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

Drdo

Hurting DRDO’s autonomy

Leave a comment

R SUNDARAM The Hindu Business Line

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is in the news. First, the good news. It successfully test-fired nuclear-capable Agni III long range missile with a strike range of 3,000 km from the Wheeler Islands off the coast of Odisha, recently. This is a major achievement both for the DRDO and the country’s defence capability.

Now, for the bad news. DRDO’s financial and administrative powers have been whittled down or taken away. This is a blow for science and technology efforts in India.

SUDDEN ABOUT-TURN

Only two years ago, in 2010 to be precise, the delegation of powers to the DRDO was considerably liberalised. It seemed as though the government was, for once, serious about freeing scientific establishment from the proverbial red tape.

It allowed DRDO the discretion to spend up to Rs 50 crore with the concurrence of its financial advisor. It appears that a recent action of the DRDO, of approving a design and development project of Rs 49.82 crore for optical sensors to be used in unmanned aerial vehicles and airborne platforms without involving the Ministry, irked the authorities. So, the MOD has “clipped the wings” of the DRDO by re-imposing old controls.

This is a retrograde step engineered by the combined heavy hands of the entrenched babus in administration and accounts, blessed by an unenlightened and short-sighted political leadership. This flies in the face of various pronouncements of the Prime Minister during his various addresses to the scientific community.

In February 2012, Manmohan Singh in an interview to the Science magazine stated that “we need to do much more to change the face of science in India”.

I do not know if this is the change he wanted — imposing more rigorous accounting controls and stifling administrative procedures, so that DRDO becomes yet another run-of-the-mill government organisation.

Recently, the Prime Minister wanted Indian scientists “to seek newer frontiers of research, match capabilities of peers around the world and help India leapfrog”, even as one of his Cabinet ministers was busy belittling the scientific community under his watch.

COMPETENT AUTHORITY

From whatever can be gleaned from news reports, it appears that the recent decisions are based on a special audit conducted by the Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) as ordered by the Minister. It is not clear as to how the CGDA can be considered competent to evaluate R&D activities. There are any number of forums to evaluate programmes and priorities, including peer group assessments, the Standing Committees and Consultative Committees of Parliament on defence.

Only a few years ago, we had the Rama Rao committee going into aspects of revamping defence research and development. So far, no one knows what the recommendations are, and how far these have been implemented.

Time and again, the government, particularly the MOD, tends to shoot itself in the foot by demoralising and insulting both military and civilian organisations under its fold.

(The author is former Member, Ordnance Factories)

(This article was published on October 1, 2012)

Drdo

CVC orders penalty against DRDO official

2 Comments

ABHINANDAN MISHRA   Sunday Guardians NEW DELHI | 30th Sep 2012

The officer has been found guilty of appointing his senior’s daughter without following the due process.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has advised the initiation of major penalty proceedings against an additional director rank officer and his superior, a director, with the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO). The officer has been found guilty of appointing his senior’s daughter without following the due process. The proceedings have been advised after a complaint filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was probed by the CVC.

The CVC has recommended the penalty against A.K. Bansal, who was at that time additional director (Recruitment and Assessment Centre) (Scientist F) and Arun Kumar, director, (RAC) (outstanding scientist). Bansal illegally facilitated Kumar’s daughter’s appointment.

The Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC) of DRDO looks after the recruitment and promotion of scientists in the organisation.

The CVC in its memorandum dated 23.08.2012 has stated, “The case has been examined by the commission. On facts of the case, the commission in agreement with MoD, advises initiation of major penalty proceedings against Dr. Arun Kumar, Senior Scientist, DRDO, and Shri A.K. Bansal, Additional Director, RAC.”

The CVC has also asked the ministry to reconsider the appointment of Swati Shrivastava, daughter of Arun Kumar, who is working as Scientist C in DRDO. “Further, the commission advises the ministry to reconsider the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava, daughter of Dr. Arun Kumar.”

“This is a clear case of corruption and misuse of position to appoint close relatives,” an employee of DRDO stated on the condition of anonymity.

Arun Kumar is serving as Director (Personnel) in the DRDO headquarters at present. A.K. Bansal, who retired in 2009, was till last month working with the Institute of Defence Scientists and Technologists (IDST), a registered body of retired DRDO professionals, which claims to provide consultancy, expertise and assistance to DRDO.

The DRDO had earlier tried its best to stonewall an RTI (Right to Information) query filed by an employee of the organisation, seeking to inspect the records related to the employment of Dolly Bansal, daughter of A.K. Bansal. DRDO, while refusing to allow the inspection of records, had said that it was an exempted organisation under the RTI Act.

However, the Central Information Commission rejected the DRDO’s contention and said that since it was related to alleged irregularities in the selection of Dolly Bansal as a scientist and there was no harm in the inspection of the available records.

When contacted, DRDO spokesperson Ravi Kumar Gupta said that the organisation follows a transparent and fair policy of recruitment: “It may be a matter of difference of perception (the findings of CVC). Decisions by RAC related to recruitment are taken by a chairman who is independent of the scientific advisor. However, whatever action is required to be taken, will be taken.”

Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne with DRDO officials during a function in Bangalore earlier this month. PTI

 

Drdo

MoD restricts DRDO chief’s fiscal powers

2 Comments

Josy Joseph, TNN | Sep 23, 2012, 12.16AM IST

NEW DELHI: The government has taken an unprecedented decision to impose severe restrictions on the financial powers of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) chief Dr VK Saraswat after an internal audit report and an ongoing CAG scrutiny raised red flags over many of his decisions.

The move is unprecedented in many ways since DRDO chiefs enjoy exalted position —one of them Dr A P J Abdul Kalam even went on to become the President. DRDO also enjoys a huge amount of autonomy because of the strategic nature of its work and is rarely questioned on its financial decisions.

The government has taken an unprecedented decision to impose severe restrictions on the financial powers of DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat after an internal audit report and an ongoing CAG scrutiny raised red flags over many of his decisions.

However, all this has changed. Sources said the ministry of defence (MoD) has issued an order saying that the DRDO chief would have to take all financial decisions in consultation with the finance division of the ministry. Until now, DRDO chief could grant financial approvals of upto Rs 50 crore on his own, without having to consult with MoD finance.

The financial powers of DRDO chief were upped in mid-2010 through an order, which now the government believes was against the norms. The enhancement of his powers, especially as DG (DRDO) of upto Rs 50 crore where he only needed the concurrence of the financial advisor within DRDO, has now raised hackles in the government. The DRDO financial advisor reports to the DRDO chief.

Sources said the enhancement of DRDO chief’s financial powers went against the recommendations of an MoD panel headed by present Chief Vigilance Commissioner Pradeep Kumar when he was the defence secretary. They even allege that defence minister A K Antony may have been misled into approving the enhanced financial powers for DRDO chief in 2010.

Dr Saraswat holds three positions concurrently—scientific advisor to the raksha mantri, DG (DRDO), and secretary defence (R&D). Under the enhanced provisions, as DG (DRDO) Dr Saraswat can approve contracts upto Rs 50 crore without referring it to MoD. While, as secretary defence (R&D) Dr Saraswat has financial powers upto Rs 75 crore but would MOD finance approval. Over the last two years, Dr Saraswat had been approving most contracts in his role as DG (DRDO) without referring them to MoD finance.

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) is believed to have sent a draft para of its ongoing audit, raising questions over the way many financial decisions within the Rs 50 crore limit was approved by DRDO chief, without enough oversight.

According to the new order issued a few days ago by the M0D with the approval of Antony, Dr Saraswat has been asked to exercise his financial powers, ranging between Rs 25 crore and Rs 75 crors, “with consent” of MoD (finance).

Chief Comptrollers (CCs) of DRDO have financial powers upto Rs 25 crore. They would continue to exercise their authority in consultation with the financial advisor of DRDO, sources said.

A special audit of the DRDO on the orders of Antony has also found that the powers to sanction projects delegated to DG (DRDO), CC (R&D)s and lab directors was granted on the condition that the projects should be cleared by the Defence Research Council. “There is no government letter constituting the DRC, its functions and powers. The DRC meetings are not formal. There does not seem to be any system of circulating Agenda Briefs to members,” the audit said.

The report pointed out that in many cases the expenditure incurred on scientists and other manpower deployed on a project is not included in the project cost estimates to keep the total budget under the financial powers available to Dr Saraswat and his other officers.

A project titled “product support and product improvement of Nag weapon system” at a cost of Rs 28.35 crore was sanctioned by Dr Saraswat “even though the CCS (cabinet committee on security) approved Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme is still not closed in so far as NAG missile is concerned,” the report says.

Dr Saraswat approved a project worth Rs 49.82 crore for design and development of elctro-optical sensors for air-borne platforms such as UAVs and Aerostats. This was done “by reducing the cost proposed by the Lab (Rs 70 crore) so as to bring it just under Rs 50 crore, which is his sanctioning power,” the audit said.

DRDO chief sanctioned a facility for electro-optical system testing at a cost of Rs 35 crore by “DG DRDO to create a facility, which is essentially required to meet the objectives of an already sanctioned project. However, the old project’s cost was not revised with the approval of appropriate CFA,” it added.

Drdo

Appointment scandal brews, 2 DRDO scientists under cloud

3 Comments

Indian Express

 By Yatish Yadav / ENS – NEW DELHI 21st September 2012 10:59 AM

In a fresh blow to Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has advised initiation of major penalty against two of its scientists.

Acting on a complaint alleging irregularities in appointment and promotion of scientists and based on subsequent investigation by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Defence Ministry, the CVC found Arun Kumar and A K Bansal blameworthy.

“The case has been examined by the commission. On the facts of the case, the commission is in agreement with Ministry of Defence and advises initiation of major penalty proceedings against Dr Arun Kumar, senior scientist, DRDO, and A K Bansal, additional director, Recruitment Assessment Centre,” the CVC office memorandum dated August 23 said.

Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC) of the DRDO was set up in July 1985 for the recruitment and promotion of scientists. The RAC is exempted from the purview of Union Public Service Commission.

Sources said the complaint was lodged by a DRDO employee alleging nepotism and lapses in the policy of recruitment and promotion.

It is learnt that the matter was taken up by the defence vigilance based on Defence Minister A K Antony’s directions.

Arun Kumar is currently serving as Director, Personnel – a DRDO department that coordinates recruitment of scientists and appointment of consultants. Kumar was promoted to the grade of an outstanding scientist in 2010. It was alleged that he misused power to induct his daughter in a laboratory functioning under the DRDO, in violation of laid down norms. After examining the probe report, the CVC has also advised the ministry to reconsider the appointment of his daughter.

The DRDO’s image took a beating recently after a secret audit report ordered by Antony unravelled the rot within. Citing various cases, the report claimed that the DRDO’s functioning was not transparent.

Also, no comprehensive database with details of projects sanctioned by the DRDO and how many were declared successful was in place.

The DRDO has a network of 52 laboratories and establishments spread across the country with an annual budget of over Rs 10, 500 crore. Currently, it has over 5,000 scientists and around 25,000 support staff working in several areas of defence technology.

Drdo

The DRDO report card

1 Comment

By Yatish Yadav and Nardeep Singh Dahiya 02nd September 2012 12:00 AM

CGDA secret audit blows the lid off several other projects

Nirbhay missile

Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE BANGALORE): In December 2010, a project for ‘additional development flight trials of Nirbhay’ was sanctioned costing Rs 18.1 crore . This was overlapping with an ongoing project codenamed Nirbhay sanctioned in 2004 at a cost of Rs 48 Crore.

