Category Archives: Drdo

Drdo

RTI- DMSRDE – R&D House

1 Comment
To,                                                                                                                   Date: 24th September, 2013 
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,
Scientist ‘F’, CPIO
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013                 

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 200

Sir,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. The date on which Ex-Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur Dr. KU Bhasker Rao vacated/handed over the R&D House (Director’s Residence) to   DMSRDE/MES, Kanpur.
  2. Provide copy of vacation report of R&D House submitted by MES to Estate & Works Division, DMSRDE after vacation of accommodation by Dr. KU Bhasker Rao.
  3. Provide copies of the original internal map/Engg. Drawing of R&D House
  1. On the date when Dr. KU Bhasker Rao vacated the R&D House.
  2. On the date when Dr. A.K. Saxena take over the possession of R&D House.
  1. Whether any structural alterations/changes have been made in R&D House after vacation of R&D House by Ex-Director Dr. KU Bhasker Rao. (Yes/No)
  2. If Yes, then provide the details of structural alterations/changes that have been made in R&D House after vacation by Dr. KUB Rao.
  3. Total expenditure incurred in making structural alterations/changes and non-structural alterations/changes in building of R&D House by MES/DMSRDE after vacation of R&D House by Dr. KUB  Rao in following format.

 

S.N.
Actual work carried out
Expenditure Amount
Nature of work (Major/Minor)
Structural/ Non-Structural
Sanctioning Authority
 
 
 
 
 
 
  1. Provide inspection of
  1. work carried out at R&D House (Director’s Residence), DMSRDE, Kanpur for making structural and non-structural alterations.
  2. documents and records related to work carried out for making structural/non-structural changes and major & minor work carried out at R&D House, DMSRDE, Kanpur after vacation of R&D House by Ex-Director Dr. KU Bhasker Rao.

under section 2(j) & 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 by informing suitable time & date prior to 15 days to applicant.

  1. Provide the rules of DRDO or MES or any other Government rules under the provisions of which structural alteration/changes was made in R&D House (Director’s Residence), DMSRDE, Kanpur during the period between the date of vacation of R&D House by Dr. KUB Rao and the date of taking over R&D House by Dr. A.K. Saxena.
  2. The name of Head, Estate & Works Division, DMSRDE during the period when structural alterations/changes were made in R&D House, DMSRDE, Kanpur in the year 2011-2012.
  3. Whether any request was made by Dr. A. K. Saxena , Director to Head, Estate & Works Division or GE(R&D), MES for making structural alterations /changes in R& D House (Director’s Residence), DMSRDE.
  4. Details of sanctioning authority  who sanctioned  major works and minor works for making structural alterations/changes in R&D House, DMSRDE, Kanpur with name, designation and authority by which sanctioned.
  5. Provide the details of non-structural changes made in R&D House after the said accommodation was vacated by ex-Director Dr. KU Bhasker Rao and take over by Dr. A.K. Saxena.
  6. Total expenditure incurred in making structural alterations/changes in R&D House in 2011-2012
  7. Total expenditure incurred in making non-structural alterations/changes in R&D House in 2011-2012.
  8. Whether non-structural changes were made on request of occupant of R&D House Dr. A.K. Saxena. (Yes/No)
  9. If yes then provide the copy of letter of request by Dr. A.K. Saxena for making non-structural changes in R&D House.
  10. Whether 10% of total expenditure on non-structural changes was taken from Dr. A.K. Saxena. (Yes/No)
  11. If yes then how much amount was deposited by Dr. A.K. Saxena to DMSRDE/MES for the said work?
  12. Whether any letter regarding offer of allotment for R&D House was issued to present Director Dr. A. K. Saxena as per Allotment of Government Residences (R&D Common Pool) Rules, 2003 as amended immediately after vacation of R&D House by Dr. KU Bhasker Rao. (Yes/No)
  13. If yes then provide the copy of offer of Allotment issued to Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE by Estate & Works Division, DMSRDE.
  14. If no then provide the reasons/grounds on the basis of which Offer of Allotment was not issued to Dr. A.K. Saxena as per rules.
  15. How long the R&D House was kept vacated under maintenance?
  16. When did offer of Allotment was issued to Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE in the year 2012.
  17. Provide copy of Offer of Allotment of R&D House issued to Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE in the year 2012.
  18. When Dr. AK Saxena did accepted the offer of allotment of R&D House?
  19. Provide copy of acceptance letter given by Dr. A. K. Saxena to Estate & Works Division.
  20. Provide copy of allotment letter issued by Estate & Works Division to Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE for R&D House.
  21. The revenue received per month by Government from allotment of R&D House including HRA, License Fee, Electrical Charges, Water Charges etc.
  22. How long the R&D House was kept vacated/un-allotted? Provide exact dates & duration in months for which the said accommodation was not allotted to Dr. AK Saxena?
  23. Amount of revenue loss to Government by keeping R&D House vacated.

This is to inform that information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549292) is enclosed as Annexure-1 

Regards

PrabhuDayalDandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mailid prabhudoon@gmail.com
Website-www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

 

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 17F 549292  as application Fee.     
Drdo

DRDO scientist booked for ‘raping’ wife

2 Comments

SAMAY LIVE -23 September 2013

A Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) scientist was on Sunday booked for allegedly raping his wife.

“A case has been lodged case against Tapas Kumar Majumdar, who is working with food research laboratory wing of DRDO, on the complaint lodged by his 30-year-old wife this evening,” Raipur Superintendent of Police O P Pal told reporters.

According to the woman, who is a school teacher in Raipur, the accused had married her in 2011, while keeping her in dark about the status of his earlier marriage.

He had told her that he had taken divorce from the first wife and then got married with the complainant, who later came to know that Majumdar had not taken divorce, the SP said.

“A case has been registered against Majumdar under sections 376 (rape), 419 (cheating by personation), 496 (marrying fraudulently) and 498 (A) (subjecting wife to cruelty),” the SP said.

Majumdar is currently posted at Mussorie in Uttarakhand.

Further probe is on and suitable action will be taken in this connection, the SP added.

Drdo

Congrats Sh.AvinashChander for AGNI-5

2 Comments
To
Sh Avinash Chandra
SA to RM, Secretary DRDO, DG DRDO
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105

 Congrats Sh.AvinashChander for AGNI-5

Heartiest congratulations to Sh.Avinash Chandra and all AGNI team members for the great success of AGNI-5 trials. It will boost the moral and reason to stay in DRDO to new upcoming young DRDO scientists.

Sh.Avinash Chandra is also keeping his promise to implement the Rama Rao Committee’s recommendations.

But major challenges are still waiting for your attentions like corruption and nepotism.  Both are big issues that require careful handling and also strongly like Honorable R.M. Sh. A K Antony gave example not to gave extension (License of Corruption) to Dr V K Saraswat.

The recent extensions to some senior incompetent scientists are example that Sh.Avinash Chandra is still in the grip of corrupt DRDO officials.

In Dr.Arun Kumar’s case Sh.Avinash Chandra was member of inquiry committee and gave clean chit to Dr.Arun Kumar and later on Sh. A K Antony corrected and suspended the culprit.

Sh.Avinash Chandra’s weaknesses are with corrupt DRDO officials gangs who are enriched and patronized by Dr. V K Sarswat and Dr. W Selvamurthy (PhD in Yoga).

Sh.Avinash Chandra ji leave your weakness, without fear declare the results of Scientist ‘H’, since you have taken responsibility to develop defence self reliance of our great nation. Leave the small weaknesses and weed out the corrupt gang of DRDO. A lot of honest and capable persons are available in DRDO.

Dr. Anil Kumar Tyagi’s case is also an example, why Dr. A K Singh helped him to get result via DoPT advice, have they shown you that this kind of practice done by DRDO before; you just allow them blindly to follow this route. You have been receiving hundreds of cases where humentrain / medical/ grievances request for transfer and other kind of help by DRDO scientist and staff. Can you tell me a single example of where these stalwarts took fast action?  I can send you a lot of examples where your HR/DOP dealings have been insensitive and the person has no choice but to bear it or leave the organization.

You can find their expertise and efficiency in protection of corrupt and incompetent DRDO officials like example case of Sh. R K Agarwal, who got promotion of scientist ‘H’ with false work claims and proudly publishes in DRDO news letter also, because he knows he managed his boss.

Sir, it is requested that you do the needful to save DRDO from the claws of these corrupt DRDO officials.

Please see the following:

Status of Complaint No: 569/11/9 against your one great scientist Dr Anil Kumar Tyagi, Sc ‘G’ CPIO, DRDO Hqrs

Date: 17/9/2013

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 

Sir, now how can you give such important responsibility of CPIO, DRDO Hqrs to such individual?

Waiting for your quick response

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879
Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com  Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com  
 
Date -20th September 2013

Copy to

  1. Defence Minister, Room No 104, South Block, New Delhi – 110011
  1. Dr. Syamal Kumar Sarkar, Secretary, MOP, Room No-112, North Block, New Delhi
Drdo

DRDO official under lens in passport documents case

2 Comments

50 verification certificates were issued by the official in the past six months, raising fears that documents were forged

The Regional Passport Office here has ordered a probe into the issuance of 50 verification certificates in the past six months by an official of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). These certificates had been issued for obtaining passports under the Tatkal scheme.

Regional Passport Officer K. Srikar Reddy told reporters on Thursday that a complaint would be lodged with the police to find out how so many certificates were issued by a single officer, apart from verifying the authenticity of the documents. Details were also sought from the DRDO in this regard, he said.

Last year, the RPO had detected 50 forged verification documents issued in the name of IAS and IPS officers. Begumpet police have already registered a case in the matter.

Recently, an applicant had submitted a forged document, which was attested from a local court.

“After receiving the document, we enquired with the court, which denied any such attestation,” he said.

“We are dealing with these cases very seriously and necessary action would be taken against those involved in it after investigation,” Mr. Reddy said.

The passport office has also set up a centralised control room at the Secunderabad office to oversee the functioning of Passport Seva Kendras (PSKs) in the State with the help of surveillance cameras.

“We can monitor live the flow of applicants and submission process and if needed depute additional staff. We can also directly speak to the applicants’ online and collect feedback from them,” he explained. Using CCTVs, a police constable was caught red-handed for accepting a bribe at the Secunderabad RPO recently. He was later suspended.

Online payment of processing fee at will be facilitated from PSKs at Begumpet, Ameerpet, Tolichowki, Nizamabad, Vijayawada and Tirupati from Friday.

The processing fee can be paid while booking an appointment on the website www.passportindia.gov.in either by debit/credit card or via SBI internet banking. Those intending to pay the amount through challan, can check the details on the passport website.

Drdo

Defence estate officer gets 2-yr RI for accepting bribe

Leave a comment

Express News Service : Pune, Tue Sep 03 2013, 01:58 hrs

A special CBI court on Monday sentenced a former defence estate officer (DEO), Pune Circle, to two-year rigorous imprisonment (RI) for accepting a bribe of Rs 50,000 from a retired chartered account who wanted his son’s name entered on government land records in 2009.

Special judge (CBI) Sudhakar Yarlagadda also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on Nadikattu Srinivasa Reddy (51), a resident of Pune Camp.

The case was investigated by CBI inspectors N M Parab and Alok Sinha. Special Public Prosecutors Vivek Saxena and Ayyub Pathan examined 10 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. Retired chartered accountant Shapoor Homi Irani, a resident of Kondhwa Road, had lodged a complaint.

As per Irani’s complaint, Reddy had demanded Rs 5 lakh to enter his son’s name with respect to their two bungalows on Castellino Road in the Camp area.

