Drdo

RTI- SASE – DRDO

Leave a comment
To,
Central Public Information Officer
Snow & Avalanche Study Establishment (SASE),DRDO, Min of Def
Him Parisar, Sec 37-A
Chandigarh-160036                               

Hello,

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘C’ was posted to SASE, Chandigarh from the August 2004-Feb 2009. He was directly recruited at the post of Scientist ‘C’ in DRDO and posted at SASE, Chandigarh. Kindly provide the following information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide the following information in respect of procurement cases indented by Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘C’ at SASE during the period 2004-2009.
  2. Whether CAD Centre/Facility exists in SASE, Chandigarh. (Yes/No)
  3. If answer to point (2) is yes then provide the following information.
  1. Copies of all demands in form DRDO.MM.06 indented.
  2. Copies of Supply Orders issued by Director, SASE for all demands indented by Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘C’.
  3. Copies of RIN/Installation report for all items indented.
  1. Year of creation of CAD Centre/Facility.
  2. Total expenditure incurred upon creation of CAD Centre/Facility.
  3. Expenditure incurred towards civil work for creation of CAD Facility.
  4. Name of agency (MES/CCE (R&D)/Director SASE) that executed the civil works in creation of CAD Centre.
  5. Officer who indented the cases of civil work for creation of CAD facility.
  6. Details of Software, Workstations/Computers, Plotter, Printers etc equipment purchased in CAD Facility with item nomenclature and cost.

The information related to purchase, supply orders, bills etc. has already been allowed by FAA, DRDO vide his decision No. RTI/02/2091/F/2013/0142 dated 14 October 2013.

This is to inform 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.

Besides purchase and establishment matter the information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.

Regards

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

Registration Number MODEF/R/2013/61143

Drdo

British Legacy and DRDO

10 Comments

British / Company Raj ruled this country for nearly 200 years and as result few Indian still does not believe that we are independent.

DRDO being the premier government organization, how come dishonored the standing instruction of honorable Supreme Court and the announcement made by honorable President.

The Supreme Court 10th December 2013 ruled that red beacon lights on vehicles can only be used by people listed as “high dignitaries”, that too only when they are on duty. Stating that the red beacons and multi-toned horns are reflective of “Raj mentality” and “an antithesis of the concept of a republic”

Recently Dr V K Saraswat, Ex D G, DRDO visited Gwalior   to attend a social function on 15th & 16th December 2013.

The Director, DRDE, DRDO Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik Sc.`H’ provided his Ex- Boss a Siren / Red light fitted car, A Pilot Vehicle and an Innova Car escort. May be Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik Sc.`H’ not aware of 10th December 2013 Supreme Court’s direction or ?

Dr W.Selvamurthy, Ex CC R&D, DRDO and very big scientist as quoted by Dr Ashok K Chauhan, Founder President, Amity Group and Life Sciences big boss of DRDO never preferred Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik Sc.`H’ as Director, DRDE and offered him to join as Rajbhasha Director in DRDO Hqrs. However, Dr V K Saraswat observed Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik ability of follow of British Raj legacy and Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik also honored Dr V K Saraswat’s belif on him.

Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik Sc.`H’ has  demonstrated his scientific ability through enclosed paper.

How can person involved in scientific fraud can able to run a scientific organisation with scientific ethics, what will be the quality of products out of such fraudulent research work.

Following are the links of his paper in which he has copied a major part from a foreign author, In one paper he has copied results of previous paper n shown as new compound, and surprisingly he is going to give one of the co-author of the paper as laboratory scientist of the year award for 2013.

mp 1mp 2mp 3mp 4DM1DM2 Po1Po2MCR1MCR2MCR3MCR4MCR5MCR6MCR7

Drdo

CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF ANTIVIRUS – DMSRDE

3 Comments
 
To                                                                                                            17th December 2013
Central Vigilance Commissioner
Central Vigilance Commission
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023

SUBJECT : CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF ANTIVIRUS

COMPLAINT AGAINST :  Mr. SARVESH KUMAR, SCIENTIST ‘F’ and  Dr. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR, DMSRDE, KANPUR

