Category Archives: Drdo

Drdo

Congratulations Dr. K K Jha

October 13, 2013 Prabhu Leave a comment

Dr K K Jha’s Contact – 08954436364

Drdo

First Appeal -DMSRDE – Immovable Property Return (IPR) of Officials

October 10, 2013 Prabhu 1 Comment

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

To,

Shri Suranjan Pal, OS & Director DECS

First Appellate Authority, DRDO

RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg

New 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 motive under 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 to Immovable 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 11^th 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 11^th April 2011 is enclosed as Enclosure -3.
11. Partial information of IPR is in Public domain on DRDO website
As per DOPT OM dated 11^th 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 2005 larger 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. Sharma

Advocate

Chamber No. 64, First Floor

Opposite Bar Council Office, Court Compound

Dehradun-248001

(Uttrakhand)

Appeal No.:FA/JPS/DMSRDE/2013/01

Date: 10^th 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 11^thApril 2011

To, 20 August 2013

Shri Sarvesh Kumar

Scientist ‘F’

Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)

DMSRDE, GT Road

Kanpur-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.

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)

Advocate

Chamber No.64, First floor

Opposite Bar Council Office, Court Compound

Dehradun-248001

Uttarakhand

Annexure:-

IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 16 F 966251 as application Fee

Drdo

डीआरडीओ के लोगों अब तो जागों ????

October 10, 2013 Prabhu 1 Comment

डीआरडीओ के कुछ तथाकथित राजा है जिनकी प्रजा डीआरडीओ अधिकारियों कर्मचारियों की तरह सोई हुई थी !

कुछ ईमानदार लोगों ने कोशिश की
अधिकारी कर्मचारी जग जाए ..
अगर कुछ गलत हो रहा है तो
उसका विरोध करे,
लेकिन डीआरडीओ अधिकारियों कर्मचारियों को कोई फर्क
नहीं पड़ता था !

डीआरडीओ के राजाओं ने अपने ही नियम बना दिये
अधिकारी कर्मचारी चुप रहे
राजा ने अजीबो गरीब टैक्स
लगाए प्रजा चुप रही
राजा ज़ुल्म करता रहा लेकिन
प्रजा चुप रही

एक दिन राजा के दिमाग मे एक
बात आई उसने एक अच्छे-चौड़े
रास्ते को खुदवा के एक पुल
बनाया ..
जबकि वहां पुल की कतई
ज़रूरत नहीं थी ..
प्रजा फिर भी चुप थी किसी ने
नहीं पूछा के भाई यहा तो किसी
पुल की ज़रूरत नहीं है
आप काहे बना रहे है ?

राजा ने अपने सैनिक उस पुल
पे खड़े करवा दिए और पुल से
गुजरने वाले हर व्यक्ति से टैक्स
लिया जाने लगा फिर भी किसी
ने कोई विरोध नहीं किया !

फिर राजा ने अपने सैनिको को
हुक्म दिया कि जो भी इस पुल
से गुजरे उसको 4 जूते मारे जाए
और एक शिकायत पेटी भी पुल
पर रखवा दी कि किसी को अगर
कोई शिकायत हो तो शिकायत
पेटी मे लिख कर डाल दे लेकिन
प्रजा फिर भी चुप !

राजा रोज़ शिकायत पेटी खोल
कर देखता की शायद किसी ने
कोई विरोध किया हो लेकिन
उसे हमेशा पेटी खाली मिलती !

कुछ दिनो के बाद अचानक एक
एक चिट्ठी मिली ..
राजा खुश हुआ के चलो कम से
कम एक आदमी तो जागा ,,,,,
जब चिट्ठी खोली गयी तो उसमे
लिखा था –

“हुजूर जूते मारने वालों की
संख्या बढ़ा दी जाए …
हम लोगो को काम पर जाने मे
देरी होती है !

Drdo

Finally Dr AK Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Charge Sheeted yesterday F/N

October 9, 2013 Prabhu 5 Comments

Status of Complaint No: 569/11/9 against your one great scientist Dr Anil Kumar Tyagi, Sc ‘G’ CPIO, DRDO Hqrs
Date: 8/10/2013
Sent to CVO for Investigation/Action Taken Report on date : 16/3/2011
CVO Report Received on date: 18/7/2013

Prima facie material has been found against the officials involved. Regular Disciplinary action is recommended on: 9/9/2013

Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs finally charge sheeted on 8th October 2013 F/N. Charge Sheet signed by Honorable Defence Minister, Sh A K Antony.

