Category Archives: Uncategorized

Uncategorized

डिफेंस रिसर्च डेवलपमेंट ऑर्गेनाइजेशन (डीआरडीओ) से छिन सकता है नियुक्ति का अधिकार

Leave a comment
  • वैज्ञानिकों की नियुक्तियों में धांधली की शिकायतों के मद्देनजर रक्षा मंत्रालय कर रहा विचार

देहरादून: डिफेंस रिसर्च डेवलपमेंट ऑर्गेनाइजेशन (डीआरडीओ) से वैज्ञानिकों की नियुक्ति का अधिकार छिन सकता। पिछले कुछ समय में ऑर्गेनाइजेशन के रिक्रूटमेंट एसेसमेंट सेंटर की नियुक्तियों पर खड़े हुए सवाल को देखते हुए रक्षा मंत्रालय इस दिशा में तेजी से प्रयासरत है। बहुत संभव है कि यह अधिकार संघ लोक सेवा आयोग (यूपीएससी) को मिल सकता है। ऑप्टिक्स व इलेक्ट्रॉऑप्टिक्स सम्मेलन में शामिल होने दून आए डीआरडीओ प्रमुख ने इस बात के संकेत दिए। वर्ष 1984 तक डीआरडीओ में वैज्ञानिकों की नियुक्ति यूपीएससी के माध्यम से ही होती थी। मगर, इसके बाद यह जिम्मा ऑर्गेनाइजेशन के रिक्रूटमेंट एसेसमेंट सेंटर ने अपने हाथ ले लिया। सेंटर के माध्यम से निचले स्तर से लेकर वरिष्ठ वैज्ञानिकों की नियुक्ति की जाती है और नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया में संगठन के वैज्ञानिक ही शामिल रहते हैं। पिछले कुछ समय में वैज्ञानिकों की नियुक्ति को लेकर धांधली के कई आरोप लगे। सेंट्रल विजिलेंस कमीशन (सीवीसी) ने मामले की जांच कर रक्षा मंत्रालय  को रिपोर्ट दी। जिसमें कमीशन ने नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया पर इंडियन इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ पब्लिक एडमिनिस्ट्रेशन, इंडियन इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ मैनजमेंट, इंडियन एडमिनिस्ट्रेटिव स्टाफ कालेज, एक्सएलआरआइ जमशेदपुर जैसे चोटी के संस्थानों से सलाह लेकर पूरा ब्योरा यूपीएससी के सम्मुख रखने का सुझाव दिया। डीआरडीओ के महानिदेशक अविनाश चन्दर ने कहा कि इस दिशा में बहुत जल्द यूपीएससी के चेयरमैन या अन्य अधिकारी डीआरडीओ की नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया का आंकलन करने पहुंचेंगे। इसके बाद रक्षा मंत्रालय तय करेगा कि नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया में किस तरह का फेरबदल किया जाना है।

Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) may lose the right to appointment of scientists
Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) may lose the right to appointment of scientists
Uncategorized

DRDO tests positive for nepotism

1 Comment

dna 19.02.2014

VK Saraswat and defence minister’s former scientific advisor among accused

Pradip R Sagar @pradiprsagar

New Delhi: At least 10 top scientists of the country’s premier defence research agency, the DRDO, are accused of flouting rules and misusing their positions to recruit family members in the organisation.
Among the accused are M Natarajan, former scientific adviser to defence minister AK Antony and VK Saraswat, India’s Missile Man and former DRDO chief.
Antony was apprised of the matter in November last year
by Sameer Kumar Khare, joint secretary and chief vigilance officer (CVO) in the defence ministry.
Khare, in his report (dna has a copy), recommended “criminal action against top functionaries of DRDO for committing irregularities in the recruitment of officers/officials, including their kith and kin, in DRDO by misusing their position of power”. Based on his report, Antony handed over the investigations to the CBI in November.
Apart from Natarajan and Saraswat, charged with nepotism, the other big names in the CVO’s report are W Selvamurthy, former chief controller, R&D, Arun Kumar, former director, recruitment & assessment centre (RAC), AK Bansal, former director,AK Bansal and SM Veerabhadrappa, senior scientist.
“The brazenness with which systems and procedures have been overridden, it would not be prudent to believe that these are isolated cases,” Khare said in his report.
“The malice may have spread to wider areas hence causing to raise doubts that the integrity of the whole recruitment systems as such might have been compromised. This situation warrants a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the recruitment system, structure and cases of criminal misconducts of similar nature, including the present cases, by the CBI.”
Antony had said in November: “DRDO may be directed to put in place an appropriate recruitment system with adequate checks and balances. They may consider bringing the system under the purview of UPSC.” All recruitments were done through the UPSC till 1982, after which DRDO’s recruitment & assessment centre handled it. The ministry said DRDO could take a professional agency’s help to come up with a foolproof recruitment system.
Ravi Gupta, DRDO spokesperson, told dna that he could not comment as the CBI is investigating the matter.

