Category Archives: Drdo

Drdo

Shut Down Laboratories And Overhaul The DRDO, Expert Committee Tells Defence Ministry

1 Comment

All non-core research activity of the DRDO must stop.
Sudhi Ranjan Sen Deputy Editor (News)  The Huffington Post 14/03/2017 3:40 PM IST

HINDUSTAN TIMES VIA GETTY IMAGES The Arjun tank stationed on the Parliament House premises for an exhibition in August 2016 in New Delhi, India.

India’s premier defence research organisation, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), needs a major overhaul, some its research laboratories closed and the organisation needs to concentrate only on development of defence platforms, a high-level committee appointed by the Ministry of Defence has said in its report.

In the last five years, DRDO has been getting between ₹6,000-₹8,000 crore annually for defence research — roughly 6% of the defence budget.

The DRDO was set up in 1958 to achieve self-reliance in manufacturing weapon systems to equip the armed forces. It has over 33,000 personnel, which includes nearly 8,000 scientists, 13,000 technicians, and 52 laboratories. Its area of research is wide and encompasses everything, from juices to nuclear missiles.

Former Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had constituted the committee led by Lieutenant General DB Shekatkar (Retired) in May 2016 to suggest ways to enhance the combat capabilities of India. The panel submitted its 550-page report to the government recently.

Top sources told HuffPost India the committee has said as many as 11 laboratories of the DRDO need to closed down or amalgamated and its “non-crore” research activities stopped. The committee also said that DRDO needs to work with “clearly defined” objectives to develop “weapon systems and platforms”.
Instead of the DRDO deciding on areas and focus of research, the committee has recommended setting up of a “Technology Commission”, headed by the defence minister, with representatives from the armed forces. The commission should formulate research and development policy and even set specific deadlines for research.

The committee feels that end-users — the three services — must be consulted on areas of research and development of weapon systems. To break the red-tape in the DRDO, the committee has suggested that DRDO scientists be given incentives for successful completion of projects.

Suggesting further reforms, the DB Shekatkar Committee has also said that Ordnance Factory Boards (OFB) — which produce bulk of the ammunition and weapons used by the forces — should consult the armed forces when inducting new technology or material. It has pointed to the fact that OFB, which produce rifles, wasn’t aware of the exact weight of the guns it was producing.

Interestingly, the committee has said that OFB needs to include private companies and has suggested using private-public partnerships to speed up production, ensure better quality and cut down delays.

This isn’t the first time an overhaul of the DRDO has been recommended. Questions have been frequently raised about the delays and cost over-runs in DRDO projects.

In a 2015 report, the Comptroller Auditor General (CAG) had pointed out that audit examination of 14 mission mode projects, carried out by DRDO laboratories, “revealed that all projects failed to achieve their timelines and the probable date of completion (PDC) was extended many a times”.

These mission mode projects include the crucial S-band surveillance system ‘Rohini’ radars, secure video and fax communication between airborne platforms and ground station ‘Meghdoot’ and electronic warfare suit for the modified MIG-29 fighters.

The delays, the CAG pointed out, “were mainly due to inadequate monitoring”.

 

Drdo

Extension for Nirbhay, panel to identify flaws

Leave a comment

By Hemant Kumar Rout | Express News Service | Published: 07th January 2017
BHUBANESWAR: India’s own cruise missile project Nirbhay has got an extension of 18 months amid speculations over the weapon system’s operational capabilities. Launched in 2004, the projected date of completion for the prestigious project was December 31 last.

At a recent review meeting, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar gave green signal for the extension. Ministry of Defence sources said the Nirbhay team has been asked to deliver their best by June, 2018.

Under developmental trial since 2013, the missile is yet to perform as per the expectations. Of four tests in as many years, the indigenously developed weapon had failed three times though it could cover the intended range once in 2014.

Meanwhile, an independent technical committee has been formed to identify faults in the system that led to failure of the missile during its fourth trial on December 21.

The probe committee led by founder director of ISRO Inertial Systems Unit Dr Nagarajan Vedachalam will not only ascertain the faults but also recommend possible measures to make the system robust.

Like in its maiden trial and third test, the missile had veered off the trajectory minutes after take off during the last launch and the mission had to be aborted mid-air.

An official associated with the project, however, informed that the blame game between two laboratories of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) cost the project more than the faults in the system.

While Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), which has designed the missile, has been blaming Research Centre Imarat (RCI) for supplying defective hardware, the latter points fingers at ADE-developed software for recurring failure of the missile.

‘’The probe committee will ascertain which is defective, the software or hardware. It may also inspect metallurgical deficiencies,’’ the sources said.

Having a strike range of around 1,000 km, Nirbhay is first homegrown subsonic cruise missile project. According to DRDO, the missile can challenge weapons of its class.

Nirbhay blasts off like a rocket and unlike a missile, it turns into a vehicle akin an aircraft. Flying at tree-top level, it can deceive enemy radars making it difficult to be detected. Unlike other ballistic missiles, this cruise missile has wings and distinct tail fins. After reaching near the target area, it can hover around, hitting at its will from any direction.

Drdo

Will be ever improve ?

6 Comments
To – prabhudoon@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:09 PM

Sir,

I am herewith sending you the letter addressed to Sri Narendra Modi, PM

as on date, no action was taken.

Regards

K.Surya Kumari.

Visakhapatnam,

D/21-9-16

From

Smt. K.Surya Kumari (Retd.),

R/o H.No.13-24, LN Nagar,

Sujatha Nagar Post,

Visakhapatnam – 530051 (AP)

To

Dr. Narendra Modi,

Prime Minister of India,

7, Race Course Road,

New Delhi – 110001

Sir,

Sub: Non-issuance of Pension

Ref: 1) Cabinet Committee report on Sexual Harassment constituted

Vide Cabinet Secretariat order No.501/IV/3/2012-VCC dt.5-8-13.

2) CAT, Hyderabad orders on OA Nos.309 and 310 / 2010

3) High Court, AP order on WPMP No.36603 in WP

No.29554 / 2011

4) DRDO Hq. Letter dt.14-9-2012 on non-posting anywhere else.

5) Cabinet Secretariat Memo dt.9-12-2015 to S.Christopher,

Secretary, DG DRDO.

6) On line grievance No.DDRDO/E/2016/00111 dt.20-7-16.

I have served in NSTL, DRDO for 35 years 10 months and retired on 29th Feb. 2016 as Technical Officer-B (Class-I Gazetted).  I gave complaint against Sri SV Rangarajan on sexual harassment dt.18-12-2007.  Without any proper enquiry, DRDO  served me 3 charge sheets and suspended me for 33 months period.

Vide 2nd reference CAT stated that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, making allegations against several officers by petitioner also cannot be a ground for extension of suspension.  DRDO revoked my suspension on 7th Oct. 2011 and transferred me to NPOL, Kochi on the same day.  Vide 3rd reference, on 29th Aug. 2012, High Court suspended the transfer order stating that they are prima facie of the opinion that in effect it is an act of victimization and amounts to punishment.

Vide 4th reference, DRDO stated that my joining at NSTL cannot be permitted as the Department has filed a vacate petition at AP High Court.  High Court has dismissed the Vacate petition filed on transfer order suspension on 4th Feb. 2013.   From 1st Nov. 2011 to 3rd March 2013 i.e., my transfer period and joining not permitted period were not regularized till date.

….2.

-: 2 :-

Vide 1st reference the Committee stated that hostile environment creation by Sri SV Rangarajan (Page No.11), DRDO is lack of sensitiveness, lack of attention to the application of rules and procedures (Page No.12), attitude and action of DRDO administration which has shown a casual and insensitive approach in dealing with the case (Page 13), DRDO and NSTL created a hostile environment in which the petitioner found it difficult to function (Page No.13) which conforms that NSTL and DRDO officials have harassed me in several aspects.  No action was taken by Cabinet / Ministry on the findings of the Report.

Suspension period was regularized after my retirement (i.e, after 4 years) with imposing a penalty (though the matter is pending at High Court).  Transfer period and non-posting period was not regularized so far and my pension and retirement benefits were not settled (even after 7 months of retirement) by which I am facing hardship, mental egony.

The PGPORTAL online grievance as referred 6 above also disposed off as per false and baseless information provided by Dr. Hina Gokhale, DOP, DRDO without proper investigation.

Now the organization processed the partial pension without 2 increments (2013 and 2014) for transfer period which is even less than the provision pension as per PGDA phone inquiry.  Therefore, it is requested to instruct the concerned to take immediate action on the 1st reference report, Court cases, and release of proper pension and settlement of retirement benefits as early as possible (Gratuity, Commutation and Earned leave encashment).

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

(K.SURYA KUMARI)

 

Copy to

1) Dr.S.Christopher, DG (DRDO), DRDO Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.

2) Hina Gokhale, DOP, DRDO Bhavan, New Delhi-110011

3) Director, NSTL, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-530027

Drdo

Only Modi Ji or GOD help to Indian Citizen for getting RTI reply from DRDO

3 Comments

To,                                                                                           3rd January 2017

Shri Manohar Parrikar,

Defence Minister, Room No -104

South Block, New Delhi-110011

Sir, every citizen in India very well know that DRDO is under second schedule of RTI Act 2005 and exempted but in corruption and human right DRDO is not exempted in any case. See the enclose RTI Reply from our prestigious organisation, they totally denied to furnish the information and ignored the enclosed evidences the real time photographs and details. The vehicle vanished after RTI, the all records are with Central Command but it feels that our jawans are made for exploitation. We can not close our eyes when these great jawans are exploited by these DRDO corrupt scientists. This means they are above the constitutional provision of India or they are patronized by super corrupt officials. Now as a ministry of defence head you will give direction to DRDO to furnished the information and stop using ARMY jawans as Bonded Labours by these so called scientists who are not even doing any science.

or may GOD will help us

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,

21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008

Phone 0135-2787750, Mobile 9411114879

Email prabhudoon@gmail.com website-www.corruptionindrdo.com

Dadagiri of DRDO Scientist

Enclosed – Photographs as proof of corruption

Drdo

DRDO Chief is serious to handle sexual harassment cases

5 Comments

DRDO Chief Dr. Selvin Christopher dealing sexual harassment case in good spirit but the mindsets of senior officials not ready to co-op him for change of existing rotten handling process of DRDO. The getting justice in sexual harassment case is near to impossible in DRDO women scientist and employees.

There are number of example exists where DRDO management failed to deliver justice and always successes to buried the complaints.

The DRDO workforce of more than 30000 and nearly 20% women are working different level top to bottom, even in good positions like DG, Directors etc but harassment complaints are reaching to national women commission, national schedule cast commission etc is the clear evidence the failure of dealing these incidents by existing system of DRDO inspite of having good number of women official.

The reason is also very crystal clear the top existing women officials are not competent and got their position not on the basis of merit. That is the reason like so called famous scientist not able to give justice to victimized SRF.

In this darkness suddenly DRDO Chief Dr. Selvin Christopher sends direction to IRDE and ITM to deal these sexual harassment cases in seriously as per rule.

But unfortunately both the labs not taking it seriously the following enclose letter is showing the mindset of senior official of IRDE, who are openly violating the VISHAKHA guidelines of Honorable Supreme Court.

In following letter is clear example that how accused is trying to hostile the witness with putting through Director and the letter is trying to perusing through divisional head to witness.

The DRDO Hq directed to Director IRDE to take appropriate action against Admin Officer who gave false evidence in support of accused officer but till date Director IRDE not dare to take any action.

In ITM accused is enjoying his post/position after getting charge sheet. Here interesting fact of DRDO working that during the period three director handle the file, Mr M Kishor, Dr R S Pundir, as additional Charge and Sh Sanjay Tandon but no one able to shift the accuse from post of admin officer. As per rule everyone knows that what action is required after issuing such serious charge sheet.

The best part of Director’s order is the inquiry should be done as per DOPT F. No. 11013/2/2014-Estt (A-II1) Dated July 16th, 2015 but they forgot the following the rules or just giving privilege to accused to harass and manage the witness as he is holding all executive powers of ITM.

 

As per DOPT F. No. 11013/2/2014-Estt (A-II1) Dated July 16th, 2015

Suspension

  1. A Government servant may also be placed under suspension before or after issue of a Charge Sheet where his continuance in office will prejudice the investigation, for example if there is an apprehension that he may tamper with witnesses or documents. Suspension may also be resorted to where continuance of the Government servant in office will be against wider public interest such as there is a public scandal and it is necessary to place the Government servant under suspension to demonstrate the policy of the Government to deal strictly with officers involved in such scandals. It may be desirable to resort to suspension in case of misdemeanor involving acts of moral turpitude.

Special provisions to deal with threats or intimidation

  1. Disciplinary Authority may also dispense with inquiry under Rule I 9(ii), and action may be taken without the inquiry when the Disciplinary Authority concludes that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry. The circumstances leading to such a conclusion may exist either before the inquiry is commenced or may develop in the course of the inquiry. Such situation would be deemed to have arisen:

(i) where the Government servant, through or together with his associates terrorizes, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal in order to prevent them from doing so; or

(I) where the Government servant himself or with or through others threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the Disciplinary Authority, Members of the Committee, the Presenting Officer or members of their family.

It is requested DRDO officials please go through the Vishakha Guidelines were a set of procedural guidelines for use in India in cases of sexual harassment. They were promulgated by the Indian Supreme Court in 1997 and were superseded in 2013 by The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.