Category Archives: Drdo

Drdo

Exclusive: Whistleblower DRDO officer sacked for highlighting corruption

6 Comments

Posted By M.Sreedhar On November 3rd, 2012 08:52 PM | General News HYDERABADDAILYNEWS.COM

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on Thursday took the unprecedented action of sacking an officer who claimed to be a whistleblower . Senior administrative officer Prakash Singh, posted at the Defence Science Centre at Metcalfe House in North Delhi, was served with compulsory retirement order.

Singh was due to retire on December 31, 2023. But a DRDO team visited his house at Timarpur and pasted the retirement notice on the wall. Sources said Singh, who had taken leave from work on medical grounds, was not at home at that time.

Singh plans to challenge the move in court. He claimed the action against him was taken by officiating DRDO head H. Selvamurthy in the absence of scientific advisor to the Defence Minister, V.K. Saraswat, who is on leave.

Serving compulsory retirement notice is the harshest punishment that can be given to a government servant.

DRDO sources said the action was taken strictly in adherence to the government rules. The administrative officer is responsible for the functioning of a laboratory, but Singh had remained absent from work for two years in his previous assignments, they alleged.

The sources said Singh had a history of non-performance and trouble making. He had made complaints against his seniors in the past which were found to be false, they added.

However, reliable sources said Singh was ‘punished’ for highlighting widespread corruption in DRDO. The officer had filed a complaint with the CBI against three senior functionaries: Manas Kumar Mandal (director, institute of psychological research), Dr Anil Kumar Maini (director, Laster Science and Technology Centre) and Dr Arun Kumar (director, personnel, at the headquarters). The CBI referred his complaint to the vigilance department of DRDO.

One of these officers – Arun Kumar – was indicted in a recruitment scam by the Central Vigilance Commission that recommended penalty against him in August. But the DRDO inquiry dismissed the charges of irregularities levelled against the three officials and recommended disciplinary action against Singh for making false complaints.

Drdo

Punished for highlighting corruption?’ DRDO officer ‘who knew too much’ sacked

4 Comments

By GAUTAM DATT PUBLISHED: 20:51 GMT, 2 November 2012 Mail Today

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on Thursday took the unprecedented action of sacking an officer who claimed to be a whistleblower.

Senior administrative officer Prakash Singh, posted at the Defence Science Centre at Metcalfe House in North Delhi, was served with compulsory retirement order.

Singh was due to retire on December 31, 2023. But a DRDO team visited his house at Timarpur and pasted the retirement notice on the wall. Sources said Singh, who had taken leave from work on medical grounds, was not at home at that time. Singh plans to challenge the move in court.

Building of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) office in New Delhi, India

He claimed the action against him was taken by officiating DRDO head H. Selvamurthy in the absence of scientific advisor to the defence minister, V.K. Saraswat, who is on leave.

Serving compulsory retirement notice is the harshest punishment that can be given to a government servant. DRDO sources said the action was taken strictly in adherence to the government rules.

The administrative officer is responsible for the functioning of a laboratory, but Singh had remained absent from work for two years in his previous assignments, they alleged.

The sources said Singh had a history of non-performance and trouble making.

He had made complaints against his seniors in the past which were found to be false, they added.

However, reliable sources said Singh was ‘punished’ for highlighting widespread corruption in DRDO.

The officer had filed a complaint with the CBI against three senior functionaries: Manas Kumar Mandal (director, institute of psychological research), Dr Anil Kumar Maini (director, Laster Science and Technology Centre) and Dr Arun Kumar (director, personnel, at the headquarters).

The CBI referred his complaint to the vigilance department of DRDO. One of these officers – Arun Kumar – was indicted in a recruitment scam by the Central Vigilance Commission that recommended penalty against him in August.

But the DRDO inquiry dismissed the charges of irregularities levelled against the three officials and recommended disciplinary action against Singh for making false complaints.

Drdo

Oldies of DRDO cling on to their jobs post retirement

2 Comments

 Gautam Datt   |   MAIL TODAY  |   New Delhi, October 25, 2012 

P.S. Krishnan and Avinash Chander.

Dozens of top scientists at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) are working on extended tenures despite the government disfavouring the policy of retaining officers or specialists after their retirement.

According to guidelines, tenures can be extended only in “exceptional circumstances”. The DRDO, however, justifies the extensions, saying only valued experts whose replacements are not easy to find are given the privilege.

In response to an RTI query, sought by Rajeev Chauhan of Meerut, the DRDO released a list of 37 scientists – 12 of them in the distinguished category – who are working on extended tenures. This was disclosed only after the intervention of the chief information commissioner following an appeal.

Defence scientists retire at the age of 60. The department of personnel and training (DoPT) rules for extension of specialists in the medical and scientific fields mention the problems in giving such experts extra tenure.

Oldies of DRDO

“Not only does the next man miss promotion but often several people miss consequential promotions all along the hierarchy,” the department noted.

Keeping this in mind, procedures were evolved to ensure that extensions to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances, the guidelines said.

The main conditions are that the “retiring specialist should not just be one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest, or the other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the job”. The DRDO, however, claims that while it largely adheres to the DoPT rules, they are not strictly applicable to the strategic community which also includes ISRO and atomic energy.

Sources said the DRDO has 7,000 scientists out of which extension to 37-odd experts is “minuscule”. The DRDO follows merit- based flexible complementing scheme for promotions which is not linked to availability of vacancies, they said. They feel that most people at 60 are still active and gain substantial wealth of experience in highly specialised areas that needs to be tapped.

Some big names are on extended terms and are vital to the success of their respective programmes.

Topping the list is Avinash Chander, chief controller of missiles and strategic system, who is steering the long range strategic missiles programme.

The list of 37 scientists includes 12 distinguished scientists, 13 scientists “H” and remaining 12 scientists “G”. While detractors allege that extensions indicate a system of favouritism, the DRDO says every case passes through two expert panels which approve the move.

According to govt guidelines, tenures can be extended only in exceptional circumstances.

Drdo

Seeking judicial intervention in the cases of corruption in DRDO

3 Comments
Dear Prabhu,
Time has now come to seek judicial intervention for  investigation in the acts of omission and commission of DRDO chief as GoI   (MoD) does not seem to be acting against culprits. This person , when in trouble,  tries to divert attention by firing couple of toys in the sky. He is so blatant in his acts of favoritism and nepotism that despite the orders of constitutional bodies , he tries is his best to dilute the action. As I set the ball in motion for seeking intervention of Delhi High Court ( and of SC if necessary) , I would like to appeal to , through your blog,  all like minded  countrymen to join me in making DRDO a better place to work in. These rouge elements have destroyed DRDO and they must be brought to book and punished suitably.I was proud of DRDO once but have been deeply saddened  by what is happening in this wonderful organisation. A bunch of looters , thugs and rouges have destroyed it . Kindly communicate to all concerned that they may contact me to start the judicial campaign  to clean up DRDO.As you may also be aware  that despite all the pressure/ request  of Solicitor General to the SC bench to dispose off my present petition (on the plea that  PMO  itself is taking action in NTRO scam case,) the SC  bench rebuffed the Govt by saying that ‘ this court have reasons to believe that Govt is taking action only after the intervention of this court and hence monitoring of investigation ( in NTRO scam) by this court  will contine.’In so far as my second PIL on the issue of accountability of Indian Intelligence Agencies is concerned, my junior advocate on record in SC   Rohit Singh (who prepared the petitions for filing ) was down with slip disc for last 3 months and hence the delay in filing second PIL. We hope to file two more PILs  shortly directly in  SC .The evidence and constitutional position is documentary and irrefutable. .The whole exercise/aim  is to ensure that executive arrogance be questioned and agencies work as per Indian Constitution and ‘Thughs and Robbers ‘ are brought to book.

I must tell you that I did nothing big in exposing corruption in NTRO , merely used my right as the citizen of India and sought judicial intervention after Govt failed to act. I know that all out attempts are still being made to delay the action against the big wigs in NTRO ( quite a few middle level and junior level officials have been dismissed or have resigned – in all about 90+ ; but the politically well connected are still being protected by delaying action) . Usual stuff and predictable action by Govt. My case and other cases prove the point that ‘how so ever big you may be , you are non-entity in front of the law’. Hence if you want some concrete action to be taken in DRDO case , seek judicial intervention; do not expect one looter/thug  to act against another looter/thug. I have seen well  known individuals shaking when it comes to questioning by courts .

Remember if I can do it, others can do it as well . So it is high time that all right thinking people join hands and work together to save DRDO .

Best wishes,

V K Mittal
605, Satpura Apartment
Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad-201010
(m)- 9811333195
(LL)-0120-2776171

Drdo

Defence audit raises questions about scientific adviser’s grants

3 Comments

The CGDA has pointed out several infirmities in the grants sanctioned by V.K. Saraswat.

ABHINANDAN MISHRA NEW DELHI | 6th Oct 2012 – The Sunday Gaurdian

he Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) has raised questions about certain research grants and aids given by the Defence Minister’s Scientific Adviser, V.K. Saraswat, to undeserving societies headed by scientists. These questions have been raised during an audit of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO), ordered by the Ministry of Defence. The projects are all part of the DRDO.

According to the report, Saraswat, the scientific adviser, sanctioned a grant of Rs 288 lakh to Professor V.U. Reddy of C.R. Rao Advanced Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science (AIMSCS), Hyderabad for a project on a futuristic radar.

The CGDA has pointed out several infirmities in this sanction. Since Saraswat is the president of the society’s governing body, it was wrong on his part to sanction any grants to the society. More importantly, the society is known for its achievements in mathematics, statistics and computer science and “is not even generally connected with research relating to futuristic radars”. The society also does not have the necessary equipment to carry out such research and did not have the expert manpower when it was given the grant.

The DRDO sanctioned another grant-in-aid project costing Rs 298.17 lakh to another scientist from the same society, S.B. Ra, who is a co-principal investigator for the above project. The CGDA has questioned the sanctioning of large grants-in-aid to institutes that do not have the required number of researchers or even basic facilities like computers.

The audit has also questioned the way various DRDO chairs are being given to ex-DRDO employees. S.K. Salwan, an ex-laboratory director, was appointed to the Dr B.D. Nag Chaudhari DRDO chair for three years at a cost of Rs 83.064 lakh. Kota Harinarayana, former director of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a DRDO sponsored society, was awarded the Dr D.S. Kothari-DRDO chair for three years at a cost of Rs 83.064 lakh.

As per the audit, no public notice was issued seeking applications for these highly paid positions. The appointment was made by DG, DRDO in a discretionary manner on the basis of nomination. Further, instead of paying a monthly remuneration, the DRDO released a sum of Rs 27.688 lakh each to both of them without deducting tax at source.

The grant to S.K. Salwan was released even before he joined the Dr B.D. Nag Chaudhari DRDO chair. The audit has recommended appropriate recoveries. It has further questioned the rationale behind leaving the ownership of intellectual property rights generated by research performed under this grant with the experts and not with the government.

Drdo

How DRDO respects CIC orders- Case – II

1 Comment

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 1

Posted on September 7, 2012 by admin

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066


File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001207
Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan
Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012
Date of decision 09.08.2012

Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.

2. It is noticed that in the RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras about the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava. The CPIO had refused todisclose any information vide letter dated 2.11.2011 on the ground that the DRDO is an exempted organisation.

3. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the DRDO had advertised posts of Scientists ‘B’ in 2004 for which qualification was M.Sc. Bio Technology. Ms. Srivastava was M.Sc. in Environmental Biology. Thus, she was not qualified for the job. Yet due to the influence of his father Dr. Arun Kumar, who was then Deputy Director in DRDO, she was fraudulently selected as Scientist ‘B’
4. Shri Mishra submits that there is no one single file relating to this selection. In fact, there were about ten thousand candidates and to cull out Ms. Swati Srivastava’s record would be a herculean task. Further, the record is ten year old.

5. No doubt, DRDO is an exempted organisation, yet in my opinion, there is no harm if the appellant or his representative is given inspection of the entire records relating to the selection of Ms. Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’. As regards the difficulty expressed by Shri Mishra in tracing out the relevant record, I appreciate the same and yet I expect him to cull out the record for appellant’s inspection.

6. This order may be complied with in 05 weeks time.

Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.

( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar

Address of parties :-

1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.

2. Shri Rajiv Chauhan,
1053/3, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut-250005.

 

DRDO’ Action

 

Drdo

How DRDO respects CIC orders- Case – I

Leave a comment

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001209

Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan
Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012
Date of decision 09.08.2012

Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.

2. It is the appellant’s contention that Ms. Geeta, daughter of Dr. W. Silvamurthy, former Director, DIPAS, DRDO, New Delhi, was selected as Scientist ‘c’ in 2004. It is his allegation that said Ms. Geeta was not qualified to be selected as Scientist ‘E’ as she did not hold the Ph.D degree at that time. He also alleges that she obtained the Ph.D. Degree from Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, in an irregular manner. In this connection, vide RTI application dated 7.10.2011, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras. This was responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated 2.11.2011 wherein he refused to disclose any information on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organisation.

3. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Shri Mishra submits that he has not received a copy of the appeal memo and, therefore, it is not possible for him to respond to it off-hand. Besides, he also submits that Chairman, RAC, had conducted an inquiry into the matter and in report dated 24.12.2010 had held that the process of recruitment was in order. The Commission cannot comment on the validity of allegations made by the appellant. Even so, in my opinion, the requested information cannot be denied to the appellant only for the reason that DRDO is an exempted organisation. In fact, transparency demands that the records relating to the inquiry conducted by Chairman, RAC, are allowed to be inspected by the appellant or his representative. I order accordingly.

5. This order may be complied with in 04 weeks time.

Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.

( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar

Address of parties :-

1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.

2. Shri Rajiv Chauhan,
1053/3, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut-250005.

DRDO ‘s Action