Category Archives: Drdo

Drdo

CAG picks holes in LCA project, says it fails to meet IAF requirements

Leave a comment
tejas ET 8 may 2015
Not only that, IAF would be “constrained” to induct the fighter LCA without availability of a trainer model, thereby “adversely impacting pilot training.”

By PTI | 8 May, 2015, 07.40PM IST – The Economic Times
NEW DELHI: India’s Tejas Light Combat Aircraft project, in the works for over three decades, came under severe criticism from CAG today as it pointed out that its Mark-I version has 53 “significant shortfalls” which have reduced its operational capabilities as well as survivability.

Not only that, IAF would be “constrained” to induct the fighter LCA without availability of a trainer model, thereby “adversely impacting pilot training”, the audit body said in a report tabled in Parliament.

The CAG noted that it was due to the delay in the manufacture and supply of LCA that IAF had to go for alternative temporary measures such as upgrading its MIG BIS, MiG-29, Jaguar, and Mirage aircraft at a cost of Rs 20,037 crore and revise the phasing out of MiG-21s.

“LCA Mark-I, which achieved Initial Operational Clearance (December, 2013) has significant shortfalls (53 permanent waivers/concessions” in meeting ASR (Air Staff Requirements) as a result of which it will have reduced operational capabilities and reduced survivability, thereby limiting its operational employability when inducted into IAF squadrons,” the report said.

Listing the shortcomings, the CAG said that the LCA Mark- I fails to meet the electronic warfare capabilities sought by IAF as the Self-Protection Jammer could not be fitted on the aircraft due to space constraints.

Also, it said that the Radar Warning Receiver/Counter Measure Dispensing System fitted on the aircraft had raised performance concerns which are yet to be overcome till January this year.

It added that the shortcomings in the Mark-I (increased weight, reduced internal fuel capacity, non-compliance of fuel system protection, pilot protection from front, reduced speed) are expected to be overcome in the Mark-II model.

“LCA Mark-I does not meet the ASR. The deficiencies are now expected to be met in LCA Mark-II by December 2018,” the CAG said.

IAF had proposed in the early 1980s that a new aircraft be developed to replace the MiG-21 fleet, manufactured during 1966 and 1987, after its phasing out in the 1990s.

The project for indigenous design and development of LCA was sanctioned in 1983 at a cost of Rs 560 crore, which was enhanced from time to time up to Rs 10,397.11 crore.

The government in June, 1984, constituted an Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) as a dedicated institution for the management of the LCA project.
IAF had issued Air Staff Requirement (ASR) in October, 1985, envisaging a light-weight multi-mission fighter with contemporary air combat and offensive air support capabilities and excellent manoeuvrability for close air combat at low and medium altitudes.

The projected requirement was for 220 Light Combat Aircraft (200 Fighters, 20 trainers) to be inducted by 1994.
However, LCA could only achieve Initial Operational Clearance in December, 2013, as against the earlier scheduled date of December, 2005.

The Full Operational Clearance (FOC), which was scheduled to be completed by December, 2008, is now slated to be achieved by December this year although experts said even that could be delayed.

The CAG said that ADA’s decision to advance the building of two prototypes from Full-Scale Engineering Development (FSED) Phase-II to FSED Phase-I so as to utilise its savings on the grounds of accelerating the development process of LCA had failed to yield the desired results.

This, the report said, was because preponed prototypes were deficient in terms of critical onboard systems (Multi- Mode Radar, Self-Protection Jammer, Radar Warning Receiver) and led to ADA using the Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft (meant for IAF use) towards flight testing/evaluation of these critical on board systems.

“This was in contravention of the Cabinet approval (November, 2001) for phased development of the prototypes in FSED Phase-II after Technical Demonstrators had been built and flight tested for 210 hours,” CAG said.

Talking about lack of trainer aircraft, the audit body said that IAF was in the interim using an upgraded Full Mission Simulator (FMS) at ADA for pilot training, pending supply of an FMS by HAL at the LCA operating base.

It said that the long gestation period led to a change of weapon systems on LCA, necessitating the acquisition of new ones.

The audit body also had a word of appreciation for the ADA, saying its work centres on the indigenous development of the LCA, “which is comparable to many contemporary aircraft in the world”.

CAG said that the manufacturing facilities at HAL cater presently to the production of only four aircraft per annum as against the envisaged requirement of eight due to delays in procuring plant and machinery, tools and also construction of production hangars, which would further impact production of LCA and induction into IAF squadrons.

