Tag Archives: 2009

Drdo

Army’s fleet of Arjun tanks face technical issues; major proportion of 124 tanks in service not operational

Leave a comment

By Manu Pubby, ET Bureau | 30 Apr, 2015, 04.50AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Army is facing major technical issues with its ‘indigenous’ Arjun tanks, as a significant proportion of its fleet has become inoperable in recent months and are non-serviceable due to continued maintenance problems.

The Army, which reluctantly inducted 124 tanks from 2009, after the UPA government insisted that a token number have to be ordered to keep the tank development programme viable, has of late been having quality problems with the fleet.

The defence minister has been apprised of the issue. Sources said that the Army’s opinion is that while a large number of tanks are not operational due to technical defects, the fleet as such is not combat worthy due to reliability issues. “A number of tanks are not operational currently as transfer of technology (ToT) of several imported systems fitted onboard has not been done,” an Army official said.

The Army is surprised that quality issues have started arising even though the entire fleet came into service as recently as 2013 when deliveries ended. Given that the tanks are highly dependent on foreign equipment — 60% of the tank is imported — the failure to get maintenance technology means that the systems have to be sent abroad for even minor repairs.

It is believed that a meeting on the low serviceability rate of the Arjun fleet was conducted at South Block recently and Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar is aware of the problems. The Army has identified 96 problems, including 18 major ones. The minister has been keen to increase the efficiency of existing platforms available with the military given that there is a paucity of funds to procure new systems.

In IAF, he has personally intervened to ensure that the availability rate of the Su 30 fleet improves by at least 10%. A similar approach is being taken for the Army too. DRDO is, meanwhile, working on the development of a successor in the form of the Arjun Mk II.

Drdo

Appeal for Justice -Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware Ex TO’B’, HEMRL, Pune

11 Comments

Modi ji make a separate department to handle DRDO’s cases, grievances, corruptions cases and lot of inputs are flowing to PMO

From:

Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware                                                                                                        (Ex TO’B’, HEMRL,Pune)                                                                                                                 A- 11, Vijayraj Sankul,Near Medipoint Hospital,                                                                         P. Road, Aundh, Pune- 411 007.                                                                                                     M: 9423015022, Resi.: 020-2729888                                                                                           Email          : rohidas.taware@yahoo.com

To                                             Date:  10th Dec. 2014                                               Hon’ble Shri. Narendra Modi,                                                                                             Prime Minister, Room No.152,                                                                                                       PMO, South Block, New Delhi-110011.

Subject:     ‘Appeal for Justice’.

Respected Sir,

Very humbly, I submit as under:

  1. I, Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware was working as a Group ‘A’ Gazetted officer with designation Technical Officer ‘B’ in High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune- 411021, DRDO, Ministry of Defence. My educational qualification is M.Sc., Ph.D., MBA, PGDEE (Post Graduate Diploma in Ecology and Environment). I have completed 27 years’ of satisfactory service in HEMRL. My entire service record is spotlessly clean.

I hail from a much respected family. My father was a Freedom Fighter and a brave soldier of Azad Hind Sena.

  1. I had submitted timely my grievances to Dr. A Subhananda Rao, Director, HEMRL, Pune regarding my harassment. But no cognizance was taken by him.

I made earnest ‘Appeal for Justice’ on 09.01.2008 to the Director of Personnel (DoP), DRDO, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi regarding my grievances along with supporting documents. I had written a letter on 04.05.2009 to DoP regarding my ‘Harassment by Ostracism’ in HEMRL, Pune. The DoP, too, did not take any cognizance of my grievances and harassment.                          

  1. Instead of considering the gravity of my grievances and harassment by ostracism, Dr. Arun Kumar, the Director of Personnel, all of a sudden, suspended me on 08.2009 by fax order. So, I lodged my protest on 26.08.2009 against the illegal suspension order issued by the DoP.
  1. There is a big conspiracy in DoP office of DRDO from my suspension to dismissal from the service. The Director, HEMRL gave false information to DoP that I was involved in “High-Handed Anti- Departmental Activities”, “the Laboratory has come to a stand still vulnerable position”, “the working of the Laboratory is badly dislocated” and “all officers are in demoralized state”.

