NEW DELHI: Indicating that the Defence Research and Development Organization was in for a major revamp, defence minister A K Antony on Friday said cost and time overruns would no longer do in crucial defence projects.
“We are in the process of introducing several innovations to streamline and make more effective the entire defence product development and procurement process,” said Antony, while addressing the 32nd DRDO conference here.
“On the anvil are amendments to our procurement procedures, developing a healthy interface with the public and private industry through offsets and bringing about organizational improvements in DRDO,” he added.
This assumes significance in the backdrop of the recent report by the P Rama Rao committee, which has called for a drastic overhaul of DRDO to ensure it can supply cutting-edge weapon systems to armed forces without the prevailing huge time and cost overruns, as reported by TOI earlier.
NEW DELHI: In view of some Western countries unwilling to part with strategic defence technologies, the government on Tuesday said it would further strengthen the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) for providing strategic defence with suitable delivery systems.
Amid concerns expressed by members of a Parliamentary consultative committee on defence on project delays and poor quality of some products developed by DRDO, defence minister A K Antony told MPs that the research organisation has put India in an elite club with the development of interceptor ballistic missile system.
The latest round of user trials has made it clear that even after 30 years of development, Arjun Tank comes nowhere near meeting minimum operational requirements of the Army.
However, what is worrying the top brass is that DRDO’s insistence on inducting larger numbers of the indigenous tank will come in the way of a newer, better “Main Battle Tank (MBT) of the future” that is now required by the Army.
While Army HQ is not even thinking about extending its original order of 124 Arjun Tanks for two regiments, given that it is unacceptable for induction in the present form, the top brass is concerned that continued DRDO efforts on the Arjun will delay its requirement of a futuristic MBT.
The Army has now told DRDO that there is no point bickering about the past and the Arjun Tank should be treated as a technology demonstrator and a platform to work on a totally new tank design for the future.
Ads by GoogleRC Helicopters Bye Bye Trex 450 An all new 450 class heli.www.sshelicopters.coReal Estate @ 99acres.com Buy,Sell,Rent all kinds of Property Over 200000 Listings. Search Now!www.99acres.comSobha Aspire Residential 2 & 3BHK Apts with Modern Amenities Near Proposed Metro Stn. Book Now!SobhaDevelopers.com/
There is a certain degree of urgency in the Army’s demand as it is aware of an increasing void in the tank armoury and its requirement of 3,500 tanks to replace the ageing T 72 MBT.
“After 30 years, the Arjun has not fructified, and now we need to start with a new design and a new tank. We have always said that a next (generation) tank has to come out in due course of time. We now have a base and expertise to start on the futuristic tank,” Lt Gen KDS Shekhawat, who till February was Director General of Mechanised Forces at Army HQ, said.
The current round of winter trials, where the German-origin power pack of the tank failed four times within a run of 1,000 kms, is the latest in the series of setbacks that have dogged the project since its inception in 1974.
The Army is disappointed that the tank has failed to deliver on every single count that was citied for the prolonged indigenous research project. The engine, tracks, transmissions and gunners sight — that together account for 60 per cent of its cost — are all imported.
“When we placed the order, 60 per cent of the components were imported. It was going to cost us Rs 25 crore at a time when the T 90 was available for below Rs 10 crore. But it was an indigenous effort, so we agreed for 124 tanks. But not much has changed. We still remain dependant on foreign firms, and there is a lot of unhappiness as it has not met operational requirements of the Army,” feels General VP Malik, who was the Army chief during the Kargil conflict.
The Army is not just questioning the technology of the tank but is also worried about Arjun’s reliability factor given that various components of the tank have not been tested in harsh climatic conditions and terrain unique to India.
As demonstrated during the ongoing Accelerated Usage-cum-Reliability Trials (AUCRT) of the Arjun tank (crucial to clear it for bulk production), the German engine failed four times as it had never been extensively tested by the Army in desert conditions in the past.
Besides, the Army also found “unacceptable” the chipping of the gun barrel during firing trials. The old problem in the hydro pneumatic suspension system also resurfaced.
The next litmus test for the Arjun comes on May 5 when DRDO will make a presentation at Army HQ to explain the defects and the steps taken to rectify the engine faults. Ironically, the DRDO, which was supposed to clarify on the trials this month itself, delayed the presentation by close to two weeks, saying it needs more time to prepare a report. After the DRDO presentation, the Army will take a call to either repeat the third round of AUCRT trials or proceed to the fourth “summer round” of the trials.
EXPERTSPEAK
• General VP Malik, former Army Chief “I can see a lot of unhappiness with the quality of the tank. It is primarily because of very long delay. Even at the end of it all, the tank has not come up to the operational satisfaction of the Army. I am all for self-reliance but we have to make the Arjun more indigenous than it is today.
Lt Gen KDS Shekhawat, former DG, Mechanised Forces No point bickering over past. It is gone. Tanks have a certain shelf life, and now we need a new design looking into the future. Ultimately, it is the men who have to use the tank. If they have confidence, they will love the equipment.
• Brig Gurmeet Kanwal, director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies I don’t really see a major future of the Arjun as the MBT of India. Over all, the Arjun tank has not met certain major parameters. However, the Army had expected that the two regiments to be inducted would meet requirements so that extensive trials could be carried out.
• AV Singh, former defence secretary Regardless of the shortcomings, we must encourage it as an indigenous effort. As far as opening development to the Indian private sector is concerned, it will add to the competition, improve quality and will shorten the development time.
There is a time in the life of many a business establishment — and a marriage — when the realisation dawns that things are not working. The only options are to close shop or get a divorce. Government behemoths are a tad different, but even then, we think the time has come for terminating the already estranged relationship between the country’s armed forces and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
Since the armed forces cannot, and should not, do without a defence research organisation, the option of shutting shop is not there. But divorce and remarriage is a distinctly desired option. The way to go is to dismantle the organisation as it exists now, spin off its laboratories to defence public sector units, and reconstitute its core. What should result is a lean and mean defence science set-up that will provide conceptual inputs and funds to private and public labs to service the needs of the armed forces and the country.
This may seem to be a harsh solution. But in my view, it is an absolutely necessary one. Two years short of its 50th anniversary, the DRDO’s record is not just shabby, it is a disgrace. The annual budget of the 25,000-strong outfit has risen from Rs 500 crore in 1988-9 to nearly Rs 5,000 crore today. Yet there is not a single major or minor product, barring an excellent sonar system and the INSAS rifle, that has found usage in the armed forces. In sum, the Indian armed forces have been forced to do with less, and suffered more, because of the inadequacies of the DRDO.
The jawans in Kashmir were compelled to design their own steel plated patka, or headgear, in place of the helmet, which is awkward in insurgency firefights. The paramilitary devised their own light armoured vehicles, and the DRDO’s heavy steel bulletproof vest was no less cumbersome than medieval armour. For 20 years, the armed forces have been tackling improvised explosive devices and mines. But the DRDO has only recently, after 9/11, discovered robotic systems to do the job.
A great deal of the responsibility for this rests with A.P.J. Abdul Kalam who was the head of the missile development programme from 1982 to 1992, and then the chief of the DRDO till 1999. During this period, the DRDO made it a practice to claim that it could provide services in, and make any product related to, aeronautics, armaments, electronics, combat vehicles, engineering systems, instrumentation, missiles, advanced computing and simulation, special materials, naval systems, life sciences, training and information systems. So while DRDO budgets grew exponentially, the armed forces were forced to do without products because they were either interminably delayed, or never performed anywhere near the claims made by the DRDO. The result has been that the country’s defence system has suffered from several dangerous gaps during the last decade and a half.
The Agni missile that you see on parade on Republic Day is nothing but a mock-up model; but you won’t see that written on the placard. The DRDO claims the Agni as its great success. Yet the reality is that the tardy programme — whose only useful launchers are made by the Isro — is not yet a fully operational system. At least not good enough for the missile to have been tested on a land target — a vital requirement for a mature product.
The Arjun tank that is being displayed for the past 15 years is not a dummy. But it has come into limited service in the army riding on the back of a political fiat. For the second time in its history, the army has a tank it cannot allow, in good conscience, to be sent into battle in a real war. Its antiquated rifled barrel main gun cannot fire missiles, and is not optimal for fin-stabilised anti-tank munitions. Worse, the Arjun’s sophisticated (German origin) pneumatic suspension system is fed nitrogen gas through pipes that are, to put it delicately, not protected by its armour, and hence even small-arms fire can bring the 58-tonne monster to a grinding halt.
On Kalam’s insistence, the government would have shoved this down the army’s throat as the Main Battle Tank (MBT). But in the early Nineties, Pakistan acquired some 300 T80UD tanks and the army put its foot down. Like the T-90S — which is now our MBT — the Pakistani tank has a very effective tandem-warhead missile that can be fired through the gun tube and can knock out an adversary tank well before it can bring its tank gun to bear.
The third case where DRDO delays cost the country dearly was in the case of the artillery location radar. After having promised to make a system based on the British Cymbelline, the DRDO failed. By the time they acknowledged it in 1998, the US, which was offering its AN TPQ/37 system, had put an embargo on India. The result was that the army had no means of locating Pakistani artillery units during the Kargil war of 1999.
The fourth case is the one under current discussion — the Trishul missile. In the late Eighties, Kalam had promised that the air defence of a new class of Brahmaputra-class ships of the Indian Navy could be provided by the Trishul, which he said would be able to down aircraft, as well as in-coming anti-ship missiles. The naïve navy, which had had a major success in a DRDO-designed sonar, accepted this. But when the frigates started coming up, there were no signs of the Trishul. For two years, anti-aircraft protection was given to these expensive ships through hand-held missiles that infantry-men or guerrillas use. Things would not have changed but for the Kargil war when the navy was compelled to point out the needless risk it was taking of sending a fleet to battle-stations without adequate protection against Pakistan’s very potent French- and American-supplied anti-ship missiles.
Even today, the country’s air defence system is severely hampered by the DRDO’s failure to produce the Trishul and Akash surface-to-air missiles. All vital areas across the country, as well as combat formations and the naval fleet, are protected by a multi-layered air defence system. The first layer is fighter aircraft of the IAF, which seek to either destroy enemy air bases or shoot down their aircraft when they enter our air-space. If these aircraft get through, they hit the second layer, which has Surface-to-Air Missiles (Sams) with ranges from 2-30 km. Since the Seventies, Soviet-origin missiles — with specific variants for the army, navy and air force — did this job. The Trishul and Akash were designed to replace these systems beginning from the mid-Nineties. It is now 2006 and the missiles are not there, which means 50 of our cities and industrial zones are more vulnerable than they should be to air attack, as are our armed forces.
In 1996, the government had grandly announced that Kalam would chair a “Self Reliance Implementation Council” that would take the level of indigenous equipment in the armed forces from 30 per cent to 70 per cent by 2007. By that time, just months away, the target is far from being achieved, even though Kalam will have finished a term in office as President of the Republic.
The time has come to make painful choices. The continuance of the DRDO in its present form will not only not reduce India’s painful dependence on foreign weapons systems, but will also leave critical gaps in the country’s ability to defend itself. The culture of bureaucracy is so deep in the DRDO that mere restructuring or overhaul will not yield any result. The time has come for surgery, and a drastic one at that.
Please see the following RTI Reply from DRDO RTI Cell, in which DRDO RTI cell provide wrong and false informations.
RTI request
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest houses at DELHI.
How many DRDO officials are availing DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station i.e. Delhi from 1st Jan 2007 to 31st May 2010
Total number of days Sh. S.Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO Hqrs has been availing the DRDO guest house facilities since his posting to DRDO Hqrs till date.
Total number of days Dr. Prahalda , CCR&D,(Ae &SI),DS, DRDO HQRs has been availing the DRDO guest house facilities since his posting to DRDO Hqrs till date.
Please intimate me date time for inspection of guest house records under Right to Information Act 2005 section 2 (j) (i) & (ii
DRDO Reply _ File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000412
Para wise reply pertaining to years 2009 and 2010 is as under:
(a) Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest House at Delhi —105
(b) DRDO officials availing DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station — 17
(c) Sh. S Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 10 Jul 2009 to 10 Sep 2010.
(d) Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 26 Mar 2010 to 20 Mar 2011. (False Information by RTI Cell, DRDO)
1. Facts : Dr. Prahalda , CCR&D,(Ae &SI),DS, DRDO HQRs availed the DRDO guest house facilities since his posting to DRDO Hqrs to 20 Mar 2011.
2. The Date of transfer of Sh S Ravi not provided
Brief facts of the case
The DRDO Appellate Authority Dr. Prahlada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS have not given his residence address and contact details in any documents or website or any other public domain. I think he is staying in DRDO Bhawan itself. The CPIO and FAA of DRDO Hqrs both are on their posting at DRDO Hqrs, staying in DRDO Guest House and drawing the HRA. So how can Indian citizen expect any right information from these corrupt officials?
There more 9-10 CC R&D and Directors who are belongs to Hyderabad and Bangalore and their families are staying Hyderabad and Bangalore respectively and they all are staying in DRDO guest houses they are giving their residence address in telephone directory at DRDO guest houses and enjoying HRA also. They are frequent fliers, they all are already break the Milkha Singh ‘s (Flying Sikh of India) records and relishing without fear with TD with poor tax payers money.
Following DRDO senior official are staying in guest house since their positing to DRDO Hqrs and drawing the 30% HRA . it is big money and two major points i.e. one -these guest house not meant for permanent residence and second when the official come from various station to attend the meeting these guest house are not available for them and they have to spent precious poor tax payers money in luxury hotels.
There are more than 15 room is permanently occupied by DRDO senior officials in C-7, DRDO Guest House, Qutab Enclave, &6 official also unauthorized /occupied the DRDO Guest Development Enclave Rao, Tularam Marg, because as per sanction both places are as DRDO guest house facility in Govt .of India’s records. This is the purely dadagiri of DRDO.
Following DRDO senior official are staying in guest house as DRDO telephone Directory
Name of Official Office Ph No. Residence Ph No Residence Address
To
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011
Honorable Sir,
Your attention is drawn to open secret, Russian were able to unify electromagnetic and gravitation theory. Just after world war –II the foundation of physics and electromagnetic discovery a weapon known today as “Scalar Weapon”
Even today the mighty Americans can never dare to see the soviet face to face. The giant transmitter releases 40 mega watts each and the transmitting pulses in advertently setup a standing wave around the earth. The first experiment conducted in 1950-52
The second experiment of 1 May1960 the defensive radars of soviet uses their prototype scalar EM beam weapons downed U-2 reconnaissance plane flying over Soviet Union that time the surface to air missile had not born.
April 10, 1963 Russians destroyed the U.S.S. Thresher with one of his new weapons. Scalar EM (electromagnetic-gravitational) beams, focused through the ocean to interfere on the Thresher under the surface, recreated spurious EM energy resulted the jamming of all electronics control system and the submarine sank under the sea.
April 11, 1963, two deployed Soviet scalar EM weapons fired massive scalar EM pulses through the ocean. The two massive pulses met and interfered deep under the surface, 100 miles north of Puerto Rico. The resulting giant underwater EM explosion hurled a mushroom of water half a mile up into the air, and the anomalous explosion was observed
In 1976 the power was further raised and 3-30MHz communication across the globe was interrupted. Multi beam light seen up to 200 miles and earthquake like situation was observed in China
In June 17, 1966from the air near Teheran, Iran, several airline pilots sighted a brilliant sphere of light, “sitting on the horizon,” so to speak, deep within the Soviet Union. The intensely glowing sphere expanded to enormous size, dimming as it expanded, always remaining “sitting on the horizon.” The pilots observed the phenomenon for 4 to 5 minutes
In 1977 from Alaska to Chile observed dense cloud.
In 1979 &1980 Soviet was able to test Scalar EM exothermic pulse, EMP flash appeared similarly to the nuclear explosion.
In March 26, 1987 the events related to the demolition of the Atlas-Centaur rocket which occurred on provides strong evidence of the use of Teslar-scalar weapons.
In June 1982 Japan Airline flight 404 & 421 pilots reported from 42 degrees N latitude and 153 degrees longitude sighting of a giant light over the about 700 miles east of Kushiro.
In 1984 gigantic mushroom cloud emerged above the ocean of the coast of Japan within 2 minutes the cloud grew to 60000 feets.
In 1985 an expert discovered the 54 powerful scalar beam with a separation of 12 KHz.
Soviets conducted full strategic exercise of their scalar EM weapons. After analysis was proved that the modern battle could be fought without movement of the personals across the border. The directed energy weapon or scalar weapon can turn the war scenario in favor of the country that is having these weapons.
DRDO with a huge infrastructure of nearly 1 Lakh corers and a strong scientific & technical manpower of 30000 in general & 6000 high qualified outstanding scientists receiving corers of rupees as rewards for importing the import substitutecan asked to development the technology of the scalar weapon
Scientific Adviser to RM is requested to find out the details of these dates and DRDO should plan to develop Scalar Weapon.
The CPIO
Under Secretary (Estt.A-IV)
R.No.202, North Block, D/o. Personnel & Training, North Block
New Delhi
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL, Sutarwadi, Pune- 411021 granted extension/re-employment as per rule laid down wide OM DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt.(B) dated the 18th May, 1977 for Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.
Extension: F.R. 56(d) states that no Government servant shall be granted extension of service beyond the age of 60 years. However, provisions exist in the rules to grant extension of service to certain category of Government servants only. Therefore, it must be ensured that no Ministry/Department should propose to grant extension in service unless the case is covered by the Rules
Please Provide me the copy of proposal of extension in respect of Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL with copy of certificate of Integrity along with the DoPT prescribed Annexure-I (Enclosed)
In the recommendation for extension of his service beyond 60 years whether any confirmation/ information regarding pendency of any criminal/ civil case against Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL is mentioned or Not.
Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after
No. 26012/6/2002-Estt. (A)Government of IndiaMinistry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions(Department of Personnel & Training )
New Delhi, dated 9th December, 2002
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject : Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation – issue of instructions regarding.
The undersigned is directed to say that the criteria for grant of extension/re employment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation are laid down in the DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt.(B) dated the 18th May, 1977. After May, 1998 and when the age of retirement of the Central Government employees increased from 58 to 60 years, some of the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 18th May, 1977 referred to above have lost their relevance. Accordingly, it has been decided to revise the instructions relating to extension/re-employment to Central Government employees.
2. In the absence of specific orders to the contrary by the competent authority, a Government servant must retire on the due date. The date of superannuation of a Government servant is known in advance and ordinarily there should not be a question of failure to make arrangements for his release sufficiently in advance. It is the responsibility of the administrative authority concerned to ensure that the Government servants under their control retire on the due date.
3. Extension: F.R. 56(d) states that no Government servant shall be granted extension of service beyond the age of 60 years. However, provisions exist in the rules to grant extension of service to certain category of Government servants only. Therefore, it must be ensured that no Ministry/Department should propose to grant extension in service unless the case is covered by the Rules.
4. The proposal for grant of extension in service to the categories of personnel referred to in the first, second and third proviso to F.R. 56(d) -2- shall be referred to the Estt. Division of Department of Personnel and Training two months prior to the date on which the individual concerned is due for superannuation. The procedure for grant of extension to the Scientists is laid down in DoPT d.o. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO(SM-II) dated the 10th July, 2000.
5. Procedure for consideration of cases for extension of specialists in the medical and scientific fields:- It should be appreciated that even in the case of extension to specialist in the medical or scientific fields, it is not only the next man who misses promotion but often several people miss consequential promotions all along the hierarchy. Thus, too many cases of extension in service or reemployment are likely to cause frustration and affect the morale of the upcoming scientists who have exposure to latest technological developments in connecting fields. Keeping in view these circumstances, the following criteria and procedure has been evolved with a view to ensure that extensions in service to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. The overriding consideration for the grant of extension is that it must be in the public interest and in addition satisfy one of the following two conditions:-
i) that the retiring specialist is not just one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest; or
ii) that other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the job.
Test (ii) would be satisfied only if there is shortage in particular specialization, or if it is not possible to find a suitable successor or if the specialist is engaged on a work or project of vital importance, which is likely to produce results in a year or two. If specialists in the next lower post are not eligible for promotion on the ground that they have not put in the minimum service in the lower grade prescribed under the rules, no promotions can be made to the higher grade, unless such specialists put in the requisite length of service. But specialists who are eligible for promotion to the post against which extension is recommended, should not be rejected solely on the ground that they do not have as much experience as the retiring specialist. They should be considered for promotion according to the -3- recruitment rules and if they are found suitable they should be promoted to the posts being vacated by the retiring specialists.
6. Whenever any specialist is considered for grant of extension, his character roll and personal file should be carefully scrutinized and all other relevant information that may be available should be taken into account to judge whether the specialist had good reputation for integrity and honesty. In cases where the specialist is not considered to have good reputation for integrity and honesty, he should not be considered for grant of extension in service. The appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry should furnish a certificate of Integrity along with the Annexure-I as follows where it proposes to grant extension of service.
“Having scrutinized in character roll and personal file of
Shri/Smt./Kum._____________________ and having taken into account all other relevant available information, I certify that he/she has a good reputation for integrity and honesty.”
7. While making proposals for extension of service in higher posts, it is all the more necessary to apply higher standards of efficiency to persons whose appointments to the higher posts are recommended for approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. The number of top posts is bound to be very limited and a few persons should not have them for too long. No Government servant who is on extension of service after the prescribed date of retirement should be promoted to another post during the period of extension of service.
8. No extension of service should be considered on the ground that a suitable successor is not available unless it is established that action to select a successor had been taken well in advance but the selection could not be finalized in time for justifiable reasons. A proposal for the grant of extension of service based merely on the consideration that the specialist’s predecessor had been given extension should obviously not be accepted. -4-
9. Re-employment: No proposal for employing a government servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years shall be considered. It is also clarified that no person can be appointed/ reappointed to Central Government service after the age of superannuation of 60 years through contract.
10. Re-employment of military pensioners who have not reached the age of superannuation for Central Government employees will not be governed by these instructions.
11. Appointment of Consultant:-
Detailed instructions have been issued for appointment of consultant vide DoP&T’s Office Memorandum No. 16012/7/97-Estt.(Allowance) dated 13th February, 1998. Hindi version will follow.
Sd/-
Mrs. Pratibha Mohan
Director (E-II)
To
All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.
(As per standard list)
Annexure-I
Performa for sending proposals for approval of Department of Personnel & Training for grant of extension to Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.
1. Designation of the post
2. Duration of the post :
3. Scale and terms of the post and perquisite attached, if any:
4. Whether financial sanction for the creation of the post/continuance of post for the duration shown at (2) has been obtained:
5. Method of recruitment:
6. Name and the terminal date of appointment of the outgoing incumbent of the post:
7. Name of the specialist proposed for appointment and the service to which he belongs:
8. Full service particulars of the Officer with date of birth and pay drawn:
9. Names of other Officers considered:
10.If promotion post, whether copies of proceedings of a D.P.C. are being enclosed? If not, why not?
11. Whether character roll of the specialist proposed and those considered are being sent. If not, why not?
12. Please indicate:
(i) (a) Whether the post is scientific or medical specialist.
(b) Periods of extension granted earlier to the officer, if any
(c) Date from which extension is to be granted.
(d) Period of extension of service.
(ii) Justification for grant of extension:
(a) The date from which it was known that vacancy would occur.
(b) Action taken to select a successor with chronological details.
(c) If selection is being made, reasons why this could not be finalized in good time.
(d) Can some officiating or ad-hoc arrangements be made, pending fresh appointment by proper selection? If not, why not?
(iii) Whether orders of the Minister-in charge have been obtained?
13. Whether the prescribed Integrity Certificate, from the appropriate authority, is enclosed.
DOPT covering letterintegrity ceritificate - see the date?Dr Arun Kupar's play 1Dr Arun Kumar's play 2Dr Arun Kumar's play 3Dr Arun Kumar's paly 4
After receiving of the denial of RTI request by CPIO, DRDO, I appealed the matter to Appellate Authority as expected by us the denial of Appellate Authority, DRDO received by me.
As you already know about Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO, he is the one of the most corrupt official of DRDO and he is the total responsible for downfall of the DRDO. He is the man behind the all manipulations to uplift the incompetent and corrupt officials of DRDO, their promotions, their posting, their extensions, their illegal financial benefits all matters are taken care by Dr Arun Kumar but question is up to which date because everyone very well know if somebody doing illegal activities it is limit and one has pay for that.
Since the website completed 17 months and in this period I have come across only one good act of Dr Arun Kumar, DOP that is the transfer of two blinds Sh Laxman, Admin Assistant, ACEM, Nasik & Sh Ravindra Gauda, HEMRL, Pune to their hometowns lab, but it was after the pressure of Sh Rajiv Varshnay, SA’s staff officer only. I want to thanks both of them for this noble cause.
I am requested Dr Arun Kumar please act for some good cause in last step of your service, so people will forget wrong doings.
After few months when you will retire no one can even like to say hello to you.
Dear SFcians pleas find below their denial of DRDO, but we will take up this matter to CIC soon and will get proper and legal solutions for issues.
Some important question
The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011
Whether Above info is nature of strategic?
Since they have already “One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.
I really don’t our honorable SA put these inhuman persons in such important posts.
I.D. No_________ Date: _________ [For office use]To Dr Arun Kumar OS & Director, Directorate of PersonalRoom No.-217, DRDO Bhawan , Rajaji Marg New Delhi – 110105
Sir,
As I am aggrieved by decision/no decision of Central Public Information Officer, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
The reply of CPIO, DRDO, is completely confusing, misleading, incorrect, unjustified and willful not give any information, does not following the spirit of RTI Act 2005.
The information asked about SF Complex Jagdalpur is not come any norms of secrecy. I am not asking about any work or project information of SF Jagdalpur Unit.
1. Details of appellant
1.1 Full Name: Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
1.2. Full Address: 21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
1.3 Phone/Cell No. 0135-2787750 / 919411114879
1.4 Email ID: prabhu@dandriyal.com 2. Details of CPIO:
2.1 Name/Designation: Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, Head RTI Cell, Scientist ‘F’
2.2 Full Address : Room No 314 A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India
3. Details of RTI application to CPIO:
Date of Application : 19th July 2011
Mailed on: 19th July 2011
by speed post
4. Particulars of payment of filing fee:
Paid Rs.10/- by Postal Order No. 90E 611227
5. Details of information sought:
1) The official address of SF Complex (one of the labs/Establishment of DRDO), JAGDALPUR?
2) Copy of D O part order or any other order regarding the place of reporting duty at Plant Girola Village which is 40 Kms away from Jagdalpur.
3) Copy of D O part order any other order in which the employees posted at SF complex first they report to duty at SF Complex then report for duty at Girola Plant Site.
4) The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011
5) The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and human right not come under schedule -II – why because it is noticed that without proper movement orders and without proper maintained vehicles the employees of SF complex are going daily at Girola plant. Earlier in one accident case it is heard that the movement order was made by SF Complex administration in back date to give financial benefits to the deceased family.
6. Particulars of Decision of CPIO:
Date of CPIO’s Decision:9th August 2011
Date of receipt of decision by the appellant:12th August 2011
7. Brief facts of the case:
The official address of SF Complex is “SF COMPLEX, AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING, JAGDALPUR-494001”. SFC Employees are given appointment letters with above address as reporting place. But, all are forced to report at the above address as well as at its work centre located at Girola village, Bakawand block, Bastar district. This location is completely out of 40 Kms away from municipality (Jagdalpur) of the official address.
As per rule they should report at the place of posting as per the appointment letter. But it is not so. Is it (forcing to report at other place) not violation of an employee’s right to report at the posting place? The management says that reporting place is at Girola and same time management says Airport terminal building, Jagdalpur. It is clear cut case of harassment of employees of SF Complex.
One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.
If the travelling from Jagdalpur to Girola and back is official and as per the rule and the rule position should be clear for all for management, employees and the general public. After this accident all the staff of SF Complex Jagdalpur took a decision and reported at posting place only. This happened for two days and later management has interfered and threatened to them for report at Girola and told them if they will not report at Girola, will get termination letter. Employees were forced to report at Girola. It is a violation of Human Right? Reporting at posting place is not correct? Then why appointment letters were given like that? DRDO has to duty to provide them proper necessary papers as per rule position of Central Government.
The requested information is not come under 8(1) (a) and 24 (1) of the RTI Act at all because the information asked not in the nature of secrecy like The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority. This the major concern of family and friends of employees of SF complex for their safety and well beings. For mere few thousand Rupees from contractors as bribe the Top DRDO officials playing with the life of SF Complex Employees.
The required information is fall under corruption and as well as violation human right and therefore in any means it is not come under schedule –II exemption of RTI Act 2005.
“RTI is a key instrument for imposing democratic values, accountability and transparency in our public administration,” Dr.Shah Faisal (IAS topper 2010 & RTI activist of J&K RTI Movement NGO) told Sakàl Times
8. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:
i) To know the sensitiveness and work environment of DRDO
ii) To expose the corrupt practices prevailing in DRDO
9. Any other information in support of appeal:
10. Prayer/relief sought for:
It is requested that please provide me correct information as per request of my RTI dated 19th July 2011 in larger public interest, because it is directly related to corruption and violation of Human rights.
11. Enclosures:
i) My RTI request dated 19th July 2011
ii) Denial of CPIO, DRDO Hqrs dated 09 August 2011
12. Declaration:I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with any information commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com website www.corruptionindrdo.comDenial of Appellate Authority page 1Denial of Appellate Authority page 2
I have received a legal notice from Dr S R Vadera, Science ‘G’, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur, regarding the letter which I have received by post in his name and the matter was related to the environment of Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur and posted on the website on 12th July 2011 and as you all are aware the website was hacked on 25th August 2011 and the same matter was not uploaded again.
In his legal notice he stated that some unknown person wrote a fake letter to Sh A K Anthony, Honorable Minister of Defence, GOI, 104, South Block by presenting himself as Dr Vadera and marked forged signature of Dr S R Vadera at the end of this fake/forged letter dared 05-06-2011.
Dr S R Vadera, Sc ‘G’ now wants to put his view regarding environment of Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur. The legal notice enclosed a letter which Dr S R Vadera, Sc ‘G’ sent to SA to RM and asked to publish that on the website
He also asked my regret regarding this episode.
Friends, you have already showed your faith in this website with your encouragement, comments and number of visits as well as your valuable suggestion and inputs.
I have received mails from almost every part of India and also received letter from Honorable Defence Minister, I am also in touch with all enforcement agencies related to corruption/ nepotism issues lying in DRDO.
The aim of object of this website is to help DRDO management improve the atmosphere and remove the corruption/ nepotism/ harassment prevailing in DRDO. There is no any intention to defame or harm the prestige of any individual.
In case of Dr S R Vadera, Sc ‘G’, I am sorry that his name was used by some unknown person and same was published on my website. The inconvenience and pain caused by this act is highly and sincerely regret/apology from my side.
The letter of Dr S R Vadera, Sc ‘G’, view in respect of environment of Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur is publish herewith. Most of my reader viewers are from DRDO and they know the real scenario and will understand the situation and will continue their blessing to me for fighting the cause.
Please refer the subject decision of CIC 29 Jun 2011 received in this office on dated 03 Aug 2011
The information, as directed by CIC, is as under:
(1) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000381
(a) The amount spent on Long Term Post Graduation Training Programme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 6,38,33,535/-
(b) The amount spent on PhD Programme under RT Scheme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 3,38,143/-
(2) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000384
The total amount spent during 2008, 2009 and 2010 on the following Awards:
(a) Agni Award for excellence in self reliance – ‘ 75 Lakhs
(b) DRDO Award for Performance Excellence.- 60 Lakhs
(c) Scientist of the year Award — 60 Lakhs
(3) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000385
(a) Numbers of papers published by the Scientist of DRDO during last five years:
Journal of Applied Physics — Nil
Electronics Letters – Nil
(4) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000386
(a) Visits of Dr. Prahlada on official duty during 2009 & 2010. Number of visits to Hyderabad – 22
Total amount of TA/DA drawn – 4,11,900/-
(c) Visits made by Shri R C Aggarwal on official duty during 2007 to 2010. Number of visits — 26
Total amount of TA/DA drawn — 18, 23, 672/-
(5) File No. CICILSIAI2O11/000387
Number of sanctioned strength of substantive Joint Directors and Deputy Directors in DRDO.
(a) Joint Directors — 04
(b) Deputy Directors — 20
(6) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000412
Para wise reply pertaining to years 2009 and 2010 is as under:
(a) Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest House at Delhi —105
(b) DRDO officials availing DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station — 17
(c) Sh. S Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 10 Jul 2009 to 10 Sep 2010.
(d) Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 26 Mar 2010 to 20 Mar 2011.
(7) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000413
No Gazette Notification of D0PT is available.
(Dr. A K Tyagi)Scientist ‘F’CPIO, DRDO HQ
Copy to:
Central Information Commissioner – With refer to your 10 decision dated
Room No. 308, B —Wing 29 Jun 2011 in respect of Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
August Kranti Bhawan, Bikaji Kama Place
New Delhi – 1 10 066
Real Facts:
1. File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000381
What I have asked in my RTI
Total amount invested on long term post graduation training program and PhD program under R & T scheme, and under Post Graduate Training (PGT) scheme of DRDO during period forApril 1990 – March 2010 under following heads
i) Adhoc advances
ii) Study leave salary
iii) Reimbursement of expenditure on account of stationary items, preparation of thesis, purchase of books and journals etc.
iv) Non refundable fee
v) TA
vi) DA
vii) Financial incentive on acquiring higher qualification at their own
2. Total number of official Grade wise/Post wise/ Categories wise received MS/ME/MTech, PhD degree during period April 1990 – March 2010
i) Full time
ii) Part Time
iii) External Registration
3. The Institution from where degree of MTech/ PhD was awarded from April 1990 – March 2010
4. Total amount invested on short term training/ workshops/seminars/courses in India (Including DIAT/ITM/IIM’s/ IIT’s, NIT’s, ESCI, ASCI, IISc’s etc.) and abroad, during period from April 1990 – March 2010
i) Training/ Courses/Delegations Fee/Registration Fee
ii) TA
iii) DA
5. Total number of Scientist resigned from April 1990 – March 2010
6. Total number of scientist joined DRDO from April 1990 – March 2010
Why I asked this Information –
DRDO sends annually many officers for higher studies particulars to IIT’s and national Universities. The admission which granted normally after tough competitions are available to DRDO’s sponsored candidates was easily.
Aim of such higher studies is to use the academic platform to solve the complicate technical issues. DRDO in turn give the IIT’s or Universities sufficient grants against project and R&T schemes.
No one gets benefited neither the institutions nor the DRDO, it is because the most of the individuals after getting higher education working as admin, allied works, and the reaction of this most of them leave the organization. For example Dr.DP Singh, Estate Manager, Scientist ‘F’ did his post graduation and PhDs from DRDO sponsoring and performing duty of admin purely non scientific assignment. Sh A.K Musla, Sc ‘F, holding post Joint Director Admin in IRDE, Dehradun, he also did his B.Tech and M.Tech from DRDO sponsored funds and working as purely in admin. I am quoting only two names as tip of the iceberg, because in DRDO you will find 100 of such cases. DRDO is shear wasting the corers and corers rupees public funds in the name of higher education programs. Although, the aim and object of the higher education program is really good, but in hands of bad corrupt officials, the output is wasting by DRDO.
According to the ministry, a total of 1,107 scientists, mostly young entrants, have resigned from the DRDO between 2003 and 2007, implying that on an average one person leaves every two days.
What I have received
(a) The amount spent on Long Term Post Graduation Training Programme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 6,38,33,535/-
(b) The amount spent on PhD Programme under RT Scheme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 3,38,143/-
(2) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000384
What I have asked in my RTI
The DRDO Awards Scheme, in its present form, was introduced in the year 1999 to motivate DRDO scientists, engineers and partners in industries and academic institutions in contributing for the cause of national security and self-reliance. The present Award Scheme, instituted by the Government of India, are therefore, meant to encourage DRDO scientists and our partners in the Private Sector Undertakings (PSUs), the private firms as well as the academic institutions in performing even better towards accelerating the pace of development of critical technologies, transfer of technologies from laboratories to industries as well as productionisation of the state-of-the-art defence systems
The Scheme consists of a total of 17 awards, out of which, 4 awards are given by the Directors of the concerned laboratories/establishments in recognition of outstanding contributions of their scientists and other supporting staff consisting of technical, administrative and allied cadres. The remaining 13 awards are decided at the DRDO HQrs for which nominations are called every year from all laboratories/establishments. The nominations are initially short listed by the Screening Committee under the chairmanship of the Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC). The short listed nominations are, thereafter, examined by the Apex Committee for finalisation of the awards which also consists of two outside experts. These awards are normally given away by the Prime Minister of India on the “Technology Day” which falls on 11th May of every year.
In this connection it is requested to provide the following detail information
Total amount of investment made on DRDO awards year wise from 1st April 1999 to till date 2010
i) Total amount invested in arranging Award ceremony
ii) TA/DA on recipient of the awardees and spouse
iii) All categories of all cash award by all Laboratories/Establishments and DRDO Hqrs. during period of April 1999 to till date. In following format
Why I asked this Information –
The awards given by Government of India like Padma Award, Shanti Swaroop Bhatnager Award etc all these awards are given with an aim to encourage/motivate/ recognize the contribution of individual recipients and therefore it carries a citation.
DRDO constituted its awards like Scientist of the year, Young Scientist awards, Technology Leadership Award etc. with the aim to inculcate a culture of hard work, dedication, scientific achievements, and technology breakthrough leading to the technology development for national security.
But the award given in DRDO, the mode of selection, the encouragement to the scientific team does not rely on the standards.
Different rules for different occasion or different rules for different officer, the motto of DRDO or the definition of DRDO is suitably implemented..
The public would like to know the manner DRDO spending nearly 2 crores of rupees annually to these awards, the recipients does not know that he has been chosen for this award, there is no scientific presentation of technology. The recipients, are even unable to operate any scientific instruments like network analyzer, spectrum analyzer etc because most of awardees scientist or technical personals are working as Director Management Services, Head Material Managements, Security Officer, Library In-charge, Works In-charge and other suitable position from where they can feed their Akas(Boss).
If any one look in to the list of award recipients and analyses year wise, he will be find the most of citation actually not even justify the work or relation between award and awardees.
There is N number of examples available in various labs where most of awards were not justified; it is purely depending upon the Director’s choice. So nut shell DRDO awards are like ”Andha banten revari apne apne ko de” it is nothing doing with their contribution whether the awardees is related to technology or not. How come a person sitting in security, MT will entitled to get technology award, when DRDO having other awards for non technical working area.
It is really big question in front of country people?
Like in Kargil, one officer got gallantry award and later it was found that the fake encounter was staged for award. (Famous ketchup Colonel Case)
Same tactics is adopted by DRDO they are distributing awards to their own boys with fake technology propaganda.
Since money belongs to poor tax payers, when Padama award citation are available to citizen of India then how can DRDO deny give details in the name of schedule –II exemption.
One award Defence Technology Absorption Awardis using by DRDO for giving color to their pet firms. Anyone can judge from the recipients list that these firms are really worth does these firms have any significant signature in field of respective industry like M/s Resins & AlliedProducts, Vijayawada. received this award from Honorable Prime Minister Sh Man Mohan Singh is related to Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC R&D, Director, HEMRL)
What I have received
The total amount spent during 2008, 2009 and 2010 on the following Awards:
(a) Agni Award for excellence in self reliance – ‘ 75 Lakhs
(b) DRDO Award for Performance Excellence.- 60 Lakhs
(c) Scientist of the year Award — 60 Lakhs
(3) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000385
What I have asked in my RTI
How many technical paper were published by DRDO Scientists in International Journals like Journal of Applied Physics, IEEE Transactions, Proceedings IEEE, Transactions IEE, Electronics Letter, SPICE etc. from 1990 to March 2010?
How many authors were awarded by DRDO for their contribution and keeping the flag of DRDO high
How many such authors were assigned the administrative task to lead the DRDO Labs as Director and then CC R&D?
How many such authors were left the DRDO during April 1990 to March 2010 period?
Why I asked this Information –
Almost 400 Corers of rupees are distributing through these boards and different DRDO projects to IIT’s, Universities’ and Colleges and even some NGO’s, in the name of expanding and deepening the knowledge-base, Enhancing core competence in the field of knowledge, To encourage and provide funds for basic research in pertinent scientific disciplines etc.
The most of funds distributed till date to maximum private universities and private institutions and especially in last ten years out of total grants has gone to southern states. DRDO in its charter of duty has specifically mentioned Kashmir to Kanyakumari and Gujarat to North East the equal opportunity will given to universities/institutions.
The DRDO is giving funding for various R&T projects with IIT’s, IIsc’s and various premier scientific institutions. In return DRDO sends annually many officers for higher studies particulars to IIT’s and national Universities.
The number of international papers can justify the real out of projects working with IIT, IIsc and other various institutions.
I am surprised that DRDO is deny for giving information related to paper publish in international journals, where is schedule-ii exemption is comes in between.
Information sought is already publish in journals, so why DRDO afraid to give information. It shows that DRDO is not respect for RTI Act 2005.
International publications are basically the most valuable achievement of any scientific institute /organization and it always proudly mentioned by each and every institute /organization.
What I have received
(a) Numbers of papers published by the Scientist of DRDO during last five years:
After taking his charge as CC R&D at DRDO Hqrs, how many days he stayed in DRDO Hqrs up to 31st March 2010
How many temporary duties to Hyderabad he had been with total stay at Hyderabad.
How much in total TA/DA he has drawn year wise from his joining as CC R&D at DRDO up to 31st March 2010.
With Reference to Shri RC Agarwal, Director DEAL, Dehradun
After taking his charge as Director DEAL, Dehradun , how many days he stayed in Dehradun up to 31st March 2010
How many temporary duties to Bangalore he had been with total stay at Bangalore
How much in total TA/DA he has drawn year wise from his joining as Director, DEAL up to 31st March 2010.
Why I asked this Information
The information sought for is not related to end senior officer in his individual/personal capacity but in his capacity being a public authority.
Too frequent visit to a particular destination on Government expenses require to justify and as to how much it was beneficial to the organization and how much to the officer especially when he belongs to that particular destination. It appears that the permanent residence is his Hqrs and place of posting is a temporary duty station. The frequent move availability of the officer in the Hqrs. station may lead to problem of command and control and discipline, which may hamper the progress and led to undue delay and time and cost overrun to ongoing projects of DRDO.
In this particular case I requested the TD details of Dr. Prahlada, Appellate Authority, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, who is staying C-7 Qutab Enclave, DRDO guest house since his posting to DRDO Hqrs, for him most of time he took his breakfast in his Hyderabad residence and lunch in DRDO Hqrs and evening for dinner he was again back to his Hyderabad residence. Please see his TD detail and then decide.
Second one is Shri RC Aggarwal, Director DEAL, Dehradun, since his posting he use to out from DEAL, Dehradun almost more than 250 days out of 365 days. How can the armed forces expect trustworthy products from these so called senior scientists?
There more 9-10 CC R&D and Directors who are belongs to Hyderabad and Bangalore and their families are staying Hyderabad and Bangalore respectively and they all are staying in DRDO guest houses they are giving their residence address in telephone directory at DRDO guest houses and enjoying HRA also. They are frequent fliers, they all are already break the Milkha Singh ‘s (Flying Sikh of India) records and relishing without fear with TD with poor tax payers money.
What I have received
(a) Visits of Dr. Prahlada on official duty during 2009 & 2010. Number of visits to Hyderabad – 22
(b) Total amount of TA/DA drawn – 4,11,900/-
(c) Visits made by Shri R C Aggarwal on official duty during 2007 to 2010. Number of visits — 26
(d) Total amount of TA/DA drawn — 18, 23, 672/-
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
