You are on page 1of 4

Report of tb.

c Committee constituted to enquire into the


Alleged Plagiarism by DI·.IVl.Ragh~\van, Director, CECRI,
Karaikudi in his thesis entitled UElectroforming of Metals as a
Production Process" $ubmitted to Madurai Kamaraj
University in July 1995 for the award of the Ph.D. Degree.

The Committee consiSting of the following three syndicate members

I Dr.S.Sivasubramanian, Senior Professor, School of Chemistry


Dr.S.Shanmugasundaram, Senior Professor, School of Biology
..•
J. Dr.K.DharmaIingam, Senior Professor, School of Biotechnology

had several informal' and formal sittings on this matter. The committee had to wait for
submitting thi.s report till today for w.tntof necessary original documents fl'om
different institutions/agencies from which· Dr.M.Raghavan is alleged to have
plagiarized (It may be noted that the complainants viz. The President Dr.M.Selvam, and
, .
Secretary Dr.V.Jeyakumar of All Fndia Scientific Workers' Association, CECRI in their
lellers gave a list of instances wherefrom the plagiarism has been alleged to have beeli
,
committed along with the Xerox copies of the documents. However, the Committee
decided in aU fairness to caU for the original documents and pursue the same.).

The findings of the Committee are:

). Dr.M.R~ghavan, bas declared in the starting page ofMs thesis itself that, ""The
subject matter of the thesis is original and has not been submilted in part or full
for anydegr~c or ~il»omll or thls qr any other univ~r~ity" - ns per the
requirenlents of the Ph.D. regulations of this University. However, perusal of the
original document viz. a B.E. project work entitled, •• Electroforming of
COlnplicated Structures"submiued by S.Balurajan and five other students from
".C.College of Engineering Clud Tcdllll~t<>gy ill the yenr 1990 submillcd to
Madurai Kamaraj University, ~n Partial fulfillment of the c,?urse work
·requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical Branch) of
the Madurai Kamaraj University reveals that the subject matter of Chapter
Ylll, section 8.2 and section 8~3of.DI·.M.Rngbavnll's thesis is nothing but the
work l'cported in this project. (Note Dr.M.Raghavan and DrJohn are the
Scientists who have signed as Supervisors for this project. However, the
acknowledgement
. says "We dedicclle
.- our sincere thanks /0 Dr.A1.Ragltavan,
Scientist, CECRl Karailaidi for het/pluff us ill undertakin,? our Proiect work at
CECRI Gild for extending all workshon facilities. Wtlh profound respeCI, we thank
.
Er.S-Jolm. Scientist. CECRl, Karaikudi (or his help and e..icellent (!uitlwrce to
cmnp/ele QI,r pm/eet fmit(ul/v.

2, The perusal o(the following reports at Trivandrum on .~- August 2000 provided
by Mr.V.Ganana Gandhi. Project Director. CUSP, Liqllid Propulsion System
Centre. ValiamaJa. Trivandrum

a) Electroforming of Cryogenic thrust chamber using copper and nickel - a


feasible study" - A report submitted during September 1989,
b) Electroforming of C-l rocket· engine thrust chamber - a report submitted
during Marcb 1992 and
c) Development of C-12 cryogenic rocket engine thrust chamber by
Electroforming of nickel - a report submitted during April 1993

revenls that Table 72 (Introductory part), Tnble. 7.3, T:lble.7.3n, Table.7.3b,


T:lble. ?Je, T:lbJe.7.4 8: Table 7.12 of the Rcsults and Discussiou part have all been
taken ;11 ItJtQ either frolD a (Table 7.2) or ftom c (nU other Tnbles) the only
difference between Rn.ghnvnn th,esis and the ISRO reports nre' what is gi"cll in
reports as left to right has beeu in top to bottom. Ag:lin the T:l~lc ill page 220 of
Dr.Raghavan thesis is similar to page 109 of Report .b. and page 9 of Report. a. - nil
has to be viewed very serIously.

Apart from these,.someofthefigures such as Fig. 8.7 and Fig.8.S have ·been taken from
Report C, Whichthe committee will not view seriously.

It is nlso true that some of the paragraphs in the Reports ofb & c are similar to
those in the thesis of Dr.M.Rashavan. Say for example. three paras fi'om 159 & ]60 of
R.eportb are found in page 200 - 202 Of Or.Raghavan's thesis, Similarly two paras from
page 62 -64 of report c a,resimilarly foung,in page 211 oiOr.Raghavan·s thesis. Similar
is the case with two paras of 61 Report c are found in page 209 - 210 of Dr.Raghavan's
thesis.
It must be mentioned that Dr.Raghavan is a member of the team in all these
projects sponso'red by Liquid Propul$lon Syslem Centre. ISRO, Valiamala Trivandrllm.
However, the basic question here is whether a team-work can be used by one of the
members of the tenm 3S his own worl< towards his Doctoral thesis? (According to the
teners given by the complainants the c,')ntribution of Dr.Raghavan in the above said
projects is only 2 % which can not be quantified}.

3. The committee was able to get the original Ph.D. thesis entitled, ••Electroforming
of Metals, Alloys and theil' Electrochemical Characteristics" submitted .by
Dr.N.V.Shanmugam of CECRI, Karaikudi to Bharathidasan University,
Tiruchirappalli submitted during November! 990. The perusal ..
of the above thesis
reveals Table 1.2 totable 1.4 of Dr.Rnghavan theis and that of Dr.Shanmugam
thesis are one and the same. (However, this can be ignored as this is an·
introductory part). But what is important is Table 6.5 and. Table 6.6. of
Dr.Sh:uuuugam's tbesis have been given in JUt abridged form as Table 6.6 &
Table 6.S ill Dr.lbghuvan's thesis, which is coming under the results and
discussion has to be viewed seriously. Further, both Dr.Raghavan and
.A. .
Dr.N.V.Shannlugam worked under the same guida:nf.e Dr.K.I.Vasu, on similar
subject mailer
The 30 - 32 o~ Dr.R.aghavao·s thesis is nothing but page 23 - 25 of
f)r Slmnmugc\lu's thesis - but again it is oldy in hnroduclion which is a minor mlltler.

The committee was also able to get the two books viz. (1). Eleotrochemioal
Reactor Design by David J,Picket, Elsevi~r Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1977 &
(2) Electrochemical Engineering Principles, by Geoffrey Prentice, Prentice Hall Inc.,
New Jersey 1991. The perusal of the above books reveals that pages 105 - 110 and five
figures of Dr.Raghavan's thesis have literally been taken from page 112 - 118 of the first
book (DJ.Picket) and pages 11?- 117 of Raghavan's thesis have been taken from pages
184 -18Softhesecond book (Geoffrey Prentice}.

The perusal of the references of that chapter reveals that while the first book
(Electrochemical Reactor Design by David J,Picket,) under reference has n.ever been
quoted, the second book (Electrochemical Engineering Principles, by Geoffrey Prentice)
has been quoted but witJl different pages 177 - 182 (but not 184 - 186).

Hence, Ihe committee is ofthe opinion

. I. Or.Raghavan has used the project materials submitted as p~ial fulfillment of a


a.E. Degree done under his guidance in Chapter VllI of his Ph.D. thesis.
2. That he has used a team-workof,which he was also a member as his work as the

subject matter of Chapter VII and Chapler Vlll of his doctora~ thesis. However,
the very same findings were published as a research paper of which Dr.Raghavan
is also an author.
3. Some paragraphs were reproduced from books without proper
acknowledgements. However, this material does not form part of his research
findings.

~~.~~4~:.~.~'
s.
. ~! ,~
·•.....
ARAM II· S. .\'"

$.SIV~UBRAMANIAN j~~.~ S.Sl~ANMUaASU


K~f{ARMAL(NGA~.tJl'°Q
\' .