To, 23rd October 2013Shri. 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
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
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
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 /foundExample 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.
In Application centre city code clearly mentioned – 09 (Delhi NCR)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 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 firmsWrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firmsPhoto placed wrongly by data entry firm and Centre wrongPhoto 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.
To 23rd October 2013CPIO, DRDO HQRoom 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 BhardwajYour letter no DOP/04/47009/M/01 dated 5th Oct 2011 – Lt Gen R K KarwalYour 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.
Copy of permission letter of Sh A .K Musla, Ex-Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun, DRDO before joining Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), Kotdwara
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.
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”
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.
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”.
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
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
Total No. of transport/vehicles available in MT Division DMSRDE.
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 format
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 format
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.
Provide copy of supply order placed for hiring private vehicles/transport for the FY 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in DMSRDE.
Copy of contract with terms & condition and rate (usage charges) for the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
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)
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.
Details about maintenance of vehicles/transport available in DMSRDE for each vehicle/transport in following format
Status of vehicle (operational/Non operational) available in DMSRDE when services of hired vehicles were utilized.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Office order of additional charge given to Dr V K Saraswat as Chairman, RACNote sheet of approval of Raksha Mantri for additional charge of Chairman RAC to Dr V K SaraswatDRDO News Letter September 2012
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
Letter No. AN/RTI CELL/2013/j-p-sharma dated 06.09.2013 issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi
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:-
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.
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.
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.
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:-
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.
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 tothem. 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 CAPIOMr. 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(2) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 18.09.2013
To, 20th August 2013Dr. Jairaj Naik, IDASJt. CDA, CPIOO/o PCDA (R&D), West BlockR.K. PuramNew 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
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)
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
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
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 floorOpposite Bar Council OfficeCourt CompoundDehradun-248001Uttarakhand
copy
Shri V.N. Singh, ACDA
AO (R&D), DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013
To,Central Public Information OfficerDMSRDE,GT RoadKanpur-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
The date from which Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE was availing staff car facility for commuting between office and residence.
Copy of the letter by which Dr. AK Saxena , Director, DMSRDE requested to his superior authority/controlling authority to withdraw the staff car.
The date from which staff car facility was withdrawn from Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE.
The date from which Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE availing Transport Allowance.
Amount of Transport Allowance provided to him after withdrawal of Staff Car.
How many staff car existing in DMSRDE?
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)
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.
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.
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:-
Not granted extension to Dr V K Sarswat
Suspended Dr Arun Kumar, DOP two hours before his retirement day.
Charge sheeted to Dr. S M Veerabhadrappa just after retirement.
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’
Charge Sheeted Dr A K Tyagi, ex CPIO, DRDO Hqr
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.
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,Shri Suranjan Pal, OS & Director DECSFirst Appellate Authority, DRDORTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji MargNew Delhi-110011
Subject:First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 September 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of 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
J.P. Sharma, Advocate
Address
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
Court Compound
Dehradun-248001(Uttrakhand
2. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name & Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE
GT Road
Kanpur-208013
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 September 2013 received by appellant on 27 September 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 20 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Immovable Property Return submitted by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.
(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 September 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of corruption and not come under Schedule-II.
(c) It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 20 August 2013 that “Central Information Commission in its various 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. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010“.
(d) In point (3) of reply dated 17 September 2013 , PIO referred the DOPT OM 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14 August 2013 in which PIO mentioned some decision of CIC for seeking exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. The said OM is having three Para’s but PIO did not read Para (2) and malafidely ignored Para (2) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment was quoted.
(e) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 20 August 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.
(f) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.
(a) Under the provisions of section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.
(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 20 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 20 August 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.
(c) Information was denied by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.
(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 20 August 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO as information sought is related to Establishment Matter and allegations of Corruption.
(e) Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.
(f) PIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.
(g) PIO is unable to understand the RTI Act 2005 and have not gone through the provisions of section 8(1) (j) of Act, definition of personal information, definition of public interest and various CIC decision in this matter. Misinterpretation of law leads to malafide intention and promotion to corruption by PIO. PIO is working under control and direction of Director (Public Authority).
(h) It appears that PIO does know the meaning of Establishment Matter, personal information and public information, public interest, public authority, public fund thereby he is claiming the information sought as personal information.
(i) Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.
6. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vides RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 20 August 2013.
Direction may kindly be issued to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions as PIO is for helping the appellant(Public/Information seeker) not for harassing the appellant as per sprit and provisions of RTI Act 2005.
Direction may please be issued to PIO to go through provisions of RTI Act 2005 before denial of information.
7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1. CIC decisions on notified organizations under Schedule II of
RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various 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.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) Information sought in RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 was pertaining to Establishment Matter
(v) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(vi) In these decisions CIC decided & gave verdict that“Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.
2. Nature of information sought is not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters
Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return submitted by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur“. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.
3. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.
4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 20 August 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is alleged that Dr. A. K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE has violated Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 as he did not submitted IPR, Movable property returns and Valuable property returns for several years. This ensures disciplinary action against him under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. This creates doubt on his integrity under Rule 3 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 and he is not suitable/Fit of administrative post like Director(Head of Establishment). Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director is having disproportionate assets by showing undervalued cost of property, which again is serious violation of conducts rules.
5. Two IPR files (.pdf) are available at DRDO website under the link Immovable Property Return. These two files for DMSRDE shows IPR of year 2010 and IPR 2012. Dr. Saxena disposed of his one house as reflected in IPR 2012 and cost of remaining house is reduced in IPR 2012. How it is possible since rate of property are increasing exponentially with time? Dr. A.K. Saxena did not submit the return of movable & valuable property as per Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. Dr. AK Saxena thus Violated Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. Dr A.K. Saxena did not inform the foreign visit of his family member (wife and two children of 14-15 years. As his wife and two children were on foreign visit to USA for 12-15 days. As per rules of Govt. of India , Dr. A.K. Saxena should intimate the transaction of expenditure incurred in this tour of his family members to DMSRDE under Rules 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. Therefore the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption.
6. Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return submitted by Director , DMSRDE , Kanpur“. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters. The information related to IPR and it is Public Information as it is held by Public Authority under Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964. The details of IPR, Movable Property Return and Valuable property return etc all the Public Information. Thereby the information sought is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j).
7. The information related toImmovable Property Return, Movable Property Return and Valuable property return is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j) as this information has been allowed by Hon’ble CIC in decision No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 & CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008 by Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner.
Information related to IPR is disclosable as per CIC decision in Case No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001990/5042 dated 06 October 2009 and CIC/SG/A/2011/003719/17410 dated 16 February 2012.
IPR related information have been uploaded on website of DRDO therefore the information sought is public information and the personal information.
8. Information Sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
In reply dated 17 September 2013, PIO DMSRDE quoted in Para(3) – DOPT OM No. 11/2/2013-IR dated 14 August 2013.
The said OM is having three (03) Para with one enclosure (CIC Decision in F No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 Manoj Arya Vs. Cabinet Secretariat).
In Para (1) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, it has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission in one of its decisions (copy enclosed) has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005′.
In Para(2) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, It has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) no. 27734/2012) in which it was held as under:- “The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual.” The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.
The information sought in RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 is neither related to any complaint made against any Government servant nor related to the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation, as demanded in DOPT OM dated 14 August 2013.
Thereby PIO is seeking illegal and malafide shelter of the said OM of DOPT because information sought is not personal information, rather this type of information has already been allowed in CIC decision F No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 and CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008.
Hence the information sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
9. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1964- Rule 18
Every Government servant shall submit a return of his Immovable Property Return, Movable property return and Valuable Property Return under the provisions of Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 under sub rule 18(1), 18(2), 18(3, 18(4) and 18(5). Therefore IPR, Movable Property Return and details of Valuable Property Return are public documents held by public authority. To submit the information under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules in prescribed format under Rule 18 are binding on each & every Government servant, therefore these are public information not the personal information. Government servants are seeking House Building Advance (HBA) of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs for purchasing of Immovable Property, Car Advance, Computer advance, two wheeler advance and other various advances (loans) from Government for purchase of Movable Property. Therefore procurement of Immovable property, movable property and valuable property involves the public money therefore these information and documents are public information. These public documents are disclosable as per DOPT orders and CIC decisions in various cases.
10. DOPT Orders on disclosure of IPR and Movable Property
Please refer DOPT, Govt. of India Office Memorandum No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 on the Subject “Submission of Immovable Property Returns by officers of Group A Central Services for the year 2010(as on 01.01.2011) – Placing of the public domain regarding“.
Under the provisions of Para (2) of the said OM “It has been decided that the immovable property returns submitted by members of all Group ‘A’ Services of the Central Government for the year 2010 i.e. as on 01.01.2011 will be placed in public domain by respective cadre controlling authorities by 31.05.2011“. Copy of the DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 is enclosed as Enclosure -3.
11. Partial information of IPR is in Public domain on DRDO website
As per DOPT OM dated 11th April 2011, it was binding on all Public Authorities to disclose IPR of all its Group’A’ Officers in public domain by uploading IPR on website.
All organisations/departments uploaded IPR submitted by all Group ‘A’ officers on their website as it is in the format prescribed under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. These IPR of all Central Government departments are as available on Internet.
DRDO is more clever than DOPT and other organisatins/departments thereby DRDO compiled the partial information in tabular form of All Group ‘A’ Officers working under DRDO.
These IPR was first time uploaded on DRDO website under the link Immovable Property Return on home page of DRDO website in year 2011. Therefore DRDO accepted that information related to IPR is public information not the personal information. Despite disclosure of partial information related IPR on DRDO website, PIO, DMSRDE denied the information on the basis of personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. This act of PIO is malafide with ulterior motives to protect the corrupt officers of his own cast based on basis of casteism.
PIO denied the information on illegal grounds to protect Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE who is having disproportionate assets and is involved in corruption.
Appellant filed RTI Application on 20 August 2013 and this was received by PIO on 23 August 2013 as he claimed in his letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 September2013. Director managed to publish information regarding IPR of his own on DRDO Website under file name Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf with just few days prior to issue of RTI Application.
This can be verified from DRDO website under the link of DMSRDE that two pdf files are existing with the names IPR_DMSRDE.pdf (uploaded in year 2011) and Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf(Uploaded on 16 August 2013). In earlier file there was no information about disposal of property by Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE that was available in IPR of 2010. It means property return of disposal of property under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules was not submitted by Dr. A.K. Saxena. This grossly violates provisions of Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964.
Therefore information related to IPR is public information not personal information. Thereby Information sought should be disclosed by PIO, DMSRDE.
12. Information sought is related to larger public interest and public activity
As per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
As per the evidences available with appellant, Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is having disproportionate assets. The source of money, by which he purchased the disproportionate assets, came to him by means of corruption. The exact details and proofs will be disclosed before appropriate competent authority.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE did not declare his asset which he disposed of as per provisions of Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964, thereby he violated CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964. He is liable for disciplinary action for concealing the facts and not providing return of their assets.
As public money, public servants, integrity of public servants, integrity of Public Authority and Public offices are involved in the matter, therefore larger public interest and public activity is involved in the disclosure of information.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is involved in acquiring disproportionate assets by means of corruption and manipulation. This fraudulent nature establishes that their integrity is doubtful and he is not suitable for Government Service. The existence of such kind of official having fraudulent nature & doubtful integrity is not suitable for DRDO as they can harm the reputation of DRDO when he is sitting on the chair of Director (Head of the Establishment). This involves public activity as public money and public office are involved.
As a principle , public interest includes “Disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability in working of a public authority“. Thereby public interest is involved in seeking information as it will brought transparency in DMSRDE and contain the corruption as per preamble of RTI Act 2005.
13. To provide reasons when information denied u/s 8(1)(j)
PIO, DMSRDE is not aware of CIC decision in case No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 07.07.2006. Decision pronounced is “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act“.
PIO has not given any reasons as to how he arrived to the conclusion that information sought is personal information u/s 8(1)(j). PIO also not mentioned the grounds on which he rejected the RTI application under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Thereby he violated the CIC decisions and provisions of RTI Act. To use the shadow of section 8(1)(j) by PIO for rejection of RTI application is illegal , prejudice and malafide.
14. Provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
PIO is reluctant to perform his duties as per provisions of RTI Act 2005. It appears that he has not under gone any training programme on RTI, sponsored by DOPT. Even though he is not taking pain for mere reading of RTI Act. PIO, DMSRDE either has not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) or he is unable to understand the meaning of provisions of section 8(1)(j).
Appellant would like to draw kind attention of FAA, DRDO on the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 “Provided that the information which can not be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person“.
The information sought by appellant regarding “Details of Immovable Property Return submitted by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur” has to be provided to Parliament and can not be denied by DMSRDE/DRDO in case Parliament seek such information as sought in RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 of appellant, thereby the information sought should be provided to appellant under the said provisions of section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought is not personal information.
15. Denial of Information to promote Casteismin DMSRDE
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Mr. Anoop Kumar Nigam, APIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. AK, Dr. Vineeta Nigam and some other official of DMSRDE are working as a gang based on casteism in DMSRDE. Integrity of these officers is doubtful and it can be established if proper enquiry will be conducted at DMSRDE by CVC/CBI. Promotion to casteism is violation of Constitution of India and CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Mr. Anoop Kumar Nigam, APIO , Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. AKall are belongs to the cast known as Kayastha.
Dr. A.K. Saxena , Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO and Mr. Anoop Kumar Nigam, APIO are protecting the corrupt officials belonging to his cast on the basis of false ground and malafidely misusing the provisions of RTI Act. Some other official also belonging to cast Kayastha have also been protected by them by illegal denial of information.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
J.P. SharmaAdvocate
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office, Court Compound
Dehradun-248001
(Uttrakhand)
Appeal No.:FA/JPS/DMSRDE/2013/01
Date: 10th October, 2013
Enclosure: Three
(1) Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 17 September 2013
(2) RTI Application dated 20 August 2013.
(3) DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011
To, 20 August 2013Shri Sarvesh KumarScientist ‘F’Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)DMSRDE, GT RoadKanpur-20801
Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005
Sir,
This is with reference to Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964 and information about Immovable Property Return (IPR) available on DRDO website (drdo.gov.in). Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
1. Details of movable, immovable and valuable property as submitted by Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE under the rule 18(1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
2. Provide copy of return of assets and liabilities of Dr. A.K. Saxena as submitted by him under rule 18(1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
3. Provide copies of Annual Immovable Property Return (IPR) submitted by Dr A.K.Saxena under rule 18(1) (ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 for the years
2010
2011
2012
2013
Details of all the immovable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 under rule 18 of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 by Dr. A. K. Saxena,Director, DMSRDE with following information
Full details about location viz. Municipal No. Street/Village, Taluk, District and State in which situated
Purchase value of property
Sources from which financed
5. Details of all the movable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 under rule 18 of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 by Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE with following information.
i. Description of the property i.e. Car / Scooter / Motor Cycle / Refrigerator/ Computer/ Laptop/Bank account /shares /investments /Jewellery/loans/Insurance policies etc
ii. Make, Model and also registration No. in case of vehicles, where necessary
iii. Purchase price of the property (Market value in the case of gifts
6. Provide copies of final intimation in form under rule 18(2) after purchase of the all immovable properties and in form under rule 18(3) after purchase of all the movable properties under Rule 18 of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 in respect of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
7. Provide details of family members/dependent for CGHS, LTC etc purpose under rule 2(c) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various 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. F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/
00054/LS dated 29.01.2010.
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.16 F 966251) is enclosed as Annexure-1.
Date:20 August , 2013
( J P. Sharma)AdvocateChamber No.64, First floorOpposite Bar Council Office, Court CompoundDehradun-248001Uttarakhand
Annexure:-
IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 16 F 966251 as application Fee
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