Repair and Overhaul (ROH) facility for LCA, as specified in the ASR, has not been created fully at HAL, the CAG said.

Of the 344 Line Replaceable Units of LCA, 90 LRUs were considered non-repairable, it said. Of the remaining 254 LRUs, while ROH facilities in respect of 185 were available, the same was yet to be established for 69 LRUs as of January this year, the report added.

The CAG stressed on the need for more efficient management of planning and execution of aircraft development programmes, closer interaction and coordinated efforts among all the stakeholders involved.
It recommended that realistic timelines should be set by MoD while seeking approval for such projects from the government and that the same ..

should be adhered to during their execution with coordinated planning and an effective in-built monitoring mechanism.

“In view of the complexity of the technology involved, while deviating from the approved plan of development, ADA should consult the user (Air HQ) and obtain prior approval of sanctioning authority/ministry for such deviations so as to minimise waivers and concessions at the time of acceptance by the user (IAF),” it said.

The agencies — DRDO, ADA and HAL — should undertake the projects strictly in conformity with the specifications projected by IAF, who should be involved right from the planning stage so as to ensure timely achievement of their requirements.

Indigenisation efforts should be made in coordination with all the agencies involved by having a well-defined indigenisation plan and a clear roadmap for developing a quality product as per the requirement so as to avoid import substitution, it said.

“MoD should award contract to production agency at an appropriate stage of development of a system/equipment in order to avoid the necessity of extending delivery schedule due to a delay in the development of the system, apart from the resultant blocking of funds/inventory and to overcome obsolescence of the components procured by the production agency,” the CAG said.

Drdo

Loksabha unstarred question no 6929 on Complaints against Scientists in DRDO

12 Comments

As everyone aware that lot of complaints was filed against various Lab heads, but somehow DRDO management managing to protect these corrupts.

The case of CEPTAM, Director, Sh Rajesh Goyal’s  SMS scheme, Dr A K Saxena , Director, DMSRDE is on the top of corrupt scientists list, So called Prof. Dr M P Kaushik, ex Director, DRDE, regarding procurement of 100 cr ICAD Chempro100i Make: Environics, Dr A K Maini, Ex Director, LASTEC regarding fire scam of Coil Laser facility worth Rs 21 Cr, Dr. Lokendra Singh’s farzi claim of Bio digester, Director, DRDE Dr Vijay Veer minting money in the name of high altitude vegetables, Dr Shashi bala, Director, DIPAS looting in the name of improving the health condition of our jawans in extreme condition,  (Super audit report), Dr K Tamilmani companies exposed by CAG on LCA issue, Dr K D Nayak, Burman minting money in the name of customized PC from Tata powers etc. Dr Hardwar Singh legacy still running in the name of GOCO, Dr Shubhananda Rao, Resin Allied, Dr Guru Prasad Silver Rath even not going to save him, Ms Tessy Thomas appointment as Director, ASL and her husband appointment with tailor made recruitment snatched the SA post from Sh Avinash Chander.

There several cases are pending in the name of inquiry is going on ……

Now hope Parrikar sahib will going to take seriously all complaints of

dmsrde loksabha 8 may 2015

Drdo

Bander Bant (बंदर बाँट) of lab level award and financial share from award money from public fund although Dr. Vijay Veer, Director, DRL, Tezpur was himself was Approving Authority for Lab Level Award.

17 Comments

To                                                                                18th  May 2015                                             Hon’ble Shri Manohar Parrikar,                                                                                   Defence Minister,Room No -104,                                                                                             South Block, New Delhi-110011

Subject: Bander Bant (बंदर बाँट) of lab level award and financial share from award money from public fund although Dr. Vijay Veer, Director, DRL, Tezpur was himself Approving Authority for Lab Level Award.

Sir,

Kindly refer to DRDO Newsletter (A monthly House Bulletin of DRDO), Vol. 35 No. 1, Jan 2015, page 9 which covered the news “Raising Day Celebration at DRL, Tezpur”. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-1.

Also refer to DRDO website drdo.gov.in with link page policies. Copy annexed as Annexure-2, it is clearly stated that LAB LEVEL AWARDS will be distributed with Approval of the Director of the concerned lab is required on their recommendations of the Lab Level Award Committee. These awards include Scientist ofthe Year Awardto   Scientist of the Laboratory with cash prize of Rs. 25,000 and Technology Group Award for Group/Team of Scientists/ Engineers/support staff with cash prize of Rs.50,000.