Sir,

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT 

  1. Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  2. Purchase Management 2006 is applicable for procurement of store items in DRDO.  Gross irregularities and violation of Purchase Management 2006 was made in procurement of Antivirus Software in year 2013 when the cases were indented by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’. The major irregularities and violations of purchase rules are given below.

i.        Method/Mode of Procurement: Method of procurement in all the three cases of Quick Heal Antivirus was Local Board. When there was a consolidated demand of 372 Antivirus and total cost of the case was around Rs. 270000.00 then case should be raised under Limited Tender as per Rule 7.6 of PM 2006. Vide letter No. DMM/II/PP/0000207/M/3041/D(R&D) dated 15th Oct 2007 Corrigendum No. -2 Directors of Establishments are empowered to constitute Local Purchase Committee for purchase up to cost of Rs. 1.0 Lakh on urgent requirements by amending Rule 6(d) of PM 2006. Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure-7. The same rule is quoted here for ready reference.

Purchase of goods by purchase committee: Purchase of goods costing above Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only and up to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only on each occasion may be made on the recommendations of a duly constituted Local Purchase Committee consisting of three members of an appropriate level as decided by the Director of Lab/Estt. The committee will survey the market to ascertain the reasonableness of rate, quality and specifications and

Identify the appropriate supplier. Before recommending placement of the purchase order, the members of the committee will jointly record a certificate as under. CFA will ensure that splitting of demands is avoided.

ii.        Splitting of consolidated demand of Antivirus in three parts: Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena split the consolidated the demand in three parts and misused his official position & powers so that case could not go under Limited Tender. In all cases of three local boards supply order was placed to the same vendor. This establishes vested interests of Dr. Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar using Local Board for purchase of Antivirus instead of Limited Tender. This leads loss to public fund and Corruption of Rs. 37920.00 by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar.

iii.        As per provisions of Purchase Management 2006 Rule 5.1.1(b) –Purchase orders will not be split-up to avoid the necessity for obtaining sanction of the higher authorities. Copy of the rule is enclosed as Annexure-8. Sprit of Purchase Rules and CVC Guidelines is that “The proposals shall not be split merely to bring them within the delegated powers”.

iv.           Local Board did not make market survey to ascertain the reasonableness of rate, quality and specifications and identify the appropriate supplier, rather one vendor M/s P. S. Computronics pre-fixed by Dr. Saxena was allowed to submit three quotations to Sarvesh Kumar and board members were forced to sign the certificates and other purchase related papers. Hence purchase procedure according to Purchase Management 2006 was not followed and grossly violated in this case.

3.           Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’ are posted in DMSRDE, Kanpur. Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena is Director, DMSRDE with effect from 01 January 2011.

4.           Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE dissolved Information Technology Division on 02 Dec 2013 and constituted a new division “Computer Science Division” under headship of Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’.

5.            Procurement and installation of Antivirus in all computers available in DMSRDE was one of the charters of Information Technology Division. Every year this division was purchasing about 300 units of Antivirus Licenses for security of PCs. These Antiviruses are having life time of one year from date of installation.

6.            In the year 2011, a demand was initiated for procurement of Antivirus Licenses with following details. Copy of the demand is enclosed as Annexure-1.table1

7.             300 units of Quick Heal Total Security Antivirus were purchased in the year 2012 on the basis of demand mentioned above. Details of procurement are given below. Copies of Supply Orders issued on 14 Nov 2011 are enclosed as Annexure-2.

table2

8.           Unit price details of Quick Heal Antivirus purchased in year 2012 are given below.table3

9.            During the period his posting at Information Technology Division, DMSRDE, Kanpur from 01.01. 2011 to 02.12.2013, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’ made following procurements as indenter on orders of Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director. Copies of the demands initiated by Sarvesh Kumar are enclosed as Annexure-3LIST OF CASES INDENTED AND ITEMS PROCURDED BY MR. SARVESH KUMAR, SCIENTIST ‘F’

table4 Demand status of cases initiated by  Mr. Sarvesh Kumar is enclosed as Annexure-4.