On 26th April 2011 I have posted a letter to Defence Minister regarding “DRDO Prefers to Give RTI Cell Responsibilities to Tainted Officers “

DRDO RTI Cell
1. Dr.Arun Kumar, D.O.P. – First Appellate Authority-Vigilance case is pending
2. Dr A.K Tyagi Scientist ‘F’ – CPIO – Case Registered in CVC No.569/11/9
3. Dr Prahlada, CC R&D – Ex F.A.A.- Case is pending with SC/ST commission
4. Sh S Ravi, Scientist ‘G` – Ex CPIO – Case of embezzlement(ITM Mussoorie)

Two were fixed

Dr.Arun Kumar, Ex – D.O.P. Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist was suspended and Charge sheeted – proceeding initiated
Dr A.K Tyagi , Scientist ‘G’ CPIO, DRDO Hqrs – Charge sheeted –

Next two are under lens of honest employees and both will be fixed

Dr A.K Singh present DOP is supporting Dr A.K Tyagi in all means – it shows his approaches, Dr A.K Singh leave protecting the corrupts and give attentions towards genuine transfer cases of Sh.Sachin, Scientist ‘C’ GTRE and Sh Naval Gupta, Scientist ‘B’ PM-2 Site.

Dr A.K Singh was bothering for image of DRDO but not able to handle Dr CP Ramanarayanan, who was made worst comment in DRDO history.

Some of senior DRDO’s officials are thinking they are GOD and they have power to ruin any one future, now it is not possible because thousands/ lakhs of eyes are watching your every moment.

Wait for GOD’s justice.

[M.O.F. No. F.15(8)-E IV/57, dated 28th March, 1959].
Circumstances under which a Government servant may be placed under suspension –
Cases where continuance in office of the Government servant will prejudice the investigation, trial or any inquiry (e.g. apprehended tampering with witnesses or documents);

Where the continuance in office of the Government servant is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office in which the public servant is working.
Where allegations have been made against the Government servant and preliminary inquiry has revealed that a prima facie case is made out which would justify his prosecution or is being proceeded against in departmental proceedings, and where the proceedings are likely to end in his conviction and/or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service.
Suspension
(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension-
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending

Drdo

Tuglaki Farman/Talibani Fatwa by Tuglaki/Talibani Director Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, DMSRDE, Kanpur

October 8, 2013 Prabhu 1 Comment

Shri Avinash Chander

Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri

Director General Research & Development

Secretary, Defence R&D

DRDO, Ministry of Defence

DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg

New Delhi-110011

Subject: Effect of RTI Act 2005

Withdrawn of Tuglaki Farman/Talibani Fatwa by Tuglaki/Talibani Director Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

You will be surprised to know that under your regime in 21^st Century in which India is going from developing to developed country with all efforts of honest and hardworking Indians. However there are some ineligible and corrupt officers managed to get the chair of Director. One of them in this category is Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. He is stigma on DRDO as he dragged the DMSRDE in condition which is un repairable. He is very poor administrator, manager & Scientist.

There are more than 15 parking shades in DMSRDE,Kanpur made of bricks & concrete roofs in all over DMSRDE as DMSRDE premises is spread over 45 Acres area. Everything was running as such but all of sudden Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE gets impulse which changed his state of mind and he issued an Order dated AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 regarding Parking of Vehicles by Officers & Employees of DMSRDE. He issued order “All officers & employees of establishments are ordered to park their vehicles in parking area/shade near CSD Canteen Building“.

This create panic (hurry-skurry) among officers & employees as these two shades were insufficient to park all vehicles of DMSRDE. Handicapped officers & employees face too much difficulty by Tuglaki Farman of Dr. Saxena. In these two shades only 20 cars could be parked, while there are 60 cars, 200 two wheeler & 100 bicycles with officers & employees of DMSRDE.

This Talibani Order & Tuglaki Farman forces me to file an application under RTI Act 2005 dated 04 October 2013 to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. The immediate effect of this RTI took place on Dr. A.K. Saxena. He called Group/Division Head meeting on 07 October 2013 at 11:30 to 13:00 hrs.

Dr. A.K. Saxena told to officers present that an RTI has been filed on issue of Parking of vehicles in two newly constructed shades as ordered by order dated 01 October 2013. Thereby I have decided to withdraw my orders dated 01 October 2013 and now status quo will be maintained. All officers & employees can park their vehicles as such before issue of this order.

He also decided in meeting that he will dismantle these two shades as designs of these are not proper. Sir you can see how my RTI forces your Director to change decision with in one day. It means his order was illegal, improper and against welfare of official of DMSRDE. Similarly Dr. Saxena is issuing Tuglaki Farman daily and changing them very frequently.

Dr. A.K. Saxena having some vested interest in Gupta Construction, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur. It is matter of investigation to find out connection between Gupta Construction & Dr. A.K. Saxena. Please direct your vigilance director to explore the facts or wait for further expose of Dr. A.K. Saxena’s act and deeds. These two shades should be constructed either by MES or CCE (R&D) but due to vested interest Dr. Saxena issued orders to M/s Gupta Constructions to erect this shade by purchasing raw material to erect the shade by issuing supply order to M/s Gupta Constructions. This whole construction was illegal and smacks corruption in the matter. Thereby Dr. Saxena is feeing disconcertment due to expose of his corruption and illegal construction with in DMSRDE by misusing his powers.

Now Dr. A.K. Saxena decided in Group Head meeting that he will dismantle these shades, it establish & indicates Dr. Saxena wants to destroy the evidences & tempering with files & documents related to purchase of materials for these shades by Estate & Works Division, DMSRDE. I am submitting you the photographs of these two shades recently constructed illegally by Director, DMSRDE as for this work he was not authorize and empowered. Depute an enquiry team to DMSRDE, Kanpur for inspection of this illegal construction carried out by Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. So that his corrupt practices would be exposed and he should be penalized as per Rules.

Bye the way Dr. A.K. Saxena is not doing something strange, this practice is already exercised or exercising in various labs. Like Director, DEAL busy with replacing the good perfect tiles in all campus, RTI is there but no worries in face of Sh R C Agarwal. Same in CEPTAM when MES handover the building and very next day all tiles were removed and wood paneling started and all alteration were made without proper sanctions and literally wasted the poor tax payers money.

Date: 07 October 2013

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal

21, Sunderwala, Raipur

Dehradun- 248008 ,(Uttrakhand)

Drdo

First Appeal – Sh R K Agarwal’s False Claim

October 7, 2013 Prabhu Leave a comment

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

To,

Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS

First Appellate Authority, DRDO

RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg

New Delhi-110011

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

Reference: No.DEAL/RTI/0010/2013 dated 3^rd September 2013

Sir,
As I am aggrieved by decision/no decision of Central Public Information Officer, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.

The reply of CPIO, DRDO, is completely confusing, misleading, incorrect, unjustified and willful not give any information, does not following the spirit of RTI Act 2005.

I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1. Details of appellant:-

Name	Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address	21-Sunderwala, Raipur Dehradun-248008
Mobile	09411114879
email ID	prabhudoon@gmail.com

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

Name & Rank	Dr. Sangeeta Khare , Scientist ‘G ‘
Address	DEAL,Raipur Road, Dehradun-248001

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

Decision vide letter No. DEAL/RTI/0010/2013 dated 3^rd September 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun was promoted wef 1^st July 2012.

In DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO.Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL “his main contribution has been the development of NARAD, the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14 (Copy enclosed)

Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.

The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to ShSurendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.

The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism and castism. (Copy enclosed)

5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

RTI request sent to DoPT and DoPT furnished partly information which is also mark as confidential, but after result it was a open document.(Copy Enclosed)
DoPT transferred my RTI request to Ministry of Defence for rest information vide their letter no F.No/29/38/2013-EOSM-II Dated 15^th July 2013.
Subsequently MOD transferred to RTI Cell, DRDO vide Mof D ID No 21/(3)/2013(1083)/ D/(RTI) Dt 5/7/2013
Subsequently RTI Cell, DRDO transferred to CPIO,RAC, DRDO vide RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0178 dated 10^th July 2013
Subsequently CPIO,RAC, DRDO informed me vide letter no RAC/03/RTI/95/2013 Dated 1^st August 2013 that my application sent back to RTI Cell, DRDO for further action. (Copy enclosed)
Unexpectedly I have received 6^th September 2013 a letter from CPIO,DEAL, Dehardun stated that they received a letter from CPIO,RAC, DRDO on 20^th August 2013 (no letter no reference) stated that the information (Biodata) of Sh R K Agarwal marked as confidential, hence it cannot be disclosed (copy enclosed)
As Sh R K Agarwal worked in DEAL in various projects and “only those project are classified as secret/confidential which have been sanction under staff project (ARMY/Air force/Navy/ Services Branch, the rest of the project sanctioned to DRDO comes under R&D Projects.

