Category Archives: Drdo

Drdo

Foundation Laid for Recruitment Scam in DRDO

4 Comments
To,                                                                                                                  26rd  October 2013
Sh Avinash Chandra
DG (R&D),DRDO,SA to RM, Secretary DRDO
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi -110105
 

Subject: Foundation Laid for Recruitment Scam in DRDO

CEPTAM was constituted with aim and objective to recruit the technical/ scientific/ admin allied man power, who can be the workforce in major national DRDO projects.

DRDO Hqrs made it a mockery and laughing object. DRDO has violated SRO from beginning of CEPTAM and there are several cases pending in CAT/High courts all across the India.

The recent recruitment drive tells a different story.

CEPTAM – 06 Advertisement Published in Employment News dated 04-10th May, 2013.

No of post advertised in various categories – 844

Approximately 5 lakhs application received (excluding hundreds of applications misplaced)

Approximately 1 lakh applications were rejected for silly reasons (example followed)

Approximately 2 lakhs candidates not able to appear for examination held on 25th August 2013

Approximately 3 lakhs candidates deprived by Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM

It is very big question, how DRDO can give permission to Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM to play with fundamental right of young citizen of India.

Please go through the following facts which clearly shows Sh Rajesh Goyal’s, Director, CEPTAM personal vested interest

  1. The SMS game – All interested candidates who wish to apply for DRDO Entry Test, are compulsorily required to register themselves on mobile no. 56677 of CEPTAM by sending a SMS in this format CEPTAM First choice of Exam City Code Post Code Date of Birth as ddmmyy NAME (Leaving a space between first, middle and last name) Example: CEPTAM 15 0112 231283 Rupesh Kumar Goyal (Name of Director’s son, it is example of pure chamchagiri environment of CEPTAM). Why this SMS system introduced by Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM

Approximately 5 Lakhs application received and each applicant paid Rs 3 for each SMS registration.

Total money received by CEPTAM 15 Lakhs

The contract was cooked with M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS  a computer peripheral supplier and well connected with Sh Rajesh Goyal since he was in ISSA. Anyone can verify these things with back record of firms supply orders vs with Sh Rajesh Goyal’s involvements. The M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS website http://milsys.co.in is shown the order of client list. If 5 lakhs applicants registered the money was huge 15 Lakhs and in open market bulk SMS service providers 6 to 7 paisa /SMS so any one can work out the play in this contract. The CEPTAM  did not give this contract through DAVP shows the corruption angle.

  • No approval from competent authority to induct compulsory Mobile registration.
  • No tender floated by CEPTAM for bulk SMS service providing
    • No minimum 7 vendors address procurement policy of DRDO followed (Limited tender)
  • CEPTAM was not approached to DAVP empanelled SMS bulk service provider

M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS – Provides -Selling of Computers & Related Peripherals such as :Range of Desktops / Servers – IBM / HP / COMPAQ / ACER etc.Range of POS and Kiosk / Billing Machines – Panasonic / Epson,Multimedia Products e.g. Video & Audio Processing Cards, Website designing and hosting. Man power Solutions / Recruitment Solutions /Data Entry. Annual maintenance contracts (AMC)

CEPTAM Website FAQ

Q-6.     Is it necessary to send application after registering through SMS?

A-6.     YES. Without registration number application will not be accepted. It is FIRST STEP for Applying for any post. (Note: Register for each post code separately if you are applying for more than one post code and get registration for each post code.)

Q-9.     I have submitted my application on prescribed format but could not register myself through SMS. Whether my application will be considered?

A-9.  NO; Applications received without registration number are liable to be rejected. Prior registration is mandatory for all posts, candidates applying for.

Application form the marked box for office use only
Application form the marked box for office use only

 

In above application form the marked box for office use only so hundreds of candidates not filled the SMS registration, result in this basis CEPTAM rejected their applications, who is responsible. Is DRDO ready to repay the money/time wasted by individuals?

Question is whether this kind of provision for like diesel mechanic posts and for SC/ST candidates who belong to rural areas and do not have access or are familiar with internet to verify or clear their issues, is allowed by government of India?

Example rejection of application due to SMS Registration

Example rejection of application due to SMS Registration
Example rejection of application due to SMS Registration

 

2.      The CEPTAM asked applications by ordinary post and other option were put in 2 boxes in both gates of Metcalf House and 1 box in front of CEPTAM entrance. There was no mechanism to acknowledge applications. So what happened to hundreds of hundreds candidates who spent their days in front of CEPTAM reception but could not get their admit cards because simply they were told that their application was not found. If so then CEPTAM should show their accounts about how many postal orders they enchased against each application. The total number of available applications & postal orders will never match. There is no other example in entire government of India or PSU, Banks where application acknowledgement mechanism is not applied. CEPTAM violated fundamental right of young citizens of India.

Example  application – not received /found

Example application – not received /found
Example application – not received /found

Example  application – not received /found

Example application – not received /found
Example application – not received /found

3.   Approximately 2 lakhs candidates could not appear due to wrongly assigned examination centres. It is not possible that the huge number of candidates themselves asked for the centre, this whole thing is deliberately done by CEPTAM on the direction of Sh Rajesh Goyal or otherwise it is clearly proved that he is incompetent to handle such a task. Please find some examples of admit cards issued by CEPTAM.

post5    In Application centre city code clearly mentioned – 09 (Delhi NCR)

Admit Card centre city code given – Ranchi (Code -24)
Admit Card centre city code given – Ranchi (Code -24)

Admit Card centre city code given – Ranchi (Code -24)

In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Kanpur (Code 16)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Kanpur (Code 16)

In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Kanpur (Code 16)

In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Ahmedabad (Code 02)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Ahmedabad (Code 02)

In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Ahmedabad (Code 02)

Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms

In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Ahmedabad (Code 02)4.

4.       Although CEPTAM corrected some centre errors and provided that list on the website but numbers (First list -89, http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/ceptam/CityChangeList.pdf second list 54 http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/ceptam/CityAndPCDlist.pdf) were few in respect to the numbers of candidates who were not able to appear i.e. 2 Lakhs.

5.         There are many example in which any one can see, how Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director chose data entry firms who played with the future of young India.

Examples

post10

Photo placed wrongly by data entry firm and Centre wrong
Photo placed wrongly by data entry firm and Centre wrong
Photo Lalita and name in admit card Rajnish Kumar
Photo Lalita and name in admit card Rajnish Kumar

6.       In one of my RTIs, I have requested information regarding selection boards’ expert members, because it is observed that Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM engaged his wife, his co-brother and other blood relation persons as expert in different selection boards all over India. Like Dr Madhu (Madhuri) Goyal , Mr M C Goyal,  Mr Sekher Gupta,  Mr Anupam Gupta . The act of Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM assigning his relatives as experts violated the laid down rules CCS rules. No prior approval from competent authority was taken in this regards. This act can give liberty to do manipulation in recruitment. My RTI dated 2nd May 2013 and CPIO, CEPTAM Reply is enclosed here with for your ready reference. (Assessment Boards and Recruitment Board constituted in the year 2012) This mechanism is also following in recent recruitment drive. (RTI request and reply of CPIO, CEPTAM enclosed herewith for your ready reference.)

7.        Please find enclosed list of the name and phone numbers of some candidates from whom you can visualize how CEPTAM, DRDO played with the future of young Indians for their own vested interest. (List enclosed as annexure)

Sir, above all examples are enough evidences to investigate the CEPTAM-06 recruitment drive, beside this lot of complaint already received by honorable Defence Minister and various authorities. The CEPTAM director putting his efforts to diluting and burring the subject matter. It is requested kindly do needful urgently for the future of young citizens of India.

Sir, please put your all sincere efforts to stop the corruption in CEPTAM. The approximately 3 lakhs youths are waiting for your honest decision to get fair chance of selection. Do something to maintain prestige of DRDO.

Regards

 Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand
Cell No- 9411114879, Landline- 0135-2787750
e-mail- prabhudoon@gmail.com, website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

Enclosed

  1. Copy of my RTI request to CPIO,CEPTAM dated 2nd May 2013
  2. Copy my RTI request to CEPTAM dated 9th June 2013
  3. List of the name and phone numbers of some candidates

 

 

 

Drdo

Foundation Laid for Recruitment Scam in DRDO

3 Comments
To,                                                                                                                  23rd  October 2013
Shri. Sameer Kumar Khare,
Joint Secretary (Estt.) and Public Grievances & CVO,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 97, South Block,
New Delhi -110 105.

Subject: Foundation Laid for Recruitment Scam in DRDO

CEPTAM was constituted with aim and objective to recruit the technical/ scientific/ admin allied man power, who can be the workforce in major national DRDO projects.

DRDO Hqrs made it a mockery and laughing object. DRDO has violated SRO from beginning of CEPTAM and there are several cases pending in CAT/High courts all across the India.

The recent recruitment drive tells a different story.

CEPTAM – 06 Advertisement Published in Employment News dated 04-10th May, 2013.

No of post advertised in various categories – 844

Approximately 5 lakhs application received (excluding hundreds of applications misplaced)

Approximately 1 lakh applications were rejected for silly reasons (example followed)

Approximately 2 lakhs candidates not able to appear for examination held on 25th August 2013

Approximately 3 lakhs candidates deprived by Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM

It is very big question, how DRDO can give permission to Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM to play with fundamental right of young citizen of India.

Please go through the following facts which clearly shows Sh Rajesh Goyal’s, Director, CEPTAM personal vested interest

  1. The SMS game – All interested candidates who wish to apply for DRDO Entry Test, are compulsorily required to register themselves on mobile no. 56677 of CEPTAM by sending a SMS in this format CEPTAM First choice of Exam City Code Post Code Date of Birth as ddmmyy NAME (Leaving a space between first, middle and last name) Example: CEPTAM 15 0112 231283 Rupesh Kumar Goyal (Name of Director’s son, it is example of pure chamchagiri environment of CEPTAM). Why this SMS system introduced by Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM

Approximately 5 Lakhs application received and each applicant paid Rs 3 for each SMS registration.

Total money received by CEPTAM 15 Lakhs

The contract was cooked with M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS  a computer peripheral supplier and well connected with Sh Rajesh Goyal since he was in ISSA. Anyone can verify these things with back record of firms supply orders vs with Sh Rajesh Goyal’s involvements. The M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS website http://milsys.co.in is shown the order of client list. If 5 lakhs applicants registered the money was huge 15 Lakhs and in open market bulk SMS service providers 6 to 7 paisa /SMS so any one can work out the play in this contract. The CEPTAM  did not give this contract through DAVP shows the corruption angle.

  • No approval from competent authority to induct compulsory Mobile registration.
  • No tender floated by CEPTAM for bulk SMS service providing
    • No minimum 7 vendors address procurement policy of DRDO followed (Limited tender)
  • CEPTAM was not approached to DAVP empanelled SMS bulk service provider

M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS – Provides -Selling of Computers & Related Peripherals such as :Range of Desktops / Servers – IBM / HP / COMPAQ / ACER etc.Range of POS and Kiosk / Billing Machines – Panasonic / Epson,Multimedia Products e.g. Video & Audio Processing Cards, Website designing and hosting. Man power Solutions / Recruitment Solutions /Data Entry. Annual maintenance contracts (AMC)

CEPTAM Website FAQ

Q-6.     Is it necessary to send application after registering through SMS?

A-6.     YES. Without registration number application will not be accepted. It is FIRST STEP for Applying for any post. (Note: Register for each post code separately if you are applying for more than one post code and get registration for each post code.)

Q-9.     I have submitted my application on prescribed format but could not register myself through SMS. Whether my application will be considered?

A-9.  NO; Applications received without registration number are liable to be rejected. Prior registration is mandatory for all posts, candidates applying for.

Application form the marked box for office use only
Application form the marked box for office use only

2.    In above application form the marked box for office use only so hundreds of candidates not filled the SMS registration, result in this basis CEPTAM rejected their applications, who is responsible. Is DRDO ready to repay the money/time wasted by individuals?

Question is whether this kind of provision for like diesel mechanic posts and for SC/ST candidates who belong to rural areas and do not have access or are familiar with internet to verify or clear their issues, is allowed by government of India?

Example rejection of application due to SMS Registration

Example rejection of application due to SMS Registration
Example rejection of application due to SMS Registration

3.    The CEPTAM asked applications by ordinary post and other option were put in 2 boxes in both gates of Metcalf House and 1 box in front of CEPTAM entrance. There was no mechanism to acknowledge applications. So what happened to hundreds of hundreds candidates who spent their days in front of CEPTAM reception but could not get their admit cards because simply they were told that their application was not found. If so then CEPTAM should show their accounts about how many postal orders they enchased against each application. The total number of available applications & postal orders will never match. There is no other example in entire government of India or PSU, Banks where application acknowledgement mechanism is not applied. CEPTAM violated fundamental right of young citizens of  India.

Example  application – not received /found

Example application – not received /found
Example application – not received /found
Example application – not received /found
Example application – not received /found

4.   Approximately 2 lakhs candidates could not appear due to wrongly assigned examination centers. It is not possible that the huge number of candidates themselves asked for the centre, this whole thing is deliberately done by CEPTAM on the direction of Sh Rajesh Goyal or otherwise it is clearly proved that he is incompetent to handle such a task. Please find some examples of admit cards issued by CEPTAM.

post5
In Application centre city code clearly mentioned – 09 (Delhi NCR)
Admit Card centre city code given – Ranchi (Code -24)
Admit Card centre city code given – Ranchi (Code -24)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Kanpur (Code 16)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Kanpur (Code 16)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Ahmedabad (Code 02)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Ahmedabad (Code 02)

5.    Although CEPTAM corrected some centre errors and provided that list on the website but numbers (First list -89, http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/ceptam/CityChangeList.pdf second list 54 http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/ceptam/CityAndPCDlist.pdf) were few in respect to the numbers of candidates who were not able to appear i.e. 2 Lakhs.

6.     There are many example in which any one can see, how Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director chose data entry firms who played with the future of young India.

Examples

Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Photo placed wrongly by data entry firm and Centre wrong
Photo placed wrongly by data entry firm and Centre wrong
Photo Lalita and name in admit card Rajnish Kumar
Photo Lalita and name in admit card Rajnish Kumar

7.      In one of my RTIs, I have requested information regarding selection boards’ expert members, because it is observed that Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM engaged his wife, his co-brother and other blood relation persons as expert in different selection boards all over India. Like Dr Madhu (Madhuri) Goyal , Mr M C Goyal,  Mr Sekher Gupta,  Mr Anupam Gupta . The act of Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM assigning his relatives as experts violated the laid down rules CCS rules. No prior approval from competent authority was taken in this regards. This act can give liberty to do manipulation in recruitment. My RTI dated 2nd May 2013 and CPIO, CEPTAM Reply is enclosed here with for your ready reference. (Assessment Boards and Recruitment Board constituted in the year 2012) This mechanism is also following in recent recruitment drive. (RTI request and reply of CPIO, CEPTAM enclosed herewith for your ready reference.)

8.     Please find enclosed list of the name and phone numbers of some candidates from whom you can visualize how CEPTAM, DRDO played with the future of young Indians for their own vested interest. (List enclosed as annexure)

Sir, above all examples are enough evidences to investigate the CEPTAM-06 recruitment drive, beside this lot of complaint already received by honorable Defence Minister and various authorities. The CEPTAM director putting his efforts to diluting and burring the subject matter. It is requested kindly do needful urgently for the future of young citizens of India.

Regards

 Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand
Cell No- 9411114879, Landline- 0135-2787750
e-mail- prabhudoon@gmail.com, website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed

  1. Copy of my RTI request to CPIO,CEPTAM dated 2nd May 2013
  2. Copy my RTI request to CEPTAM dated 9th June 2013
  3. List of the name and phone numbers of some candidates

 

 

Drdo

RTI – DRDO Hqrs – Regarding reappointment of Sh A .K Musla, Ex-Scientist ‘G

1 Comment
To                                                                                                           23rd  October 2013
CPIO, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105

Hello,
Recently after superannuation  Sh A .K Musla, Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun joined Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), Kotdwara

As per government of India Office Memorandum No 27012/52000-Estt (A) Dated 5thDecember 2006.

Procedure for grant of permission to the pensioners for commercial employment after retirement.

And this practice is very well being followed by DRDO, Please refer

Your letter no DVS/01/0326/M/04 dated 16th March 2011 – Lt Gen Dilip Bhardwaj
Your letter no DOP/04/47009/M/01 dated 5th Oct 2011 – Lt Gen R K Karwal
Your letter no DOP/04/40078/P/01 dated 23rd Feb 2012  

Office Memorandum No 27012/52000-Estt(A) Dated 5th December 2006.

Para (a) Permission will be required for post-retirement commercial employment of a retired officer who was a member of a Group ‘A’ Central Civil Service or held a Group ‘A’ post if the commercial employment is to be taken up within one year of retirement.

Para d) Before an application of the retired officer is considered, an undertaking from the retired officer is to be taken in the form of an affidavit that the factors mentioned in clauses (b) to (f) of the amended sub-rule (3)of Rule 10 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, do not come in the way of considering his application.

As per “The Gazette of India” Extraordinary No 568 dated 23rd November 2006 Part – II, Section-3, Sub section  (i)    

Para 3 (a) Whether a” No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment has   been obtained from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired.

              (c) Whether there is conflict of interest between the policies of the office he has held in the last three years and the interest represented of work undertaken by the organization he proposed to join.

(e) Whether service record of the officer is clear, particularly with respect of integrity and dealings with non- Government Organizations.

With reference to above kindly provide me the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

  1. Copy of permission letter of  Sh A .K Musla, Ex-Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun, DRDO before joining  Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), Kotdwara
  2. Copy of ” No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment    has   been obtained  by Sh A .K Musla, Ex- Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun, DRDO from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired.
  3. Copy of vigilance clearance from the competent authority.

Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) for the furtherance of business BEL, Kotdwara establishing an office/centre in the office complex of IRDE.

i.     Please provide terms & condition commercial
ii.    Payment condition for using office premises by BEL
iii.   As per government laid down rule MES permission and MES involvement is necessary, please provide the correspondence or MES approval of using   office premises from MES by Director, IRDE.
iv.    IB clearance for BEL officials using office premises has been taken by Director, IRDE yes/No

Note –above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II

“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty” 

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order -17F 549288

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                            
 21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                                                                              0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                  prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com
Drdo

Private cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 using DMSRDE for commercial purpose

3 Comments
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Central Public Information Officer
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013             

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Hello,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given thereof in these decisions.

  1. File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; 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”.
  2. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

CIC in its above mentioned decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

In light of the above decisions of CIC, Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Total No.  of transport/vehicles available in MT Division DMSRDE.
  2. Provide following information in respect of all vehicles available in DMSRDE.
  • Type of vehicle, Brand name, Manufacturer
  • Date of Purchase, purchase cost and source of fund(Build up/Project etc)
  • Present depreciated cost as on 31.10.2013
  • Average distance run /traveled by each vehicle in the year 2012-2013 separately for
  • each vehicle.
  • Total expenditure on maintenance of each vehicle separately in the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

3.      How many CMTD /MTD are posted in MT Division?
4.      Mode of tendering for selection of vendors for hired vehicles (Local Board/Single            Tender/Limited Tender/Open Tender/Repeat Order) for the following years.

  • 2010-2011
  • 2011-2012
  • 2012-2013
  • 2013-2014

5.     Total budget of MT Division years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
6.     Total expenditure and payment made for hired vehicles/transport for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13 along with name of vendor to whom the payment made.
7.      Provide expenditure incurred on various heads for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
8.      Provide information about vendor/firm which got contract for hired vehicles and amount paid to these vendors  in following formatrtimtpost1

 9.      Amount of Service Tax  that has been paid by DMSRDE to Vendor as reflected in bills submitted by vendor for depositing in Custom, Excise & Service Tax Department in following formatrtimtpost2

  1. Provide copies of CST (Comparative Statement) after opening of quotations duly approved by competent authority for the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 for giving contract to vendors for hired vehicles services in DMSRDE.
  2. Provide copy of supply order placed for hiring private vehicles/transport for the FY 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in DMSRDE.
  3. Copy of contract with terms & condition and rate (usage charges) for the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
  4. Whether any extension of contract for hired vehicle has been given to any vendor for during the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. (Yes/No)
  5. If answer to point (13) is yes then provide copy of rules under PM 2006 by which extension for contract of hired vehicle services (Repeat Order) could be given to vendor without going in fresh bidding.
  6. Details about maintenance of vehicles/transport available in DMSRDE for each vehicle/transport in following formatrtimtpost3
  1.  Status of vehicle (operational/Non operational) available in DMSRDE when services of hired vehicles were utilized.
  2. Whether hired vehicles provided by vendor Super India Travels, Rama Devi, Kanpur with following registration number are registered at RTO, Kanpur under category of Taxi for commercial purposes. Registration & Details of vehicles are

(a)   UP78 BS 1144 ( Indica Car White Color with white number plate)

(b)   UP78 CP 6510 (Indigo CS White Car with white number plate)

  1. If answer to point (17) is Yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by RTO Kanpur for said vehicles under Taxi for Commercial purpose.
  2. If answer to point (17) is No then provide the grounds on which vendor not having proper registration under Taxi from RTO, Kanpur was allowed to provide services in DMSDRE.
  3. The details of Vendor Registration Committee at DMSRDE with name & designation of Chairman and members.

The color of the number plates used in cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 provided by vendor for hired services are not Yellow. The color of these no. plates are White. It establishes that cars used for hired transport in DMSRDE are not registered under TAXI FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. Also the said vendor is not registered at Custom & Excise Department under Service Tax category and not depositing any Service Tax for hired vehicles services at DMSRDE.

Therefore the Information Sought is pertaining to Allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549289) is annexed as Annexure-1.

 
 
Date: 23 October, 2013                                                                              (Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal)
                                                                                                                              21-Sunderwala, Raipur
                                                                                                                               Dehradun-248008
                                                                                                                              Uttarakhand                    

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.   17F 549289   as application Fee.
Drdo

DRDO Sceintist’s – Ph D Mechnism

1 Comment
To                                                                                                        Date 17th October 2013
The CPIO, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, RajajiMarg
New Delhi – 110105

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of  Graphic Era University, Deemed University, Dehradun U/S 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 vide Notification F.9-48/2007-U.3(A) dated August 14, 2008 and DRDO collaboration.

  1. Please provide total amount of funds granted to Graphic Era University, Deemed University, Dehradun by DRDO Labs since April 2009 to March 2013 for various purposes.
  2. Name of scientists of DRDO who enroll for PhD since April 2009 to March 2013.

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given in these decisions.

File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; 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”.

Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II.  

Regards

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

Constitutional crises in DRDO

Leave a comment

DRDO comes under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India and all central government rules are applicable.

However, beginning with 1980 (prior to this DRDO was running under defence secretary) when D G (R&D) post was created and approved by cabinet with status of secretary as independent charge of R&D, foundation were laid for an autonomous & central govt. body both.

Special status was given for program director of IGMDP with permission sign 10 cr papers while directors/lab heads limitation was 2.5 Lakhs.

In the name of science & technology development, recruitments were made to develop defence specific weapons/equipments/infrastructures. A separate recruitment and assessment centre (RAC) was created with consent of UPSC and with approval of government.

The absolute empowerment of secretary DRDO gave the individual to implement his decision and with passage of time the interest of nation was over shadowed. The secretary DRDO made the entire lab directors independent and unaccountable.

Today the scenario is no system exists in DRDO, every director following their own rules, whether it is case of procurements/ recruitments / assessments / maximum time busy with construction/renovations etc.

They don’t bother new born D.Gs, DOP, RTI cell and even Secretary, DRDO. Why? Because they know after few days, Dr Avinash Chandra will be working in contract basis. No one is listening his order as well as his advice. For example, Director, Dr CP Ramanarayanan, GTRE not honoring the order of Dr Avinash Chandra, the new DG Electronics Communication System Sh. S S Sundaram also supporting the acts and deed of Director, Dr CP Ramanarayanan, GTRE (because of regionalism). Transfer case of Mr Sachin GTRE to DEAL is a clear cut example of environment of DRDO; the words uttered by Dr. CP Ramanarayanan are resonating in the ears of all top DRDO Hqrs officials.

Dr Avinash Chandra told a scientist that your request is genuine but I am helpless. The scientist got transfer order one and half year back but the because of the dictatorship of Director, LRDE, Sh S Ravind the transfer is still pending and our  Dr Avinash Chandra, SA, Dr G Malakondaiah, DS & CC R&D (HR & M), and DOP, Dr A K Singh all are helpless. Although Dr G Malakondaiah talked in front of the individual scientist with Sh S S Sundaram (conversation was in Telegu) but it did not turn positive.

Surprisingly, the aim and objective of Rama Rao committee was that the power is decentralized for fast decision on procurement issues, management issues. This would give boost for high productivity or pace in development program. It is looking like a total failure in the beginning itself.

Instead of all this all new DG are too busy to manage big chunks of funds and showing off the power of their new kingdom.

DRDO labs directors, mostly known as distinguished or outstanding scientists but it is astonishing fact that most them are not known in India because they have never published any outstanding paper, not have any patents, if PhD then from deemed universities where they are suppose to feed project funds. Like their big guru Dr W Selvamurthy Ex C C R&D, who is PhD in Yoga and involved in feeding funds to various deemed universities or private institutions. (Famous SASTRA case everyone knows). Rest are following their footsteps like Sh S S Sundaram, new born DG, Sh RC Agarwal, Director, DEAL (2nd extension age 63+ yrs), Sh R K Agarwal another outstanding scientist now start pursuing PhD from Graphic Era, also new born Deemed University at Dehardun because they fed funds in the name of projects and their agents ex DRDO employees are managing the show.

A constitutional crisis was the appointment of RAC Chairman. Dr PS Goel was appointed for period 3rd December 2008 – 2nd December 2011. As per rule search committee for next RAC chairman was supposed to be constituted in June 2011. However, minutes (DOP/05/50219/M/01 7th Dec 2011 disclose that first meeting of newly constituted committee was scheduled for 19 December 2011, it is astonishing fact that DRDO writes its own constitution and shows disrespect to Honorable Raksha Mantri.

Negligence of then SA to RM, not to initiate search committee in time was a planned action. He wanted to push all his close aides to appropriate place/post, who were handling sub contracts signed with foreign firms with different areas and were responsible omission/commission dues. The period of Dec 2011 to June 2012 was the crucial period of assessment/recommendations/selections/promotions. To cash this opportunity   Dr V K Saraswat as chairman RAC recommended those who were not competent for the post of ‘H’. Had there been an independent RAC Chairman, he would kept the national interest in forefront. The example of the case of Sh R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’ at DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun, who prepared citation for promotion with a false claim (Copy of his claim) attached and got promoted with the blessing of Sh R C Agarwal, Director, DEAL (2nd extension without any achievement) and Dr V K Saraswat.

The letter no 12/7/2012 EO(SM-II) dated 19th March 2012 of DOPT revealed that appointment of

as RAC chairman was approved by Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC). The question is why it was waited up to June 19th, 2012; time was buying to adjust all incompetent senior officials by Dr V K Saraswat.

It is requested to Sh A K Antony, honorable Raksha Mantri order for investigation of assessment year 2012 scientist ‘H’.

DOPT letter no 12/7/2012 EO(SM-II) dated 19th March 2012
DOPT letter no 12/7/2012 EO(SM-II) dated 19th March 2012

 

Office order of additional charge given to Dr V K Saraswat as Chairman, RAC
Office order of additional charge given to Dr V K Saraswat as Chairman, RAC
Note sheet of approval of Raksha Mantri for additional charge of Chairman RAC to Dr V K Saraswat
Note sheet of approval of Raksha Mantri for additional charge of Chairman RAC to Dr V K Saraswat
DRDO News Letter September 2012
DRDO News Letter September 2012

 

 

 

Drdo

First Appeal – PCDA R&D

2 Comments

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

 To,
  Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma, IDAS
  Principal Controller
  PCDA (R&D), West Block-V
  R.K. Puram
  New Delhi-110066 

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

Reference

  1. Letter No. AN/RTI CELL/2013/j-p-sharma dated 06.09.2013 issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi
  2. Letter No. AN-I/R&D/RTI CELL/2013/J.P.Sharma dated 18.9.2013 issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi

Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO), PCDA (R&D), New Delhi. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1.   Details of appellant:-

Name
J.P. Sharma
Address
J.P. Sharma, Advocate
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
Court Compound, Dehradun-248001(Uttarakhand)

2.       Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) whom RTI application was submitted:-

Name & Rank
Dr. Jairaj Naik, IDAS, Jt. CDA, CPIO
Address
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block-V
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066

3.     Details of Central Assistant Public Information Officer(CAPIO) who replied the application filed under RTI Act

Name & Rank
Shri D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer,CAPIO
Address
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block-V
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066

4.       Particulars of Decision/Order of CAPIO against which appeal:-

S.N. Decision Letter No. & Date Date Encl. No.
1. AN/RTI CELL/2013/j-p-sharma 06.09.2013 1
2. AN-I/R&D/RTI CELL/2013/J.P. Sharma, 18.9.2013 2
NOTE: Application dated 20.08.2013 received to PCDA(R&D) on 26.08.2013

Copy of the letters received by appellant on 16.09.2013 and 28.09.2013 respectively. Copy enclosed as Enclosure-1 and Enclosure-2.

5. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)    An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 20 August 2013 was submitted to CPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi for providing information regarding “Bills passed by PCDA (R&D) forwarded by DMSRDE, Kanpur“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-3.

(b)    Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO), PCDA (R&D), New Delhi transferred the application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 vide letters cited above.

(c)     Under the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, the application under RTI Act was illegally transferred by CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi with malafide intentions under planned conspiracy with Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi.

(d)    Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

6.       Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.

(a)    PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is a Public Authority under Central Government of India. As per information available on website of PCDA (R&D), New Delhi “The organisation of PCDA (R&D) is responsible for payment, accounting and internal/local audit functions relating to DRDO“.

(b)      PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is the sole custodian of the information sought under RTI Application dated 20 August 2013. Therefore transfer of application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 is illegal.

(c)      Under the provisions of Section 5 (2) of RTI Act, CAPIO is not authorized for transferring the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to any other public authority. CAPIO can only receive the application and forward to CPIO.

(d)      Under the provisions Section 5 of RTI Act, only CPIO is authorize to transfer the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005.

(e)      Vide CIC decision in case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003779/LS dated 27 August 2013 (J.K. Mittal vs. Delhi Police/PHQ), Hon’ble CIC held “CPIO is the fulcrum of the RTI regime.   As  per  section  7(1),  it  is the mandate  of   the  CPIO  to  provide  information  requested for by an informationseeker.RTI application can be transferred only by the CPIO to another CPIO and not by ACPIO”.

(f)      The application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 should be transferred within five days from the date of receipt of the application under the provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act. As mentioned above the application dated 20.08.2013 was received in office of PCDA(R&D) on 26.08.2013 therefore the application should be transferred up to 01 September 2013 but transfer of application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act on 06.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 is illegal under the provisions of RTI Act 2005.

(g)      Therefore, transfer of application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 by CAPIO is illegal. Hence both letters issued by CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi are illegal and invalid under the provisions of RTI Act.

(h)      Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid & illegal decision of CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before First Appellate Authority (FAA).

7.   Prayer /relief sought for:-

  1. RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 submitted by appellant to CPIO, PCDA (R&D) has been illegally transferred under planned conspiracy of Public Authority of DMSRDE and Public Authority at PCDA including CPIO, CAPIO, PCDA(R&D), Main Branch, New Delhi.
  2. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi to allow this appeal and issue orders to CPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi to provide the full information as sought/seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 under the provisions of Section 7(1) of RTI Act.
  3. Under the provisions of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act the information should be provided to appellant with in the thirty days of the receipt of the application. Since the RTI application was received by CPIO, PCDA (R&D) on 26.08.2013 and information sought in the application should be provided by CPIO to appellant till 26.09.2013.
  4. Since the application dated 20.08.2013 was illegally and willfully transferred by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) with malafide intentions & motives to CPIO, DRDO HQ, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi. Therefore CPIO and CAPIO both are liable to be imposed penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act and disciplinary action u/s 20(2) of RTI Act by Hon’ble CIC.

8.       Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-

  1. Gross Violation of Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 in transfer of application to CPIO, DRDO HQ

a.    Provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act are reiterated here for your kind information.

Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—

(i) which is held by another public authority; or

(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the  functions of another public authority,

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: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.

b.    PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is a Public Authority under Central Government of India. As per information available on website of PCDA (R&D), New Delhi “The organisation of PCDA (R&D) is responsible for payment, accounting and internal/local audit functions relating to DRDO”.

c.      PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is the sole custodian of the information sought under RTI Application dated 20 August 2013. Therefore transfer of application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 is illegal.

d.      The information sought by appellant is not held by DRDO and DMSRDE, Kanpur as information about bills and payments related to vendors who supplied store and services to DMSRDE is held  only by PCDA(R&D) for Audit purpose.

e.       Therefore PCDA (R&D) is sole custodian of information sought and CPIO, CAPIO or Public Authority could not transfer the application u/s 6(3) of the Act.

  2. CAPIO is not authorize for transfer of application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005

a.     Under the provisions of Section 5 (2) of RTI Act , CAPIO is not authorized for transferring the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to any other public authority. CAPIO can only receive the application and forward to CPIO.

b.     Under the provisions of RTI Act, only CPIO is authorize to transfer the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO of other Public Authority.

c.      Vide CIC decision in case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003779/LS dated 27 August 2013 (J.K. Mittal Vs. Delhi Police/PHQ), Hon’ble CIC held “CPIO is the fulcrum of the RTI regime.   As  per  section  7(1),  it  is the mandate  of   the  CPIO  to  provide  information  requested for by  an  information seeker .           RTI application can be transferred only by the CPIO to another CPIO and not by ACPIO“.

d.      Vide the CIC decision mentioned in point(c) above, Hon’ble CIC gave verdict that “As per Section 5(2), APIO is empowered only to receive RTI applications and then transmit them to the CPIO concerned. On the other hand, CPIO is empowered not only to receive RTI applications directly but also to respond to them. Hence, the functions of the CPIO and APIO are distinct and not co-equal”.

3.     Planned conspiracy of CPIO,CAPIO & Public Authority at PCDA(R&D) with Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi

It is quite evident that information sought should be provided by PCDA(R&D) as this public authority has not been placed under Second Schedule of the Act, thereby PCDA(R&D) is bound to provide the information sought to the appellant within 30 days of receipt of the application under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.

Under the planned conspiracy of two public authorities PCDA(R&D) and Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur the CPIO did not provided the information to the appellant and illegally manages to transfer the application to CPIO, DRDO HQ (Public Authority – DRDO)  through his CAPIO Mr.  D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer.

Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur is involved in corruption and trying his all the best that evidences of his corruption could not be disclosed to the appellant. In promoting the corrupt practices of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE the officials at ACDA, AO (R&D), DMSRDE, Kanpur are involved. Thereby they ignored serious lapses in purchases at DMSRDE during tenure of Dr. A.K. Saxena from 01.01.2011 to till date.

I would like to expose the movement of application submitted under RTI Act by Appellant at PCDA (R&D), New Delhi. The copy of application was send to Shri VK Singh, ACDA, AO (R&D), DMSRDE, Kanpur. In the AO(R&D) Office at DMSRDE, Kanpur , one Shri Anurag Srivastava, AAO is posted since last more than 10 years in the same office however all other officials were transferred on rotation basis as per transfer policy of PCDA(R&D).

Shri Anurag Srivastava is having close association with Dr. A.K. Saxena , Director, DMSRDE on basis of casteism as both belongs to same cast known as Kayastha. Dr. A.K. Saxena managed stay of transfer/posting of Shri Anurag Srivastava several times using his official position.

On receiving of copy of application under RTI Act submitted by Appellant, Shri Anurag Shrivastava along with Shri V.K. Singh met to Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE in his office and also to Shri Sarvesh , PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. All of them planned a conspiracy to transfer the application to CPIO, DRDO HQ so that CPIO, DRDO deny the information under the shadow and shelter of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Thereby their corrupt & anti-national activities could not be exposed.

4.     Letters issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) are illegal under RTI Act 2005

The application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 should be transferred within five days from the date of receipt of the application under the provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act. As mentioned above the application dated 20.08.2013 was received in office of PCDA(R&D) on 26.08.2013 therefore the application should be transferred up to 01 September 2013 but transfer of application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act on 06.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 is illegal under the provisions of RTI Act 2005. Therefore the both the letters issued by CAPIO dated 06.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 are illegal & invalid as per provisions of Section 6(3) RTI Act 2005.

5.       Letters signed by Shri D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer, CAPIO, PCDA(R&D)

As per the information available on PCDA (R&D) website pcdarnd.gov.in, Mr. D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer is CAPIO in main office. Both the letters dated 6.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 are signed by Mr. D.S. Sheoron, Accounts Officer, CAPIO.

6.      Information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption

Dr. A.K. Saxena , Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur is involved in corruption, financial irregularities , violation of purchase rules as specified in Purchase Management 2006 and misuse of financial power vested to him by DRDO HQ. The information sought will expose the corruption in DMSRDE and nexus between DMSRDE and ACDA, AO(R&D) Office, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

Appellant is surprised from the action and role of PCDA(R&D), CPIO and CAPIO on application dated 20.8.2013 by transferring the application to CPIO, DRDO HQ under gross violation of Section 6(3) of RTI Act and verdict in various decisions of Hon’ble  Central Information Commission. It appears that like ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur the officials at PCDA (R&D), New Delhi are working under pressure of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

9.         Declaration:-

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

 
J.P. Sharma
Advocate
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
Court Compound,
Dehradun-248001(Uttarakhand)

 

Appeal No.: FA/JPS/PCDA(R&D)/2013/01

Date: 15 October, 2013                                                 

 Enclosure: Three 

(1)  Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 06 September 2013
(2)  Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 18.09.2013
(3)  RTI Application dated 20 August 2013.
(1)Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 06 September 2013
(1) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 06 September 2013
(2)Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 18.09.2013
(2) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 18.09.2013

 

To,                                                                                                                   20th August 2013
Dr. Jairaj Naik, IDAS
Jt. CDA, CPIO
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block
R.K. Puram
New Delhi-110066

Subject: Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly provide the following information under section 2(f), 2(i), 2(j) and 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide the details of bills passed for payments of third party (Vendor/ supplier /Firms) claims forwarded by DMSRDE, Kanpur by O/o PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and O/o AO (R&D), ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur for the period 01/01/2013 to 31/07/2013 for the amount between One lakh to Fifty lakh for purchase of store and services with following information in each bill.

i.     Particulars of store (item purchased) and service hired
ii.    Particular of vendor/firm to which payment was made(Cheque issued)
iii.   Amount of bill/cheque issued
iv.   Date of payment
v.    Mode of tendering- Single/Single with PAC/Limited/Openi.                                             vi.   Whether repeat order(Yes/No)

  1. Details of all bills passed and cheque issued by AO(R&D), ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur and O/o PCDA(R&D) in favour of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd., New Delhi/ SM Carapace Armor, New Delhi with following information.

i.   Particular of store (item purchased) and services hired.
ii.  Amount of bill
iii.    Date of payment/ cheque issued                                                                                             iv.   Mode of Tendering- Single/Single with PAC/Repeat Order/Limited /Open

  1. In one year how many repeat order can be issued as per Purchase Manual 2006 of DRDO/Any other Govt. Rules in case of      

  i.    Store                                                                                                                                              ii.    Services

4.    Whether repeat orders could be issued in case of services/AMC/ services hired like hired vehicle for transport etc as per PM 2006. (Yes/No)

5.      If answer to point (4) is yes then provide the copy of said rule.
6.      Whether M/s SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd/SM Carapace Armor/or any other subsidiary of SM Group is registered with DMSRDE, Kanpur or with HEMRL, Pune (Yes/No)

7.     If answer to point (6) is yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by DMSRDE, Kanpur or HEMRL, Pune.

8.     Provide the details/category under which any subsidiary firm under SM Group New Delhi like SM Pulp/SM Carapace is registered with HEMRL / DMSRDE as per Rule 3.2 of PM 2006.
9.     If registered at HEMRL/DMSRDE then date of registration.
10.    Copies of Supply Orders issued to SM Pulp Packaging/SM Carapace Armor for the Financial years

  • 2010-2011
  • 2011-2012
  • 2012-2013
  1. Inspection of documents/records for passing the bills of SM Pulp Packaging and SM Carapace Armor , New Delhi for the FY 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2012-2013.

An IPO of Rs. 10 No. 16F 966245 is enclosed as application fee.

Date – 20th August 2013

                                                                                                                                                           ( J P. Sharma)
Advocate
Chamber No.64, First floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
Court Compound
Dehradun-248001
Uttarakhand                    
 
copy
Shri V.N. Singh, ACDA
AO (R&D), DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013

 

 
 
Drdo

RTI-DMSRDE-STAFF CAR

Leave a comment
To,
Central Public Information Officer
DMSRDE,
GT Road
Kanpur-208013                     

Subject: Application/Request under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given in these decisions.

i.    File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; 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”.

ii.   CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO) 
iii.   CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
iv    CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

CIC in its above mentioned  decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

In light of the above decisions of CIC, Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. The date from which Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE was availing staff car facility for commuting between office and residence.
  2. Copy of the letter by which Dr. AK Saxena , Director, DMSRDE requested to his superior authority/controlling authority to withdraw the staff car.
  3. The date from which staff car facility was withdrawn from Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE.
  4. The date from which Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE availing Transport Allowance.
  5. Amount of Transport Allowance provided to him after withdrawal of Staff Car.
  6. How many staff car existing in DMSRDE?
  7. Whether staff car facility was offered to other senior officer at No. 2 or No. 3 in rank for commuting between office and residence after withdrawal of staff car facility from Dr. AK Saxena. (Yes/No)
  8. If answer to point (7) is yes then provide the copy of the offer letter as mentioned above and letter of acceptance/denial by such senior most officers.
  9. Details/List of Scientists/Tech. Officers/CMTD/MTD/Other employees & staff below the rank of Scientist ‘D’ to whom Telephone Reimbursement has been sanctioned/allowed by Director, DMSRDE for prepaid mobile/Landline with Broadband/Postpaid with Internet facility. Provide details for each official with following information.
  • Name of the Scientist/officer/official with rank
  • Amount of telephone Reimbursement
  • Justification

10.    Provide the total number of Scientist/Tech. Officer/Other officer & employees           below the rank of Scientist ‘D’ who are availing Telephone Reimbursement.

11.     Copy of the Minute Sheet/SOC approved by Director, DMSRDE by which Officer & employees posted at Motor Transport Division was allowed for Telephone Reimbursement.

13.   Copy of the rule under which Telephone Reimbursement for Scientist C’, Scientist ‘B’, Tech. Officers, CMTD, MTD, Admin. Asst. & other employees & staff of DMSRDE have been allowed in DMSRDE, Kanpur.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

This is also for your kind information that the information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not the personal information under RTI Act.

Please Find Enclosed – Postal Order No 17 F 549291

Date: 16th  October , 2013

 (Santosh Joshi)
2-Shanti Vihar
Behind mahindra showroom
Haridwar bypass 
Dehradun – 248001
Drdo

RTI Act -2005 – Effective Tool to Tackle Corruption and Very Potent Weapon against Corruption and Nepotism

2 Comments

The main objectives of the RTI Act are – To promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and

To set up a practical regime for giving citizens access to information that is under the control of public authorities.

RTI Act 2005 was introduced to make the government machinery transparent and enhanced the accountability for good governance.

Right to Information and has been given the status of a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Article 19 (1) under which every citizen has freedom of speech and expression and have the right to know how the government works, what role does it play, what are its functions and so on.

The Act confers right to the citizens to know as to how the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the Government.

Right to Information Act empowers every citizen to seek any information, take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records, and take certified samples of material.

DRDO although governed by Indian constitution and draw salary from central government funds.

But decisions are autonomous without accountability. They all are self style generals, they have own rules and rule implantations in own terms & conditions, but when succumbed to injury look for RM for protection and ask protection in the name of secrecy.

Like when an RTI revealed that induction of Grade Pay – Rs 4800 without approval of finance ministry now question of recovery of Rs 24 Cr is big crisis for DRDO, several court cases are facing by DRDO, almost 665 technical officers are busy to tackle the recovery issue.

DRDO management to hide their irresponsible act, making arrangements for reassessment for these technical officers. Please imagine the money involvement and man hour wastage.

The present Honorable Defence Minister has tried his level best and convinced DRDO officers/ employees to fall in the line and follow the constitutional provisions.

Honorable Defence Minister has take prompt action as per rule:-

  1. Not granted extension to Dr V K Sarswat
  2. Suspended Dr Arun Kumar, DOP two hours before his retirement day.
  3. Charge sheeted to Dr. S M Veerabhadrappa just after retirement.
  4. Node to enquiry for Dr W Selvamurthy, Ex CC R&D, Ph D in Yoga, Ms S Geetha, Ms Swati Srivastva, Mrs T Chandra banu, Scientist ‘F’
  5. Charge Sheeted Dr A K Tyagi, ex CPIO, DRDO Hqr
  6. Protected whistle blower Sh Prakash Singh, Senior Admin Officer-I

These well known decisions are in the right direction and has encourage the common people to identify incompetent, corrupt official , non performers etc of DRDO Labs across the India. So this cancer of corruption, nepotism, casteism can be treated in first stage.

DRDO has made it mockery of RTI Act – 2005. There are several examples in CIC decision; “ The Commission has taken a consistent view that notwithstanding the fact that DRDO is an exempted organization, this exemption applies only in respect of scientific/technical matters and not in respect of establishment matters.”

And best part is this that after CIC stands, DRDO went Honorable High Court for wasting precious poor tax payer’s money. Common man cannot digest who give power to these corrupt officers for saving their own skin they are using public money.

In case of DMSRDE, DRDO Lab Kanpur, some RTI were placed to expose the corrupt practices following in the Lab. As usual practice of RTI cell DRDO all were denied and after thoroughly and specifically made first appeal force to think first appellate authority for provide requested informations.

RTI cell DRDO intends to disclose informations. However, the RTI cell at Lab level put the sundry things under schedule-II exemptions. DRDO has protected its corrupt officials under exemption clause in the name of secrecy.

Please find enclosed copy of FAX addressed to Director, DMSRDE, KANPUR  Letter No RTI/02/2091 /F /2013/0139.0140,0141,0142,0144 dated 27th September 2013 signed by Sh Bishan Singh, Astt. Director, RTI Cell, For First Appellate Authority.

For your ready reference.

 

Regards                                                                                             Date – 14th October 2013

Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
E-mail – prabhudoon@gmail.com, website- www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
  1. Enclosed – Photocopy of FAX addressed to Director, DMSRDE, KANPUR  Letter No RTI/02/2091 /F /2013/0139.0140,0141,0142,0144 dated 27th September 2013
 rtidmsrdefaxcopy0001
To                                                                                                                                                  
The Defence Minister                                                                                                        
Room No -104, South Block                                                                                               
New Delhi – 110011