10.            In Information Technology Division, DMSRDE, Kanpur three Scientist Mr. R.P. Bhat, Scientist ‘F’, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’ and Mr. N.P. Gupta, Scientist ‘C’ were posted from 19 Feb 2012- 02 Dec 2013. Mr. R.P. Bhat, Scientist ‘F’ was Head of Information Technology Division.

11.              IT Division sought Proposal for Antivirus for procurement of Quickheal Total Security Antivirus from M/s Well Known Computers Pvt Ltd, Kanpur in the year 2013 on 14.01.2013. Copy of the proposal dated 14.01.2013 is enclosed as Annexure-5. The details of the proposal Well Known Computers are as under.

table5

12.            In the year 2013, for procurement of Quick Heal Total Security Antivirus (300 Units) a Statement of Case was put-up to Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE for procurement of Antivirus under Limited Tender through Head IT Division but Dr. Saxena turned down the case and constituted a Local Board for procurement of Antivirus.  This Local Board was constituted of Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘E’ (now Scientist ‘F’) Chairman, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ and Mr. N.P. Gupta, Scientist ‘C’.

13.             On direction of Dr. Saxena, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar split the demand of Antivirus licenses in three parts and gets financial sanction from Dr. Saxena, Director in three cases under Local Board. Total consolidated demands of 372 Antivirus licenses were split in three parts so that cases remain under financial powers (Rs. 1.0 lakh) of the Director and procurement could be made under Local Board. Details of procurement of Quick Heal Total Security Antiviruses in the year 2013 by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’ are given below.table6

These Quickheal Antivirus packs were received by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar on 11 Apr 2013 vide Receipt & Inspection Note (RIN) No. 14LP0009 and 14LP0010 dated 11 April 2013. Copies of the receipts are enclosed as Annexure-6.

14.        Unit price details of Quick Heal Antivirus purchased in year 2013 by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar are given below.table7

15.         It is very clear from the observation of the Purchase Proposal of Well Known Computers and procurements made by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar that the rates of Quickheal Antivirus are higher in later case. This lead loss to Government fund due to corrupt practices adopted by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar. Comparative details of both cases are given below.

Comparative rates of Well Known Computers (Proposal) and P.S. Computronics (Sarvesh)table8

Loss to public fund on purchase of Antivirus by Sarvesh Kumar on split of consolidated demand by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDEtable9

16.      Before placing the order the IT division can see these online offers which are less then quoted price and negotiate for best price from vendors in the interest of organization. Even that the for bulk there paper license offers are available.
17.       Therefore purchases made by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar by split of consolidated demand of Antivirus lead loss to public fund by Rs. 37920.00 and in turn make a scope of Corruption.

VIOLATION OF DIRECTOR’S POWER AND CONDUCT RULES

i.     Misuse of power & position for personal gain
ii.    Violation of Rule 3(1) and 3(2)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964                   iii.    Splitting of demands of Antivirus in three parts and Constitution of Local Board instead of Limited Tender for purchase of Antivirus                                                                   iv.   Sanctioning of three cases of purchases each just below Rs. 1.0 Lakh of his financial powers

AS HEAD “Computer Science Division” MR. SARVESH KUMAR, SCIENTIST ‘F’ VIOLATED THE DRDO PROCUREMENT RULES

i.       Did not follow the purchase procedure of Local Purchase Committee. Didnot make any market survey instead collected three quotations by hand from representative of M/s P. S. Computronics, Kanpur and forced to sign on the papers to other two members of the board.
ii.       Gross violation of conduct under Rule 3.(1) of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964

Therefore, in light of the above mentioned facts and evidences, may kindly investigate the matter. This may be the “tip of iceberg”. Further investigation may reveal violations of procurement for personal gain in the tune of corers of rupees.

The classic example from DMSRDE, Kanpur is the violation of procurement rules for the purchase of   “High Temp. Reaction Overhead System” 28,50,000 &   “50 Ltrs. High Temp. Monel Reactor” 38,50,000. This split case example of where Director’s power is limited up to 50 lakh with a Hqrs rep. because without splited the system cost was Rs 62.5 lakh. The details will be followed.