Sh R K Agarwal himself quote in DRDO News Letter (September 2012) that he was associated with Project “NARAD” his claim was totally false and supported by Sh R C Agarwal, Director, DEAL for his promotion to Scientist ‘H’ and this act come under corruption. (“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”)

Corruption – Giving or obtaining advantage through means which are illegitimate, immoral, and/or inconsistent with one’s duty or the rights of others. Corruption often results from patronage)

viii. DRDO is protecting Sh R K Agarwal for his false claim and to stop this corrupt practice in DRDO, it is very well require exposing false claims especially in R&D atmosphere because these practices demoralize young scientists. As CPIO, DEAL already committed in one RTI reply no information and document evidence is available in DEAL regarding Sh R K Agarwal’s claim.

6. Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vide RTI Application dated 28^th May 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DEAL,Dehradun. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO,DEAL, Dehradun to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 28^th May 2013 (Copy Enclosed)

7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-

1. CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

(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) 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)

(v) In these decisions CIC decided 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. 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.

3. Misuse & wrong interpretation of section 8(1) (j) by CPIO, DRDO HQ: – It appears that either CPIO did not apply his mind on content of information sought or he is supporting corrupt practices of Director, DEAL, Dehradun

8. Declaration:-

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

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal

21-Sunderwala, Raipur

Dehradun-248008

Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879

Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/RKA/DRDO HQ/2013/03

Date: 3^rd October, 2013

Enclosure:

(1) My RTI Application to CPIO,DoPT, New Delhi dated 28^th May 2013

(2) DoPT reply Dated 15^th july 2013

(3) MoD letter Dated 5 th July 2013

(4) CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18^th July 2013

(5) CPIO, RAC, letter dated 1^st August 2013

(6) CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3^rd September 2013

My RTI Application to CPIO,DoPT, New Delhi dated 28th May 2013

To 28th May 2013

The Under Secretary (RR- II )

Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)

Department of Personnel and Training

Room No. 268 – B , North Block

New Delhi- 110011

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun

As per SRO- 36 dated 9t May 2011 ( FileNo. DHRDn6205IDRDSlRRlClP/10/1022/D(R&D))

Para 2

“(iv) The Peer Committee as specified in Schedule ID shall assess suitability for appointment of Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist in Defence Research and Development Service”.

In DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO. Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL “ his main contribution has been the development of NARAD, the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14 (Copy enclosed)

The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to Sh Surendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.

Kindly provide the following informations under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005

The certified copy of Sh R K Agarwal’s credentials submitted to then Peer Committee by DRDO for consideration for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist).
The certified copy Peer Committee recommendation for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist) in respect of Sh R K Agarwal

Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.

I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

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 98E 528553

Regards,

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal

21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008

Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

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

DoPT reply Dated 15th july 2013

MoD letter Dated 5 th July 2013

CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18th July 2013

CPIO, RAC, letter dated 1st August 2013

CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3rd September 2013

Drdo

Austerity a setback for DRDO projects

October 6, 2013 Prabhu 1 Comment

THE HINDU – October 5 – 2013

MADHUMATHI D. S.

A Rs. 1,000-crore or 10 per cent budget cut under the government’s austerity clamp for the second year running has kept the DRDO poorer by about 700 entry-level scientists in the last two years.

This may push back some of its prestigious missile and aircraft development programmes, according to a top DRDO official.

The DRDO’s hiring arm, the Delhi-based Recruitment and Assessment Centre, planned to induct 350 young engineers each year in 2012-13 and 2013-14, mainly for its missile and aeronautics labs.

Admitting a shortage of young scientists, RAC Chairman D.N. Reddy told The Hindu, “We have many new and important projects which will now be delayed for want of manpower.”

Frontline hits of this could be the long-range Agni-VI targeted for 2016, the Light Combat Aircraft set for completion in 2015 and the Futuristic Main Battle Tank.

The 35,000-strong DRDO, with 8,000 scientists, gets 6.5 per cent of the defence budget or about Rs. 10,000 crore; this year, the belt-tightening measures have kept back 1 per cent of the funds.

The hiring proposals were cleared by the Prime Minister’s Office. However, the Finance Ministry’s all-round slash on spending has halted the RAC’s drive until the middle of 2014, Dr. Reddy said.

Instead, it has to be content with about 70 recruits only to fill the vacancies created by retiring staff; half of them go directly into the priority areas of missiles and aircraft.

Only short-term

“The financial implications are only of short duration. After June 2014, we are confident that our needs will be met,” he reasoned on the sidelines of a conference on condition monitoring here on Friday.

Every December, RAC picks the cream of graduates from 16 IITs, the Indian Institute of Science and the Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, Pune. Now the entry-level staff are just a few hundred in number.

Drdo

RTI-DMSRDE – Parking

October 4, 2013 Prabhu 1 Comment

To,

Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’

Central Public Information Officer

DMSRDE, GT Road

Kanpur-208013

Subject: Application u/s 6(1) of Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

This is with reference to your Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 issued by Dr. D.N. Tripathi, Addl. Director (Admin).

Vide this order all officers & employees of DMSRDE were ordered to park their vehicles in parking area/shades near CSD Canteen with effect from 01 October 2013.

DRDO rules & procedures for construction work (minor/major) did not allow & authorize Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur to construct any building/shade/parking area or erection of any structure with in the premises of Technical and Residential area, DMSRDE.

MES(Military Engineering Services) and CCE(R&D) are the only agencies authorize for any construction of building , to execute minor & major work in buildings, construction/erecting of shades/parking area etc in Technical & Residential area of DMSRDE.

It is also quite evident from Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 that there exists building of CSD Canteen in DMSRDE near newly constructed parking area/shade.

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

CIC in their 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 decisions of CIC and facts mentioned above, kindly provide the following information under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

The name of authorized agency for construction of parking area/shade in Technical and Residential area of DMSRDE, Kanpur as per Guidelines/Procedures/Rules .of DRDO.
The name of the agency viz MES/CCE(R&D)/Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur which constructed the said two shade for parking area near CSD Canteen, DMSRDE.
Provide the copy of letter sent to GE (R&D), MES, Kanpur or CCE (R&D), New Delhi for construction of these two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen, DMSRDE.
Provide copy of the sanctioning letter by Director, DMSRDE or by DRDO HQ to sanction minor/major work to carry out the construction of two shades for parking area.
Total expenditure incurred in construction of two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen.
Whether these two shades for parking area has been developed by Director, DMSRDE. (Yes/No).
If answer to point (6) is yes then provide the following information

i. Name of vendor to whom the supply order was placed for construction of two shades in parking area near CSD canteen.
ii. Copy of supply order placed for construction of two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.
iii. The total expenditure incurred in construction of two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.

8. Whether any material like Cement Sheets, iron pipes, iron angles and hooks etc were purchased by MMG/Estate & Works Division/other Division under Director, DMSRDE.(Yes/No) for construction of two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen.

9. If answer to point (8) is yes then provide the copy of supply order issued by Head MMG/Director, DMSRDE to the said vendor who supplied the material for construction of two shades in parking area.

10. Name of vendor who supplied the material used for construction of two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen, DMSRDE.

11. The name of vendor who carried out construction work to erect two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.

12. Whether said vendor is registered at DMSRDE for construction work/supply of store & items etc. Yes/No.

13. If answer to point (12) is yes then provide the copy of registration certificate issued by Director, DMSRDE to that vendor.

14. Mode of tendering for procurement of materials used to erect/ construction of two shades in parking area.

15. Provide copy of form DRDO.MM.06 duly filled for procurement of materials required for constructions of two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen.

16. Provide copy of CST in case mode of tendering was Limited Tender/Open Tender.

17. How many parking shades/areas were existing in DMSRDE premises for parking the vehicles, prior to construction of these two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen?

18. Prior to issue of order dated 26 September 2013, in which place the vehicles of officers & employees were parked in DMSRDE.

19. How many four wheelers and two wheelers are daily coming in DMSRDE premises along with officers & employees of DMSRDE.

20. How many four wheelers could be parked in the two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen?

21. Reasons for taking decision to park all the vehicles by all the officers & employees of DMSRDE in two shades in newly constructed parking area near CSD Canteen.

22. Whether all the vehicles (four wheelers & two wheelers) of officers & employees of DMSRDE could be parked in two shades recently constructed for parking area near CSD Canteen. (Yes/No)

23. If answer to point (22) is No then provide the numbers of four wheelers that could be parked in two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.

24. From which head of budget of DMSRDE, the funds were sanctioned for construction of these two shades in parking area by private vendor or purchase of material required for construction of two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.

25. M/s Gupta Constructions, Gandhi Gram, Krishna Nagar, Kanpur is registered in DMSRDE as a vendor for supply of which kinds of store items and to provide which kind of services to DMSRDE.

26. Provide copy of registration certificate issued to M/s Gupta Constructions, Gandhi Gram, Krishna Nagar, Kanpur by Director, DMSRDE.

27. The date on which the said two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen were ready after construction and work completion and clearance certificate was issued to vendor for payment.

28. Since how long (the exact date) the CSD Canteen is operational/ existing/running in DMSRDE, Kanpur.

29. In which building of DMSRDE the CSD Canteen is running/existing. Provide the building number and exact nomenclature of that building.

30. Few months back, electrical power of CSD Canteen was cut down by GE (R&D), MES, Kanpur for about 15 days. Provide the copies of correspondence between MES and DMSRDE on the issue of disconnecting the electrical power in CSD Canteen building.

31. Whether the said building in which CSD Canteen is running presently, was specially built for CSD Canteen purpose or earmarked for CSD Canteen. (Yes/No)

32. If answer to point (31) is yes, then provide the letter/order by which CSD Canteen building was constructed by MES in DMSRDE.

33. If answer to point (31) is No, then provide the exact nomenclature/name of building in which CSD Canteen is running presently in DMSRDE.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act.

The information sought in this RTI Application is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No.17F549290) is annexed as Annexure-1.

Date: 04 October, 2013

(Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal)

21-Sunderwala, Raipur

Dehradun-248008

Uttarakhand

Annexure:-

IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.17F549290

Drdo

Open Letter to Sh Avinash Chandra, SA to RM, DG DRDO

September 26, 2013 Prabhu 10 Comments

Dear

Shri Avinash Chandra Ji, after you joined as DRDO boss, honest and neutral official expected and hoped for good decision, good administration, good cohesive environment, hope you will shake DRDO with your full strength to get rid of incompetent stuff.

But sorry to say you disappointed the honest scientists/ staff/ officials and they are not finding any reason to stay or giving their 100% output to DRDO.

Avinash ji, collect all your good energy and get rid of the nexus of culprits who are controlling SPIC, CCE, Department of Personnel, RTI Cell, RAC, CEPTAM and some Lab heads.

Every DRDO official knows acts and deeds of these corrupt officials but sake of their carrier not coming forward but sending anonymous or fake signed letters ( inputs are correct) to Prime Minister, Defence Minister and other government agencies and of course to you also, I have also received some from various labs. (Sending bunch to Honorable Defence Minister)

The increasing numbers of court cases are also perfect examples of mismanagement in DRDO.

The decision of giving responsibility of administration/material management to scientists is also going to be a big problem in the coming time.

Perfect administration and perfect procurement is not cup of scientists. They are not able to match with laid down rules of government of India. Day by day increasing number of anomalies / audit objections in recruitments / procurement are going to be a big issues.

Dr. P S Goel’s DO letter implementing of interaction for promotion from Sc ‘ F’ to Sc ‘G’ without approval from cabinet is a clear cut case of violation of Article 309 and the repercussion now started in shape of court cases which was hampering the progress of DRDO and created demotivation among senior scientists

Same in RAC/ CEPTAM encouraging recruitment of incompetent / fake degree / diploma appointment of such candidates who are not eligible as per SRO/ appointment on the basis of nepotism/ in this respect you only see the RTI’s on these issues, you will find clear picture of the future of DRDO.

You are under the impression that corrupt CPIO, Dr A K Tyagi is protecting DRDO. It is not true, instead of exposing the corrupt practices, he is trying to bury the information and very soon these corrupt practices will sink the DRDO ship. As you aware CVC already issued advice to CVO, MoD against the Dr A K Tyagi for “Regular Disciplinary action is recommended on: 9/9/2013“and you are not taking any action to remove him for the post of CPIO, DRDO. What does it mean, it means still you are in grip of corrupt officials. A honest advice is first change your staff officer and old staff of Dr Sarswat’s time, than only you will be find some change in DRDO’s scenario.

Avinash ji, we all very well know that you are washing dirty linen of Dr V K Sarswat’s several misdeed which are the outcome of mismanagement of Dr Sarswat, because he was only on? Government agencies very well know about that, and why he was not able to get extension, Ms R. AMRUTHA VANI, SC ‘F’’s (‘Below the Bench Mark’) case, Dr Neelam Bhalla’s, Sc ‘F’ (Workplace Humiliation, Harassment, Gender discrimination & Victimisation) case etc. but problem is that you are dealing all issues with same set of officials ( Dr Sarswat’s & Dr. W Selvamurthy’s gang) who created and responsible for these kinds of hurdles in DRDO for their own wasted interest.

CEPTAM Director enjoys all type of corrupt practices like he is engaging his wife and relatives in different recruitments boards as experts. Recent CEPTAM recruitment process he introduced mandatory SMS registration (cost Rs 3 to each applicant) for his personal benefit (he worked this out this without proper procedure) and due to this almost thousands of aspirant were not able to get their admit cards. In this process lot of SC/ST candidates also suffered, you can check with records, where Government of India facilitates to SC/ST candidates in recruitments without any fee. Almost 5 lakhs candidates applied nearly one lakh rejected and thousands of candidate could not appear due remote centre problem, candidates were not given asked choice centers, they received admit cards with centers like Goa, Mizoram, Chennai, Patna.

Regards

Date 26^th September 2013

Prabhu Dandriyal

21-Sunderwala, Raipur

Dehradun-248008

E-mail – prabhudoon@gmail.com, website- www.corruptionindrdo.com

Please go through the following letters which are self explanatory of your labs environment and administrative ability of your scientist.

Example Responsibility of Administration to Scientist – DMSRDE ION Dated 31^st December 2012 a true example of DRDO helpless position – a perfect documentary evidence of how incompetency promoting in DRDO.

CEPTAM Recruitment Case – Few examples

Sh. Kamdev , SC candidate – Admit card not received reason – SMS registration
Sh. Kunal – Admit card received after one day – 5 times he registered by SMS – Delhi local but centre was Ajmer
Sh Satvir – Applied for post of welder and asked for local nearby centre Delhi but he was given centre Chennai
Mohd Shahbaz – No Admit card received/ SMS registered/ application not found
Sh Saroj Kumar- applied for 0217 Diesel Mech local Harsh Vihar, Delhi based admit card received with Centre in Patna
Sh Sandeep – applied for Fireman not received admit card – reason not known
Ms Kavita – resident of Delhi, Admit card received given exam in Kanpur centre spend Rs 4000 will Director CEPTAM reimburse or only busy minting money for himself and his relatives.

Hundreds of candidates wasted their days in front of CEPTAM reception but could not able get their admit cards.

Long list will be continue

Drdo

First Appeal -DMSRDE – Immovable Property Return (IPR) of Officials

September 26, 2013 Prabhu Leave a comment

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

To,

Shri Suranjan Pal, OS & Director DECS

First Appellate Authority , DRDO

RTI Cell , Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan,

Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011

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

Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 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	Rajiv Chauhan
Address	1053/3, Shastri Nagar Meerut(U.P.)- 250005

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/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 received by appellant on 20 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 03 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 03 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/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 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 03 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 09 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 03 August 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under 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.

(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 03 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 03 August 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 03 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 and public information, 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 03 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 03 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

(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 03 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 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 & Movable Property Return of Officers“. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 03 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. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F and Mr. Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ have violated Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 as both did not submitted IPR , Movable property returns and valuable property returns for several years. This ensures disciplinary action against them under CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. These officers are having disproportionate assets by showing undervalued cost of property. Both officers used black money to purchase property at high cost but declared on low cost by paying excess amount in black money for purchase of property. The black money involved in purchase of property came to them by means of corruption. Therefore the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption. Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is promoting this immoral act (corruption) based on casteism as Mr. Amit Kumar, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Dr. AK Saxena belongs to same cast Kayastha.

5. Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. 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 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, Form 16 and Salary Slip are public documents. Thereby the information sought is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j).

6. The information related toImmovable Property Return, Movable Property Return and Form 16 giving details of salary, house rent paid and rebate in income tax 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.

7. Information Sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005

In reply dated 09 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 03 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.

8. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1964- Rule 18

Every Government servant shall submit a return of his immovable property, movable and valuable property 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 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. 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.

9. DOPT Orders on disclosure of IPR and Movable Property

Please refer DOPT, Govt. of India Office Memorandum No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11^th 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 11^th April 2011 is enclosed as Enclosure -3.

10. Partial information of IPR is in Public domain in DRDO

As per DOPT OM dated 11^th 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, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar who are having disproportionate assets and are involved in corruption.
Appellant filed RTI Application on 03 August 2013 and this was received by PIO on 13 August 2013 as he claimed in his letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September2013. It is false to say that RTI was received after 10 days of dispatch. At the time when RTI dated 03 August 2013 was filed to DMSRDE, then on IPR of DMSRDE loaded on DRDO website was not having any property details of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Mr. Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ but after receiving RTI on 13^thAugust, Public Authority (Director, DMSRDE) awaken and left his all the horses to manipulate the IPR data of Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar and manage to put in record of DMSRDE by tempering and creating new data. Director managed to publish information regarding IPR of Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar on DRDO website under file name Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf.
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 IPR of Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar, but as soon as RTI was filed on 03 Aug 2013 and received by PIO on 13 Aug 2013, whole manipulation took place with in three days only and data was published by creating new file. This indicates how DRDO/DMSRDE is protecting its corrupt officials.

viii. Therefore information related to IPR is public information not personal information. Thereby Information sought should be disclosed by PIO, DMSRDE.

11. Information sought is related to larger public interest and public activity

As per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
As per the evidences available with appellant, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar are having disproportionate assets. The money, by which they purchase the disproportionate assets, came to them by means of corruption. The exact details will be disclosed before appropriate competent authority.
Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar purchased the property in undervalued rates by making cost of property very lower than original cost on which other property were sale in that area on that particular month. There by it create loss to Government in terms of low registry fee and stamps duty used for registry of the property.
These officers did not declare their assets as per provisions of Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964, thereby they violated CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964. They are liable for disciplinary action for concealing the facts and not providing return of their assets.
Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar is involved in corruption in DMSRDE and earned black money which they invested in purchase of Immovable Property and Movable Property. Activity pertains to corruption by these officers created pecuniary loss of public money and interest of Government as their integrity is doubtful in light of disproportionate assets with them.
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.
These officials are involved in acquiring disproportionate assets by means of corruption and manipulation. This fraudulent nature establishes that their integrity is doubtful and these are not suitable for Government Service. The existence of such kind of officials having fraudulent nature & activity, is not suitable for DRDO as they can harm the reputation of DRDO. This involves public activity as public money and public office are involved.

viii. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 “Immovable Property Return (IPR) of officers” 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 03 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.

14. Denial of Information to promote Casteism in DMSRDE

Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar 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.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar all are belongs to the cast known as Kayastha.
Dr. A.K. Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar 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.

Rajiv Chauhan

1053/3,Shastri Nagar

Meerut (U.P.) – 250005

Appeal No.:FA/RC/DMSRDE/2013/02

Date: 25 September, 2013

Enclosure: Three

(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 09 September 2013

(2) RTI Application dated 03 August 2013.

(3) DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11^thApril 2011

To,

Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’

CPIO, DMSRDE,

GT Road, Kanpur-208013

Subject: Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

PARTICULARS OF INFORMATION

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) and DOPT Notification for publishing IPR of each officer working in Establishment on organization website.Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

Information/Question

. S No.	Information Sought	Required Reply
1.	Details of all the immovable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ 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	Pl. provide details.
2.	Provide copies of the form submitted for giving prior intimation or seeking previous sanction under rule 18(2) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 for transaction in respect of all immovable properties acquired till 31 July , 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’	Pl. provide details.
3.	Details of all the movable properties acquired till 31 July,2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ with following information. Description of the property i.e. Car / Scooter / Motor Cycle / Refrigerator/ Computer/ Laptop/Bank account/shares/investments/Jewellery/loans/Insurance policies etc. Make, Model and also registration No. in case of vehicles, where necessary Purchase price of the property (Market value in the case of gifts)	Pl. provide details.
4.	Provide copies of the form for giving intimation or seeking previous sanction under rule 18(3) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 for transaction in respect of all movable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.	Pl. provide details.
5.	Provide copies of final intimation in form 18(2) after purchase of the all immovable properties and in form 18(3) after purchase of all the movable properties under Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rule 1964 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘D’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D’	Pl. provide details.
6	Provide copies of the letters duly noted from DOP, DRDO HQ in respect of all immovable properties acquired by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D.	Pl. provide details.
7.	Reasons on the basis of which details of immovable properties acquired by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D are not reflected in Immovable Property Return (IPR) of DMSRDE, Kanpur on DRDO Website.	Pl. provide details.
8-	Provide copies of Form 16 for the Financial Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D.Provide copies of salary slips for month June, 2013 & July, 2013 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D.	Pl. provide details.
9-	Copy of loan papers issued by private agency like Bank, LIC HFL etc on the basis of which rebate on HBA interest was claimed/allowed to Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.	Pl. provide details.

This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisionsconsistently 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.Examples of 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.

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 is enclosed

Date: 3^rd August, 2013

( Rajiv Chauhan)

1053/3;Shastrinagar,

Meerut(UP)-250005,

09412628314

IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 16F964389 as application Fee.

Corruption In DRDO

Category Archives: Drdo

Congratulations Dr. K K Jha

First Appeal -DMSRDE – Immovable Property Return (IPR) of Officials

डीआरडीओ के लोगों अब तो जागों ????

Finally Dr AK Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Charge Sheeted yesterday F/N

Tuglaki Farman/Talibani Fatwa by Tuglaki/Talibani Director Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, DMSRDE, Kanpur

First Appeal – Sh R K Agarwal’s False Claim

Austerity a setback for DRDO projects

RTI-DMSRDE – Parking

Open Letter to Sh Avinash Chandra, SA to RM, DG DRDO

First Appeal -DMSRDE – Immovable Property Return (IPR) of Officials

Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials