(An attempt to hide truth)
As was suspected the Prof. S.C. Pancholi ‘enquiry’ report on the sale of gamma cell 220 as scrap by the chemistry department, DU, is nothing but an attempt not to expose the truth behind this strange sale. The report does not recognize the group of persons responsible for the scrap sale and does not fix responsibilities. It blames the entire chemistry department when it concludes “it appears to be a collective failure of the department of chemistry, Delhi University.”
How does the appearance become a conclusion in a formal report! Well informed circles in Delhi University had always emphasized that the enquiry committee comprises persons handpicked by the Vice-chancellor and the then Head of the chemistry department, Prof. V.S. Parmar. That is why the committee has not even examined the role of the Vice chancellor and the pro Vice chancellor who are directly connected with the sale as the ‘competent’ approving authorities. The scrap dealer, Sh. Harcharan Singh, resident of D2/80 Mayapuri, New Delhi- 110064, was also not examined lest he should reveal some uncomfortable truths. The entire chemistry department has been blamed without any logic.
The fact, not properly examined by the enquiry committee, is that the ‘write off’ committee and the ‘disposal’ committee constituted by the Department of Chemistry, were only carrying out the orders to dispose off the unserviceable/obsolete items in record time without due deliberation and care. No attempt was made by the enquiry committee to recognize these invisible givers of orders. The note initiated by the then HOD, Prof. V.S. Parmar, on 20th January 2010 reveals the whole story of criminal neglect to please the bosses. On 20th January 2010, prof. V.S. Parmar moved an official note stating, inter-alia, “I have consulted some of my colleagues in the department who have given their opinion that the old and obsolete items of equipments should be disposed off as early as possible, in particular because one block has to demolished immediately for the construction of new T.R. Sheshadri block of the department.” On the same one page note teachers of the department have signed their approval with the words “we strongly support that all the obsolete items stored in several rooms and laboratories of the department be disposed off ‘as requested by our HOD, as soon as possible’.”(Emphasis added) also on the same page a request was made to approve a committee of 8 professors under Prof. V.S. Parmar to dispose off the obsolete/junk items. Both V.C. (on 1st February 2010) and proV.C. (On 4th February 2010) approved of the suggestions mooted by the then HOD. That the V.C. signed the documents even before the proV.C., establishes as to who is actually behind all this sordid drama. Why was Dr Deepak Pental not questioned by the enquiry committee ?
It is evident from this one page note initiated by the then HOD that no formal meeting of the Department of Chemistry was convened to constitute ‘write off’ or ‘disposal’ committees. It was all informal- ‘as requested by the HOD’, kind of informality. In the absence of examination of the VC and the proVC by the committee it is difficult to establish or deny that both of them were in league to quickly dispose off the obsolete item including the 4 ton gamma cell. The committee’s failure to examine the VC and proVC is a serious violation of the proper procedure. In a single meeting on 10th February 2010 of the disposal committee, which was the same as the write off committee with the addition of one each representative of the engineering department and internal audit, it was decided to dispose off all ‘obsolete items’ through public auction. There is no indication of any scrutiny of the list of items which also included the gamma cell.
It is a criminal neglect of procedure by the committee not to examine the scrap dealer to whom the entire ‘kabad(!)’ was sold. Perusal of documents reveals a bizarre fact. The 4 ton gamma cell (220), with pencils of radioactive cobalt-60, was sold to the kabadi for Re. 1. The scrap dealer would have revealed as to how the disposal price of this gigantic size machine was fixed at Re. 1. How was the gamma cell decommissioned? What was the role of the three ‘Radiological Safety Officers (RSOs)’ – not examined again by the committee- in advising security measures while dismantling the machine? Why was the Dean of Science Faculty included in he Write off and Disposal committees and what role did he play? All these questions have been left unattended.
The use of word ‘lapse’ by the enquiry committee for criminal neglect of required and mandated safeguards is revolting. Mishandling of gamma cell by the chemistry department and its dismantling and scrap sale to a kabadi without radiological safety procedures has been described merely as ‘an initial but significant lapse’. The initiation to write off the gamma cell without adequate knowledge about the equipment has also been described as ‘another lapse’. Failure of the write off committee to obtain the technical information of gamma cell is also ‘another lapse’.
The enquiry committee emphasizes that after the retirement of prof. B.K. Sharma in 1993 – he was the only professor conducting research associated with the gamma cell- the gamma cell was transferred on records to M.Sc. Physical Chemistry lab but no faculty member was made responsible for its use. Yet the committee is trying to indirectly and unfairly put blame on Prof. Rita Kakkar for writing off the gamma cell. She is a theoretical chemist having nothing to do with the gamma cell experimentation. The committee has also come to a bizarre conclusion: “as she was not the user of the gamma cell, she should have ascertained the technical details of the gamma cell before initiating the write off of this equipment.” It is a matter of investigation why she recommended writing off of the gamma cell when she had nothing to do with it. Was she coerced/ persuaded to do so? Also it is unbelievable that the HOD, chairman of the write off and disposal committee, was not aware of the radioactive contents of the gamma cell. The very word ‘gamma’ denotes radioactive emission. Also the room housing the cell had always had the radioactive emission danger sign prominently displayed on the door. Feigning of ignorance about radioactive nature of the cell cannot be accepted. It is evident that the whole Chemistry Department was under pressure of higher authorities to get rid of the junk post haste.
The enquiry committee has completely ignored the non-observance of AERB mandated safety guidelines on the use of gamma cell by the chemistry department. When the University of Delhi gave application, seeking permission of the AERB in January 1970 for the use of radioactive gamma cell 220, the AERB clearly stated ‘item number 14 of the above application contains the “safety instruction” in the form of “terms and condition” for the safe handling of the gamma cell 220.’ Yet the enquiry committee has come to the completely erroneous conclusion that ‘lack of communication between the chemistry department, DU and the AERB led to the auction of AECRL 220 gamma cell containing radioactive cobalt- 60 sources.’
To conclude, some technical details. The enquiry committee concludes that though the initial radioactivity of gamma cell in July 1969 was 4373 curie (Ci) it was reduced to 20.6 Ci in March 2010. Exact calculation shows that the residual activity was 15% more, that is, 23.9 Ci. Be that as it may. 1 Ci in itself is a gigantic radioactivity. It amounts to 37 billion radioactive decays per second. And gamma decays are particularly dangerous as they are long penetrating. It is not safe for human bodies to be exposed to even a millionth part of a curie. The radioactive exposure caused by the DU through scrap sale to a Mayapuri kabadi was thousands of times greater than the human tolerance limit. It has already resulted into one death and many people in critical conditions. Many may suffer in future. The scientific research has suffered in DU by the AERB ban on the use of radioactive material in any manner and for whatever purpose in the laboratories of DU.
It is pertinent to comment that the University of Delhi would not have suffered the indignity and disrepute that it did if the VC had not developed and encouraged the culture of CEOisation of decision making process. The VC has become the chief CEO of DU and heads have become junior CEO’s . Instead of disposing of junk material through EC sponsored committees ,the chemistry department decided to sell it on their own under pressure of the VC . If Dr Deepak Pental runs away from his responsibility it will have serious disastrous consequences for the conduct of research in science departments of DU.
The Prof. S.C. Pancholi committee report is full of inanities and lacks focus. Instead of coming to logical conclusions it only gives ‘opinions’. It comes to the conclusion that nobody is responsible; everybody is responsible. Criminal acts of neglects are described as lapses (which are nothing but brief failure of concentration, memory or judgment) the university must reject the whitewashing report if it has to restore its lost credibility. An independent actionable judicial enquiry must be instituted.
Inder Kapahy 3 October 2010
Dept of Physics
K M College DU
9810037679
imkkmc@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment