All posts by Prabhu

Uncategorized

DRDO Decay Part 2: Rechristened with fancy names, drone projects drain exchequer; paltry inventory hardly enthuses forces

2 Comments

Yatish Yadav Feb 28, 2020

  • There are many other examples which the audit believes has been no less than huge disappointment for the user agencies as well as research and development scenarios in the country.
  • The audit has also flagged two other important projects, UDAAN and PRAGATHI, further pointing out that expenditure incurred on them remain unproductive.
  • The audit on Nishant UAV observed that phase-I of the project was completed in December 2015 and Phase-II was planned to be completed by October 2017. Editor’s Note: This is the second and final part of a two-part series of investigation on irregularities in the UAVs development programme by ADE for forces as unearthed by a CAG audit.

New Delhi: In December 2013, the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) under the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) decided to develop Autonomous Rotary Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (RUAV). The approval for the same came in March 2014 and Rs 10.69 crore was sanctioned for the purpose. September 2015 was fixed as the deadline for the completion of the project.

Rustom UAV developed by DRDO. Image courtesy News18

Interestingly, the ADE did not prepare any outcome realisation plan and there was no user agency in the executive board to monitor the project. Nevertheless, the deadline was missed but two months later in November 2015, it was decided to foreclose the project after incurring an expenditure of Rs 6.53 crore.

The test audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) enquired the reasons for foreclosing the project without achieving the goals which led to the entire expenditure on the project infructuous. The ADE in a response to the audit said the UAV was flown in manual mode only while it was required to fly in semi/autonomous mode and foreclosing was a decision taken by the executive board.

The ADE further argued that money was not wasted as technologies achieved during the project are utilised for a new project called ‘Naval Rotary Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (NRUAV).

Thereafter, the audit decided to examine NRUAV and found something more alarming. The proposal for NRUAV was submitted in July 2015 when RUAV was already on. The project worth Rs 16.45 crore with a deadline of May 2017, was approved in November 2015 with the assurance that the Indian Navy would allot one Chetak helicopter for instrumented flight and data recording. However, the navy backtracked.

In September 2016, the Integrated HQ intimated that the Indian Navy was not in a position to allot a helicopter and hence, it was decided to foreclose the project. But, in an executive board meeting in December 2016, it was decided to go ahead with the project with the involvement of the Indian Air Force (IAF) for converting a manned helicopter into a rotary UAV.

In September 2017, the scope of the project was re-defined from NRUAV to HELIDRONE project, stating that since Indian Navy foreclosed the project, the scope of the lead-in project needed to be redefined and re-appropriation of cost to be justified. In January 2018, it was decided that the project would be renamed as ‘lead-in project of HELIDRONE.’

In August 2018, a corrigendum was issued changing the objective of the project to the conversion of a helicopter of any class into UAV and the deadline was extended to November 2019. When the audit questioned these changes, the ADE said the Chetak being a helicopter of 1960s was left with much less operational life and now the revised scope will help develop the in-house capabilities for the conversion of any helicopter to rotary UAV. The audit, however said, if so was the case then ADE should have foreclosed the project without incurring any more expenditure and sought for a new project with a renewed objective.

“Instead, the project is being pursued with no definite objective and definite requirement. In view of this, utility of expenditure of Rs 5.66 crore (so far) incurred towards the project remains to be seen,” the audit report reviewed by Firstpost revealed.

There are many other examples which the audit believes has been no less than huge disappointment for the user agencies as well as R&D scenarios in the country. More than a decade ago, in April 2007, the ADE decided to design and develop a fixed-wing micro air vehicle, which could be hand-launched by a soldier. However, during the peer review meeting, no user representative from the armed forces was invited. Notwithstanding, the approval came in August 2007 with a total cost of Rs 13.68 crore to develop a ‘Man-Portable Fixed Wing Micro Air Vehicle’ with ADE as the nodal agency and National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore as the partner in the implementation of the project.

The project was completed in February 2011 and formal closure was announced in August 2015. According to the closure report, the project was successfully completed meeting most of the requirements and demonstrating that DRDO has the capability to take up similar class of vehicles. The audit, however, after examining the report said, the development did not materialise into any usable product. It even questioned ADE whether any firm’s order existed before taking up the project and whether any order was received from services or internal security agencies for the UAVs developed under the project.

“ADE stated that no order existed prior to undertaking the development of the item nor any order had been received for the product developed. The development effort of ADE was in isolation without analyzing the requirement of the users. This resulted in the entire expenditure of Rs 13.19 crore being rendered unproductive,” the report said.

Fixed Wing Mini UAV (FM-UAV) project met a similar fate and remain grounded. This project’s objective was to cater to the need of the armed forces and paramilitary forces, although it has come to light that peer review of the project did not have any user representative during the meeting. The project was approved in July 2010 at a total cost of Rs 7.48 crore and it was completed in July 2012.

There are also no takers either in the armed forces or paramilitary forces for another project that was launched to develop a system for tactical intelligence-gathering operations. The project was completed in July 2015 at a cost of Rs 4.04 crore and closure report said the planned activity was completed successfully. The audit, however said, in contravention of the laid down rules, no feasibility study was carried out before taking up the project and even peer review carried out by ADE did not have any user agency on board. The report said: “No firm’s requirement existed prior to undertaking development of the item nor any order had been received for the product developed in 2015.”

The audit has also flagged two other important projects — UDAAN and PRAGATHI — further pointing out that expenditure incurred on them remain unproductive and perhaps there is doubt over effectiveness as claimed by the ADE. As per the closure report UDAAN, the ADE claimed that all objectives were met. However, while submitting the proposal for PRAGATHI, ADE stated that the six trial campaigns under project UDAAN were not sufficient to meet the objective. The ADE was questioned which of the two statements are true. It simply reiterated without providing details that objectives of UDAAN had been completed and hence the project was closed.

“Response of ADE is not tenable as the flight trials undertaken did not result in a usable product for the Armed Forces, necessitating more flight trials under PRAGATHI. Consequently, the expenditure of Rs.3.76 Crore incurred on the project was rendered unproductive as the project was closed without meeting its objective,” the report observed.

PRAGATHI was launched on the pretext that UDAAN trials were not sufficient. The project at a cost of Rs 20 crore had the main objective of developing upgrades of low and high-speed UAVs of armed forces. This project too, like many others, did not have any user agency in the executive board neither any detailed project execution plan was prepared by the ADE. The approval came in July 2013 with a deadline of July 2016. The audit said in the third executive board meeting held in December 2015, it was recommended for the closure of the project as per original deadline and surrendering the remaining funds.

“However, during a meeting held in March 2016 at DRDO Bhawan under the chairmanship of DG, DRDO wherein SA (Scientific Advisor) to RM (Defence Minister), DG (Aero) and DG (Arty) were also present, DG (Arty) clarified that Nishant and its variants were primitive and there was no suction seen from the field commanders. Instead, he advised to pursue Rustom-I in line with JSQR ( Joint Services Qualitative Requirement) issued by Army for short range UAV. Accordingly, DG(DRDO) instructed ADE to prepare Rustom-I as a strong candidate against the GSQR (General Staff Qualitative Requirement) of short range UAV by carrying out necessary procurement under PRAGATHI project and also extending its PDC (Project’s probable date of completion). In August 2016, DG (Aero) revised the PDC of the project from July 2016 to January 2018 with the revised objective of conducting 20 flight trial campaigns to evaluate and validate technologies,” the audit report said.

The test audit had enquired from ADE after the closure of the project on whether Rustom-I has since been upgraded/qualified enough to meet the JSQR of short-range UAV. In reply, ADE stated that they have submitted compliance matrix of Rustom-I with JSQR of short-range UAV, from which it was observed that there were QRs related to payloads, for which Rustom-I was yet to comply.

“Project was closed without complying with JSQR. Thus, expenditure of Rs.17.17 Crore incurred on the project was rendered unfruitful, as it did not result into a usable product for the armed forces,” the audit report observed.

A DRDO spokesperson, however, said the ADE has developed the Short Range UAV (Rustom-I) which can be produced for armed forces and paramilitary forces.

“ADE is tasked with the Development of Medium Altitude and Long Endurance UAVs. In this direction, the major programme TAPAS is undertaken by ADE. The first Indigenous UAV Nishant was inducted into Indian Army in 2014,” the DRDO spokesperson said.

An email questionnaire sent to the Director, ADE, seeking response on audit findings remained unanswered till the filing of this report.

The audit on Nishant UAV observed that phase-I of the project was completed in December 2015 and Phase-II was planned to be completed by October 2017.

“ In March 2016, ADE made a presentation to the Indian Army and requested to consider Nishant UAV with improved version as part of Phase-II delivery. However, Army clarified that Nishant and its variants are primitive and field commanders felt no need,” the audit report stated.

The audit also enquired from ADE whether any requirement has been received from the army or CRPF for the wheeled version of Nishant developed under the project. The ADE in its response to the audit said that ‘no requirement was received from either Army or CRPF till date.’

Uncategorized

DRDO Decay Part 1: Keeping end users in dark, poor planning, flouting of SOPs hurt UAV projects, reveals CAG test audit

Leave a comment

Yatish Yadav Feb 27, 2020

  • A test audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General examining the working of Aeronautical Development Establishment reveals that the lab is taking up projects aimlessly without any focus and priority, spending money on research which has been abandoned without completion.
  • The projects undertaken by the ADE from 2007 to 2017 (10 years) were selected for review under the test audit of CAG.
  • While decoding the reasons for such a high failure rate, the audit said, the main reason was non-involvement of user representatives in neither in the pre-project work nor during project execution. Editor’s Note: This is the first part of a two-part series of investigation on irregularities in the UAVs development programme by ADE for forces as unearthed by a CAG audit. The second part focuses on how drones costing hundreds of crores failed to lift off. New Delhi: More than a decade ago P Rama Rao Committee in a report to the then defence minister AK Antony in 2008 had asked for a complete overhaul of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the country’s premier research and development agency for the armed forces. Since then, the debate within the armed forces community has been centred on whether the DRDO which has an annual budget running into thousands of crores disappointed the forces or it was able to meet their expectations.
Rustom UAV developed by DRDO. Image courtesy

It is in the national interest to empower the DRDO, make it more efficient with indigenous technology. However, year after year, the criticism of DRDO for not meeting the requirement of the armed forces continues to grow. The tales of DRDO’s successes have been lauded by the government in the past but the inefficiency, which has far-reaching consequences for national security, is too glaring to be ignored.

A test audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) examining the working of Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) reveals that the lab is taking up projects aimlessly without any focus and priority, spending money on research which has been abandoned without completion and even projects which are said to be completed have no takers within the armed forces community.

The report unearths dismal performance pointing out that out of the 10 completed projects in 10 years, only two projects were able to achieve the objectives. The mission of ADE is to develop and lead to the production of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and aeronautical systems to meet the needs of the services and progressively enhance the technological infrastructure and capabilities. However, the audit report claimed that ADE is unable to meet its mission objective.

The report reviewed by Firstpost is scathing on ADE’s floating ventures. It said: “ADE undertook its projects without adhering to the provisions of Procedures for Project Formulation and Management (PPFM), both during planning as well as execution stage. Non-adherence to provisions of PPFM resulted in project deliverables for which no users could be identified and resultantly, the products developed could not be productionised and used by the services.”

The audit pointed out another interesting fact that except for pilotless target aircraft named Lakshya designed and developed by ADE way back in the 1990s, no other ADE product has been inducted into the armed forces.

“This indicated that R&D effort at ADE was not fructifying into usable products for armed forces,” the report observed.

A DRDO spokesperson did not comment on the findings of the test audit report. However, he said ADE is the centre of excellence for the flight control system of manned and unmanned aircraft in India.

“ADE has developed Full Mission Simulator for LCA which is installed at ADE and is also upcoming at IAF squadrons. ADE has developed and delivered Computerised Pilot Selection System (CPSS) in 2014 which is commissioned at three air force stations with 20 psychomotor and 100 cognitive terminals at each air force station for the pilot selection process of IAF,” the DRDO spokesperson said.

An email questionnaire sent to the Director, ADE, seeking response on the audit findings remained unanswered till the filing of this report.

Distressing details

The projects undertaken by the ADE from 2007 to 2017 (10 years) were selected for review under the test audit of CAG. As per PPFM, which outlines procedures and formats for preparing project proposals, peer review and project closure etc., 16 projects costing about Rs 2,306 crore were undertaken in different categories.

There are broadly five categories — Mission Mode (MM), Technology Demonstration (TD), Science & Technology (S&T), Product Support (PS) and Infrastructure & facilities. The audit in its findings has unearthed non-compliance at the pre-project stage and slammed ADE for the lackadaisical approach.

It said that the projects were initiated without adequate caution and groundwork, which resulted in either product developed by ADE not meeting the user requirement or no user service showing interest in these products. There is also an observation about non-compliance in preparing feasibility report and the audit said that out of 16 projects examined, no feasibility report was prepared with respect to nine projects.

Moreover, the ADE has been criticised for not having user agency (armed forces or paramilitary) on peer review committee board which is required under PPFM to discuss existing systems in use with them and elsewhere in the world and other details about the operation, maintenance and use of the product.

“Involving users in project progress reviews help into cutting short the delays and to know their views in advance and also to keep continuous visibility of the project. Audit found that out of the 16 projects examined, there was no user representation in the project monitoring in 13 projects,” the report said.

Another issue that has been highlighted is the lack of outcome realisation plan, which is primarily to ensure that stages of the project are managed in a satisfactory manner. The utilisation of the project’s outputs are linked to the planned project outcomes and success of the project’s output are assessed and corrective action are taken.

The audit found that out of the 16 projects examined, outcome realisation plan was not prepared in respect of 11 projects. Then there is the issue of time overrun as well as cost overrun. The report said at least 10 projects out of 16 were delayed for a period ranging from six months to six years. The audit found that the cost in respect of three projects was revised upwards ranging from Rs 40 lakh to Rs 369 crore.

“Two projects are still ongoing and further increase in cost cannot be ruled out,” the audit findings revealed.

Another shocking fact in the audit findings is about the procurement of Rs 4.34 crore worth equipment that was received by the ADE after the closure of four projects and remained unitized for the intended purpose for which they were procured.

Negligible success rate of projects

The audit revealed that objectives were achieved only in two out of 10 completed projects. All types of DRDO projects are taken up for execution by the lab after being sanctioned by the competent financial authority. The sanction clearly mentions about the objectives of the project which subsequently becomes the benchmark to assess the success of the project. ADE completed 10 projects out of 16 projects it undertook in 10 years (2007-2017).

“Success rate in achieving the objectives of the project was only 20 percent as ADE could achieve the project objectives in only two out of 10 completed projects and eight projects were closed without achieving objectives,” the audit said.

While decoding the reasons for such a high failure rate, the audit said, the main reason was non-involvement of user representatives in neither in the pre-project work nor during project execution.

“As a result, when the project was developed, either there were no takers or the deliverable did not meet the requirements of the services. In respect of one project even though user representative was involved in the development activities, the product could not be successfully developed by ADE to match the user requirement,” the audit disclosed in the report.

The report further observed that there were instances of projects being short-closed without realising objectives, project deliverable not finding any users, inordinate delays in execution of projects and project goals being changed midway.

Drdo

‘Akash missile system can’t be trusted during war’: Degraded by govt defence agencies, loopholes in strategic weapon system threaten national security

Leave a comment

Yatish Yadav Dec 02, 2019 18:22:43 IST

Other squadrons reported frequent unserviceability of mobile surface-to-air Akash Missile system and long duration downtime, which means that the missiles are dysfunctional and may not be cocked and loaded against enemy in contingency

Several government agencies, including missile manufacturer Bharat Dynamics Limited, Bharat Electronics Limited, did not tell the truth to the government about malfunctioning Akash Missile system and poor quality of spare parts provided by the private vendors

CAG was perhaps far-sighted, when in a 2017 report, the national auditor observed that Akash Missiles cannot be trusted in situation of a war

On 3 June, 2018, Akash Missile’s Transportation and Loading Vehicle (TLV), parked at an Air Force Squadron, was jolted after a sudden burst of tube followed by shearing off wheel bolts due to impact. The incident shocked Air Force headquarters. The Air Force officials wanted not only wanted the routine analysis of the incident, but also an in-depth discussion with Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), a multi-disciplinary Missile System laboratory under the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to unearth issues hampering the functioning of the strategic weapon system.

More than a month later, another squadron reported cracks on air intake caps of dummy missiles. An investigation by Firstpost revealed that the incidents were followed by other squadrons reporting frequent unserviceability of mobile surface-to-air Akash Missile system and long duration downtime, which means that the missiles are dysfunctional and may not be cocked and loaded against enemy in contingency. This incident forced Guided Weapon Maintenance Department of Air Force on 5 September 2018 to raise the issue, where they clearly stated that the “Squadrons have been reporting frequent unserviceability of Missiles and it has been noticed that time taken to resolve these failures is considerably high due to delay in analysis of failures.”

The sheer inertia of government defence enterprise involved in Akash Missile production and maintenance reached to such an alarming level that at least three squadrons of Akash in February 2019 reported that missile system remained down or simply broken and sometimes even out of order during 90 percent of the time since their date of commissioning. These squadrons were commissioned between 2013-2015 to counter Chinese aggression.

Multiple government agencies, including Missile manufacturer Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) which comes under the Ministry of Defence, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) which is responsible for radars and maintenance and the DRDO, did not tell the truth to the government about malfunctioning Akash Missile system and poor quality of spare parts provided by the private vendors.

The malfunction of Integrated Air Compressor and Storage Facility (IACSF) revealed another shocker and the Air Force mentioned it on record that the IACSFs of Akash Missile System units are unserviceable due to wobbling and vibration, pneumatic leakage, breaking of mounting pads and bolts. A missile had failed to take off during combined guided weapon firing exercise known as ‘CROSSBOW-18’ and a team of Missile System Quality Assurance Agency (MSQAA), BDL and DRDL was constituted to investigate the failure.

MSQAA is an independent inspection Agency under the administrative and functional control of Director General Aeronautical Quality Assurance, which comes under the Department of Defence Production of Defence Ministry. The incidents of leakage from fuel tanks and leakage in pressurised Missile containers were taken so lightly that the Air Force, responsible to secure the nation from aerial threats, was forced to direct to the DRDL, BEL and BDL that present configuration of certain systems of Akash Missile will not be acceptable for future squadrons, which are under the process of procurement. The Air Force, BDL, BEL and DRDL are yet to respond to a questionnaire sent by Firstpost on 24 November.

Details expose criminal act by government defence enterprises

If there is an emergent situation, several Akash sqaudron may not be able to launch counter offensive because deficiencies in many of the system including hydraulic oil leakage and container pressure leakage, which is pending since 2017. The complaints received from Air Force headquarters, Eastern Air Command and other Akash field units reveals there is no back-to-back agreement with vendors for equipment under warranty, making it difficult to repair the faults. Documents reviewed by Firstpost showed that almost all squadrons have expressed that they are unable to get proper feedback from BEL on repairing the faults in Missile System and on problems plaguing Akash Missiles which Indian agencies are ill-equipped to resolve. Surprisingly the field engineers, who are supposed to rectify the critical snags, are not even aware of any action plan.

Documents further said: “Currently majority of the Akash field engineers are working to pass information about issues without any tangible technical output. The untrained and poorly equipped field engineers are neither aware of any corrective action plan nor they are committed.”

The documents also pointed to massive delay in supply of spares for Missile System, virtually grounding them for for six months to a year. Air Force in a meeting had informed that most of the problems reported in 2017 were pending for over a year now. The documents also pointed at the repairing of Akash trailers which are covered under annual maintenance contract. It said: “Akash Trailers serviceability is poor and some cases spares supplied to Akash Missile units are not configured as per system requirement which is affecting equipment serviceability in case of failure.”

Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) the manufacturer of Akash Missile has not been able to resolve three important issues for the last two to three years. BDL, founded in 1970, is a government enterprise under the administrative control of the Ministry of Defence. It is learnt that BDL was told in high level meeting convened last year to come out with solid plan after conducting an investigation and study of faults in Akash Missile System within a month on long delays of critical faults. Even the investigation to unearth and address the issues was delayed.’


The Air Force has refused to pay for new maintenance contract for certain Akash Missile squadrons as the old ones expired in September 2019. They argued that missile systems in several squadrons were left idle for more than a year. Instead, it had asked for extension of warranty for certain squadrons which have been dysfunctional for 17 to 15 months in the last two years. Air Force asserted since system was down and faults were neither rectified nor replaced, it violated the maintenance contract. Air Force is learnt to have said that “during the warranty period, the seller shall either replace or rectify the failed goods free of charge within 30 days of notification of such defects. As per article of the contract, warranty of the equipment would be extended by such duration from time the buyer has reported such unserviceabilities till the time seller has restored the status of the buyer’s satisfaction.”

Red tapeism in government defence enterprises hurt national security

Firstpost investigation also revealed gross inefficiency of government defence agencies BEL, BDL and DRDL to address the problem in Akash Missile System. Documents reveal that meetings after meetings were convened on the issues but the government defence enterprises couldn’t satisfactorily answer the questions raised by Air Force. These government defence enterprises have been passing the buck. They also cheated Air Force by providing substandard and fake spares.

A meeting earlier this year chaired by Air Vice Marshal Bhanoji Rao pointed at severe negligence in handling Akash Missile System which may have serious ramifications in contingency. Documents revealed that certain spares, especially those of sub-vendors (procured by BEL) were being received at Akash Missile System units without ‘Quality Assurance’ certification and on a few instances it came to light that these spares were old and fake. In a letter, it was noted: “On few instances it has been noticed that the items were not new/authentic.”

Air Vice Marshal Rao clearly told his team at the Air Force not to accept spares without ‘Quality Assurance’ certification. The meeting also revealed a lack of expertise of government-owned defence enterprises which are acting merely as a supplier of equipment after procuring it from domestic and foreign vendors. It basically means that these government enterprises are acting like a payment facilitators. Their complicity in this entire saga was further exposed when government defence enterprises officials told the senior Air Force officials that sub-vendors (private companies supplying spares) were not willing to share their design documents.

An appalled Air Vice Marshal asked, if the Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) is the authority then it must have intellectual property rights of all designs related to Akash Missile System. Obviously, the defence agencies representatives were not aware about it since they never took the pain to look into the agreements and promised the Air Force to look into the matter to ascertain whether these rights were with vendors. A promise was made to list all major vendors for unhindered supply of spares to overcome single vendor situation. As far as BEL is concerned documents said: “Almost all squadrons have expressed that they are unable to get proper feedbacks from BEL on progress and plan of action of pending faults.”

The meeting chaired by Air Vice Marshal Rao also discussed high failure rate of one of the systems of Akash Missile, lacunae in analysis of faults and mismatch in software versions used for the this strategic weapon.

Another major loophole, which highlights the non-seriousness of defence agencies, is the contract with the private vendors. The agreements are more favorable to private parties putting Akash Missile System in jeopardy. Documents flagged these concerns further pointing out that all the vendor supplied items are outside their warranty obligations and in certain cases supplied spares are not configured as per system requirements. Some spares for Akash Missiles are not fit and functional and this is affecting the equipment serviceability in case of failure.

It appears that careless handling of most critical weapons has been going on for a long time. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) was perhaps far-sighted when in a 2017 report, the national auditor observed that Akash Missiles cannot be trusted in situation of a war. CAG had categorically stated that Akash missile system delivered by BEL were deficient in quality and 30% missiles failed the test.

“Audit found that the Strategic missile system delivered by BEL were deficient in quality. Out of 80 missiles received up to November 2014, 20 missiles were test fired during April-November 2014. Six of these missiles i.e., 30 percent, failed the test. Preliminary failure analysis report revealed that the missiles fell short of the target, had lower than the required velocity, and also there was malfunctioning of critical units like Servo Control Unit and Connector. Two missiles had failed to take off because the booster nozzle had failed. These deficiencies posed an operational risk during hostilities. Two missiles had failed to take off because the booster nozzle had failed. These deficiencies posed an operational risk during hostilities.” CAG report had said.

Firstpost investigation showed that after the CAG report, the squabbling between government defence enterprises had come to light. Eight critical snags in Akash Missile Systems were reported after the CAG report which were pending for three-seven months. CAG had recommended that Ministry of Defence needs to ensure better synchronisation of the various activities and agencies involved in such strategically important projects to ensure their timely completion and quality of Strategic Missiles also needs improvement so as to bring down failure rate.

Notwithstanding, many snags were not rectified citing lack of spares. The Air Force anguished over lackadaisical attitude of BEL and BDL has firmly directed them to resolve all internal issues immediately and ensure that no Missile is kept unserviceable due to their internal problems.

BEL

RTI Air Force for BEL Appeal Against order of Delhi High Court revokes suspension of BEL whistleblowers

Leave a comment

To                                                                                                    20-11-2019
Wg Cdr Suman Adhikari,
CPIO,
Room No. 160, Dte of PS,
Air HQ (VB), Rafi Marg,
New Delhi 110

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of appeal submitted to Higher Court by BEL against order of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait dated October 9, 2019 to respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners  Sh M.M. Pandey, General Manager (Product Support), Sh R.K. Goyal, Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), and Sh Sumit Krishna, Manager, (Product Support).

As per appeal page no 49 and 50 para xi line 5  – In this regard on 25-09-2019 the Asstt, Chief of Air Staff vide his confidential letter has brought to notice of the CMD, BEL that confidential documents relating to the said contract have been found in the custody of un authorized elements and that: owing to the sensitivity of the project involving  national security, investigation in this regard be carried out on highest priority and report submitted at the earliest.

  1. Provide that above mention confidential letter dated 25-09-2109 whether sent to CMD, BEL by Asstt, Chief of Air Staff. Yes or No
  2. Does Air force taken any action against un authorized elements who possesses the sensitive project information Yes or No
  3. IACCS project sites security managed by Air Force or BEL.
  4. IACCS project sites CCTV is managed by Air Force or BEL
  5. IACCS project sites contractors manpower verified by police Yes or No
  6. Whether IACCS project sites In-charge verify that the contractor manpower is from  authorized contractors like L&T or from unauthorized Sublette contractor like C S Construction or S R Ashok etc.
  7. Whether IACCS Directorate or Asstt, Chief of Air Staff above aware the unauthorized Sublette working equation of BEL in IACCS sites Yes or No

Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
 Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website www.corruptionindrdo.com

              Enclose – BEL Appeal Para page no 49 and 50 para XI line 5  

          Registration Number           MODEF/R/2019/53809

Uncategorized

RTI BEL for Legal Expenditure on IACCS Exposes High Court and Supreme Court

Leave a comment

To                                                                                                           20-11-2019 Mr. Udaya Shankara K S AGM (Marketing) Bharat Electronics Limited Corporate Office, Outer Ring Road, Nagavara, Bangalore – 560 045

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect  of  Legal fee expense made by BEL in  the cases in respect of Sh M.M. Pandey, General Manager (Product Support),  Sh  R.K. Goyal, Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), and Sh Sumit Krishna, Manager, (Product Support)

  1. Provide the Total Amount paid by BEL to various lawyers or law firms against their legal fee and other charges till date in respect of cases of Sh M.M. Pandey, General Manager (Product Support),  Sh  R.K. Goyal, Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), and Sh Sumit Krishna, Manager, (Product Support)
  2. Name of lawyers engaged by BEL in various court till date in respect of cases of Sh M.M. Pandey, General Manager (Product Support),  Sh  R.K. Goyal, Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), and Sh Sumit Krishna, Manager, (Product Support)
  3. Name of lawyer or law firm engaged in High Court and amount paid  in respect of case of Sh M.M. Pandey, General Manager (Product Support),  Sh  R.K. Goyal, Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), and Sh Sumit Krishna, Manager, (Product Support)
  4. Name of lawyer or law firm engaged by BEL for stay against order of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait  dated October 9, 2019. Provide the amount paid to lawyers or law firm in mentioned stay case.
  5. Name of lawyer or law firm engaged by BEL for appeal against order of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait  dated October 9, 2019. Provide the amount paid to lawyers or law firm.  

Regards

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

Enclosed – Delhi High Court Judgment

 Registration Number            BELBL/R/2019/50141

PMO

Delhi High Court revokes suspension of BEL whistleblowers;

Leave a comment

By Pradip R Sagar October 16, 2019 18:34 IST THE WEEK

The officials have exposed the alleged irregularities in a multi-crore project


Causing embarrassment to the defence public sector undertaking, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), the Delhi High Court has quashed the suspension order of three of its senior officers, who have exposed the alleged irregularities in a multi-crore confidential project for the Indian Air Force.

On the basis of inputs on alleged irregularities in awarding a contract to a private firm by violating norms for Integrated Air Command and Control Systems (IACCS) for the IAF worth 79,00 crore, BEL in July 2018 had set up a three-member investigation panel. The panel was headed M.M. Pandey, general manager (Product Support), and comprised R.K. Goyal, senior deputy general Manager (Vigilance), and Sumit Krishna, manager, (Product Support). On October 3 last year, the committee submitted its report which said shell companies were used to gain contract. The investigation panel also pointed irregularities in awarding consultancy contract to a private firm for IACCS project at 10 locations across the country.

On March 29, 2019, the chief vigilance officer submitted its final report to the Chairman and Managing Director of the BEL, supporting the panel’s view. The report had stated: “A company that came into existence in April 2010 showed its employees had an experience of five years in 2013.” Moreover, the report also mentioned role of senior Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) officers, who were under the scanner, since it was the DRDO which recommended the name of the private firm to BEL.

However, instead of taking action against the corrupt officials on the basis of CVO’s report, the BEL authorities suspended all three members of the committee on disciplinary charges. A chargesheet and suspension order was issued against the whistleblowers on May 17, 2019.

While delivering the judgment, the court observed that on perusal of chargesheet-cum-suspension order (dated May 17, 2019), it is specifically mentioned that M.M. Pandey, GM, product support, was appointed as Investigation Officer by CVO (vide letter dated July 18, 2018) to conduct a detailed investigation into the alleged irregularities reported in the execution of civil construction works in the IACCS project. It is further stated the he submitted his report October 3, 2018 to the CVO which was received in CVO’s office on October 8, 2018.

“Thus, it is established that the chargesheet-cum-suspension order was issued in pursuance to CVO letter dated July 18, 2018 to conduct a detailed investigation into the alleged irregularities,” Delhi High court stated in its order.

“Since the disciplinary authority concerned for the petitioners have not initiated departmental proceedings, therefore, in my considered view, the order dated May 17, 2019 is illegal and accordingly set aside.” said Justice Suresh Kumar Kait in his order dated October 9, 2019.

IN THE  HIGH COURT OF DELHI  AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 09.10.2019

+                      REVIEW PET. 360/2019 and CM APPL. 39523/2019 (Stay)

in W.P.(C) 8188/2019

MAN MOHAN PANDEY AND ORS.                                ….. Petitioners

Through:          Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr. B.K.Pandey, Advs.

                          versus

BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED AND ORS. ….. Respondents

Through:          Ms.  Maninder  Acharya,  ASG  withMr.   Manish   Paliwal,   Mr.   Vikas Kumar, Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advs. and  Mr.  B.V.  Ramaiyya,  DGM, Legal, BEL./ R-1 Mr. Vijay Joshi, Sr. Panel Counsel for R-2/UOI

Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC withMr. Rohan Anand, Adv. and Mr. Waize Ali Noor, GP

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH  KUMAR KAIT

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1.       Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to recall the order dated 31.07.2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.8188/2019.

2.       At  the  outset,  it  is  pointed  out  that  in  Para  19  of  order  dated31.07.2019,  it  is  recorded  that  the  petitioners  are  above  level  E-VIII; however, which is factually incorrect.

3.       It is clarified that the petitioner No. 1 is the only officer who comes under the category of level E-VIII whose Disciplinary Authority is CMD. The other two petitioners are below level E-VIII. The grade of the Petitioner no 2 is of level E-VI A and Petitioner no 3 falls under the category of level E-V. Their Disciplinary Authority is the Functional Director.

4.      Further clarified that in Para 19 of the order that the Disciplinary Authority under the delegated powers is the Functional Director also suffers from error which is clear from the Office Order No.HO/144/22 read with CDA-Rules dated 10.04.2001.

5.       Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said office order which  relates  to  sub-delegation  of  powers  would  show  that  in  fact  the powers delegated under CDA-Rules amended from time to time/notification of sub delegation of power (SDOP) are unchanged and same as on date contained in CDA-Rules 2001. The said Rules read with office order dated 10.1.2019 is very clear that the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority for an officer upto Grade E-VII is Functional Director. Chairman and Managing Director is the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority for an officer of Grade E-VIII & IX only. CMD has not sub delegated his power for the officers of Grade E-VIII & IX any further. He has sub delegated his powers of being Disciplinary/Punishing Authority for officers upto Grade E-VII to the Functional Director. In other words, the position of CDA Rules 2001 read with sub delegation of powers dated 10.1.2019 is very clear that CMD is the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority in case of petitioner no. 1 and that the Functional Director is the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority in case of petitioner nos. 2 and 3. The said order 10.01.2019 is very clear that the sub- delegated powers will be exercised only by the Executives entrusted with the responsibilities for the concerned work/assignment.

6,         Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the issuance of Charge- sheets cum suspension orders by Director (Marketing) in the case of petitioner no. 1 and by GM in case of petitioner no. 2 and AGM in the case of the petitioner no 3 is illegal and unsustainable, which is evident from the table at Page 10 of the Review Petition.

7.       On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the officers competent to award the minor punishments cannot initiate the proceedings for major penalties. However, it is submitted that the CDA Rules  bearing  Office  Order  No.  HO/772/019  dated  10.04.2011  do  not require the Disciplinary authority to issue a charge sheet for Major Punishment as mentioned in Rule 5(a). The said Rules only provide for the imposition  of  punishments  and  therefore,  the  same  cannot  be  made applicable for initiation of the Disciplinary proceedings.

8.      Learned Additional Solicitor General further submits that BEL has defined the Disciplinary Authority based on the punishments. Though the Disciplinary Authority is referred in the context of the punishment in BEL CDA Rules, the approval for initiation of the Disciplinary proceedings, issuance of charge sheet etc. is based on the formal approval by the Disciplinary Authority as defined in CDA Rules. The punishment will be later on the basis of misconduct and the punishing authorities have been mentioned in the CDA Rules. Once the charge sheet is approved by the Disciplinary Authority, the charge sheet is served by the respective Department /Division/Unit Head or an officer who is at least one level above to the charge-sheeted executive. Such an officer just initiates the enquiry and does not impose the punishment. The imposition of punishment is a separate issue which is decided later by the competent authority within the organisation.

9.       To strengthen her arguments on the above issued, learned AdditionalSolicitor General relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Inspector General of Police vs. Thavasiappa, (1996) 2 SCC 145, whereby it is held that a charge sheet need not be issued by the appointing authority and any authority who is the controlling authority can initiate departmental proceedings by issuing a charge sheet. The Hon’ble Court further observed that the charge sheet need not to be issued by the authority empowered to impose the proposed penalty.

10.     Learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  has  further  relied  on  P.V. Srinivasa  Sastry  &  Ors.  vs.  Comptroller  and  Auditor  General  &  Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 419, whereby in the context of Article 311(1), it was held that in absence of a rule any superior authority who can be held to be the controlling  authority  can  initiate  a  departmental  proceeding  and  that initiation of a departmental proceeding per se does not hold the officer concerned with any evil consequences.

11.     Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that Bharat Electronics Limited is a Public Sector Undertaking and it is incorporated under the Companies Act and therefore, the employees do not enjoy the protections as available to the government servants.

12.     In case of Tekraj Vasandi Alias K. L. Basandhi vs. Union of India &Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 236, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the only prohibition, if any, is the inability to pass a final order in the departmental proceeding. However, the charge sheet can be issued by the officer lower than the disciplinary authority but higher than the charged officer. The dismissal or removal of the officer or even the enquiry could be done at his instance. It was also held that the only right guaranteed to a civil servant under that provision is that he should not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. It was further held by the Supreme Court that it is not necessary that the charges should be framed by the authority competent to award the proposed penalty or that the enquiry should be conducted by such authority as there is nothing under the rules which would induce the Court to read in the rules such a requirement. It  is  thus  established  from the  ratio  in  Transport  Commissioner  vs.  A. Radha Krishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC 332 of the aforesaid decision that initiation and conducting an enquiry could be done by an authority other than the authority competent to impose the penalty. Therefore, unless a statutory rule specifically requires that such proceeding is to be initiated and conducted only by a disciplinary authority, the same could be so done even by  a  subordinate  authority.  Thus,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General argued that there is no merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

13.     On perusal of Charge Sheet-Cum-Suspension order dated 17.05.2019, it is specifically mentioned that Sri M.M. Pandey, Staff No. 205757, GM (Product Support/CO) was appointed as Investigation Officer by CVO vide letter dated 18.07.2018 to conduct a detailed Investigation into the alleged irregularities reported in the execution of civil construction works in the IACCS project being executed by NCS SBU of GAD Unit. It is further stated that he submitted his report dated 03.10.2018 to CVO which was received in CVO’s office on 08.10.2018. Thus, it is established that the Charge Sheet-Cum-Suspension Order was issued in pursuance to CVO letter dated 18.07.2018 to conduct a detailed investigation into the alleged irregularities.

14.     Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon Vigilance Manual and in Para 7.3.1 regarding framing of Charge Sheet and in Para 7.3.2, it is specifically mentioned that the charge sheet comprises the memorandum, informing the concerned employee about initiation of proceedings against him and giving him an opportunity to admit or deny the charge(s) within a period not exceeding 15 days. The memorandum is to be signed by the disciplinary authority himself.

15.     As  argued  by  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  that  since  the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners are in pursuance of letter dated 18.07.2018 issued by the CVO, therefore, Vigilance Manual is applicable in the case of the petitioner.

16.     On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General has argued that in the present case, the departmental proceedings are not initiated pursuant to vigilance departmental inquiry, therefore, the Vigilance Manual is not applicable in the present case.

17.     It is not in dispute that in case of A. Radha Krishna (Supra), it is held that  unless  a  specific  rule  so  requires  that  such  proceedings  are  to  be initiated or conducted only by a disciplinary authority, the same could be done so even by the subordinate authority.

18.    In the present case, the charge sheet is issued without specifically mentioning therein whether a charge-sheet is issued for major punishment or the minor punishment. The aforesaid judgment would be applicable only in case where there is no specific rules or guidelines to this effect. However, in the present case, as per Para 7.3.2. of Vigilance Manual of BEL, the charge- sheet  comprising  the  memorandum,  informing  the  concerned  employee about the initiation of proceedings shall be signed by the disciplinary authority himself.

19.     In  the  present  case,  admittedly,  petitioner  No.  1  is  E-VIII    level employee and undisputedly, the disciplinary authority for the same is CMD, whereas the charge-sheet is issued by Functional Director (Marketing), who is not disciplinary authority.

20.     Regarding the charge sheet issued against the other petitioners, the said charge-sheet was also issued to the petitioner No. 2 by the G.M. Radar, whereas the disciplinary authority is the Director. To petitioner no. 3, the charge-sheet has been issued by the AGM, whereas disciplinary authority is the Functional Director.

21.     As per the charge sheet-cum-suspension order, the said order is issued in pursuance of the letter issued by the CVO as mentioned above. Therefore, it cannot be said that disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioners are not a vigilance case.

22.     Be that as it may, as stated by learned Additional Solicitor General that the Ministry of Defence has seized with the matter and instructed the respondents not to proceed further. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings   against   the   petitioners   is   kept   in   abeyance   till   further instructions from the said Ministry.

23.     It is pertinent to mention here that if the charge sheet is accepted and at the end, the disciplinary authority is of the view that major penalty is to be issued, in that eventuality, the authority under the statutes is not competent to issue the major penalty. Thus, while issuing further proceedings against the petitioners, if any, it shall be specifically mentioned that the charge-sheet is issued against the petitioners for minor or major penalty.

24.     Admittedly, since the suspension  order has not been extended further beyond the statutory period of 90 days, in view of the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India & Anr., (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 291, suspension is illegal thereafter. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that more than 90 days of the suspension have been elapsed. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners forthwith. The period of suspension shall be treated as per the rules.

25.     In view of above discussion and legal position, since the disciplinary authority concerned for the petitioners have not initiated departmental proceedings, therefore in my considered view, the order dated 17.05.2019 is illegal and accordingly set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings as per the statutes and the Vigilance Manual, if so advised, against the petitioners. Accordingly, the order dated 31.07.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 8188/2019 is hereby recalled.

26.          The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR  KAIT) JUDGE

OCTOBER 09, 2019

Drdo

भर्ती एवं मूल्यांकन केंद्र ( आर ए सी ) रक्षा अनुसंधान और विकास संगठन (डीआरडीओ), रक्षा मंत्रालय में व्याप्त भ्रष्टाचार

1 Comment

सेवा में,

श्रीमान राजनाथ सिंह, रक्षा मंत्री

104, साउथ ब्लॉक, नई दिल्ली

श्रीमान,

  भर्ती एवं मूल्यांकन केंद्र ( आर ए सी ) रक्षा अनुसंधान और विकास संगठन          (डीआरडीओ), रक्षा मंत्रालय, तिमारपुर, दिल्ली में जुलाई 2019 में अनुबंध के आधार पर डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर और एमटीएस की भर्ती की गयी ! जिसमे काफी संख्या में आवेदन आए जिन्हे साक्षात्कार के लिए 29 जुलाई और 30 जुलाई 2019 को बुलाया गया ! रूम नंबर 301 ( श्रीमति सुनीता वढेरा ) में साक्षात्कार हुए ! जिसमे काफी संख्या में आवेदको ने भाग लिया ! इस भर्ती में जो भी आवेदक साक्षात्कार के लिए आए उन्हे बाद में कोई सूचना नहीं दी गयी और ना ही उन्हे कोई कारण बताया गया की उनका चयन क्यों नहीं हुआ !

अजय कुमार, पूर्व डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर, भर्ती एवं मूल्यांकन केंद्र ( आर ए सी ) रक्षा अनुसंधान और विकास संगठन (डीआरडीओ), रक्षा मंत्रालय, तिमारपुर, अनुभव 16 वर्ष,( आर ए सी – 1998-2001, 2003- 2016) मैंने पूर्व निदेशक श्री आइ सी शर्मा, पूर्व निदेशक श्री प्रसाद सर , पूर्व निदेशक जेठी सर , पूर्व निदेशक डॉ अरुण कुमार, पूर्व निदेशक श्री रिशभ  कुमार जैन और पूर्व निदेशक श्री सुधीर गुप्ता इन सबके साथ भी काम किया है ! 30 जुलाई 2019 को 12.10PM रूम नंबर 301 में साक्षात्कार दिया ! लेकिन नौकरी के लिए नहीं बुलाया गया ! जब उसका कारण पूछा तो सुनीता वढेरा मैडम, रूम नंबर 301 मे मुझे बताया गया की आपका आवेदन स्वीकार कर लिया गया था लेकिन अशोक कुमार शर्मा, साइंटिस्ट ‘ई’ , रूम नंबर 414 ने आपका आवेदन अस्वीकार कर दिया लेकिन कारण कोई नहीं बताया गया ! ये सिर्फ मेरे ही नहीं और जो कैंडिडैट साक्षात्कार के लिए आए थे उनके साथ भी धोखा है !

लेकिन बाद में पता चला की ( अशोक कुमार शर्मा और वर्तमान निदेशक सुशील वर्मा ) द्वारा इस भर्ती में इन लोगो ने अपने जान पहचान वाले और अपने रिश्तेदारों का चयन किया है इसलिए इन्होने मेरा चयन नहीं किया ! इसमे इन्होने 3 कैंडिडैट निदेशक सुशील वर्मा के जान पहचान के है ! दो कैंडिडैट जो की गर्ल्स है वो अशोक कुमार शर्मा की बेटी की सहेली है जो रूम नंबर 412 मे बैठती है ! एक कैंडिडैट संचिन सिंह साइंटिस्ट की जान पहचान का है और भी कई कैंडिडैट जिनका चयन इन्होने किया है इसी कार्यालय में कार्यरत ऑफिसर और स्टाफ ( स्टोर ऑफिसर ) के रिस्तेदार और जान पहचान वाले है जिनके जान पहचान नहीं थी उन्हे नहीं लिया गया !

इस भर्ती की सबसे खास बात ये है की जिस ठेकेदार को ठेका दिया गया है उसके किसी भी कैंडिडैट का चयन शायद ही किया गया हो ! इन्होने अपने रिस्तेदारों और जान पहचान वालों को भर्ती करने के लिए ही ये कांट्रैक्ट लिया था ! जितने भी कैंडिडैट साक्षात्कार के लिए आए थे ठेकेदार को उनके बारे मे पता ही नहीं था क्यूंकी साक्षात्कार के समय सिर्फ आर ए सी स्टाफ ही था ठेकेदार वहाँ पर मौजूद है नहीं थे ! इसकी भी जांच होनी चाहिए की ठेकेदार ने कितने कैंडिडैट भेजे थे और कितनों का चयन हुआ है !

इस भ्रष्टाचार में इस कार्यालय के कई ऑफिसर और कर्मचारी संलिप्त है जिसके जांच होनी चाहिए !
  1. 16 वर्षो तक आर ए सी में डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर का कार्य करने के बाद 31 जनवरी 2016 में जब हमारा कांट्रैक्ट समाप्त किया गिया तब के तत्कालीन निदेशक (डाइरेक्टर) सुधीर गुप्ता द्वारा बताया गया की अब हमारा सारा कार्य ऑनलाइन होता है इसलिए अब हमे डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर की जरूरत नहीं है !
  2. 3 वर्ष के बाद ऐसा क्या हुआ की वहाँ पर 05 डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर की जरूरत आन पड़ी ! जब की हम तो सिर्फ दो डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर ही पिछले काफी वर्षो से कार्यरत थे जब हमारी ही जरूरत नहीं थी तो इतने डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर की क्या जरूरत आन पड़ी ! सब कार्यालय ऑनलाइन कार्य कर रहे है तो क्या आर ए सी अब ऑफलाइन कार्य कर रही है ! ये तो प्रधानमंत्री श्री नरेंद्र मोदी जी की डिजिटल इंडिया मूवमेंट को बर्बाद करने पे तुले है क्या ऐसे ही इंडिया डिजिटल होगा !
  3. इस कार्यालय में चपरासी, एमटीएस काफी मात्रा में है लेकिन ऐसी क्या जरूरत पड़ी की इनको 07 एमटीएस अनुबंध आधार पर लेने पड़े ! ऐसा कितना कार्य होने लगा अचानक इस कार्यालय में ये भी जांच का विषय है !
  4. मुझे एसएमएस और फोन कॉल करके आर ए सी में साक्षात्कार के लिए बुलाया गया लेकिन अशोक कुमार शर्मा के मना करने पर मेरा चयन नहीं किया गया क्यों ?
  5. अशोक कुमार शर्मा जो पहले इनमास में कार्यरत थे वहाँ भी इन्होने ऐसा ही कार्य किया होगा इनकी पिछले कार्यालय की भी जांच होनी चाहिए ! क्योंकि कुछ कैंडिडैट इनमास के है तथा कुछ एसएसपीएल (SSPL) के जो इनकी जान पहचान के है ये भी पता लगाया जाना चाहिए की इन दोनों ऑफिस में ये कैंडिडैट किसके कहने पर वहाँ से आर ए सी में बुलाये गए है !
  6. जितने भी डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर और एमटीएस का चयन हुआ है उन सबकी भी जांच होनी चाहिए की क्या इनमे से कुछ कंडीडटेस अशोक कुमार शर्मा के साथ दूसरे कार्यालयो में भी कार्य कर चुके है !
  7. उन सबके अनुभव और उनकी शिक्षा का स्तर की भी जांच होनी चाहिए !
  8. ठेकेदार ने कितने कंडीडटेस भेजे थे और कितने ऑफिस स्टाफ के है इसकी भी जांच होनी चाहिए !
  9. ठेकेदार की भी जांच होनी चाहिए क्योंकि इस ठेकेदार को ठेका किस आधार पर दिया गया है और कितने ठेकेदारो ने यहाँ पर ठेके के लिए आवेदन दिया था ! ये ठेकेदार अशोक कुमार शर्मा या स्टोर इंचार्जे इन दोनों मे से किसकी जान पहचान का है !

अतः आपसे अनुरोध है की इस कार्यालय में व्यापक पैमाने पर हो रहे भ्रष्टाचार की जांच की जाए ! जब तक ऐसे ऑफिसर और कर्मचारी होंगे तब तक माननीय प्रधानमंत्री श्री नरेंद्र मोदी जी का भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ चलाया अभियान सफल नहीं हो सकता !

धन्यवाद

अजय कुमार

पूर्व डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर, आर ए सी,

पता : हाउस नंबर 491, तकिया चौक

गाँव बुराड़ी, दिल्ली – 110084

कॉपी :

  1. PMO, Room No -152, South Block, New Delhi – 110011
  2. Sh. Rajnath Singh, Raksha Mantri, 104, South Block ,( rmo@mod.nic.in)
  3. PS to RM, 105 South Block
  4. Dr. G. Satheesh Reddy, SA to RM, Secretary, Dept. of Defence R&D and Chairman, DRDO
  5. Director, Dte of Vigilance & Security, DRDO, Min of Defence
  6. Shri BP Sharma, Chairman RAC
  7. Shri Prabhu Dandriyal, ( prabhudoon@gmail.com ), Curruption in DRDO
  8. jagrancorp@jagran.com, mail@indiatvnews.com
Uncategorized

सीबीआई ने BEL की पूर्व डिप्टी मैनेजर को किया गिरफ्तार, भेजी गई जेल

Leave a comment

न्यूज डेस्क, अमर उजाला, गाजियाबाद Updated Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:11 AM IST
सीबीआई की गाजियाबाद ब्रांच टीम ने गुरुवार को दिल्ली में छापामारी कर साहिबाबाद स्थित भारत इलेक्ट्रानिक लिमिटेड (भेल) की पूर्व डिप्टी मैनेजर को गिरफ्तार किया है। सीबीआई ने उसे डोंगल की खरीददारी में हुई धोखाधड़ी के मामले में गिरफ्तार कर विशेष न्यायाधीश जगदीश प्रसाद की अदालत में पेश किया, जहां से उसे चार सितंबर तक के लिए न्यायिक हिरासत में डासना जेल भेज दिया गया।
सीबीआई इंस्पेक्टर नरेंद्र सिंह, एएसआई वीर सिंह की टीम ने दोपहर के समय दिल्ली के आईपी एक्सटेंशन स्थित मौर्या अपार्टमेंट में छापा मारकर भेल की पूर्व डिप्टी मैनेजर मधु शर्मा को गिरफ्तार किया। आरोप है कि भेल के पूर्व सीनियर डीजीएम सुभाष चंद अग्रवाल, डिप्टी मैनेजर मधु शर्मा ने एक्सीजेंट सॉल्यूशन प्राइवेट लिमिटेड कंपनी के डायरेक्टर अजय कुमार आचार्य और बर्नाली बरिक की फर्म को 2012 में टेंडर दिया था।

यह टेंडर इंडियन आर्मी की 15 कोर में लगने वाले इलेक्ट्रानिक डोंगल के 1000 पीस खरीदने के लिए दिया गया था। आरोप है कि फर्म की ओर से नकली और चाइनीज डोंगल की सप्लाई भेल को दी गई, जिससे भेल को 54 लाख 50 हजार रुपये का नुकसान हुआ। भेल के अधिकारियों ने निजी फर्म के बिल को पास कर उन्हें भुगतान भी कर दिया। इस मामले में सीबीआई को सूत्रों से जानकारी मिली, जिसके बाद 26 जून 2015 को चारों आरोपियों के खिलाफ रिपोर्ट दर्ज की गई।

इस बीच सीबीआई ने पूरी जांच की और जांच के बाद 28 जून 2019 को चार्जशीट अदालत में पेश की। अदालत ने चारों आरोपियों के खिलाफ गैर जमानती वारंट जारी किए थे। ऐसे में अब अदालत ने केस में पहली आरोपी को गिरफ्तार किया है। साथ ही फरार आरोपियों की तलाश में दबिश दी जा रही है।

Uncategorized

सेना को चीन में बना डोंगल किया था सप्लाई, BEL की पूर्व डिप्टी मैनेजर गिरफ्तार

Leave a comment

Thu, 29 Aug 2019 08:20 PM (IST) jagran.com

इंडियन आर्मी को चीन में बना डोंगल सप्लाई करने के आरोप में सीबीआइ ने भेल की पूर्व डिप्टी मैनेजर मधु शर्मा को दिल्ली से गिरफ्तार कर सीबीआइ कोर्ट में पेश किया।

गाजियाबाद, जेएनएन। सेना को चीन में बने डोंगल (इंटरनेट के लिए इस्तेमाल होने वाला उपकरण) सप्लाई करने के आरोप में सीबीआइ ने भारत इलेक्टि्रकल्स लिमिटेड (BEL) की पूर्व डिप्टी मैनेजर मधु शर्मा को दिल्ली में गिरफ्तार कर लिया। सीबीआइ कोर्ट ने चार सितंबर तक मधु को न्यायिक हिरासत में भेज दिया। इस मामले में सीबीआइ कोर्ट ने चार आरोपितों के खिलाफ गैर जमानती वारंट जारी किया था।

सीबीआइ के लोक अभियोजन अधिकारी हरिमोहन ने अदालत को बताया कि 2012-13 में सेना ने BEL को पहाड़ी क्षेत्र के लिए हाई फ्रीक्वेंसी वाले एक हजार डोंगल की सप्लाई का ऑर्डर दिया था। सेना के तमाम उपकरण की सप्लाई भेल से होती है। BEL कुछ उपकरण बाहरी कंपनियों से बनवाती है। क्वालिटी चेक करने के बाद उसे सेना को सप्लाई की जाती है।

जांच में सामने आया था घोटाला
कंपनी के तत्कालीन अधिकारियों और डिप्टी मैनेजर मधु शर्मा ने चीन में बना डोंगल दो कंपनियों से लेकर सेना को सप्लाई कर दिया। 2015 में BEL के ही एक अधिकारी ने मामले की जांच की तो पता चला कि सेना को घटिया किस्म के डोंगल की सप्लाई करते हुए निजी लाभ कमाया गया है। विभागीय जांच के बाद अधिकारी ने सीबीआइ जांच की सिफारिश की।

सीबीआइ ने 26 जून 2015 को रिपोर्ट दर्ज करने के बाद जांच की तो लगभग 54 लाख रुपये का घोटाला सामने आया। मामले में मधु शर्मा सहित चार के अलावा डोंगल सप्लाई करनेवाली दो कंपनियों को आरोपित माना। इस मामले में सीबीआइ ने 28 जून को चार्जशीट अदालत में पेश की। सीबीआइ टीम ने छापा मारते हुए दिल्ली से मधु शर्मा को गिरफ्तार गुरुवार शाम अदालत में पेश किया। अदालत ने सुनवाई के बाद न्यायिक हिरासत में जेल भेज दिया।

PMO

BEL Senior Officers Conversations Regarding Corruption in Prestigious Air Force IACCS Project

Leave a comment

www.corruptionindrdo.com,  however, cannot independently verify the authenticity of audio. Received from anonymous source. 

www.corruptionindrdo.com  has forwarded government agencies for further investigation.

Here is a conversation between Mr. D.K. Chatterjee and Mr. M.M. Pandey wherein Mr. Pandey is exposing the BEL corruption Modus Operandi  observed in ordering of civil contracts in IACCS.  

Mr. D.K. Chatterjee an IIT Kanpur Graduate of 1983 batch had worked in many indigenously developed products related to communications and radars. He is presently in the R&D group in-charge of the Radar Data processing. He is an engineer of par excellence in his field and through his in-house research and development he has saved a huge amount of foreign exchange for the country.

He has been targeted by the BEL management and his career has been stalled since he does not fit into the BEL model of going for foreign ToTs and with big corporate / private vendors to provide the defence forces equipment at very high cost and ensure kickbacks leading to corruption where persons at highest level BEL are involved. In the IACCS project the biggest challenge was to integrate the legacy Radars of Indian Air force and Army with the IACCS system since the output protocol of these old Radars was not compatible with input requirement for IACCS system.

Mr. D.K. Chatterjee and Mr. M.M. Pandey wherein Mr. Pandey is discussing the discrepancies which have been observed in ordering of civil contracts in IACCS. In turn Mr. Chatterjee tells about his experience wherein as a part of IACCS project he had worked on creating the interface (Radar Data Processing hardware and software) between the old legacy Radars and IACCS system. He was forced to use hardware which were pre-defined and at a very high cost.

As per him even with the high cost of hardware (since the software was written in-house) the cost of one system came to just about Rs 25 lacs. After the systems were proven he was unceremoniously removed from the project and the systems were subsequently outsourced and bought at a huge cost of about Rs 2.5 Crores each. With so many legacy Radars which were integrated to the IACCS the amount of money which has been misappropriated by the top management of BEL would run into hundreds of Crores.

This is again a case where an intelligent IIT graduate Electronics Engineer who did not compromise on corruption and worked for giving the Defence Forces the best at the least cost was harassed and removed from the main stream and made to suffer in his career. This is again in line with what has been brought out in the case of ordering of DDS software where a software worth not more than Rs 20 Crores was being bought at Rs 320 Crores and when one of the Managers in R&D became a whistle blower to stop this from happening he was harassed and bullied to the extent that he was forced to resign.

The Vigilance report which brought out this corruption had also noted that all the original team which worked on software related to IACCS (first phase wherein five nodes were established by BEL) was dismantled and engineers were either transferred out of the Unit or outside the project. Hence the modus operandi is the same in BEL for all persons who stand against corruption. They are harassed, side tracked, given punishment postings or suspended and terminated.   

It can be understood that if one or two persons are targeted but in the project IACCS it is clearly brought out at various stages that persons have been targeted whenever they have spoken about the rampart corruption which is being monitored by the highest level of management in BEL.

If proper investigation is carried out by external government agencies it will clearly come out that in this project from the beginning itself at all stages and in all systems (software, hardware, civil contracts, sub-systems for hardened underground buildings) organized and planned corruption has taken place through a mafia (which may be external to BEL) and with full support from persons sitting at the highest level of BEL.

Some of the conversations of Mr. D.K. Chatterjee are as follows:

• I have talked to Shri Ajay Singh who is involved in the civil works of IACCS. He has also said that there are lots of discrepancies in the civil contracts.

• I was part of IACCS group who interacted with Air Force persons during the initial phase of the project. I was working in Radar Data Processing (RDP) and when we were interfacing with Air Force personnel they also told us that there was something very wrong going on in the project.

• The amount of corruption which is there in the project it does not look that CMD would have any control. If the loot is of the order of Rs 1000 to 2000 Crores, I think a very small part of it would have gone to BEL persons. Persons facilitating this loot in BEL would just get few foreign trips and perhaps some GM promotions. The very fact that Air Force has given BEL the job of civil construction on underground buildings is itself questionable since DRDO already had expertise in this and Air Force could have done this job ( directly through some private vendor) with DRDO help (this shows that the plan was to do all the corruption by just front ending BEL).

• I have also been a part of IACCS project from the very beginning (although I was looking after a very small portion related to RDP) but I also found something strange happening in the project. When I was doing the RDP I was asked by Mr. Anil Pant (the AGM in-charge of IACCS who was indicted by the Vigilance report dated 16th Nov’16 for manipulations in the ordering of DDS software but was subsequently promoted as General Manager) to choose the hardware from a particular vendor (on a single tender basis and at a very high cost from what was available in the market). As per Mr. Pant it was customers requirement to go with a particular vendor (how can customer dictate the vendor).

• Even taking the hardware at a higher cost I was able to make the system in-house at a cost of Rs 25 lacs. The same system they were getting from vendors at almost Rs 2.5 Crores (ten times the in-house cost).

• Although I was doing a very small part of the project the attitude which was there in the

overall project got reflected in this also (as in overall IACCS project they have been going for single tenders for ordering on pre-fixed vendors at much higher costs than available in the market).

• Everyone looked at me as if I have done a very big mistake by developing the system inhouse (maybe because I came on the way of persons making money out of outsourcing the same to pre-fixed vendors). Everyone (including the end user) tried to dissuade me from taking up the in-house development by telling me that the system is required urgently within six months thinking that I will raise my hands due to the impossible time lines set for me for development. Everyone was saying that RDP cannot be made in-house but like a fool I accepted the challenge and when I successfully demonstrated it, I was unceremoniously thrown out of the project.

• It is quite obvious that there is some serious misappropriation going on in the project at the highest level.

It is obvious that since after developing the system at a cost of Rs 25 lacs Mr. D.K. Chatterjee was thrown out of the project the required systems would have been bought at inflated cost (almost ten times) from pre-fixed vendors. This has been the modus operandi in the IACCS project wherein persons who had originally been part of the project and were instrumental in development of software and selection of hardware were unceremoniously removed from the project and a bunch of persons who had nothing to do with the project were placed at the positions where they manipulated the ordering in connivance with the persons at the highest level at BEL for personal gains.