FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005

To,                                                                                                                 7^th March 2014

Dr. Lokendra Singh, Scientist ‘H’ & OS

First Appellate Authority, DRDO,

Room No. 347, RTI Cell

DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,

New Delhi-110011

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005

Reference: Letter No. RAC/03/RTI/95/2014 dated 25 Feb 2014

Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1.   Details of appellant:-

Name	Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address	21-Sunderwala, Raipur,Dehradun-248008

2.   Details of Central Public Information Officers (CPIO):-

Name & Rank	Dr. R.B. Sharma, Scientist ‘F’, CPIO
Address	DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,Room No. 314-A, RTI Cell DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011

Name & Rank	Dr. K. K. Dahiya, Scientist ‘E’, CPIO
Address	Recruitment & Assessment Centre Lucknow Road, Timarpur, Delhi-110054

3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-

1. Decision vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2014/0048 dated 10 Feb 2014 from CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi.
2. Decision vide letter No. RAC/03/RTI/95/2014 dated 25 Feb 2014 received from CPIO, RAC, Delhi. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Facts & Grounds leading to appeal:-

(a)          An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 02 February 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi  providing information regarding “Assessment & Promotions -2013 regarding Scientist ‘G’ to Scientist ‘H’ ”. Copy of the RTI Application dated 02 February 2014 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)          Central Public Information Officer, DRDO HQ transferred the application dated 02 February 2014 under Section 6(3) of RTI Act vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2014/0048 dated 10 Feb 2014 to CPIO, RAC.  RAC is recruitment wing of DRDO and under direct control of DGR&D, DRDO. CPIO, DRDO HQ did not intimate to appellant regarding transfer of application u/s 6(3) of the Act therefore transfer of application u/s 6(3) of the Act is illegal as provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act “the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer”.

(c)          The transfer of application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act by CPIO, DRDO HQ to CPIO, RAC was totally illegal as  CPIO, DRDO HQ was custodian of the information sought in application dated 02 Feb 2014 under RTI Act which is quite evident from reply of CPIO, RAC vide letter No. RAC/03/RTI/95/2014 dated 25 Feb 2014 in which he again transferred the information on points 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 14 to CPIO, DRDO HQ. Therefore CPIO, DRDO HQ transferred the application illegally with malafide intentions just to harass the applicant & deprive of the information. He illegally misused Section 6(3) of RTI Act as when CPIO is custodian of information then he cannot transfer the application under provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act.  CPIO, DRDO is adopting dilatory tactics to create delay & hindrance in seeking information by appellant. 

(d)          CPIO, RAC is also the sole custodian of information as sought in application dated 02 Feb 2014 under RTI Act. Therefore transfer of application on certain points to CPIO, DRDO HQ is illegal under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005. CPIO, RAC is also in position to provide the information sought.

(e)          CPIO, RAC also rejected the information sought on points 1, 2, 3,9,10, 11, 12 & 13 by misusing Section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 despite that it was clearly mentioned in application dated 02 Feb 2014 that Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC.

(f)           CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO) was referred clearly in RTI application dated 02 February   2014 that “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organization; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”. Therefore CPIO, RAC illegally rejected the application by misusing Section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.

(g)          It appears that CPIO, DRDO HQ, CPIO, RAC and Public Authorities are still living in the era of September 2005 when DRDO was placed in Second Schedule of the Act. In past eight years CIC has passed various decisions regarding DRDO and now it is well settled principle of RTI that DRDO is only exempted for S&T and Strategic information despite being notified organization under Schedule II of the RTI Act. Public Authorities in DRDO has already provided full information related to APAR, Promotions, Service Matter & Establishment Matters to various citizens under RTI Act then denial of similar information to appellant attracts violation of fundamental rights of appellant on basis of cast & creed which is again violation of Constitution of India. This attracts penal action on CPIO u/s 20 of the RTI Act.

(h)          Treating application under RTI Act as tennis ball & passing from one CPIO to other CPIO is dilatory tactic to protect the interest of  one person in a public department is gross violation of RTI Act. Corruption in recruitment, promotions, appointments & transfers in DRDO is of serious concern in Ministry of Defence. In the year 2013 declaration of results for promotions from Scientist ‘G’ to Scientists ‘H’ (OS) was surprisingly delayed and announced in month of October, 2013 instead of July 2013. This smacks Corruption and nepotism in promotions as there is no such provision in DRDS Rules 1979 to hold Review Peer Committee to amend & review the results of promotions finalized by original Peer Committee. Two Peer Committees cannot be constituted & exist in the same year for assessment & promotions of Scientist ‘G’ to Scientist ‘H’ under the provisions of DRDS Rules 1979. Therefore assessment & promotions from Scientist ‘G’ to Scientist ‘H’ in year 2013 are illegal.

(i)            Transfer of application under Section 6(3) of the Act for information on points 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 14 to CPIO, DRDO HQ by CPIO, RAC is again illegal, unethical and against the spirit of RTI Act.

(j)           Facts mentioned at above establish irregularities in assessment & promotions of Scientist ‘G’ to Scientist ‘H’ in the year 2013.

5.   Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vides RTI Application dated 02 February 2014 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, RAC, Delhi. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DRDO HQ and CPIO, RAC to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 02 February 2014.

6.   Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,

Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

          Enclosure: Two 

(1)  Letter from CPIO, RAC, Delhi DRDO dated 25 Feb 2014.

(2)  RTI Application dated 02 February 2014.

 

To,                                                                               2^nd February 2014

Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,

DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,

DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,

New Delhi-110011                         

Hello,

In pursuance of Rule 8(2) Schedule ID of DRDS Rules 1979 as amended a Peer Committee for assessment of Scientists G to Scientists  H (OS) in the year 2013 was constituted and assessed the suitability of Scientists  G for the grade of Scientists H (OS). Subsequently several Scientists G were promoted to the rank of Scientist H  (OS). However declaration of results for promotions from Scientist G to Scientists H (OS) was surprisingly delayed and announced in month of October, 2013 instead of July 2013.

In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

1. Copy of the letter by which competent authority constituted Peer Committee.
2. The details of Chairman and Members of the Peer Committee.
3. The dates on which Peer Committee meetings were held for assessing the suitability of Scientists G for promotion to Scientists H(Outstanding Scientist).
4. The date on which results has been declared.
5. The date from which the promotions of Scientist H (Outstanding Scientist) in the year 2013 became effective.
6. The date on which results for promotion from Scientists G to Scientists H (OS) were declared and became effective in the year 2012.
7. The reasons for delay in declaration of results.
8. These promotions were conducted under which promotion scheme of Government of India. (Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) or Merit Promotion Scheme (MPS).
9. Copy of the minutes of Peer Committee duly approved by Defence Minister.

10. Whether any representation was submitted by any assessed Scientist G to Defence Minister regarding his/her promotion before the declaration of results. (Yes/No)

11. If answer to point (9) is yes then provide copy of the letter/representation.

12. Whether any review Peer Committee meeting was held again in the year 2013 for reviewing the recommendations/Minutes  of previous Peer Committee Meeting held earlier in 2013  for promotion of Scientists G to Scientists H (Outstanding Scientists) for the year 2013. (Yes/No)

13. If answer to point (12) is yes then provide the copy of Minutes of review Peer Committee Meeting for promotion of Scientists G to Scientists H (Outstanding Scientists) for the year 2013.

14. Provide the final list of Scientists who were promoted to Scientist H (OS) in the year 2013.

NOTE

1. Please refer CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO)-
2. Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC

Regards

 

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,

Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

डीआरडीओ प्रमुख ने कही खामियां सुधारने की बात, भर्ती यूपीएससी से करवाने से इंकार

अमर उजाला ब्यूरो

देहरादून। डीआरडीओ में वैज्ञानिकों की भर्ती में कथित धांधली पर सीबीआई जांच बैठने के बावजूद रक्षा मंत्री के वैज्ञानिक सलाहकार और डीआरडीओ प्रमुख अविनाश चंद्रा आंतरिक भर्ती प्रक्रिया के पक्ष में हैं। बता दें कि सेंट्रल विजिलेंस कमीशन की रक्षा मंत्रालय को सौंपी रिपोर्ट में डीआरडीओ की आंतरिक भर्ती प्रणाली रिक्रूटमेंट एसेसमेंट सेंटर (आरएसी) पर सवाल खड़ा कर भर्ती संघ लोक सेवा आयोग से करवाने की सिफारिश की है। वहीं, डीआरडीओ प्रमुख का कहना है कि मौजूदा प्रक्रिया का अध्ययन करवाया जा रहा है। अगर खामियां सामने आईं हैं तो उनमें सुधार कर लिया जाएगा।

चंद्रा ने ये बातें देहरादून के यंत्र अनुसंधान एवं विकास संस्थान (आईआरडीई) में बुधवार को अंतरराष्ट्रीय सम्मेलन के उद्घाटन अवसर पर कहीं। प्रकाशिकी एवं विद्युत प्रकाशिकी विषय पर आयोजित सम्मेलन में चंद्रा ने कहा कि हमारी भर्ती प्रक्रिया संघ लोक सेवा आयोग (यूपीएससी) के समकक्ष है। डीआरडीओ का आरएसी इसीलिए बनाया गया है कि संस्थान में विभिन्न शोधों के लिए आवश्यक वैज्ञानिक अपने स्तर पर भर्ती किए जा सकें। शोध संस्थान के लिए अपनी ही भर्ती प्रक्रिया होनी जरूरी है। गौरतलब है कि विजिलेंस जांच रिपोर्ट पर रक्षा मंत्री ने नवंबर 2013 में भर्तियों में गड़बड़ी का प्रकरण सीबीआई जांच को आदेशित किया है। कथित धांधली में दो पूर्व डीआरडीओ प्रमुखों सहित अन्य कई अधिकारियों पर आरोप लगाए गए हैं।

चयन प्रक्रिया का आकलन

डीआरडीओ में रिक्रूटमेंट एसेसमेंट सेंटर (आरएसी) के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिकों की भर्ती प्रक्रिया का अध्ययन पूर्व यूपीएससी चेयरमैन कर रहे हैं। प्रक्रिया में सुधार के लिए चेयरमैन डीआरडीओ को जरूरी बदलाव की सलाह देंगे, जिससे भविष्य में कोई गड़बड़ी सामने न आए।

अभी विदेशों से हो रही है इसकी खरीद, निशाना भेदने के लिए दिशा देता है उपकरण

अमर उजाला ब्यूरो

देहरादून। सेना के लिए मिसाइलों के इंफ्रा रेड सीकर्स के डिटेक्टर अब डीआरडीओ खुद तैयार करेगा। डिक्टेक्टर लक्ष्य का पता लगाकर मिसाइल की दिशा और रेंज निर्धारित करता है। डीआरडीओ अभी तक इजराइल आदि देशों से डिटेक्टर की खरीद कर रहा है। इसके लिए सात सौ करोड़ की लागत से आप्ट्रोनिक फैब्रिकेशन सेंटर स्थापित करने की तैयारी है जो दो बरस के भीतर उपकरण तैयार कर लेगा।

अग्नि मिसाइल के जनक और डीआरडीओ प्रमुख अविनाश चंद्रा ने यंत्र अनुसंधान एवं विकास संस्थान (आईआरडीई) में बताया कि मिसाइल में दुश्मन को पहचान कर टारगेट तक पहुंचने के लिए इंफ्रा रेड सीकर्स लगे होते हैं। इन सीकर्स में डिटेक्टर होता है जो निशाने की पहचान करता है। अब डीआरडीओ इसे खुद विकसित करने जा रहा है। उन्होंने बताया कि डीआरडीओ आप्टिक्स के क्षेत्र में भारतीय नौसेना की पनडुब्बियों के लिए जायरो स्कोप विकसित कर रहा है। इसका सफलता पूर्वक ट्रायल हो चुका है और यह तकनीक विश्व के चुनिंदा देशों के पास ही है।

अनुसंधान कार्य हो रहे हैं तेजी से

डीआरडीओ पर धीमी गति से शोध के साथ हथियारों की तकनीक विकसित करने में कई दशक लगने पर चंद्रा ने कहा कि अक्सर अनुसंधान में अधिक समय लगता है। विदेशों के मुकाबले ही हमारे रक्षा अनुसंधान चल रहे हैं बावजूद इसके डीआरडीओ ने छोटी परियोजनाओं को न्यूनतम सात वर्ष और बड़े प्रोजेक्ट के लिए 15 वर्ष का लक्ष्य निर्धारित किया है।

मिलता है कम बजट

रक्षा अनुसंधान में होने वाले खर्च को डीआरडीओ प्रमुख अविनाश चंद्र कम मानते हैं। विदेशों से खरीद के लिए रक्षा बजट का 25 फीसदी सरकार खर्च कर रही है लेकिन अनुसंधान में पांच फीसदी ही दिया जा रहा है। ऐसे में विदेशों पर निर्भरता समाप्त करना आसान नहीं है। चंद्रा ने कहा कि रक्षा अनुसंधान में लगी प्रयोगशालाओं को ज्यादा बजट मिलना चाहिए।