It is common practice in most of the Lab/Estt. of DRDO that Director never be the part of awardee group as  he himself is approving authority for approving the lab level award and due to “conflict of interest” , Director should not be one of the member among the awardees.

There was no such kind of dirty practice in DRL, Tezpur till the year 2009. Copy of Awards List for 2009 is annexed as Annexure-3, but since joining of Dr. Lokendra Singh as Director, DRL, Tezpur a new unethical and corrupt practice started at DRL by which Dr. Lokendra Singh took two Technology Group Award for the year 2010 and 2011. Copy annexed as Annexure-4.

Similarly Dr. Vijay Veer took the Technology Group Award for the year 2012, 2013 and 2014. Copy annexed as Annexure-5.

But ethics, morals and integrity was kept on one side by greedy  Directors Dr. Lokendra Singh (Bio digester Man of DRDO) Ex -Director, DRL, 2010-28 Feb 2012) and   Dr. Vijay Veer (Director , DRL, Tezpur from 01 March 2012 – Till Date) when both these Directors started to take Technology Group Award for himself along with contribution in price money.

In the year 2014, Dr. Vijay Veer, Director, DRL, Tezpur himself approved his name for Technology Group Award and Dr. I. Baruah; Scientist ‘F’ himself recommended his name while he was member of Committee for selection of lab level award for the year 2014. Copy of the letter dated 03rd November 2014 itself discloses the whole story.

Sir, the issue is concerned with misuse of power for financial benefits, greediness, degradation of ethics and violation of DRDO policy for awards by Dr. Vijay Veer, Director, DRL, Tezpur.

Therefore, it is request you to issue orders to withdraw Technology Group Awards for the year 2012, 2013 and 2014 from Dr. Vijay Veer, Director, DRL, Tezpur and Dr. Lokendra Singh Bio digester Man of DRDO, both should be ordered to deposit the public money received in these awards to Government account.

Sir, DRDO scientists are great to do exemplary manipulations and misinterpretation of GOI rules for their personal benefits.

Regards

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

Annexure-1: DRDO Newsletter Vol. 35 No. 1, Jan 2015, page 9 which covered the news “Raising Day Celebration at DRL, Tezpur”.

Annexure-2:  DRDO website drdo.gov.in with link page policies for DRDO Awards.

Annexure-3:  Copy of list of Awardees for the year 2009.

Annexure-4:  Copy of the evidences that shows Dr; Lokendra Singh, Director, took Technology Group Award.

Annexure-5: Copy of the letter dated 03rd November 2014 and Annual Reports of DRL, Tezpur.

DRL tezpur in drdo news letter
Annexure -1
DRDO in house awards
Annexure-2

DRDO in house awards 2011drl tezpur inhouse awards 2012drl tezpur inhouse awards 2013drl tezpur inhouse awards 2014

Drdo

Uncertainty dogs a leaderless DRDO

5 Comments

Ajai Shukla | New Delhi May 4, 2015 Last Updated at 00:38 IST – Business Standard 
A sense of drift is palpable within the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), which has been without a leader for three months since the ouster of its widely respected chief, Avinash Chander, on January 31.

On that day, Defence Secretary R K Mathur was given additional charge of Chander’s post of Secretary, Defence R&D, for three months. That period expired on Thursday.

Mathur had held charge of only one of the three posts that Chander occupied – that of Secretary Defence R&D. The other two posts – Director General, DRDO, and Scientific Advisor to the Raksha Mantri – have lain vacant for three months.

The defence ministry is not alone in having key positions without incumbents. There has been no Chief Information Commissioner since August 22, and no Chief Vigilance Commissioner since September 28.

Without a chief, there are problems in coordinating between the DRDO’s seven technology clusters, each relating to a specific subject – e.g. aeronautics, missiles or naval systems. While cluster heads. called directors general, can function independently within their clusters, major development projects involve several clusters.

Among the programmes suffering from this lack of leadership is the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project. While the DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Agency oversees the Tejas project, it has no authority over the four technology clusters that feed into the LCA project. That coordination was always facilitated by the DRDO chief, who personally oversaw the LCA programme.

Another problem, say senior DRDO scientists, is professional insecurity caused by Chander’s unceremonious removal. On November 28, the defence ministry had granted him an 18-month service extension to head the DRDO till May 31, 2016. Forty-five days later, that extension was withdrawn.

