/Kg, Third Order 4/04/2012 cost @ Rs 75000.00/Kg, fourth order 9/02/2012 cost @ Rs 75200.00/Kg, Fifth order 6/09/2012 cost @ Rs 80000.00/Kg, sixth Order 26/02/2013 cost @ Rs 80000.00/Kg, Seventh Order 06/11/2012 cost @ Rs 77800.00/Kg, Eighth 17/12 2013 Order 06/11/2012 cost @ Rs 77800.00/Kg.
  10. The whole exercise of procurement of PDMS itself exposes the corruption and corrupt practices prevailing in DRDO.
  11. The various documentary evidences already exposed the nexus between Dr. A. K.  Saxena and owners of M/s Mangalam Traders and M/s Paawani Speciality Chemicals Shri Manish Gupta and Shri Anish Gupta.
  12. I have filed a complaint to CVC dated 11 June 2014 regarding corruption in PDMS procurements in DMSRDE and DRDO HQ made 1stFact Finding Committee than after few months’ days DRDO HQ made 2nd Fact Finding Committee. Till date no action taken against Dr. A. K. Saxena by Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  13. Now it seems Dr. A. K. Saxena convinced or taken care of motivation of Shri Avinash Chander and seems he inspired your 15th August 2014 address that “mera kya” and boldly raised open tender vide DMSRDE/15552004 dated 1st September 2014 for procuring 60 Kg PDMS.
  14. As per sources the Gupta Bandhu of M/s Mangalam Traders and M/s Paawani Speciality Chemicals, Kanpur  arranged 90 Kg PDMS and as usual the case initiated within the sanction capacity of Director i.e. 50 Lakhs of 60 kg. It is understood that the supply order will go in favour of Gupta Bandhu in any cost. Rest 30 kg PDMS will be procured under repeat order of the order issued against this open tender of PDMS.
  15. It is completely established corruption case and enclosed procurement details clearly show the modus oprendi of Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE. The said open tender dated 01 Sept 2014 should immediately be cancelled till finalization of inquiry by CVC.

Sir, It is requested that for sake of poor tax payers money to take appropriate exemplary action  so that Shri Avinash Chander not dare to patronize such corrupt scientists and whole DRDO fraternity could understand  your commitment against corruption.

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

Polydimethylsilane PDMS open tender dated 01 Sept 2014, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Polydimethylsilane PDMS open tender dated 01 Sept 2014, DMSRDE, Kanpur