Following his mother’s death, Irani had filed an application in February 2009 seeking mutation entry of the bungalows in favor of his son Bahram. However, the process was delayed and Irani met Reddy who asked for bribe on October 6, 2009. Irani lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), CBI, Pune. A verification of the bribe demand made by Reddy before witnesses revealed he had asked Irani to pay Rs 3 lakh as the first installment and Rs 2 lakh later. The conversation was also recorded for evidence.

CBI officials, who had laid a trap near Reddy’s office-cum-residence on Rajendra Sinhji Road, caught him receiving bribe red-handed from Irani.

A case was registered against Reddy under the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A search at his residence had led to the recovery of about Rs 3.67 lakh in cash, documents of immovable properties owned by him and wife, a locker key, gold and silver ornaments worth over Rs 10 lakh and investment certificates of over Rs 4 lakh.

Drdo

TWO YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT TO THEN DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER OF PUNE IN A BRIBERY CASE

Leave a comment

TWO YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT TO THEN DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER OF PUNE IN A BRIBERY CASE
Press Release
New Delhi , 13.09.2013

The Special Judge, Pune has convicted Sh. N.Srinivasa Reddy, the then Defence Estate Officer, Pune and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.25000/- for demanding & accepting a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- from the Complainant.
This case was registered on 06.10.2009 on a complaint wherein it was alleged that Sh.N.S.Reddy while working as Defence Estate Officer had demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for recording/adding the name of his son in the Property card of two Bungalows at Castilno Road, Pune, as per the will of Complainant’s Mother. CBI laid a trap and caught Sh.N.S.Reddy, while demanding & accepting bribe of Rs.50000/- on 09.10.2009 from the Complainant.
The Trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted him.

Drdo

DRDO violated the Article 309 by implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade in 2011 without proper amendment in SRO.

3 Comments

DRDO violated the Article 309 by implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO.

NO Assessment interview requirement for Promotion from scientist ‘F’ to Senior scientist ‘G’ as per the DRDO service rule-1979-Rule-8(2)(e) ; but Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment of DRDO forward name before promotion committee after “ INTERACTION ’’ .

What is the meaning of interaction and what is its need against the rule?  Nothing except the violation of law for corruption. UPSC conducted examinations for thousands participant for few seats then how RAC chairman want to stop the limited scientists opportunities to appear before the committee directly. Intention of Chairman is very clear.

Then Chairman, RAC Dr. P. S. Goel’s letter RAC/01/Assessment/PSG, dated 22-3-11 introduced this mechanism to give favor to incompetent few DRDO scientists  and for this act in return he got Prof. MGK Menon’s chair, RCI, Hyderabad  which fed him 84 lakhs per year. It is pure kick back or DRDO should prove the justification of his appointment.

What is this, is it not corruption? Best part of this type of corruption is money which he is receiving is poor tax payer’s money.

Question is, if he was competent authority to amendment of this kind of mechanism than why later DRDO amended this through Government of India gazette notification. He doesn’t have knowledge of the constitution of India, he is not competent authority to amend the  DRDS rules which are framed under Article 309 of  the constitution of India.

Where is law, where is administration, where is governance, it is happening in every stage in DRTC promotions also, where incompetent fake certificates holders are getting promotions and all relevant benefits, in recruitment of scientists lot of cases are exposed like Arun Kumar’s daughter, Selvamurty’s daughter, A K Bansal’ daughter and now several in queue like Narendra Kumar’s daughter, R B Singh’s son appointment are under lenses

Recently in CEPTAM recruitment   drive nearly 5 lakhs applications was received by CEPTAM, they made almost Rs 15 lakhs or more by introducing mandatory SMS registration, pure corruption by CEPTAM management god only knows who is patronizing this kind of corruption in DRDO. The 1 lakh applicant were rejected,  and thousands were not appeared due to examination center, CEPTAM did great job candidate who want center in nearby DELHI put him to Goa, Mizoram, Ajmer, Kolkata, Chennai etc.

RTI Request to DRDO

 
To                                                                                                                           9th September 2013
CPIO, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105 

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of the  following

The amount of expenditure incurred on Internal Screening Committee ( Main ) held for promotion from the grade of Scientist `F` to the grade of Scientist`G`, under the following Heads separatelyfor the Year 2011,2012 and 2013

a)    TA/DA on the Chairman and Members of the Internal Screening Committee (Main).

b)    TA on the candidates ( Scientist `F`) who have appeared before the Internal Screening Committee ( Main )

c)    Miscellaneous Expenditure, i.e. other than above (a) and(b), on the Internal Screening Committee ( Main )

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

The requested information is pertain to routine establishment / administrative matter which is not covered under exemption as decided by CIC (refer to CIC decision no CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22/03/2013).

There was no government approval for conducting ISC, main in assessment year 2011, and it was conducted illegally against the DRDS rules for the benefit to few incompetent scientists of their choice.

“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”

Regards

PrabhuDandriyal
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879
prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com
psg1
psg2
 
RTI Request has been filed successfully on RTI Online Portal. The following are the details:-
Registration Number: MODEF/R/2013/60363
Name: Prabhu Dandriyal
Date of Filing: 10/09/2013
Request filed with: Department of Defence
Contact Details:-
Telephone Number: 23015187
Payment Details:-
RTI Fee Received: 10
Payment Mode: Internet Banking
SBI Reference number : IK33631057
Transaction Status: Successfull
Drdo

First Appeal – Sou moto Disclosure on officials tours of Ministers and other officials

2 Comments

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: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/45/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 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
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com

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/101/45/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)          An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 8 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Tour Programmes and TA/DA Bills of Dr. AK Saxena and Dr. Vineeta Nigam. Copy of the RTI application dated 8 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/101/45/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c)          PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 8 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.

(d)          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 8 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 8 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 8 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.

(e)        Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with mala fide 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)        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 vide RTI Application dated 8 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 8 August 2013.

7.    Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1.      CIC decisions on notified organisations 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)     In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.

  1. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
  2. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  5. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  6. CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
  7. CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
  8. CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
  9. CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  10. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  11. 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.        Nature of information sought is not  related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

Information sought is related to official tour programmes and TA/DA Bills of Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’, 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 8 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. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE misused his official position for sanctioning of tour programs and tour expenses of Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’.

5.        Information sought is related to tour programme and tour details of Dr. A.K. Saxena , Director, DMSRDE and Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters. The information related to tour programme & TA/DA etc are allowed under RTI Act as pronounced in various decisions of CIC. For ready reference of FAA, appellant would like to mention some decisions of CIC regarding tour programme, travel expenses etc of a public servant.

  1. Case No. 07/IC (A)/CIC/2006 dated 6.3.2006, Dinesh Berry Vs BPCL. Decision pronounced as “The information sought by the appellant relate to the tour programme and travel expenses of a public servant, which can not be treated as personal information“
  2. Case No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000952 dated 13 April 2010, Shri Janardhana Rao Vs UCO Bank. Decision pronounced as “Copy of the tour programme and copy of TA bills are not personal information“.
  3. Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000996/SS dated 13.3.2012, U.P. Kamal Vs Coal Mine PF. Decision pronounced as “Official tours undertaken under the budgetary resources of the public authority can not be considered personal information“
  4. In CIC decision in case No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000386 dated 29 June 2011, Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal Vs DRDO, CIC has allowed the tour related information. Therefore denial of information under shadow of section 24(1) is illegal.
  5. Despite being a notified organisation, DRDO is following section 4 of RTI Act and proactively disclosed IPR, various service rules, procurement & recruitment rules etc on DRDO website. As per DOPT Notification F.No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11 Sept 2012 and 3rd April 2013 official tours of Ministers  & Officials should be disclosed proactively on website by all organisations. Tour Programme & tour expenses related information is not exempted for organisation notified under Schedule II as per CIC decisions as this is information related to Estt. Matter and general nature. Despite the information sought comes under section 4 of RTI Act, PIO denied information with ulterior motive & malafide.

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/DMSRDE/2013/06

Date: 07th  September, 2013

 Enclosure: two 
(1)  Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013
(2)  RTI Application dated 8 August 2013.dmarde reply20002
 
To                                                                                                                    Date: 08th August, 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’
CPIO,DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013

Sir,

This is with reference to DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11thSeptember 2012 and DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3rd April, 2013 on Subject “Suo motu disclosure on official tours of Ministers and other officials“.  It has been observed that information regarding official tours of Director, DMSRDE and other Scientist ‘G’ & above posted in DMSRDE are not available on DRDO/ DMSRDE website in compliance of above mentioned DOPT Office Memorandum.

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

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide soft copy of data / data in electronic form stored in database kept on server/computer used for storing data of tour programs using software for preparing TA/DA advance bills, final claim settlement of tours and Movement Orders in Finance & Accounts Division DMSRDE for tour program/Temporary Duty move data from 01st January, 2011 to 31st July 2013 in respect of all Scientists and officials of DMSRDE in Compact Disc (CD).
  2. Provide following information and records regarding official tours of Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur from 01 January 2011 to 31 July 2013.
    1.    III.        Copies of final claim along with all enclosure for claiming TA/DA like rail/air tickets, bills for Lodging And Boarding, taxi bills etc.
  3. Provide following information and records regarding official tours of Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ from 01.01.2011 to 31.07.2013
    1.    III.        Copies of all  Movement Orders
    2.   IV.        Copies of final claim along with all enclosure for claiming TA/DA like rail/air tickets, bills for Lodging and Boarding, taxi bills etc.
  4. Provide temporary duty completion report submitted by Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ duly verified from the concerned official at place of temporary duty.
  5. Amount that   has been paid to Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE for TA and DA separately for his all official tours/temporary duty moves from 01.01.2011 to 31.07.2013.
  6. Reasons for not uploading official tour data of Director , DMSRDE, Kanpur and all Scientist ‘G’ & above on website of DRDO/DMSRDE as per orders of Government of India vide OM F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11th September 2012 and OM  F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3rd April, 2013.
  1. Copies of all official tour programs
  2. Copies of movement orders for all tours
  1. Copies of all Minute Sheets/Justifications approved by Director for Temporary Duty /Official Tour.
  2. Copies of all official tour programs

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 16 F 964388) is enclosed

Regards

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

Enclosures

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 16 F 964388  as application Fee.
  2. DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11th September 2012
  3. DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3rd April,
Drdo

First Appeal – Procurement of Scientific & Technical Books in Technical Library of DMSRDE

1 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: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 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
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com

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/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013. Copy enclosed as  Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)         An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 25 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Book Procurement at Technical Library, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Copy of the RTI application dated 25 July 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/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c)       PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 25 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide 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.

(d)      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.

  1. 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 25 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 25 July 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 25 July 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.

(e)  Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with mala fide 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)  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 vide RTI Application dated 25 July 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 25 July 2013.

7.    Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1.      CIC decisions on notified organisations 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)     In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.

  1. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
  2. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  5. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  6. CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
  7. CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
  8. CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
  9. CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  10. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  11. 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“.

  1. Subject/nature of information sought is related to procurement of books in Library. This information is pertaining to Estt. Matter and it has been decided  by PIO, DMSRDE that the information sought is not exempted then PIO should provide complete information as sought in application dated 25 July 2013 but PIO did not provided complete information rather it appears that he concealed the information so that corruption in procurement of books could not be exposed.

3.      Information sought is related to Estt. Matter & procurement of books. Information related to purchase of books & periodicals has been allowed by CIC in various cases like case No. CIC/LS/A/2012/001219 dated 9.8.2012 Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”.

4.      Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 25 July 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 quite evident from the reply of PIO that corruption was made in procurement of books by misusing the DRDO Rules for Purchase.

  1. In reply dated 26 Aug 2013 at point (4), PIO informed “Protected Govt. Documents” for Supply orders of books. Purchase related any document from indent to supply order & bills etc are not protected documents as claimed by PIO. As per various CIC decisions the purchase related files were allowed for inspection of records and all information related to purchase were allowed as purchase have angle of corruption. These were denied so that the corruption in procurement of books could not come out as it will discloses the discount percentage provided by suppliers in two different financial years. In fact in the FY 2010-2011 the maximum discount offered was 35% while in 2012-2013 the discount offered was 10%. This establish that 25% of total purchase i.e. Rs. 366952.00 was taken as commission by the concerned officers & authorities responsible for purchase of books on low discount.
COMPARISON OF PROCUREMENT OF BOOKS IN DMSRDE
SN Year Fund Exp. Mode of procurement Rules applied Director
1. 2009-10 NIL – – Dr KUB Rao
2. 2010-11 Rs. 94833 Limited PM-2006 “
3. 2011-12 NIL – – Dr AK Saxena
4. 2012-13 Rs. 1467810 No tendering, directly issue supply order DRDO Lib. Manual,1999 Dr AK Saxena
  1. By comparison of data provided by PIO in point(1) of his reply dated 26 August 2013 regarding fund expenditure in various financial years it is crystal clear that corruption took place in FY 2012-2013 where all of sudden books of Rs. 1467810.00 has been procured while in previous years it was “NIL” or very less Rs. 94833.00 only in 2010-11.
  2. Data in above table indicates that demand of books which was NIL (Zero) in 2009-10 and 2011-12 has increased all of sudden near about to the Rupees 15 Lakh. As compared to purchase of books in FY 2010-11 the hike in 2012-13 is about 15.5 times. This indicates that books were purchased without any need and requirement in 2012-2013 and this amount huge loss to public money. Where the 25% discount on Rs. 1467810.00 i.e. Rs. 366952.00 has gone?
  3. DRDO is having very old manual issued on 11 January 1999  regarding Management of Library/TIC of DRDO. This manual is called as “DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres“. After issuance of Purchase Manual -2006 of DRDO this old Manual became ineffective & obsolete. Most of the DRDO Labs/Estt. are using Purchase Manual for procurement of books, Print  Journal and Online E-Journals. DMSRDE is also using PM-2006 from last six years for procurement of books, Print  Journal and Online E-Journals as can be verified from records of Technical Library of DMSRDE, Kanpur. All of sudden making purchase of books on the basis of old manual smacks malafide intentions and leads corruption in purchase of books in FY 2012-2013. In fact in year 2012-2013 provisions of  DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres has not been fully followed. Purchase procedure of DRDO Manual are for small & urgent procurement not for big procurements in tune of lakh or crores.
    1. 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/DMSRDE/2013/05

Date: 07th September, 2013

Enclosure: two 

(1)  Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013

(2)  RTI Application dated 25 July 2013.dmarde reply20001

To,                                                                                                                 25th July 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’
CPIO, DMSRDE
GT Road, Kanpur-208013

Hello,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  1. Fund expenditure for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year
  2. 2009-2010                ii.         2010-2011                   iii.       2012-2013
  3. 2009-2010                ii.         2010-2011                   iii.       2012-2013
  4. Mode of tendering for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year viz (Single Tender, Limited Tender/Open Tender)
  5. If mode of tendering in any Financial Year  from years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 was limited tender then provide the copies of CST(Comparative Statement of prices of books with discount %  offered by suppliers) approved by Library Committee and Director for that particular year.
  6. Copies of supply orders placed for supply of Scientific and Technical books in Technical Library in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
  7. Discount offered by various suppliers on procurement of Indian and Foreign books with name of suppliers and discount  offered by them, when mode of tendering was Single Tender or Limited Tender.
  8. Copies of bills submitted by suppliers for getting payment against supply of books in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.

This is relevant to mentioned here that the information sought is related to establishment matters (Purchase) and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act.

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.

However the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.

Enclosed-      Rs 10 Postal order 12F 470729

Regards,

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