“Old projects PDC has not been extended nor has it been successfully closed. The sanction of Rs 18.1 crore as a new project was inappropriate,” the audit said.
In one of its observation on the same project, the audit said “The case also raises questions on the way project proposals are put up for sanction. How original proposal to develop NIRBHAY exclude its trial? No research and development project can be sanctioned without inclusion of trial of the developed products.”
Arjun tank
Integrated Arjun tank program was sanctioned to CVRDE in November 2010 at a cost of Rs 69.90 crore. However, several small projects have been sanctioned under ‘buildup’. Audit reports reveal that it was done to avoid going through competent financial authority, which is contrary to financial regulations.
NAG missile
DRDO sanctioned another project at a cost of Rs 28.35 crore while cabinet committee on security approved programme to develop NAG missile is still going on.
UAV Aerostat project
It was sanctioned by DRDO at a cost of Rs 49.82 crore by reducing the cost proposed by the lab (Rs 70 crore) so as to bring it just under Rs 50 crore, which is its sanctioning power.
Facet
Facility for Electro-Optical System Testing (FACET) was sanctioned at a cost of Rs 35 crore by DG DRDO to create a facility, which is essentially required to meet the objectives of an already sanctioned project. However, the old project’s cost was not revised with the approval of appropriate CFA.
Flop show
Akash, NAG & Trishul missiles
The troika of integrated Guided Missile Development Plan (IGDMP) failed to fire after burning thousands of crore taxpayer’s money for almost 30 years. Akash which started in 1983 failed to meet requirements of army but after some hard bargaining Air force inducted it in its arsenal.
NAG, failed the 53rd test in August 2012. The project was started at an original cost of Rs 388.83 Crore in 1983, which was later revised to Rs 1,771.43 Crore. Indian army was forced to buy costly Javelin missile from USA in 2009 after DRDO failed to develop the project even after 29 years. After successive failures, Trishul was officially shelved in 2008. It is now reduced as a technology demonstrator by the DRDO.
AGNI
The AGNI project was launched in 1983. The DRDO borrowed ISRO’s PSLV rocket to enhance firepower after it failed the initial tests before 1994. AGNI series of Missiles AGNI I and AGNI II with a range of 700 km and 2,500 km were inducted in the armed forces after successful tests. AGNI III with a range of 3,500 km is expected to be inducted in the army soon.
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence in its report in March 2012 observed that the maximum range of the missiles that have been handed over to the army is 25 km only. Government in its reply to the committee had stated that the Indian army is currently in the process of procurement of advanced long range missile system and upgradation of certain existing weapon platform.
LCA
The LCA project, launched in 1983,is still waiting for final flight. The DRDO failed to develop promised indigenous engine even after spending over Rs 17,000 crore. It is expected to achieve the lasted deadline by December 2013.
Consider the three biggest projects: developing a Main Battle Tank (MBT), a nuclear-powered submarine, and an advanced Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). The MBT project was launched in 1974. But the tank has failed to meet service-requirement tests. It is reportedly too heavy and undependable to be used in combat. The Indian Army prefers Russian tanks and says it will use MBTs for training, not operations. The nuclear submarine project, launched 31 years ago, is not yet finished despite an estimated Rs 3,000 crore spent on it. The reactor is apparently ready, but not tested with the vessel’s hull.
Kaveri Engine
The CAG in its annual report 2010-11 noted that government had already spent Rs 1,892 crore on Kaveri Engine development programme launched in 1986 to power the Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas. In 2005, the GTRE had indicated that it would not be able to develop the Kaveri engine on its own. Defence Minister AK Antony has told Parliament that the DRDO still has no time-frame to fully develop its Kaveri engine. He also said that the engine will be used in UAVs and marine applications.

Drdo

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 5

2 Comments

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

File No.CIC/LS/C/2012/001204

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 vide RTI application dated 1.11.2011, the appellant had sought the names of the officers/scientists who were given extension in service after their superannuation at the age of 60 years. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information vide letter dated 30.11.2011 on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organization.

3. The appellant is seeking establishment related information and not any scientific information. Despite the DRDO being an exempted organisation, in my opinion, there is absolutely no harm in disclosing the requisite information to the appellant. Ordered accordingly.

4. 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.

 

The Right to Information Act, 2005

Appeal before the Central Information Commission;

Appeal No. ———————– Dated ————————
As I am aggrieved by decision of Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate

Authority, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
1. Details of appellant:

1.1 Full Name: – RAJIV CHAUHAN

1.2. Full Address: R/O-1053/3, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT (U.P)-250005

1.3 Phone/Cell No.: 09412628314 ; 09258045938 ; 0121-4009512;

4 Email ID: rajivchauhan89@yahoo.co.in

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

2.1 Name/Designation: Dr.A.K.TYAGI ; SCIENTIST “F’ , CPIO, DRDO HQ;

2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105

2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

3. Details of First Appellate Authority [FAA]:

3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: Dr. ARUN KUMAR

3.2 Full Address of FAA: OS & DIRECTOR; DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL;

ROOM NO- 217, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105

4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:

4.1 To CPIO — 03 OCT 2011

4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011

5. Particulars of Decisions:

5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-

30 NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0291; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI

5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:-

20 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/122;

6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-

6.1 CPIO— 07 DEC 2011

6.2 FAA: — 27 JAN 2012

7. Details of information sought:-

Kindly inform to you that a high no. of scientists are working beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years in DRDO. It seems that the irregularity are carried out by the officers / scientists appointment / service extension / re- employment through the contract basis in DRDO. As per the DOPT letter no. dt.9th Dec.2002 regarding the grant of extension / re-employment to central govt. servants beyond the age of superannuation – issue of instructions regarding.-“ Re-employment : No proposal for employing a govt. servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years shall be considered. It is also clarified that no person can be appointed / re-appointed to central govt. service after the age of superannuation of 60 years through contract.” This is a case of the corruption so that the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice. . I hereby enclosed all related documents for your consideration and decision.

I want the following information’s as under-

S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Pl. provide the name of the officers / scientists who is working after the age of superannuation of 60 years. Pl. provide the name of the officers / scientists.

2. Pl. provide the financial detail which obtained by these scientists. Pl. provide the total financial details obtained by these scientists.

3. Pl. provide the name of the officers who recommended their name for extension. Pl. provide the name .

I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request to you please provide me the information by the speed post

8. Brief facts of the case:-

I submitted my RTI application before the CPIO, DRDO, New Delhi on dt.01-11-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office during the Re-employment of the scientist. CPIO reply is not satisfactory and not as per the law because the RTI is related with the allegation of the corruption and not exempted under section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.

However in this Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454,clearly mentioned that- “37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”

I was not satisfied with the reply of CPIO,DRDO HQ, New Delhi, after that I submitted an appeal before FAA to take the information but the FAA of DRDO dismissed the appeal and failed to provide the information with the ref. of second schedule of the RTI Act & section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005

9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:-

That this information is directly related with the corruption and misuse of the office and not come under section 24(1) of the RTI Act because the high no of scientists are working and take the financial and other benefits after the violation of the-
(i)- DOPT rules as DOPT letter no. dt.9th Dec.2002 regarding the grant of extension / re-employment to central govt. servants beyond the age of superannuation – issue of instructions regarding.-“ Re-employment : No proposal for employing a govt. servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years shall be considered. It is also clarified that no person can be appointed / re-appointed to central govt. service after the age of superannuation of 60 years through contract.”
(ii)- Defence Research Development (DRDO)Service Rules no-9-“Probation- Persons appointed to the grade of scientist ‘B’ of the service either by direct recruitment or by promotion or by re-employment before the age of superannuation ,shall be on probation for a period of 2 years. Persons appointed to any other grade of the service viz. scientist ’C’. scientist ’D’ .scientist ’E’, scientist ’F’ and scientist ‘G’ .either by direct recruitment or by re-employment before the age of superannuation ,shall be placed on probation for a period of one year; Provided that the Director General may extend or curtail the period of probation in accordance with the instruction issued by the central govt. from time to time; Provided further that in case where it is proposed to extend the period of probation, the Director General shall give notice in writing of his intention to do so, to the officer with in twelve weeks after expiry of the initial or extended period of probation”

3- That the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice.
10. Any other information in support of appeal:-

This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the re-employment after the violation of the DOPT & DRDO service rules. I hereby enclosed all related documents for your consideration and decision.
11. Prayer/relief sought for:-
I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Pl. provide the name of the officers / scientists who is working after the age of superannuation of 60 years. Pl. provide the name of the officers / scientists.
2. Pl. provide the financial detail which obtained by these scientists. Pl. provide the total financial details obtained by these scientists.
3. Pl. provide the name of the officers who recommended their name for extension. Pl. provide the name .

I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the information’s by the speed post.
(2)- I request your honor to pass an order in favor of the applicant as deemed fit as an any relief .

Personal Presence at hearing:- — YES

Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with this commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.

Place: MEERUT

Date: —————-

Signature of appellant

Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials