FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To, 7th March 2014 Dr. Lokendra Singh, Scientist ‘H’ & OS First Appellate Authority, DRDO, Room No. 347, RTI Cell DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. RAC/03/RTI/95/2014 dated 25 Feb 2014
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 |
2. Details of Central Public Information Officers (CPIO):-
Name & Rank | Dr. R.B. Sharma, Scientist ‘F’, CPIO |
Address | DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,Room No. 314-A, RTI Cell DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011 |
Name & Rank | Dr. K. K. Dahiya, Scientist ‘E’, CPIO |
Address | Recruitment & Assessment Centre Lucknow Road, Timarpur, Delhi-110054 |
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-
- Decision vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2014/0048 dated 10 Feb 2014 from CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi.
- Decision vide letter No. RAC/03/RTI/95/2014 dated 25 Feb 2014 received from CPIO, RAC, Delhi. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Facts & Grounds leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 02 February 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi providing information regarding “Assessment & Promotions -2013 regarding Scientist ‘G’ to Scientist ‘H’ ”. Copy of the RTI Application dated 02 February 2014 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.
(b) Central Public Information Officer, DRDO HQ transferred the application dated 02 February 2014 under Section 6(3) of RTI Act vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2014/0048 dated 10 Feb 2014 to CPIO, RAC. RAC is recruitment wing of DRDO and under direct control of DGR&D, DRDO. CPIO, DRDO HQ did not intimate to appellant regarding transfer of application u/s 6(3) of the Act therefore transfer of application u/s 6(3) of the Act is illegal as provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act “the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer”.
(c) The transfer of application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act by CPIO, DRDO HQ to CPIO, RAC was totally illegal as CPIO, DRDO HQ was custodian of the information sought in application dated 02 Feb 2014 under RTI Act which is quite evident from reply of CPIO, RAC vide letter No. RAC/03/RTI/95/2014 dated 25 Feb 2014 in which he again transferred the information on points 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 14 to CPIO, DRDO HQ. Therefore CPIO, DRDO HQ transferred the application illegally with malafide intentions just to harass the applicant & deprive of the information. He illegally misused Section 6(3) of RTI Act as when CPIO is custodian of information then he cannot transfer the application under provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act. CPIO, DRDO is adopting dilatory tactics to create delay & hindrance in seeking information by appellant.
(d) CPIO, RAC is also the sole custodian of information as sought in application dated 02 Feb 2014 under RTI Act. Therefore transfer of application on certain points to CPIO, DRDO HQ is illegal under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005. CPIO, RAC is also in position to provide the information sought.
(e) CPIO, RAC also rejected the information sought on points 1, 2, 3,9,10, 11, 12 & 13 by misusing Section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 despite that it was clearly mentioned in application dated 02 Feb 2014 that Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC.
(f) CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO) was referred clearly in RTI application dated 02 February 2014 that “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organization; 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”. Therefore CPIO, RAC illegally rejected the application by misusing Section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.
(g) It appears that CPIO, DRDO HQ, CPIO, RAC and Public Authorities are still living in the era of September 2005 when DRDO was placed in Second Schedule of the Act. In past eight years CIC has passed various decisions regarding DRDO and now it is well settled principle of RTI that DRDO is only exempted for S&T and Strategic information despite being notified organization under Schedule II of the RTI Act. Public Authorities in DRDO has already provided full information related to APAR, Promotions, Service Matter & Establishment Matters to various citizens under RTI Act then denial of similar information to appellant attracts violation of fundamental rights of appellant on basis of cast & creed which is again violation of Constitution of India. This attracts penal action on CPIO u/s 20 of the RTI Act.
(h) Treating application under RTI Act as tennis ball & passing from one CPIO to other CPIO is dilatory tactic to protect the interest of one person in a public department is gross violation of RTI Act. Corruption in recruitment, promotions, appointments & transfers in DRDO is of serious concern in Ministry of Defence. In the year 2013 declaration of results for promotions from Scientist ‘G’ to Scientists ‘H’ (OS) was surprisingly delayed and announced in month of October, 2013 instead of July 2013. This smacks Corruption and nepotism in promotions as there is no such provision in DRDS Rules 1979 to hold Review Peer Committee to amend & review the results of promotions finalized by original Peer Committee. Two Peer Committees cannot be constituted & exist in the same year for assessment & promotions of Scientist ‘G’ to Scientist ‘H’ under the provisions of DRDS Rules 1979. Therefore assessment & promotions from Scientist ‘G’ to Scientist ‘H’ in year 2013 are illegal.
(i) Transfer of application under Section 6(3) of the Act for information on points 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 14 to CPIO, DRDO HQ by CPIO, RAC is again illegal, unethical and against the spirit of RTI Act.
(j) Facts mentioned at above establish irregularities in assessment & promotions of Scientist ‘G’ to Scientist ‘H’ in the year 2013.
5. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vides RTI Application dated 02 February 2014 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, RAC, Delhi. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DRDO HQ and CPIO, RAC to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 02 February 2014.
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-Sunderwala, Raipur, Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website www.corruptionindrdo.com
Enclosure: Two
(1) Letter from CPIO, RAC, Delhi DRDO dated 25 Feb 2014. (2) RTI Application dated 02 February 2014.
To, 2nd February 2014 Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO, DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011
Hello,
In pursuance of Rule 8(2) Schedule ID of DRDS Rules 1979 as amended a Peer Committee for assessment of Scientists G to Scientists H (OS) in the year 2013 was constituted and assessed the suitability of Scientists G for the grade of Scientists H (OS). Subsequently several Scientists G were promoted to the rank of Scientist H (OS). However declaration of results for promotions from Scientist G to Scientists H (OS) was surprisingly delayed and announced in month of October, 2013 instead of July 2013.
In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
- Copy of the letter by which competent authority constituted Peer Committee.
- The details of Chairman and Members of the Peer Committee.
- The dates on which Peer Committee meetings were held for assessing the suitability of Scientists G for promotion to Scientists H(Outstanding Scientist).
- The date on which results has been declared.
- The date from which the promotions of Scientist H (Outstanding Scientist) in the year 2013 became effective.
- The date on which results for promotion from Scientists G to Scientists H (OS) were declared and became effective in the year 2012.
- The reasons for delay in declaration of results.
- These promotions were conducted under which promotion scheme of Government of India. (Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) or Merit Promotion Scheme (MPS).
- Copy of the minutes of Peer Committee duly approved by Defence Minister.
10. Whether any representation was submitted by any assessed Scientist G to Defence Minister regarding his/her promotion before the declaration of results. (Yes/No)
11. If answer to point (9) is yes then provide copy of the letter/representation.
12. Whether any review Peer Committee meeting was held again in the year 2013 for reviewing the recommendations/Minutes of previous Peer Committee Meeting held earlier in 2013 for promotion of Scientists G to Scientists H (Outstanding Scientists) for the year 2013. (Yes/No)
13. If answer to point (12) is yes then provide the copy of Minutes of review Peer Committee Meeting for promotion of Scientists G to Scientists H (Outstanding Scientists) for the year 2013.
14. Provide the final list of Scientists who were promoted to Scientist H (OS) in the year 2013.
NOTE
- Please refer CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO)-
- Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879, e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website www.corruptionindrdo.com
Hacker alert! Careless DRDO officials lose crucial info
March 07, 2014 18:18 IST
Some officials, despite repeated warnings, continue to browse the Internet and visit social networking sites from the very same computer in which classified information is stored, says Vicky Nanjappa Security agencies have gone into a tizzy after at least 50 computers of the Defence Research and Development Organisation were hacked by unidentified operatives.
Investigating officials suspect that a spy agency is responsible for the hacking but, they say, several DRDO officers do not even bother following the standard operating procedure, making it easier for hackers to breach the security system.
The probe into the hacking spree has revealed that an Indian Army official of the rank of a Major, posted in Andaman, could have, through sheer carelessness, inadvertently compromised information.
This is not the first time the carelessness of an officer of the Indian military has made the job of hackers easier.
Recently, the computers at a naval base of the Eastern Command were hacked and the cyber attack was facilitated by some navy officials who had not followed the standard operating procedure.
The Intelligence Bureau is especially wary about hackers working for China and searching for defence documents of the Indian military.
“Drills have been conducted in the past to ensure that staff members are extremely careful. But at times, some officers act casually, resulting in such incidents. They are dealing with sensitive information. At a time when we are constantly upgrading our capabilities in the cyber space, a lot needs to be done by the officers in such sensitive locations,” said the IB official.
In the recent DRDO hacking case, hackers had managed to get access to at least 30 classified files. But the authorities have been trying to downplay the incident, claiming that though certain sensitive filed have been compromised, they are not all linked to national security.
Some officials, despite repeated warnings, continue to browse the Internet and visit social networking sites from the very same computer in which classified information is stored.
This exposes the system to a host of security risks, say cyber experts, pointing out a two-year-old case when a goof-up by an officer in a nuclear power station in Andhra Pradesh had created ripples.
The officer had, despite strict security instructions, used his personal pen drive on a system which contained crucial data.
The DRDO had earlier faced a cyber attack in November 2012, when Algerian hackers targeted its website as well as that of the Prime Minister’s Office.
The hackers’ group, which called itself SanFour25, even defaced the websites of West Bengal police. The hackers had modified the root files of the websites to steal data.
Chinese hackers, considered the most dangerous ones in cyber space, had hacked into the network of BSNL in Andhra Pradesh recently.
The network was accessed by hackers, reportedly working for Chinese agencies, to secure information along India’s coastal belt.
Some officials, however, claimed that Chinese telecom giant Huawei was responsible for the incident as it was trying to curtail BSNL’s expansion plans.
Though India is waking up to the threat of cyber warfare, the process of awakening is too gradual, rue experts.
The National Informatics Centre, which was supposed to provide e-mail IDs to top security officials and government figures, has been working at a snail’s pace.
Even Union Law Minister Kapil Sibal, who is privy to some top-secret information, uses a Gmail or Hotmail ID.
“Such e-mail IDs are easier to hack as their servers are not in our control. Officials and ministers who want to be tech-savvy at the cost of national security prefer to use services such as Yahoo, Hotmail or Gmail, as these are easier to configure on their smartphones. Using an NIC mail on the smartphone is not the best option since it fails to load most of the time,” said the IB official.
Image: Union minister Kapil Sibal
Vicky Nanjappa