Similar misadventure was committed several times in the name of technology development by Ex, DG, DRDO Dr V K Saraswat, where financial power was limited up to 50 corers  and CAG in its special audit noticed violation of splitting the procurement cases while CCPA approved for Rs 150 corers.

Regards

 Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879 
prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com
table10
 
Drdo

RTI – TBRL

1 Comment
To,
Central Public Information Officer
Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL), DRDO
Min of Defence
Sector 30
Chandigarh – 160003

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), CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO) and CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

In its various decisions CIC 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 Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005. 

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Whether Mr. Suresh Chand, Chief Admin Officer (CAO) was an employee of TBRL, Chandigarh. (Yes/No)
  2. If answer to point (1) is yes then provide the following information.

      i.            The date on which Mr. Suresh Chand was retired from TBRL.

    ii.            Whether a lady other than his wife claimed on his retirement pensionery benefits on the day of  his retirement.(Yes/No)

  iii.            Whether pension of Mr. Suresh Chand was withhold.(Yes/No)

  iv.            If answer to point (iii) is yes then provide the reasons for withholding of his pension.

    v.            Was the case of withholding of his pension and reasons thereof was referred to DRDO HQ/Vigilance for inquiry?(Yes/No)

  vi.            If answer to point (v) is yes then what is the status of his pension and retirement benefits?

vii.             Whether his pension & retirement benefits has been restored partially after inquiry/ non enquiry. (Yes/No)

viii             Whether Director, TBRL refer the case of Mr. Suresh Chand to CVC besides DGR&D, DRDO for information under new  Transparency Law of Govt of India.(Yes/No)

3.              Please refer to Rule 21 of The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964: RESTRICTION REGARDING MARRIAGE and GOI MHA OM No. 219/51-Ests. Dated 16.02.1955: Procedure for dealing with requests from Government servants for permission to remarry while first wife is still living, provide following information.
 i.            Whether TBRL/DRDO received any request from Mr. Suresh Chand, CAO regarding permission to remarry while first wife is still living. (Yes/No)

ii.             If answer to point (i) above is yes then due procedure as per Rule 21 has been followed by Competent Authority in the matter. (Yes/No)

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

Regards,

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

Registration Number – MODEF/R/2013/61087

Drdo

SATYAMEV JAYATE

Leave a comment

BELIEVE ME FELLOW CITIZENS, DAYS OF CONTINUANCE OF THE SERVING CORRUPT OFFICERS OF DRDO IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE ARE VERY LIMITED AND THE COUNTDOWN HAS STARTED FOR THEIR REACHING TO THEIR RIGHTFUL PLACE OF BEHIND THE BAR PUBLIC NOTICE

All fellow honest citizens are called upon to provide information of corruption in DRDO so as to file a public interest litigation (PIL) to eradicate corruption from DRDO, Ministry of Defence.

This is a matter of great happiness to one and all that at least 10 (ten) prima-facie corrupt very senior retired scientists of DRDO are facing thorough investigation of the CBI on the approval of the Hon’ble honest Defence Minister Sh. A.K. Antony who is a beacon of hope to all honest fellow citizens. Now it has been decided by the likeminded retired and serving employees/officers of DRDO and by the interested honest fellow citizens to eradicate altogether every form of corruption from DRDO. So, I call upon all fellow honest citizens, retired and serving employees and officers of DRDO to kindly bring into the kind notice of me about the acts of corruption, criminal misconduct amounting to corruption, criminal conspiracy to commit criminal offences, breach of trust by the public servants of DRDO on the following aspects through whatever means suitable to them (i.e.through post, through email and through fax etc.).

1.      Corruption in Direct Recruitment for various posts in DRDO

(i)      Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of non-gazetted staff in admin & allied    cadre and in  DRTC cadre of DRDO.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist ‘B’ under DRDS cadre of DRDO through   scientist entry test (SET) scheme.

(iii)      Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist ‘B’ (for isolated posts) and  Scientist ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘F’,‘G’ & ‘H’ through lateral entry scheme.

(iv)     Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist under DRDS cadre through ROSA Scheme.

(v)      Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist under DRDS cadre through NRI Scheme.

(vi)     Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist under DRDS cadre through campus recruitment scheme.

(vii)   Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist under DRDS cadre by   making former teachers and guides of the candidates as members of the selection committees for direct recruitment of scientist.

(viii) Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist under DRDS cadre by   misinterpreting true meaning of the concerned SROs and by violating the express provisions of the SROs.

(ix)    Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment to any post in DRDO (particularly to the post of Scientist) from the blood and marriage relatives of senior scientists of DRDO.

2.       Corruption in promotion for various posts in DRDO

(i)      Acts and omissions of Corruption in promotion given through Limited Departmental Competitive Exam (LDCE) method to DRTC personnel.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of Corruption in promotion given to the post of Scientist ‘B’ through LDCE  method to DRTC personnel.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of Corruption in promotion to the post of  Scientist C, D, E & F done through assessment boards of RAC by not creating the documents of the marks given by each member of the assessment board or by destroying such record or by not taking into cognizance the marks of individual members of the assessment boards.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of Corruption in promotion to the post of Scientist G & H (both outstanding scientists and distinguished scientists) through peer committee review method by rejecting the recommendation of the earlier committee or by nominating favorable members in the peer review committee or by taking into consideration the fake contribution mentioned by the candidates without ascertaining the correctness of the same.

(v)     Acts and omissions of Corruption in constitution of the assessment boards for promotion of scientist to the post of scientist C, D, E & F.

(vi)    Acts and omissions of Corruption in constitution of the members of peer committee for promotion to the post of Scientist G &H.

(vii)   Acts and omissions of Corruption in promotion done by CEPTAM through assessment to various non-gazetted and gazetted posts of DRTC cadre of DRDO.

(viii) Acts and omissions of Corruption in constitution of the assessment boards for promotion done by CEPTAM through assessment to various non-gazetted and gazetted posts of DRTC cadre of DRDO.

(ix)    Acts and omissions of Corruption in making promotion in Admin & allied cadre, DRTC cadre & DRDS cadre of DRDO by violating the express provisions of the concerned SROs.

3.       Corruption in permanent absorption of deputationist and service officers against various posts in DRDO

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption in permanently absorbing the deputationist against the various posts of DRDO

(ii)     Acts and omissions of corruption in permanently absorbing the service officers in the DRDS cadre of DRDO.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of corruption in permanently absorbing service officers on the higher posts in DRDS cadre of DRDO in comparison to last post held by them in Defence forces.

4.       Corruption in making compassionate appointment in DRDO

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption by giving false reports by the board of officers in favor of some candidates and in against to some candidates.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of corruption by taking into cognizance fake certificates of some candidates and ignoring genuine certificate of some candidates.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of corruption by appointing some candidates on impersonation basis.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of corruption in making appointment by twisting and distorting the extant government policy.

5.      Corruption in handling vigilance cases and matters

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption by not implementing the standing policy of DOP&T (fully endorsed by DRDO HQ) regarding transfer of personnel and officers of DRDO holding sensitive appointments at regular interval.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of corruption on the part of director of vigilance & security of DRDO HQ by not taking into custody the original concerned record of DRDO and not submitting the same to the CVO of MOD within a maximum period of one month pertaining to complaints of vigilance nature submitted to CVC under Public interest disclosure and protection of the informer (PIDPI) resolution (colloquially-whistle blowers complaints) and forwarded to the Director of Vigilance & Security of DRDO HQ through CVO of MOD.

(iii)    Acts and omission of corruption in the form of submitting false report by the custodians of the concerned record of DRDO to the Director of Vigilance & Security pertaining to PIDPI complaints forwarded by CVC to the Director of Vigilance & Security of DRDO HQ through CVO of MOD.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of not ascertaining the correctness of the report submitted by the custodians of the record of DRDO to the Director of Vigilance & Security of DRDO HQ by Director of Vigilance & Security of DRDO HQ and forwarding the same to the CVO of MOD leading to escape of the corrupt officers of the DRDO.

6.      Corruption in giving service extensions to the senior scientist of DRDO after attaining the age of superannuation

(i)      Acts and omissions of the corruption in the form of devising separate Performa in violation of the Performa prescribed by the DOP&T and submitting the proposal to the DOP&T in the tailor-made Performa for service extension of senior scientist in DRDO after attaining the age of superannuation.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of the corruption for initiating proposals for service extension of ineligible senior scientist as per the FR 56(D), processing and getting approval of such proposals from DOP&T and from appointment committee of cabinet.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of the corruption in the form of giving false comments and false appreciations and false contributions in favor of chosen retiring senior scientists in the concerned note sheets of the concerned files so as to extend illegal service extension to some chosen scientists by misrepresenting the material facts.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of the corruption by disregarding the complaints of vigilance angle pending against some of the retiring senior scientists and pushing forward proposal for service extension to them to do irreparable loss to public interest.

7.      Corruption in making buildings and infrastructure facilities and equipping such facilities with the necessary store      items in DRDO

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption in awarding contract to particular contractors (having cartel or having an existing fake firms) for supply of stores and hiring of services for purely or mainly administrative nature of function of DRDO.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of involvement of blood and marriage relatives of high officials of DRDO as owners, as board of directors or acting as partners in the firms or contractors to whom DRDO has been giving regular supply orders.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of corruption of any kind in tendering procedures for supply of stores and hiring of services and manpower in DRDO.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of submitting inflated bills, of the store item purchased or the services hired, to the offices of DCDA (R&D).

(v)     Acts and omissions of corruption involving the colorable exercise of authority to abuse and misuse the authority vested in the capacity of senior government functionary for vested interests with regard to purchase of stores and hiring of services and manpower.

(vi)    Acts and omissions of corruption involving the cases of corruption in the form of misplaced sense of economy in purchasing stores and hiring services and manpower in DRDO.

(vii)   Acts and omissions of corruption involving any other kind of financial impropriety.

(viii) Acts and omissions of corruption by dismantling some portion of the newly constructed official buildings without actual need and to get the same renovated lavishly.

8.      Corruption in purchase of stores and in hiring of the services in DRDO exclusively or mainly on administrative nature of jobs

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption in procurement of stores and hiring of services for purely or mainly administrative nature of function of DRDO.

(jj)     Acts and omissions of corruption in awarding contract to particular contractors (having cartel or having an existing fake firms) for supply of stores and hiring of services for purely or mainly administrative nature of function of DRDO.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of involvement of blood and marriage relatives of high officials of DRDO as owners, as board of directors or acting as partners in the firms or contractors to whom DRDO has been giving regular supply orders.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of corruption of any kind in tendering procedures for supply of stores and hiring of services and manpower in DRDO.

(v)     Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of submitting inflated bills, of the store item purchased or the services hired, to the offices of DCDA (R&D).

(vi)    Acts and omissions of corruption involving the colorable exercise of authority to abuse and misuse the authority vested in the capacity of senior government functionary for vested interests with regard to
purchase of stores and hiring of services and manpower.

(vii)   Acts and omissions of corruption involving the cases of corruption in the form of misplaced sense of economy in purchasing stores and hiring services and manpower in DRDO.

(viii) Acts and omissions of corruption involving any other kind of financial impropriety.

9.      Corruption in awarding DRDO chair, chairman of the boards of DRDO and DRDO fellow

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption for initiating processing and approving the proposal for awarding DRDO chair, chairmanship of the various boards of DRDO and DRDO fellowship to undeserving candidates by misrepresenting material facts.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of corruption done by the serving senior scientists of DRDO HQ in the form of quid-pro-quo to those retired scientists in the form of awarding DRDO chair, chairmanship of the various boards and DRDO fellowship who gave clean chit in the corruption cases against the serving senior scientists.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of corruption for initiating proposals to remove the age limit of 70 years for DRDO chair to give undue advantage to chosen retired scientists like SK Salwan.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of giving DRDO chair to those retired chairman of RAC who was involved in rule making activity illegally for assessment of scientist F for promotion to the post of scientist G in 2011.

10.     Corruption in the form of misleading the parliament of India

(i)      Acts and omissions of the corruption in the form of false report submitted to either house of parliament about the successfulness of the particular project which was actually not successful.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of the corruption in the form of giving false report to either house of the parliament with regard to involvement and entrusting of Admin & allied cadre responsibilities to the scientist and technical manpower of DRDO.

11.     Miscellaneous nature of corruption in DRDO

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption in the nature of disobeying the direction of law by the senior officer of DRDO while acting in official capacity.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of corruption in the nature of breaching the trust of public in the capacity of public servants by senior scientist of DRDO violating their official capacity.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of corruption and criminal conspiracy to breach the trust of public in the capacity of public servant and to commit other criminal offences with common intention to do so.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the nature of joining those private educational or commercial concerns by the retired senior scientist of DRDO within 01 year from retirement to whom DRDO have given funds and acted in collaboration with them.

(v)     Acts and omissions of corruption in the nature of embezzlement of govt. money in DRDO in whatever manner possible.

(vi)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of misappropriation of govt. money by twisting the material facts and acting in collusion.

(vii)   Acts and omissions of corruption in the nature of false claim of TA/DA and LTC by using flyer points and charging from the govt. exchequer in the name of LTC.

(viii) Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of drawing HRA illegally while residing in govt. guest houses by the very senior functionaries of DRDO.

(ix)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of using govt. vehicle for personal uses & showing them as official usage.

(x)     Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of weekly visiting native places situated at Hyderabad and Bangalore in the pretext of official duty and charging huge amount as air fare by the very senior scientist of DRDO HQ.

(ix)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of showing false expenses in other heads of accounts for actual expenses of lakhs of rupees incurred for liquor parties and lavish dance parties arranged every year and directors’ conference in Metcalfe House, Delhi and at Development Enclave, Delhi.

(x)     Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of acquiring and amassing disproportionate movable and immovable assets by the very senior scientists contrary to their known sources of income.

(xi)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of posting and retaining unauthorized Gazetted and non-Gazetted manpower of AFHQ cadre in DRDO HQ.

(xii)   Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of illegally posting AFHQ cadre officers in the labs of DRDO at Delhi.

(xiii) Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of creation of illegal and unauthorized designations in DRDO HQ and in the labs of DRDO without the authority/approval of Finance Ministry.

(xiv) Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of willful distraction and non-maintenance of the concerned record as per the provisions of public record act 1993 so as to avoid fixation of responsibility against the illegal acts of the very senior scientists of DRDO.

(xv)   Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of allotting govt. accommodation to non-eligible persons in DRDO’s own accommodation by the Estate Managers of the EMU of DRDO.

Don’t be afraid of anything, be bold and be knowledgeable in the sense that whoever has committed criminal offences of criminal conspiracy for committing breach of trust and using and issuing fake certificate or tampering in govt. records or indulging in criminal misconduct amounting to corruption for committing any kind of criminal offences can be caught and brought to the book at any time as per the provisions of IPC 1860, Cr. PC 1973 and prevention of corruption act 1988. There is no bar of limitation act in initiating criminal case by any person for committing criminal offences by the high serving and retired functionaries of DRDO. The only thing is important is that whatever information you provide to me should be verifiable from some independent govt. document whether in your custody or not and wherever available. Don’t think that particular case of corruption in DRDO in your knowledge is some 15 years or 20 years old. Documentary evidences created during ordinary transaction of official work in DRDO are like the guided missiles in which very senior scientist of DRDO are very expert. Don’t forget that the responsibility to eradicate corruption from DRDO lies on shoulders of every stakeholder. Please do contribute in this effort of nation building for which next progeny of ours will always remember us. Fellow honest citizens of this great country are the biggest stakeholder to eradicate corruption from DRDO.

JAIHIND

Drdo

CEPTAM – 06, DRDO, Recruitment Drive RTI

4 Comments
To                                                                          Date 10th December 2013
The CPIO 
Centre for Personnel Talent Management (CEPTAM)
DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Metcalfe House
Delhi-110 054

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of CEPTAM-06.

  1. Copy of all supply orders in respect CEPTAM-06 recruitment drive, like SMS registration, Data entry and other orders.
  2. Total amount of all orders given to  M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS, Delhi after taking charge  by Shri Rajesh Goyal, DIRECTOR, CEPTAM since 01 April 2012

Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule –II.  As you aware that my complaint regarding CEPTAM-06 recruitment drive already registered with CVC vide complaint number 30714/2013/Vigilance 9.

Regards,

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

 

Registration Number – MODEF/R/2013/61070

Drdo

Fake Experience Certificate issued from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research North Campus, Delhi University

1 Comment
To                                                                                             7th December 2013
Prof. Dinesh Singh,
Vice-Chancellor
32, Chhatra Marg, Delhi University,
Delhi -7

Subject: Request for enquiry of fake experience certificate issued from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research North Campus, Delhi University

Sir,

It is observed that Ms S Geetha, submitted an experience certificate issued from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research North Campus, Delhi University, for the post of Scientist ‘C’ in DRDO. The signature on certificate is of PROF. VANI BRAHMACHARI.

Photocopy of experience certificate is enclosed herewith for your ready reference, which has been obtained from recruitment assessment center, DRDO by RTI request.

Photocopy of Ms S Geetha’s application is also enclosed herewith for your ready reference in which she mentioned that she worked as research assistant for 38 days in Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research North Campus, Delhi University and received amount @ Rs 5000/month.

Photocopy of RTI reply from Registrar, Delhi University in respect of said experience certificate is enclosed herewith for your ready reference. In this reply PROF. VANI BRAHMACHARI denied having ever worked with anyone named Ms S Geetha.

It is requested that please set an enquiry as per University Rules and regulation to find out the truth and punish the culprits so that this scientific & technocrat mafia who are working to oblige each other and thereby  fooling the countrymen, stop their corrupt practices.  The deserving and bright candidates consequently loose the opportunity to serve the nation.

Ms S Geetha is daughter of ex Chief Controller, DRDO Dr W Selvamurthy. Recently on 29th October 2013 Defence Minister recommended CBI inquiry against top DRDO officials and Dr W Selvamurthy is one of them. The recommended CBI inquiry is for investigating the corrupt practices prevailing in RAC (Recruitment & Assessment Center) of DRDO. Ms S Geetha was also recruited direct as scientist ‘C’ with criminal conspiracy.

It is also requested that please observe closely the associations of your faculties with DRDO in various projects and their participation as experts in recruitments and project review committee.

Regards

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

Enclosed

1.       Ms Geetha experience Certificate issued by PROF. VANI BRAHMACHARI
2.       RTI reply by Registrar Delhi University 

geetha' experince certificate
Copy of experience certificate issued by PROF. VANI BRAHMACHARI
reply from Registrar, Delhi University in respect of Mrs S Geetha's experience certificate
Reply of RTI  from Registrar, Delhi University in respect of Mrs S Geetha’s experience certificate

 

Drdo

RTI- Hindustan University – DRDO

1 Comment

To                                                                                                          Date 5th December 2013    The CPIO, DRDO HQ                                                                                                                      Room No. 314A                                                                                                                          DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg                                                                                                        New Delhi – 110105


Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Hindustan University, P.O.Box No.1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR),Padur, (Via) Kelambakkam, Chennai – 603 103, India

1.Please provide total amount of funds granted to  Hindustan University, P.O.Box No.1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR),Padur, (Via) Kelambakkam, Chennai – 603 103, India since April 2008 to March 2013 for various purposes.

2.Name of scientists of DRDO who enroll for PhD since April 2008 to March 2013.

3. Name of scientists of DRDO who joined Hindustan University

4. Copy of NOC, Copy of No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment has   been obtained from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired. Copy of vigilance clearance from the competent authority of Dr. Ilavazhagan Govindasamy, Director (Research) at Hindustan University, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, India

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

Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule II. As you aware the recruitment case of Mrs T Chandra banu, Scientist ‘F’, DRDO Hqrs (wife of Dr. Ilavazhagan Govindasamy) has been recommended for CBI inquiry by honorable Sh A K Antony, Defence Minister on 29th October 2013.

Regards

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

 Registration Number – MODEF/R/2013/61035

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.”

Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials