May 25, 2006

To
The Chief Justice,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi
Honored Sir,
1.

I, Dr. K. Muralidharan, Principal Scientist, Directorate of Rice Research (DRR), Indian

Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Hyderabad 500 030, beseech your kind indulgence to go
through this letter and enclosed documents to ensure that justice is done to me and similarly
placed ICAR staff as I believe it is important to abolish prejudices, nepotism and corruption in the
interest of development of agricultural sciences and improving the stature and prestige of ICAR. If
I may say so, it is not my individual case alone that I am trying to focus upon. My attempt is to
ensure that Rules and Regulations are to be observed in letter and spirit, besides allowing
devoted scientists with merit to do their work without diversion and interference.
2.

I have sought succor by bringing to the notice of the higher authorities at ICAR, and to

Honourable Dr. Abdul Kalam, The President, Republic of India vide, my letter dated May 17,
2005. It my misfortune that I have not obtained any reply from anyone of these persons till-date
(Appendix 1-3). My colleagues and I submitted individually representations to Dr, Jagannath,
Honourable Member, Parliament Committee on Public Petitions seeking justice. Delaying tactics
of the officials at ICAR headquarters apparently do not allow even Parliamentary Committee to
take an action on important issues.
3. Kindly allow me to raise five issues to illustrate how ICAR stifles legitimate rights while it denies
fundamental rights to ICAR personnel and allows dictatorial rule of personnel in positions of
power.

Issue 1: Rule 20 CCS imposes punitive action on staff seeking redress of their grievances
by approaching Member of Parliament or State Legislatures.
Details.
1.

Members of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly are elected peoples

representatives to enact laws to ensure good governance in the country. They take salary,
allowances and pension benefits. This implies that both the person giving petition and the person
petitioned are government servants in service of the society.
2.

The personnel in the civil services implement the laws, ordinances and other instruments

passed by the Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly. They are
subservient to Honourable Members. But Rule 20 CCS seeks to reverse the positions, making
Honourable Members subservient to higher-ups in civil service!
3.

While 20 CCS Rule clearly spells out the disciplinary action to grieving government

servants for such violation as approaching Honourable Elected Members, it remains silent on
failure to take action on legitimate representations from grieved personnel by superiors.
Unfortunately, Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly are not included by
the CCS rules as superiors. CCS 20 does not provide any scope for punishing superiors for
non-compliance of the instruction i.e. not responding to legitimate complaints or petitions
submitted within the time frame of one month or not implementing or citing correct rule to settle
issues raised as per the 20 CCS Rule.
4.

Rule 20 CCS is aimed only to aid the superiors in government service to throttle any

grievance from other lesser mortals in service, even if the grievance is genuine and harass them
at their will and fancies. It protects the superiors in service and enables them to retire without
replying or addressing the problem.
5.

Rule 20 CCS is the most obnoxious rule and must be withdrawn forthwith. IT is absolutely

essential to award deterrent punishment to the superior for using the Rule 20 CCS to terrorize,
and cause mental agony and harm to the junior.

6.

Two points need a reconsideration: a) When government staff are allowed to vote in

election of a Member of Parliament, why should they be prevented from seeking justice through
the Member of Parliament or other elected representative of the Republic of India when even a
proper reply is not received for several years after making a representation?
b) When provision is made to punish a staff for approaching Member of Parliament for seeking
redress of their grievances, why should there not be any provision to punish the person who
misuses Rule 20CCS to threaten and harass staff?
Illustration on how superiors misuse of Rule 20CCS and still go free of any punishment.
Dr. B. Mishra, the then Project Director, DRR, Hyderabad, frequently harassed most of the staff at
the Directorate who tried to tried to make their legitimate grievances heard by him. After failing to
elicit any response from ICAR authorities, several scientific, technical and administrative staff
submitted individually representations to Dr, M. Jagannath, Honourable Member, Parliament
Committee on Public Petitions seeking justice. For approaching the Honourable Committee
Member of the Parliament with their long pending grievances, Dr. B. Mishra, the then Project
Director, DRR, Hyderabad issued memos (F. No. 5-25/Admin/05-06 dated 05.07.05) and
terrorized them by using Rule 20 CCS of the Government of India (GOI) (Enclosure 1). Later, due
the interaction of Honourable Members of the Parliament Committee, the Union Minister of
Agriculture, GOI directed the withdrawal of the memos issued by Project Director, DRR,
Hyderabad to several staff as apparently they were found to have no basis (Enclosure 2. ICAR
letter No. F. No. 48(Sr. Sci.)/2/99 Per II dated 1.8.05).
When such memos are issued, its purpose is to punish public servants for an unlawful
action. If such memos are found untenable, as per Rules, should the person who issued
these memos who is also another public servant, not be punished under the norm of equal
justice? Is it justice to ignore the agony and torture suffered by the staff at the hands of an erring
Dr. B. Mishra, Project Director, DRR on whom no action was taken? What is shocking is that on
the very date on which the Union Minister of Agriculture issued orders for the withdrawal of
memos issued to DRR staff, Dr. B. Mishra, the erring Project Director, DRR, Hyderabad was
relieved and allowed to go over to take up the position of the Project Director Directorate of

Wheat Research, Karnal. IS rehabilitation with full powers to damage further, a correct approach
to an erring Project Director? Evidence clearly demonstrate that such an erring person damaged
the prospect of so many Scientific, Technical and Administrative staff at this Directorate, which is
acclaimed and paraded as one of the best model institute of ICAR. IT is also amazing how the
ICAR authorities who no doubt consider themselves as above law, continue to treat all these DRR
staff as untouchables!

Issue 2: Why should the ICAR be placed under the Union Minister of Agriculture while
CSIR another registered society is placed directly under the Prime Minister? Seniority in
service is not used as a valid consideration for promotions. This discrimination leads to
distortion and nepotism.
Details:
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is a registered Society under the Department of
Agricultural Research & Education (DARE); its President is the Union Minister of Agriculture, GOI.
A Director General, who is also the Secretary, DARE, heads ICAR. A similarly placed Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is under Department of Science and Technology (DST);
its President, however, is the Prime Minister of India, and not the Union Minister for Science &
Technology, Government of India. A Director General, who is also the Secretary, DST, heads
CSIR. The finance for payment of salary and other expenditure largely come from the
Government of India for both organizations. Why should the Prime Minister not control ICAR
directly?
In ICAR, recruitment to higher positions such as Project Directors or Directors of the
institutes are made by advertisement and selection by Agricultural Scientist Recruitment Board
(ASRB). ICAR has categorized arbitrarily the higher posts such as Project Directors or Directors
under Managerial cadre. As they are scientists, they do not have any real training as managers.
Their training is at the National Academy of Agricultural Research & Management (NAARM). This
NAARM is staffed by the agricultural scientists who have discarded their original years of training
in respective disciplines under agricultural sciences in favour of a position at NAARM. At best,

they have a short period training at the managerial institutes and cannot boast of training on the
lines of IAS Staff training College or Indian Institute of Management and the likes. AS they do not
carryout any research in field, they cannot also boast of any knowledge on the conduct of
research work. Why does the ICAR not follow this seniority in service when for all the positions
Government organizations including Department of Plant Protection and Quarantine, Courts and
Army, it is strictly followed? Does such a practice not prevent corruption at high places? Or does
the Government of India endorse the view of ICAR superiors that seniors in service are
incompetent and substandard?
Example of malpractice and corrupt practices:
1.

Dr. B. Mishra, the then Project Director, Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad issued

DRR, Hyderabad Office order No. F. No. 3-61/Admn 01-02 dated 18-04-2001 whimsically
indicating Dr. S.V. Subbaiah, a junior Principal Scientist as senior over other two other senior
Principal Scientists namely, Dr. K. Muralidharan and Dr. I.C. Pasalu who are actually seniors in
service to Dr. S. V. Subbaiah. Later, Dr. Mishra ignored this order also and went abroad twice
after the expiry of term as Project Director without handing over the charges to the next senior in
service. The fact is that Dr. K. Muralidharan joined in the category of scientific service w.e.f. 8th
September 1975 on Direct Recruitment by ASRB while Dr. Subbaiah was in the category of
technical service till 27th July 1978 following a limited interview and recruitment (not by ASRB)
by the Director, Central Rice Research Institute (CRRI), Cuttack as Farm Superintendent at
Cuttack. Later, he was appointed by ICAR in the category of scientific service only on 27th July
1978 albeit with retrospective effect from 31 October 1975. Further, in the 5-yearly assessment
interview, Dr. Muralidharan was given promotion from S1 to S2 cadre on the due date i.e. 1-71981 while Dr. Subbaia was denied promotion and was awarded only two increments on 1-71983. Therefore, Dr. Subbaiah was junior to Dr. Muralidharan in service. Later, how he got
promotion from S1 to S2 cadre with retrospective effect from the due date i.e. 1-7-1981 needs a
scrutiny. Yet, Dr. Mishra declared Dr. Subbaiah with malafide intentions as senior. After making
such willful declaration against Rules, Dr. Muralidharan was harassed by Dr. B. Mishra, Project
Director, DRR. Dr. Muralidharan pleaded with the ICAR authorities stating all facts and sought

rightful declaration of seniority at DRR, Hyderabad. ICAR has supported home-rule of Dr. Mishra
without any proper reply. Thus emboldened Dr. Mishra misused Rule 20CCS against both Dr. K.
Muralidharan and Dr. I.C. Pasalu for seeking redressal for this pending seniority issue from
Parliamentary Committee on Public Petitions.
2.

On April 2, 2005, Dr. C. D. Mayee, Chairman of Agricultural Recruitment Board, New

Delhi, was called to deliver a Lecture on the occasion of DRR Foundation Day by Dr. B. Mishra,
the then Project Director, Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad. Dr. Mayee spoke on the
Recent Advances in Rice Research after declaring that he had no knowledge or experience in
rice related work or activity at least for the last 10 years! Dr. Mayee had actually acknowledged
this and thanked Dr. Mishra for preparing the script for the speech during his lecture. At this DRR
Foundation Day, Dr. Mishra presented publicly a covered box as gift to Dr. C. D.Mayee,
Chairman, ASRB (Enclosure 1 photo). Later, Dr. B. Mishra attended the interview at the ASRB,
New Delhi in May for the post of Project Director, Directorate of Wheat Research, Karnal. No
wonder that Dr. Mishra, who does not possess even a single significant scientific publication on
wheat in any reputed scientific journals, was selected as the Project Director, DWR, Karnal! While
awards can be obtained by manipulations, making a significant scientific contribution and publish
it in any scientific journal requires diligent and sustained pursuit of science for years.
3.

During May 2005, interviews were also held at ASRB, New Delhi for selecting the

Director, Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, Orissa. For this interview the Screening
Committee appointed by ASRB chose nearly 17 candidates who had scored marks needed for
interview on the basis of the details furnished in their applications on service, contributions, etc.
Attention may be drawn to the following two candidates called for that interview: 1) Dr. Sharma,
Joint Director of CRRI who was holding the Acting Director post, and 2) Dr. S. K. Datta, who had
earlier worked as a scientist at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines. It is
pertinent to mention here that Dr Mayank Rai, son of Dr. Mangala Rai, Secretary, DARE and
Director General, ICAR worked under the guidance of Dr. Dutta at IRRI, Philippines (Enclosure
photo 2). Dr. S. K. Datta who had also applied after his termination at IRRI, did not attend this
interview although called as mentioned. IT is because of the fact that pre-chosen Dr. Dutta did not

appear at the interview, ASRB declared all candidates who attended this interview as unfit or not
suitable for the selection as Director, CRRI! Dr. Sharma continues even today as the Acting
Director, CRRI although ASRB found him to be unfit! It is also a fact that Dr. Sharma has in fact
completed a major portion of a full 5-year term as Acting Director of CRRI.
4.

Further, Dr. S. K. Datta under whom the son of Dr. Mangala Rai, Secretary, DARE and

Director General, ICAR completed thesis work for the award of Doctoral degree, is now an
applicant for the post of Project Director, DRR, Hyderabad. In fact, Dr. S. K. Datta visited DRR,
Hyderabad on January 4, 2006 and instructed several scientists on what they should research on
assuming himself to be the Project Director, DRR even without an interview call from ASRB on
that date. Dr. S. K. Datta has no valid or published claim on experience in rice research in the
country and in all-India coordinated rice improvement programme, which is the mandate of DRR.
Yet, it will be of no surprise if Dr. Dutta is selected by Dr. C. D. Mayee, Chairman, ASRB as
Project Director, DRR, Hyderabad as he distributed a similar post of Project Director, DWR,
Karnal to the Dr. Mishra! In fact Dr. Dutta who had nothing to do with the all-India rice group
meetings was invited by ICAR authorities to deliver a paid lecture presumably to show case the
chosen candidate even before an interview call for the position of Project Director, DRR,
Hyderabad on 15-4-2006!
5.

Can anyone with confidence expect the ASRB to select in fairness to scientific

contributions? Or does the ASRB consider exclusively other points that do not meet the eye in
the applications and interviews? IF any impartial scientific committee of the country considers all
the present Directors of ICAR institutes in detail, many more examples for ignoring merit by ASRB
can be found. Kindly examine a circular issued by one of the Directors selected by ASRB
through advertisement and direct interview which beyond any doubt declares his incompetence
and makes a mockery of the selection of anyone with merit to higher posts (Enclosure 2). Even a
memo was issued to a Principal Scientist, DRR by making false and unsubstantiated allegations
by Dr. Mishra in addition to forging the date when in fact he was functioning as Project Director,
DWR, Karnal and had no right to issue such memos to staff at DRR, Hyderabad (Enclosure 3).

Do all these not indicate ulterior motives of ASRB or the unspoken deal not up to the
expectations? Are we not permitted to entertain any such doubt?

Issue 3: When ICAR and ASRB under the President-ship of Union Minister of Agriculture
follow practices that ignore seniority and merit altogether, how can anyone expect the
ICAR that was the saviour of people from ship-to mouth existence and which enabled
them to find surplus in food and agriculture commodities, to retain its high and forgotten
standards? Will there not be a debacle that may hurt the nation unless remedial action is
taken to set ICAR on to the evergreen revolution?
Fact 1. It is a naked truth that merit is causality and any rightful and legitimate dissent is
construed as a crime to be punished by the ICAR authorities in the worlds largest democracy.
Therefore, a prime question arises as to who represent the ICAR authorities? Let us honestly
consider a hypothesis that ICAR COMPRISES OF A FIVE-MEMBER DEMOLITION SQUAD with
three permanent members and two rotational members. The three permanent members are the
Secretary, DARE & Director General, ICAR, Additional Secretary, DARE & Secretary, ICAR, and
Director (Personnel), ICAR. The two rotational members are Deputy Director General (Crop
Science, Veterinary or Education and the likes), and one of the Director or Project Director of the
concerned institute or unit of ICAR.
Fact 2. This Five-member demolition squad takes arbitrary decisions on any dissent from ICAR
personnel, whether they are Scientific, Technical, Administrative or Supportive staff. Either they
do not reply to any legitimate issue raised seeking justice, or dismiss by citing irrelevant rules, or
punish dictatorially their very own ICAR staff who raise the issue. The ICARs five-member
demolition squad ensures that the so-called Research Managers who are appointed to head
institutes serve as dictators entrusted with absolute power. When question are asked and things
become a problem, rehabilitation approach is followed by the five-member demolition squad of
ICAR. Is it not rehabilitation for Dr. B. Mishra who has no contribution of any kind to wheat
research, to be appointed after so-called selection or a deal by ASRB?

Fact 3. Despite ASRB selection, the position of Deputy Director General (Crop Science), the
largest Division of ICAR, is held on additional charge for several years with the aid of all delaying
maneuvers by Dr. Kallu (a trusted stooge of Dr. Mangala Rai, Director General, ICAR), who
already holds charge as Deputy Director General (Horticulture).
Fact 4. How can a Secretary to GOI and another Secretary, GOI and Director General, ICAR be
allowed to continue in service after a Central Administrative Tribunal judgement imposing a fine
on them (Enclosure)? The entire country is witness to resignation of Religious leaders, Union
Ministers, Member of Parliament and others when general public, TV channels, or foreigners
make merely a charge which on that date remained un-endorsed as a misconduct or a crime in
any court by judiciary. This situation reminds of the famous quote: Power corrupts and absolute
power absolutely. The absolute truth is that ICAR is dominated by corruption, nepotism and
discrimination aimed at stifling merit and research progress. It is time to recall that when Dr.
Shah, one of three ICARs scientists who committed suicide during 1970s, it resulted in a major
shift and change in ICAR. Let us not wait for such instances to re-occur.
Issue 4. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) judgments are always contested in higher
courts by ICAR to delay justice and aid the highest placed persons in service. As the
persons holding the highest positions are also the seniors on the verge of retirement, they
manage to inflict injuries on the juniors and escape punishment, if at all any given.
Details.
1.

In CAT, New Delhi judgment in O.A. NO. 1752/2004, the Tribunal imposed a fine of Rs.

10,000/- on the two ex. Officio members of the selection committee namely Secretary, Ministry of
Agriculture and Secretary and Director General, ICAR. As they hold the highest positions, they
continue to remain in position and go on appeal to High Court without paying the fine or any other
punishment. But, if such judgment is imposed on any other lesser-ranked personnel in GOI, they
have to pay fine or undergo punishment or suspension while going on appeal at higher courts of
justice. Under the law of the land, should all persons not be treated as equals irrespective of
positions they hold? The pity is that before their appeals in higher courts come up for judgment,
they will retire from service after causing harm to many in service. Further, the Tribunal upheld the

selection of Deputy Director General (Crop Science). However, ICAR has adopted to appeal at
higher court and thus effectively stalled the selected persons from joining duty. It is, therefore,
very clear that one-way or the other appeals at higher courts on CAT judgment are used as
instruments to delay what is not liked by the highly placed persons in the hierarchy of service.
Such tactic also help the ICAR superiors to retire and escape.
2.

ICAR issued orders (F. No. 2(53)/ 89 Per.IV. dt. 26-5-97) which was not followed by the

Project Director of Directorates and National Research Centres and due this irregularity of not
following Rules and Regulations, staff were harassed. ICAR order was that Head of division,
departments, and sections are not applicable to all its Directorates and National Research
Centres. Yet, Project Director of Directorates issued orders in contravention of this order and
appointed Heads, division, departments and sections on their whims and fancies. Instead of
delivering order weather the ICAR Rules and Regulations are followed by Project Director of
Directorates and injustice and harm is caused to others, CAT, Hyderabad in O.A. 751/97 dt.14-101999 directed ICAR to verify and reply to the appellants. This O.A. judgment further stated in
case the applicants are going to be aggrieved by communication received from the Ministry of
Agriculture, they are at liberty to take such action as available to them under law. Later, ICAR
issued a short reply to the appellants dismissing the issues by stating that everything is as per
ICAR Rules and Regulations. The appellants have to take the issue to higher Courts for justice.
However, the unfortunate event was that the erring incumbent retired soon.
3.

ICAR dismissed a representation seeking an induction into ARS scientific service, by

citing irrelevant ARS rule. Therefore, in CAT, Hyderabad O.A. was filed pointing out to two ARS
Rules under which the appellant sought induction into scientific cadre. Instead of judging weather
the appellant is eligible for induction into scientific cadre under the relevant two ARS Rules
quoted, CAT, Hyderabad delivered judgment on O.A. No.34 of 1998 dt. 24-9-1999 highlighting the
appellants highly significant contributions to science and directed ICAR to review the case. ICAR
later issued a letter in response to CAT judgment that the case was reviewed and induction was
not applicable to the appellant by once again citing the same irrelevant rule they had cited in the
original first representation to ICAR and due to which O.A itself was filed. Shunting in circles

10

causes delays while the erring officials retire and go unpunished for denying the basic rights and
causing harm to others in service.
Issue 5. Does ICAR support mismanagement of ICAR funds and demoralization staff as a
consequence of misuse of power by Dr. B. Mishra, the former Project Director, DRR,
Hyderabad?
Government of India allocates several crores of budget for DRR every year for conducting rice
research on emerging problems of rice farmers. Recent happenings at this institution are posing a
big threat to the survival of this institute due to unjust and irrational actions by the former Project
Director (Dr B Misra who joined as a Project Director in 2000 July and left much after expiry of the
term appointment on August 2005). Dr B Misra was even sent by ICAR officially on tour to USA
after the expiry of his 5-year tenure appointment at DRR. There was no circular or intimation to
DRR staff on Dr. Mishras continuance at DRR as Project Director, after the expiry of term of
appointment. A few of recent incidents that indicate misuse of power and public money by the
Project Director are stated below:
Details.
1. Since Dr B Misra joined as Project Director in July 2000, he had been always away from the
headquarter of DRR (Hyderabad) in the name of official tours for about 4-5 days per every week
with his frequent trips to New Delhi every week (Enclosure 1). When Dr. Mishras annual salary
was limited to about Rs. six lakhs how was he allowed to spend so much (about Rs. one crore)
public money on his tours mostly to and fro between Hyderabad and New Delhi by ICAR? On an
average, he was present at office only 60-65 working days in a year, and on all the remaining
days he was on tours, mostly at New Delhi. He apparently spent about 70% of the total institutes
travel budget for his own travel costs, and the remaining was shared by other 40 scientists. This
explains how Project Director misused public money for his tours while neglecting the institutes
research and management by his absence and non-availability at the Directorate in Hyderabad.
Although he had no time, Dr. Mishra harassed scientists to include his name in their scientific
publications.

11

2. Dr. Mishra, Ex-Project Director was keen on purchase of new equipments/materials

(irrespective of their needs) every year, and spent research budgets on repairs and renovations of
buildings or his own quarter. It is understood that about Rs 60 lakhs were spent for renovation of
a training building just by putting a heavy and rather unwarranted concrete domes on old walls. It
is unfortunate that the training building and hostel rooms, which were in use before renovation,
were made useless after renovation. Further it is learnt that he had purchased many of the office
materials/equipments from New Delhi-although such items are very much available at lesser cost
at Hyderabad and free of transport overheads. This raises a serious concern on his self-motives
in such activities. If inquiry is made on the destruction of public property, it will reveal lack of
proper sanctions and bypassing rules for executing this renovation work which rendered the
building unfit for occupation. It will also reveal how CPWD injected liquid cement as reenforcement and apparently certified the building as fit for 100 years! At the same time, questions
must be raised on how ICAR demolished a functional auditorium built with public funds of
the government to initiate building a new one in its place when land availability was also not a
limiting factor. Is it a means to ensure flow of funds for supporting corruption and misuse?
3. Dr. Mishra Ex-Project Director also demoralized the scientists who made a significant
contribution to rice research. For example, several scientists (Drs. Ravichandran, Aldas Janaiah,
B. Sree Devi and Krishnaveni) were denied promotion (from Scientist grade to Senior Scientist
grade although they had made several scientific contributions. At the same time, two other
scientists (Mr. P. Muthuraman and G. Padmavathi) were promoted and who did not have even a
Ph. D. degree and who had only 2 or 3 insignificant contributions as papers on their credit. And
they are either juniors or with same service compared to those scientists who were unjustly
denied promotion. It is for the first time in 40 years history of DRR that five deserving scientists
with significant contributions were denied promotion at one stage or at a time. Dr. Mishra during
his last days at DRR as Project Director hastily conducted 5-year assessments to Technical
Officers and whimsically denied promotion to the three Technical Officers who are considered as
pillars in support of all scientists in the organization, conduct, report analysis and presentation of
All-India Coordinated Research Program. Such unethical acts by Project Director, has seriously

12

demoralized the scientific and technical staff of DRR. The truth can be brought out only if
assessment reports and list of publications or bio-data of all these scientists and Technical
Officers are referred to an independent body for re-assessment of their promotion cases.
Simultaneously, Dr. Mishras contribution has to be questioned and truth on his own poor
performance has to be brought to light. The fact that ASRB selected Dr. B. Mishra for the
position of Project Director, Directorate of Wheat Research, Karnal, even without a single
significant published contribution in any scientific Journal, must be questioned by all who are
interested in preventing any or all corrupt practices. This question was brushed aside by ICAR,
and Dr. Mishra was allowed to demoralize and terrorize DRR staff as if he owned the organization
and go unpunished to cause further damage to other in service elsewhere.

Prayer.
Having exhausted all the avenues to seek justice, I have approached this highest Court in the
Land. I have no doubt in my mind that the power charged superior ICAR authorities will initiate
action against me for raising these issues unless this highest Court on land takes steps to prevent
such misuse. Do we get justice and protection or left to suffer as happened to IIT Engineer in
Bihar? Or is the country waiting for a repeat suicide acts from scientists as happened in the past
during early 1970s?
I, therefore, pray that
1) Orders are issued to set modalities for punishing an erring Project Director for the misuse
of CCS 20 Rule against any individual or group of ICAR personnel. Also define modalities to
award punishment to erring officials for non-reply within specified time frame under CCS 20
Rule or deliberate improper reply to grievance of the staff.
2) Order a stay on all the recruitment actions of ASRB immediately and an in depth
investigation by judiciary for setting fresh modalities for promotion and recruitment of
personnel.
3) Inquire into ASRB Chairmans visit to Hyderabad before interview and ASRB selection of a
scientist with no significant scientific contribution in a specific crop, for which he was selected

13

to head as Project Director. Also set in motion a review of assessment criteria designed by
ASRB without any referendum to anyone involved for promotion of ICAR scientific and
Technical Staff albeit in consultation with staff through Agricultural Research Service
Scientists Forum and Central Joint Council that are recognized by ICAR. The personnel have
a right to know what the assessment methods are to enable them to meet the set standards
for awarding promotion.
4) Investigate on how did the Secretary, DARE and Director General, ICAR, with full
knowledge that Dr. B. Mishra, PD, DRR had misused CCS 20 Rules to terrorize staff at DRR
(Union Minister for Agriculture ordered withdrawal on 11 August 2005), allowed him to go over
and assume charges as Director, Directorate of Wheat Research, Karnal (after 18 August
2005)?
5) Inquire as to how two Secretaries continue to hold position after a stricture and fine
imposed by Central Administrative Tribunal for more than a year when mere allegations
and proof from private media or approvers (or criminals) were sufficient for the exit of
religious head or Union Minister or Members of Parliament even in the absence of any
pronouncements from judiciary?
6) Set modalities to prevent misuse of appeals on CAT and other judicial pronouncements at
higher courts as a route to retirement and escape for erring superiors in service.
7) Order an inquiry on the mismanagement of institutes funds and misuse of powers, and on
how ICAR allowed so many air-travels that too on Hyderabad Delhi Hyderabad flights by
Dr. B. Mishra, former Project Director, DRR, Hyderabad.
8) ICAR has a history of imposition of suspension on Dr. R. S. Paroda, Secretary and Director
General, ICAR. At that time ICAR was kept under the charge of Director General, CSIR.
Order an inquiry into the issues raised by calling in a nation-wide referendum on the opinion
of the ICAR staff for making ICAR system more responsive to its own staff and to the country.

14