The insecurity is most obvious among junior scientists, most of whom looked to Chander as an icon of the DRDO’s successful missile programme. “With such an accomplished scientist removed so arbitrarily, what job security do we have?” wonders a young scientist bitterly. Nor is there any clarity about who might succeed Chander. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had said while removing Chander, he wanted someone good from the DRDO who has the urge for development. Parrikar also stated he wanted a younger scientist to head DRDO.buisness standard 4 may 2015With almost all the DRDO’s top scientists already on extension, or nearing the retirement age of 60, 11 of the DRDO’s 12 top scientists might soon retire.

Of these 12 “distinguished scientists”, the DRDO’s top rank, equivalent to a lieutenant general, six have already crossed 60 years and are serving on extensions. Another five are 59 years of age, knocking on the doors of retirement.

The only candidate who fits Parrikar’s twin conditions – being from the DRDO, and also young – is Satheesh Reddy, the highly regarded chief of Research Centre Imarat, a missile technology laboratory outside Hyderabad. Reddy is just 52 years old.

Even so, MoD sources do not rule out bringing in an outsider, possibly from the Atomic Energy Agency, to head the DRDO.

There is also speculation that the three hats the DRDO chief traditionally wore might be split into two or more posts. Opinion on this is divided. The Rama Rao Committee, which proposed reorganising the DRDO, recommended the three posts remain vested in a single person. The subsequent Naresh Chandra Committee recommended separation, though not trifurcation.

The departments of space and atomic energy, which are often held up as models the DRDO could emulate, centralise powers in a single chief. The chairman of the Space Commission also heads the Indian Space Research Organisation, while simultaneously advising the prime minister on space matters.

Drdo

BIO-TOILETS STINK AS COMMUTERS, AUTHORITIES PLAY BLAME GAME

7 Comments

By Rajendra B Aklekar, Mumbai Mirror | May 5, 2015, 12.05 AM IST
Bio-toilets that were fitted in train coaches amid much fanfare are already stinking, with some passengers complaining that the stench is so foul that it is unbearable for those sitting near the toilets.

biotoilet mumbai mirrorAccording to Central Railway’s (CR) official data, of the 4,000 coaches of the long-distance CR trains, 450 were fitted with bio-toilets. The project had gathered momentum after Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan and urged authorities to maintain cleanliness in trains and on tracks. A few coaches in the Rajdhani Express trains of Western Railway (WR) were also provided with bio-toilets.

Unlike traditional train toilets that discharge waste on the tracks, the new system treats the waste inside a tank with the help of bacteria and converts it into harmless gas and water. The Railways had signed MoU with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for the project, and the anaerobic bacteria were procured from Antarctica.

Commuters, however, are far from impressed. Nitin Parmar, secretary of Karjat Railway Passenger Association, said, “In most trains with bio-toilets, the stench is unbearable — not only near the toilet but also within the coaches. This is not a one-off thing. I have been observing this often. Biotoilets have been fitted in random coaches, and they all have this foul smell. Passengers sitting near the door have to keep their noses covered all the time. The activist travels between Mumbai and Pune regularly and has done a survey of trains with bio-toilets.

In fact, a maintenance worker to whom Mumbai Mirror spoke, also complained about the unbearable stench. “The technology is good but it is not being maintained the way it should be. There are a lot of processes to maintain but train coaches cannot be practically detained for such a long time as they are always scheduled for runs. If clean toilets are giving out foul smell, there must be something wrong,” he added, on the condition of anonymity.

Another staffer said, “If any foul smell is detected after the removal of waste and cleaning of the toilet, the tank has to be topped up with nearly 15 litres of bacteria. A check is conducted after a week and samples are the n sent for lab testing.”

A former member of the national railway passenger committee, Shailesh Goyal, said, “Bio-toilets are not a practical idea for trains. At many WR stations, the train is back on track within two hours. There is no time to clean the toilets. Also, bio-toilets require hi-end mechanism and a dedicated staff to keep them clean.”

Subhash Gupta, a member of the divisional railway users consultative committee, said he will raise the issue at the official railway forum next week.

While railway officials refused to speak on record, a senior official said, “Not only are all new coaches to be fitted with bio-toilets but the workshops are being instructed to fit in bio-toilets in old trains, taken up for maintenance, as well.” Another staffer said the biggest problem were the commuters themselves. “Many bio-toilets have become choked because passengers dump anything from water bottles to gutkha pouches and polythene in them. The bio-digester bins have turned into garbage bins. We will intensify awareness campaigns to avoid this,” said an official.