Published Date: Feb 19, 2014DNA 19 FEB

Uncategorized

Complaint against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur – Purchasing of Laboratory Microprocessor Based Programmable High Temperature Furnace

3 Comments
To                                                          6th February 2014
Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi-110023
 

SUBJECT : Purchasing of Laboratory Microprocessor Based Programmable High Temperature Furnace at Exorbitant Price

Sir,

  1. Sh.Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Scientist ‘C’ raised a demand of Laboratory Microprocessor Based Programmable High Temperature Furnace vide Demand No. DMSRDE/13552009 dated 30 August 2012.
  2. SPC date 13th September 2012
  3. DRDO Hqrs approval 1st October 2012
  4.  Tender Date 1st October 2012 (see the efficiency)
  5.  Limited tender enquiries will be issued to vendors registered with R&D Labs/Estts, DGS&D, NSIC, other Government departments and to the firms of national repute who will be registered before their bid is considered as per Para 3.2.2.  Such tenders may also be invited from the Government designated agencies. While inviting limited tender enquiries, due care will be observed in selecting vendors, especially in the case of traders who are not the actual manufacturers/authorized agent, to ensure better after sale service. (Rule 7.6.1 PM 2006)
  6.  Seven firms were mentioned in demand to which tender enquiries were sent. Out of these Modern Scientific Centre, Kanpur, Dhankar Enterprises, Kanpur,  Manglam Traders, Kanpur, Scientific Aid and Omega Furnace Industries, Banglore were registered in July 2013 at DMSRDE.
  7.  In this case two firms Dev Industrial Enterprises, Mumbai and Inschem, Lucknow are non-registered firms.
  8. As per PM 2006 Rule 7.6.1 “Limited tender enquiries will be issued to vendors registered with R&D Labs/Estts, DGS&D, NSIC, other Government departments and to the firms of national repute who will be registered before their bid is considered as per Para 3.2.2.  Such tenders may also be invited from the Government designated agencies. While inviting limited tender enquiries, due care will be observed in selecting vendors, especially in the case of traders who are not the actual manufacturers/authorized agent, to ensure better after sale service”.
  9. Dhankar Enterprises is not registered for Scientific Equipment/Instruments at Commercial Tax Department, Uttar Pradesh then how tender inquiry was sent to Dhankar Enterprises. Copy of registration enclosed.
  10. TEC was done on 6th December 2012
  11. TPC was done on 16th Jan 2013
  12. Supply was made on 27 Sept 2013 while in demand the delivery period was 3 months from date of supply order but SO was placed on 26 Feb 2013 that is delivery was made after 7 months (27 Sept 2013 – 26 Feb 2013 = 7 Months)
  13. No VAT /Tax was claimed in SO as basic cost of item was 1681500.00 only.
  14. Actual cost of item is Rs. 560000 + VAT 5.5% (560000*5.5% = 30800) . Thus total cost is 590800. But SO was placed for  Rs. 1681500.00. Hence item was purchased at very high price and commission of Rs. 1681500 – 590800 = 1090700.00 was made by Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. (Omega Furnace Industries, Banglore’s quotation for same specification furnace is enclosed for ready reference)
  15. Stores Received on 27th September 2013 vide RIN No 14LP0149
  16. M/s Manglam Traders come in front and a review TPC was done,  under Chairmanship of  Dr. Sarfaraz Alam, Sc’G’
  17. Para two of review TPC                                                                                                 “Now, the firm M/s  Omega Furnace Industries, Bangalore has intimated that billing and supply of stores will be done by their local dealer M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur, vide letter of even no dated September 24, 2013”
  18. Para three of review TPC                                                                                              “The finance rep told that the stores have been supplied by M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur. Hence, the payment may be made to M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur”      Para four of review TPC                                                                                                       
  19. “ In view of aforesaid TPC recommends the following
  20. Supply Order was placed to Omega Furnace Industries but by review TPC payment was made to Manglam Traders. This totally against Purchase Management 2006 rule of DRDO
  21. In view of above details, it is clear Violation of Purchase Management 2006 Rule 7.15(a) Constitution of TPC/NC,  it is requested that registered the complaint against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE and his blind followers who are mishandling the government funds for their own vested interest. A thorough investigation is needed to explore the relation between Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE and M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur. It may be reveal crores of crores rupees scam in DMSRDE and RCI, DRDO.
 
Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                           
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                             
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879
prabhudoon@gmail.com,  www.corruptionindrdo.com  
 Encloser :
1.    Copy of registration of  Dhankar Enterprises, Kanpur
2.   Brief facts of procurement of Laboratory Microprocessor Based Programmable High   Temperature .Furnace
3.    Omega Furnace Industries, Banglore’s quotation for same specification furnace
 
Copy of registration of  Dhankar Enterprises, Kanpur
Dhankar kanpur
 Brief facts of procurement of Laboratory Microprocessor Based Programmable High   Temperature .Furnacebrief facts omega case
 
Uncategorized

Desi defence showpieces powered by videshi parts

Leave a comment

Rajat Pandit, TNN Jan 13, 2014, 01.39AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Tejas light combat aircraft, 30 years in the making, is just 60% indigenous as of now. The story of the indigenous Arjun main battle tank is even worse. First sanctioned in May 1974, 55% of the tank is still made of imported parts. This is the recurring theme across India’s fledgling defence industrial base (DIB), with the government failing to whip DRDO and its sprawling empire of over 50 laboratories as well as the five defence PSUs, four shipyards and 50 ordnance factories into shape.
The defence ministry, with its constant flip-flops, has also failed to spur the domestic private sector into entering the defence production sector in a big way. Neither has it managed to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), notching up a measly $5 million in the last 14 years.toi1

AK Antony may often tom-tom “indigenisation” as one of his guiding mantras, which he feels can curb corruption, but the ground reality has hardly changed in the over seven years he has been at the helm in MoD. India continues to wallow as the world’s largest arms importer, with the armed forces still getting around 65% of their military hardware and software from abroad.
In sharp contrast, China has emerged as the fastest growing arms exporter around the globe after assiduously building a strong DIB. It’s now hawking fighter jets, warships, missiles and smaller arms to countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bolivia and Zambia.

But a “proper ecosystem” has simply not been erected in India. As if the “high import content” in the so-called indigenous projects was not enough, insiders say even the much-touted transfer of technology (ToT) provision build into large defence contracts with foreign manufacturers is a bit of a sham.

“Indian PSUs focus more on just assembling knocked-down kits from foreign vendors instead of properly absorbing technologies,” said a senior official, pointing to the ongoing “licensed production” of the Russian-origin Sukhoi-30MKI fighters by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL).

India has inducted almost 200 of the 272 Sukhois contracted for well over $12 billion from Russia, with HAL producing most of the fighters. “As per plans, HAL should have begun making Sukhois completely from raw material two-three years ago. But there has been a big delay,” he said.

“Moreover, the cost of each HAL-manufactured Sukhoi is almost Rs 100 crore more than if the same fighter was directly imported from Russia (the last 42 Sukhois ordered cost over Rs 450 crore each),” he added.

DRDO does have a point that funds allocated for defence R&D are not adequate. “We just get slightly over 5% of the total defence budget. The US defence R&D budget is around 12%, while China has 20%,” said a scientist.

But not many are impressed, pointing to huge time and cost overruns in almost all DRDO projects. While the indigenous development of Tejas, Arjun and other weapon systems is certainly to be cheered, the high import content in them remains another source of worry.

Take Tejas, which finally achieved its initial operational clearance last month. It has an American engine, British ejection seat, Canadian canopy sheath and Israeli radar. “A major chunk of its avionics and weapons are also imported. The series production of the Tejas Mark-II version, which is what IAF actually wants, is unlikely to begin before 2022,” said an officer.
The Army, in turn, has inducted 124 Arjun Mark-I tanks, while trials are currently in progress for the Mark-II version with 89 “upgrades or improvements”. The tank is just about 45% indigenous as of now, with its main laser guided missile being the Israeli LAHAT. “Arjun’s missile firing control system, laser target designator, engine transmission, suspension unit and running gear (track) are all foreign,” said an Army officer.

India has fared relatively better on the naval front, with all the 45 warships currently on order being constructed in Indian shipyards. Officials say India has achieved 80-90% indigenisation in the “float” (warship’s structure, hull etc), 50-60% on the “move” (propulsion) and 30% on the “fight” (weapons and sensors) components.

Drdo, Uncategorized

First Appeal – Private Cars Using Commercial Purpose – DMSRDE

2 Comments

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

To,
Dr Lokendra Singh,
OS & Sceintist ‘H’
First Appellate Authority, DRDO
RTI Cell, Room No. 314 – A/A,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110105

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

Reference:  Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14 Nov 2013 issued by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Central 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, Uttarakhand                    

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

Name & Rank       Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address                 DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013

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

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14th  Nov 2013 received by appellant on 24 November 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Facts & Grounds leading to appeal:

(a)  An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 23rd October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Private cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 using DMSRDE for commercial purpose”. Copy of the RTI Application dated 23rd October 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)  Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14th November 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. However CPIO replied in the highly irresponsible manner which indicates the mismanagement and Corruption in DMSRDE.

(c)  It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 23rd October 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 d (1) of reply dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO provided false argument. As per Purchase Management 2006 it is the responsibility of Director, DMSRDE to hire the transport services from that vendor, the vehicles of which are registered under Taxi at RTO. How can RTO know that a private car vehicle is being used for transport services at DMSRDE?

(e)  In point d (2) of reply dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO gave false argument for not providing the information sought. Committee under Chairmanship of Dr. Ashok Ranjan, Scientist ‘F’ and four other members for identification of vendors did not perform their responsibilities properly. As per findings of the Committee 15 vendors were identified for hired transport services and out of which 10 vendors were qualified as per guidelines framed by the Committee. General terms and conditions were also framed on 18 points by Committee as Annexure II of proposal provided to vendors for seeking quotations for hired transport services. In point no. 8 of General terms & conditions framed by the Committee it was clearly mentioned that “The lowest quotation will be accepted. In case of more than one lowest quotation, the firm whose cars/vehicles registered at RTO for taxi will be preferred”. This indicates that it was responsibilities of DMSRDE to check the registration of taxies whether these were registered as taxies at RTO.

(f)   The arguments at point d (3) is again to put the responsibilities and accountability to minimize corruption in hiring of transport services , on the soldiers of local audit and test audit teams. In case both local & test audit teams were obliged by Director, DMSRDE   on cash & kind then how can they raise the objections on irregularities and corruptions in contract of hired transport. It is well known fact that hired vehicles are being provided to local audit personnel (ACDA officials) on 24×7 and one DMSRDE official is also posted at ACDA office to assist ACDA. These illegal obligations putted on ACDA by Director, DMSRDE establish Corruption in the whole process of contract of hired transport.

(g)  Contract given to M/s Super India Travels, Kanpur has been expired in July 2012 as contract was for only for one year and still now new contract has not been provided to any other vendor by the fresh tendering process as per Purchase Management 2006. One & half year extension to the same vendor smacks vested interest and leads Corruption.

(h) The vendor is not claiming service tax from DMSRDE; the vendor is not having service tax registration and not depositing service tax to Custom & Excise Department, Govt. of India. The issue of service tax registration is clearly mentioned in General terms and conditions framed by the committee so constituted by Director, DMSRDE. In point no. 17 of General terms & conditions framed by the committee it was clearly mentioned that “The rates quoted should be excluding the service tax. The service tax will be paid additionally only after receiving the proof of the service tax registration. No service tax will be paid if the operator fails to provide proof of valid service tax registration”.

(i)   Facts mentioned at above establish irregularities in giving contracts to M/s Super India Travels, Kanpur and further illegal extension since one and half year indicates Corruption at DMSRDE, Kanpur in the whole process.

5.       Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vides RTI Application dated 23 October 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 23rd  October 2013.

6.       Declaration:-

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

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

 Enclosure: Two

(1)      Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 14th  November 2013

(2)      RTI Application dated 23 October 2013

 
 RTI Application dated 23 October 2013
 
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,
Central Public Information Officer,
DMSRDE, GT Road,
Kanpur-208013             

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Hello,

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

  1. File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO)Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.
  2. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

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

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

INFORMATION SOUGHT

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

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

  1. 2010-2011
  2. 2011-2012
  3. 2012-2013
  4. 2013-2014

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

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

following format

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.   17F 549289   as application Fee.dmsrde rti reply car
Uncategorized

SATYAMEV JAYATE Jai Ho Jai Ho Jai Ho

3 Comments

 

To                                                                                        20th December 2013
Honorable Defence Minister
Room No – 104, South Block
New Delhi-110011

SATYAMEV JAYATE    Jai Ho      Jai  Ho        Jai Ho

Honorable defence Minister of India on 29th October 2013 ordered CBI inquiry against the corrupt top DRDO officials.

“Also ordered and recommended replacement of Recruitment & Assessment Centre ( RAC) by suitable agency like UPSC”

I congratulate all the honest and innocent workforce of DRDO, who did noticed the misadventures of DRDO Hqrs & Directors of lab and informed the Honorable Defence Minister/ Honorable President of India through registered complaints. These corrupt officials used to write their own constitutions such that they can misinterpret the government laid down rules and misappropriate the government funds for their own benefits, under the shadow of secrecy and OSA 1923, and they swallowed their ugly acts.

God gave me courage to fight against the corrupt officials of DRDO. I have begun this journey just after “KARGIL WAR”. DRDO did consumed thousand & thousand crores, did not delivered any significant product which can utilize in “KARGIL WAR” and then General Malik uttered “casualties in the conflict could have been reduced had the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) “not come in the way”

“It has taken fifteen years to convince the government of India about involvement of DRDO officials/ Directors in neck deep corruption.”

On 28th October 2013 Defence Secretary Sh R K Mathur put up note to Defence Minister with proof of involvement in recruitment of scientists unfairly with manipulation and hiding facts while investigation, trying to close three times the investigation with wrong feedbacks by following top DRDO officials.

Four Recruitment  Cases of  Mrs T Chandrabanu, Scientist ‘F’, Mrs S Geetha, Scientist ‘C’, Ms Swati Srivastva,  Scientist ‘C’   Ms Dolly Bansal, Scientist ‘C’  

  1. Civilian Padma Awardee 2003, Former Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister, DG-DRDO 2004-2008
  2. Civilian Padma Awardee 1998 & 2013, Former Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister, DG-DRDO 2008-May 2013, Chairman of The Aeronautical Society of India Hyderabad Branch,  President, C.R.Rao Advanced Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science (AIMSCS)
  3. Former Distinguished Scientist & Chief Controller – R&D (LS & IC),DRDO , President – Amity Science, Technology and Innovation Foundation, DRDO Technology Leadership Awardee (2010), Scientists of the year Awardee 1989, President – Federation of Indian Physiological Societies Father of Ms S Geetha
  4. The then Distinguished  Scientist, CC R&D (NS M & HR)
  5.  Ex- Director of Personal, Scientist ’H’, Outstanding Scientist, Suspended just two hours before retirement from service. Scientists of the year Awardee 2007, Father of Ms Swati Srivastav
  6.  Ex-Director, DTRL, DRDO retired in May 2013, Best Techno Managerial Services/Popular Science Communication Award 2011
  7.  Ex- Additional Director, RAC, DRDO, Father of Ms Dolly Bansal
  8. Ex- Director of Personal, Scientist ‘G’ Scientist of the Year Award – 2003, Ex-Director, Dte of Life Sciences, DRDO HQrs (2002) DRDO, the recipient of Vijnana Rathna jointly awarded by National Centre for Science & Technology Communication, New Delhi and Science Centre, Gwalior in 1991
  9. Ex-Director, DIPAS, DRDO (appointed Director(DIPAS), Delhi, wef 26 April 2002) winner of HH Loescheke Research Prize in Techniques/ Instrumentation- 2002, Maj Gen SL Bhatia Oration Awardee 2006,HH Loescheke Research Prize in Techniques/ Instrumentation- 2002
  10. the then Director, RAC, DRDO 2004, Ex Director, PEACE , 10 May 2001-15 July 2003, was awardee the DRDO Technology Award-1995

 A very strong recommendation from Honorable Defence Minister highlights the incompetence of existing Recruitment & Assessment Centre ( RAC). Honorable Defence Minister recommended the replacement of RAc by suitable recruitment agency like UPSC from financial year 2014-15.

CBI inquiry is big blow for DRDO having lakhs crores  infrastructure, having more than 30000 strong scientific / technical work forces, having 52 labs across the country.

Some of the above top ex DRDO officials’ calls on to Honorable Defence Minister to convince their innocence during last to last week and expressed that CBI inquiry may stop further research work in DRDO. Honorable Defence Minister very well knew that in the last 30-40 years of their scientific carrier what are their ground contribution because DRDO measurably failed to deliver any significant product in our last “KARGIL WAR”. They forgot that before them or after them whatever DRDO achieved or achieving that is because of honest people work force not by their corrupt / nepotism /incompetent group.

DRDO directors demonstrated their incompetency several times but they manage major share in defence budget every year. They do not deserve single penny until unless they are able to develop an import substitute.

With fake degree’s the manpower were selected as charge-man/ technical assistant and become scientist’H’ outstanding scientist, distinguished scientists by purchasing degree from private institutions, deemed universities and also manipulating by DIAT itself, crores of crores rupees were distributed by DRDO every years in the name of scientific development but now by CGDA audit also revealed that this money is routing through private institutes and deemed universities. It also confirmed facts that if any one check DRDO’s M Tech/PhD’s/ honorable degrees then will found that the money connection and degrees allotments like reveri’s by private universities and deemed universities etc. And unfortunately this mechanism also starts following in government intuitions in the name of resource development.

The incompetence of DRDO directors have been observed and felt by services Hqrs. Since inception of DRDO till 1990, DRDO used to work very closely on General staff requirement and Generals were closely monitoring day to day developments of DRDO. But when DRDO started “working on major programs” without prior knowledge of basic science &technology gave assured commitment for product development which never saw the light of the day.

The time has come for sincere and honest efforts by scientific community for an end result/ product development.

Honorable Defence Minister is requested to thoroughly investigate the DRDO procurement policy which has made the scientist a mere suppliers. Every director of 52 Labs has fake companies or associations with suppliers. Investigation will reveal that incompetent suppliers who are in touch with DRDO director beside his knowledge base, if he is rice exporter/ simple computer peripheral sellers /simple traders, he can sell any high-tech missile parts/ high tech laser components / high end software’s or anything which required by DRDO scientists in national interest or strategic applications. Dilemma these high tech information is shared by these incompetent suppliers with their families in kitchen and dining table. This is only for money matter nothing else no national interest, no values, no moral. In last 10 years honorable defence minister and national security adviser also received n numbers of anonymous letter but having truth and IB also gave confirmation reports.

Sir, how can you imagine wonders from this mind set the lab directors of DRDO ?  Absolute power, Absolute corruption.

Government of India, Ministry of Defence should reconsider the appointment of Scientific Adviser to RM as it was done through search committee before 1984. A person with a moral values /strong scientific knowledge base known across the globe/ technical leadership/ technology contributions like  Dr. Daulat Singh Kothari,  Prof. Suri Bhagavantham, Dr. Basanti Dulal Nagchaudhur I, Dr. Raja Rammana, etc.

The selection of Scientific Adviser in house the incompetent manpower has damaged the scientific temperament. The current environment / work culture there are no special or outside observation encouragement for innovation, creativity, scientific achievements, etc, only incompetent/ yes man/ are encouraged. Today in DRDO no transparency in recruitments / promotions /procurements is observed, every lab facing nepotism/ yes man culture.

Sir, I want to congratulate you for taking such strong decision and giving signal to all corrupt official of DRDO, in spite of big lobbyist ex – DG, SA to RM who have good connection in PMO.

The decision is timely, well awaited Lokpal has passed honorably from both the houses and Lokpal recommends appropriate punishment for corrupt officials, “They will get their due”

Jai Hind

Uncategorized

High Court restrains PTU admissions in distance courses

1 Comment

The Punjab Technical University (PTU) has been restrained by the Delhi High Court from admitting students in its distance education programme courses till IGNOU accords approval on the issue for the current academic year.

A bench of Chief Justice D Murugesan and Justice V K Jain told ”We direct the second respondent university not to admit any student pursuant to the advertisement made on December 3, 2012 without specific approval from respondent No. 6 Distance Education Council of IGNOU.”

The court’s order came on a petition filed by one Tilak Singh, a resident of Delhi, alleging that the University was inviting applications despite the fact that it’s plea for extension for running the distance education programme courses was pending with IGNOU.

“Vide communication dated October 12, 2012, the Distance Education Council (of IGNOU) has also directed the Punjab Technical University not to admit any student till the application for extension/approval of recognition is pending.

“In spite of the above communication, it appears that the University in question has published advertisement…Calling for applications of the students. Now, in our opinion, in the absence of of any recognition or approval, the University cannot make any admission and that too when the it has been specifically told by the Council concerned that the students should not be admitted,” the court said.

The court has asked the PTU and others to file their responses to the petition and fixed the matter for hearing on March 11.

During the hearing, the counsel for Singh said the PTU was playing with the career of lakhs of students and have duped them to the tune of crores of rupees

Uncategorized

IGNOU has no authority to recognize regular colleges, rules HC

Leave a comment

PTI : New Delhi, Tue Jul 23 2013, 20:17 hrs – The Indian Express
In a significant verdict, the Delhi High Court today ruled that Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) has no “legal authority” either to set up or accord recognition to an institution or college to impart “face-to-face” regular education. IGNOU, set up in 1985 to promote distance education, was dragged to court by various institutions, including Hindustan Aviation Academy, which were first allowed by the University to run B Tech and Diploma programme courses in the area of Aerospace Engineering. However, IGNOU later noticed that its approval to run “face-to-face” programme did not not meet legal requirements and asked the approved institutes to keep the admission process at abeyance.

IGNOU also noticed that the necessary prior approval from AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) for running such courses was also not taken. Disposing of a bunch of petitions of institutions, Justice V K Jain said, “(since) IGNOU had no legal authority to set up or recognise institutions/colleges on the lines of regular colleges where education is imparted by way of face-to-face programmes, requiring students to mandatorily attend classes, the petitioners’ institutes cannot be said to be institutions, constituent colleges, units or affiliated colleges of IGNOU, nor can they be said the ‘study centres’ within the meaning of the IGNOU Act.”

The court also rapped IGNOU for not informing students about its decision to suspend admission for academic years 2012-13. It also said that the university also did not follow the principles of natural justice while restraining institutes from taking admissions as no show cause notice was served on them in this regard. The court, in its 37-page judgement, said, “The respondent university is clearly guilty of gross negligence and inaction. No attempt was taken by it to ensure that students who in the absence of public notice from the university, could not be expected to be aware of its decision to suspend admission for the academic years 2012-13, did not pay fees to petitioners’ institutes and did not take admission.”