Drdo

Interceptor missile tested 7 times, DRDO’s Rajinikanth moment still far

Leave a comment

The system would be able to tackle incoming ballistic missiles of range up to 2,000 km
Written by Sushant Singh | New Delhi | Updated: May 4, 2015 3:20 am

A Ballistic Missile Defence system is based on an interceptor missile shooting down an enemy missile mid-air. It needs ground radars, command-and-control systems and data links. India’s BMD does not yet have geo-stationary satellites.
A Ballistic Missile Defence system is based on an interceptor missile shooting down an enemy missile mid-air. It needs ground radars, command-and-control systems and data links. India’s BMD does not yet have geo-stationary satellites.

The proposed Ballistic Missile Defence system is supposed to blow enemy n-missiles out of the sky as they fly towards Delhi. But last month’s test failed, and many questions remain unanswered.
DRDO’s promises and seven tests notwithstanding, the plan to put a nuclear missile defence shield over Delhi remains a work in progress.
The unsuccessful test of an interceptor missile last month swung the spotlight back on the proposed Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system. Think of Rajinikanth firing a bullet to destroy the bullet fired by the villain in mid-air. That’s what a BMD system does: it provides a city with a protective shield where an incoming enemy ballistic missile is shot down by interceptor missiles.
ballistic-missile-graphBesides the interceptors, a BMD consists of radars — satellite-, ground-, and sea-based — to detect and track a missile and its warhead, data communication links to pass on the information, and a command and control system.
DRDO first spoke of a BMD system in December 2007. All building blocks for Phase 1 of a two-layered, fully integrated system were to be in place by 2010. In March 2010, Dr V K Saraswat of DRDO promised initial systems deployment by 2013.
On May 7, 2012, DRDO declared it had developed a Missile Defence Shield that could be put in place at short notice at two selected locations in the country, presumably Delhi and Mumbai. The system would be able to tackle incoming ballistic missiles of range up to 2,000 km. DRDO also said that long-range tracking radars, real-time data-link and mission control systems needed for the perationalisation of the BMD had been “realised”.
The fact is the BMD system is at the moment not even close to being put into operation. Last month’s unsuccessful test at the Chandipur range was the seventh time the BMD interceptor missile has been tested. It was its second failed test, although the first failure was not of an interceptor, but due to a faulty target missile.
Washington-based emerging and space technologies expert Dr Bharath Gopalaswamy said, “Interceptor technologies are test-intensive and never foolproof. We have to wait until DRDO releases the data for these tests — which I suspect they never will — but for the moment, I would contextualise this as part of a routine test phase.”
A senior DRDO official told The Indian Express that they hoped to conduct another test within a couple of months. “It is part of the development process. This was the first time we launched the interceptor missile from a canister. The target was also a more difficult one than the simulated Prithvi missiles used earlier,” the DRDO official said.
According to Gopalaswamy, this is something to be expected with hit-to-kill technologies. “Dr Saraswat (former DRDO chief) declared missile defence capabilities as operational but the failure in such tests exposes the vulnerabilities in the system,” he said.
MILES TO GO
According to Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran, “a development trial by DRDO will not result in an operational system so soon. We can only expect to get a technology demonstrator at the end of the ongoing tests. Even the US took three decades to produce a BMD system. A fully mature BMD system is at least a decade away. The political leadership must be made aware of this reality”.
The BMD system was proposed to India’s political leadership by Dr APJ Abdul Kalam in the mid-1990s, a former cabinet secretary told The Indian Express. It was triggered by Pakistan’s acquisition of M-11 missiles from China. The proposal was to provide cover for Delhi, Mumbai and two other strategically important sites. DRDO is believed to have started work on the programme in 1999.
The armed forces were brought into the loop only a decade later, a senior Indian Air Force officer told The Indian Express. A BMD system cannot be operated in isolation; it has to be networked with existing IAF sensors for better situational awareness to avoid friendly fire, or shooting down of own aircraft or missiles. IAF already has a fully integrated air defence system, and the complexities of deployment will have to be resolved as and when the BMD is put into operation.
“There is no direct involvement of the armed forces in its development even now. The IAF, which is the end user, must be closely involved,” Matheswaran said.
DO WE NEED IT?
Many experts argue that the BMD can take on only a limited number of incoming missiles, and will invite saturation salvos from the enemy. Western non-proliferation activists have said India’s BMD will encourage Pakistan to expand its nuclear arsenal to fire multiple missiles. Bharat Karnad of the Centre for Policy Research said BMD was a “hit-and-miss” system whose reliability has been questioned by various US studies.
Last year, the US General Accountability Office questioned the reliability and efficacy of the Pentagon’s Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) programme, a system similar to India’s BMD. The Pentagon accepted that the GMD system provides “a limited capability against a simple threat”. Senator Tom Coburn’s report last year estimated the GMD system’s success rate at 30 per cent. DRDO has, on the other hand, promised 99.8 per cent reliability for its BMD system.
Unlike the GMD, BMD does not have early warning radars or satellite tracking of an enemy missile. The delayed detection capability reduces the time available for interception of, say, a Pakistani missile to around five minutes. Also, the BMD system can only intercept missiles launched from 900-1,000 km away; the Chinese Dong Feng-21 ballistic missile with a range of 1,700-2,000 km cannot be intercepted.
The BMD is expensive. Ballpark estimates for defending one Indian city vary from Rs 1 lakh crore to Rs 2.5 lakh crore. At the higher range, it is more than India’s annual defence budget. The US continental system is estimated to have cost more than $ 100 billion so far, the GMD system $ 41 billion.
“A system that doesn’t work, costs a lot, and can’t handle multiple attacks will breed a false sense of security and compound our problems. All this talk of deployability of a BMD is premature. What we need at best is a technology demonstrator,” Karnad said.
“We have no expert committee like the US JASON to validate projects like the BMD. India has scarce resources. To use them judiciously, a high-level technical committee should validate all strategic projects proposed by DRDO or the armed forces,” he said.
Whatever the case, India’s ‘Rajinikanth’ gun can’t fire yet. As the Americans like to say, “The real problem with ballistic missile defence is that it is rocket science.”

Drdo

PIL status – Fact Finding Inquiry has already been held and he undertakes to place before this Court the inquiry report.

3 Comments

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT New Delhi

+ W.P.(C) 3610/2015 & C.M.No.6436/2015 (directions)

PRABHU DANDRIYAL ….. Petitioner

Through: Mr.R.Sathish, Adv. with Mr.Mohan Das K.K., Adv.

 Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS…..

Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG

with Mr.Anil Soni, Ms.Aastha Jain, Mr.Akash Nagar, Advs. for R-1 to 3.

Mr.R.V.Sinha, Adv. for R-5/CVC. Mr.R.V.Sinha.

with Mrs.Monica Gupta, Adv. for CBI.

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

ORDER  29.04.2015 C.M.No.7764/2015 (exemptions) Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) No.3610/2015

The learned ASG appearing for the respondents, on instructions

States that the Fact Finding Inquiry has already been held and he undertakes to place before this Court the inquiry report.

Re-notify on 27.05.2015. CHIEF JUSTICE APRIL 29, 2015/‘anb’ RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

Dear Friends see the DRDO statement in Delhi Court, the whole country is witness the unprecedented delays in all major projects and same manner DRDO misleading the honorable High Court, Delhi

DRDO is applying same tactics in Delhi High Court by stating that Fact Finding Inquiry has already been held and he undertakes to place before this Court the inquiry report in second appearance and again asked for time.

See the facts

The First Fact Finding Inquiry Committee headed by Dr S S Negi, Sc H, members Shri Manoj Bali , Scientist ‘G’ and Shri Jagdeep, Scientist ‘F’ visited A on 13th – 14th, March 2014 for inquiry on the complaint submitted against Dr. A K Saxena

What submitted by First Fact finding Committee

As per Sh D N Tripathi, Sc F, Addl. Director Administration and Finance, DMSRDE, Kanpur submitted supplementary counter affidavit to Honorable  CAT, Allahabad on 4 June 2014

  1. Fact finding not found any truth for complaint submitted by Sh Navin Praksh Gupta and Prabhu Dandriyal and thus dropped and rejected.
  2. Prabhu Dandriyal was terminated by DRDO (Stated without proof and will pay for that will be filed criminal case against Sh D N Tripathi, Sc F, Addl. Director Administration and Finance, DMSRDE, Kanpur in Dehradun Court)
  3. Photo copy of Fact Finding Report submitted in honorable CAT Allahabad as annexure SCA-3. (It means DRDO having readily available fact finding report the why they wasted precious time of honorable Delhi High Court)

As per Dr A K Singh Letter DOP/DS/008/M/01 dated 28 May 2014to Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

Brief facts on the basis of Fact Finding committee – Interestingly fact finding was constituted to find out facts of corruption related allegations within the procurement files.

But Chairman FFIC, Dr S S Negi who is Dr (PhD) on Semiconductor Devices turns Dr on psychology and forgot the procurement related corruption allegation, started the analyses of behavior and life style of Sh R P Bhatt, Sc’F’ and Sh N P Gupta, Sc ‘C’

Committee certified that – Sh R P Bhat, Sc’F’ is a habitual drunkenness, misbehavior, threatening and harassment to others, including the transfer to other lab. The question is it was in the purview of Dr. Negi & team or if it is correct than how Sh R.P Bhatt promoted up to Sc ‘F’, is Dr Negi team gone through the last 5 years APAR of Sh R P Bhatt any negative comment of Dr A K Saxena was there?

Committee suggested that – Necessary action to be initiated against Sh R P Bhat, Sc’F’

Dr. Negi & team can able to stand with their statement in front of High Court, Allahabad?

As Sh R P Bhatt challenged is transfer on the basis of recommendations of Fact Finding Committee

Basically Dr. Negi is very good in scientific work but very poor in administration and management, after assumption of charge as Director, IRDE every day he is facing lot of irregularities of employees and scientists, Union running the local administrations of IRDE, like internal posting /transfer, safety shoe purchase without proper specification, who will go for TD, who will be chair for different investigation enquiries, whom to serve warnings, to whom to give AMC, to whom to give man power supplies, who will sit in security and all sundry things

Second Fact finding Committee

Shri Avinash Chander , DGR&D and SA to RM constituted second four members  FFIC under Chairmanship of Dr. D C Pande, Outstanding Scientist, LRDE, Bangalore  and members Shri Hari babu Srivastva, Director, LASTEC, New Delhi, Shri R S Mehta, Joint Director, Dte of Vigilance& Security, DRDO Hqrs, Shri Jagdeep, Scientist ‘F’,Dte of Materials Management DRDO Hqrs  reached at Kanpur on 9th July early morning 5:00 AM at DMSRDE, Guest House, Kanpur by Rewa Express.

As per sources the second Fact finding Committee asked all procurement related files and found lot of irregularities, but the Sh Avinash Chander and Dr A K Singh both were given assurance to Dr A K Saxena, the reason only know to them or GOD.

The website have all documentary evidences to prove the corruption allegations, it is expected that DRDO have no choice to send all these cases for CBI inquiry and website will submit all those evidences to CBI, which website continuously receiving.

See the DRDO efficiency till date DRDO not take any action on the basis of second fact finding committee reports or neither had they submitted the fact finding report to CVO, MOD.

As Director (Vigilance), MOD has sought Director (Vigilance & Security), DRDO for consolidated report by his letter dated 04 August 2014.

Drdo

Toilet truth hits drive

1 Comment

OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT – The Telegraph
New Delhi, Sept. 3, 2014: Whether the digester bacteria have called cease work or not isn’t clear but the government’s bio-toilet drive in villages is suddenly looking a bit leaky.

The Odisha government has told the National Human Rights Commission that nine of the 12 bio-digester toilets installed in five villages in Bhadrak district have become defunct, contrary to the Centre’s claims that these toilets don’t need maintenance.

The toilets, developed by defence research organisation DRDO and launched by then rural development minister Jairam Ramesh as part of the Centre’s drive to end open defecation, had been installed in 2012 in two blocks — Dhamara and Basudevpur — all meant for community use.

In a report last month, the state’s rural development department said the Bhadrak district administration had written to the DRDO in July requesting it to repair the toilets — that use bacteria for treating the waste — but has got no response yet.

No one from the DRDO was available for comment.

The report followed a case filed by a lawyer, Radhakanta Tripathy, who complained to the rights panel that the toilets were not helping the common people and the practice of open defecation was continuing as before.

“The people were expecting their miseries would end after the installation of the bio-toilets. These toilets have become defunct and nobody is taking responsibility for their maintenance,” Tripathy said.

The report has come as a “reality check” at a time the Centre is promoting these toilets in a big way as part of its efforts to make India free of open defecation by 2019.

A letter from the ministry of drinking water and sanitation last month to all state secretaries in charge of sanitation said states may be given the option of adopting the DRDO model for safe disposal of human waste. The ministry also sent the names of 39 firms that produce bio-toilets, used mainly by the army in high-altitude areas.

The railways, islands such as Lakshadweep and houseboats also use the technology that involves bacteria converting human waste to odourless compost and biogas. There is no need to replenish the bacteria since they regenerate.

Bindeshwar Pathak, founder of sanitation NGO Sulabh International, said the technology was not foolproof. “The water released from tanks of these bio-digesters is pollutant. The technology should be further developed.”

But Rail Tech, one of the firms mentioned in the government letter, defended the technology. “The technology is working perfectly in trains and army camps in high-altitude areas. There is no reason why they cannot work in the plains,” Rail Tech director Kunal Jain said.

He said the problem lay with the user. “If foreign materials are dropped into the drainage system of the toilets, they will stop working.”

Drdo

HUMANITY PUT TO UTTER SHAME BY DMSRDE DIRECTOR, Dr. A K SAXENA ON 01-05-2015

12 Comments

To                                                                                1st May 2015                                               Hon’ble Shri Manohar Parrikar,                                                                                     Defence Minister,Room No -104,                                                                                             South Block, New Delhi-110011

Subject: HUMANITY PUT TO UTTER SHAME BY DMSRDE DIRECTOR, Dr. A K SAXENA ON 01-05-2015

Sir,

With utter dismay and disgust, I the dishonor of informing you that HUMANITY have been put to SHAME by the INFAMOUS Dr. A K Saxena, Director DMSRDE, who is fighting his last / lost battle of his corrupt practices due to my PIL before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

I am a committed INDIAN whose sole motto is to fight corruption, particularly in DRDO. It was because of my efforts that Dr. Arun Kumar (erstwhile Director of Personnel, DRDO); and Dr. A K Taygi (erstwhile Director RTI Cell, DRDO) have been charge sheeted and Dr. AK Mani (erstwhile Director LASTEC,Delhi) took VRS to avoid charge sheet because the fire case of COIL laser project was enough against him.  I am sure SIR, that you would have been briefed about the submissions made by Mr. Anil Soni (counsel for MOD) before the Hon’ble Chief Justices of Delhi Court on 29-04-2015 in reference to my PIL (W.P.(C) 3610/2015) that as to why DRDO should not file an FIR against Dr. A K SAXENA with CBI for adopting corrupt practices to LOOT exchequers money for his personal benefit.

On 01-05-2015, an employee of DMSRDE, Mr. Raj Kumar, Technician-A entered the premises of DMSRDE at 1020 Hrs. He punched his attendance card and while signing the late register he collapsed at the gate itself.  This INSENSITIVE Director of DMSRDE kept his body at the gate till 1300 hrs. The question is that when last month Dr. A K Saxena took his mother to PGI, Lucknow in DMSRDE ambulance and accompanied her in his staff car, why didn’t he show this basic courtesy to Mr. Raj Kumar. Director of a laboratory is supposed to be the guardian of his officers and staff. As per the laid down SOP he ought to have informed the police immediately and sent the body to a govt. hospital. Dr. A K SAXENA didn’t do either of the two and allowed the body to remain at the gate for three hours. The disgusting thing is that the body wasn’t even covered with a piece of cloth.

Mr. Raj Kumar, Technician-A was basically being harassed by Dr. A K Saxena. Mr. Raj Kumar, Technician-A had made several verbal requests to Dr. A K Saxena for a transfer to a technical group that would have benefitted him in his promotion. The question is that why was Mr. Raj Kumar, Technician-A posted in a group which only does paper work. Dr. A K Saxena is a master of using posting and transfers as TERROR TOOL within the laboratory. Till now he has effected hundreds of transfers in his span as a Director and now he plans to transfer Head of Works for the THIRD Time.

Dr. A K Saxena visited the body of Mr. Raj Kumar after two hours and the important functionary of laboratory, Mr. R K Jain, Head Administration was missing from the laboratory. Incidentally Mr. R K Jain as Chairman of Vendor Registration Committee is INFAMOUS for registering Vegetable Vendors  for supply of chemicals and costly equipments to DMSRDE at the direction of Dr. A K Saxena.

Officers and staff of DMSRDE, Kanpur are suffering at the hands of Dr. A K Saxena and today all of them were shattered by his DISGUSTING INHUMANITY.  These days he only busy in making his PENSION Papers for a safe exit from DMSRDE. He doesn’t realize that like  Dr. Arun Kumar (erstwhile Director of Personnel, DRDO) and Dr. AK Mani (erstwhile Director LASTEC,Delhi), he will also not get clearance from vigilance for their crimes.

It is therefore requested that CORRUPT and INHUMAN Director Dr. A K Saxena be removed with immediate effect and thus stop him from DESTRUCTION of EVIDENCE of his crimes.

Regards

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