The DoP office without any preliminary Inquiry proceeded against me and arranged for my suspension and further dismissal. Thus, the Director HEMRL and DoP joined hands against me and were bent upon to see that I was dismissed from service on 30.12.2010 for the reasons best known to them. The suspension to dismissal charges are not related to each other. Further, penalty of dismissal is horribly disproportionate to the charges leveled against me.

  1. The charges leveled against me for my dismissal like ‘tone and tenor of letter’ are trifling, false and fictitious.
  2. I wish to point out legal points regarding my suspension to dismissal which show that how the Principles of Natural Justice were blatantly violated.
  1. Two separate Memoranda, two separate Disciplinary Inquiries.
  2. Second Inquiry initiated for alleged misconduct during my suspension period when I was not on duty.
  3. Two separate Penalties simultaneously, First Minor & Second Major.
  4. Second penalty was awarded without cancelling first penalty.
  5. No revocation of suspension when first minor penalty was awarded.
  6. Second penalty of Dismissal awarded while under suspension.
  7. Both the penalties horribly disproportionate to the charges.
  8. All the orders from suspension to dismissal illegal. Approval from Rajya Raksha Mantri (RRM) taken instead of Raksha Mantri. Signatory to the orders not authorized under Art.77(2) of the Constitution.          
  1. After dismissal order, I have done a lot of correspondence with the Competent Authority of DRDO for my illegal suspension, illegal punishments including my dismissal and for the settlement of Government dues i.e. rightful amount. But no cognizance was taken by them. This is also the intentionally harassment of me and my family.
  1. I had submitted ‘Appeal for Justice’ to the Competent Authority of the DRDO for my grievances and harassment. But instead of taking any cognizance, suitable action or giving any justice for the same, they have horribly punished me.

It means, ‘Asking for Justice is a Crime’ in DRDO! The Competent Authority of DRDO unnecessarily constrained me to file a various suits in the Hon’ble Courts for the Justice. After the dismissal order, I am jobless. I am highly qualified with 27 years well experienced officer from DRDO but disqualified for any service in the society because of my additional qualification is ‘Dismissal’ which was illegally and unauthorized awarded by the Competent Authority of DRDO. Hence, in all respect, this is very serious harassment and punishment for me.

  1. Sir, I have mentioned all the above irregularities and illegalities, involved in my suspension to dismissal, for your perusal please. I pray and request you to look in to the case and give me justice.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

Place: Pune

Date: 10.12.2014                                                               (Dr. R G Taware)                                                                                                                                                      Pune

Encl.:  Copies of Noting Sheets &Orders   : 13 pages

(Suspension to Dismissal)

Copy to,

Hon’ble Shri. Manohar Parrikar,                                                                                       Defence Minister,Room No. 104,                                                                                                    South Block,New Delhi -110011.

Drdo

Agni 5, India’s Longest Range Ballistic Missile, Successfully Test-Fired – NDTV

Leave a comment

NEW DELHI: India today successfully test-launched Agni-5, its longest range ballistic missile, for the third time off the Odisha coast. The missile was launched from a canister from Wheeler Island, giving it higher road mobility.

The three stage, solid propellant “missile was test-fired from a mobile launcher from the launch complex-4 of the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at about 8.06 hours,” ITR Director M V K V Prasad said.

“The missile, witnessed a flawless ‘auto launch’ and detailed results will be known after all data retrieved from different radars and network systems,” he added.

With a range of 5000 km, the nuclear-capable missile can carry a warhead in the east as far as all of China and in the west all over Europe.

The three-stage missile is about 17 metres long and weighs 50 tons. The first rocket engine takes it to a height of about 40 kilometres. The second stage pushes it to about 150 kilometres. The third stage takes it to about 300 kilometres above the Earth. And the missile finally reaches a height of about 800 kilometres.
The missile travels faster than a bullet and can carry 1000 kilogram of nuclear weapon. It can be launched only on direct orders from the Prime Minister; India hopes it turns out to be a weapon of peace not war.

Unlike other missiles of Agni series, the latest one ‘AGNI-5’, is most advanced having some new technologies incorporated with it in terms of navigation and guidance, warhead and engine, Mr Prasad said.

India carried out two successful tests of the basic version of Agni-5 in 2012 and 2013.

The development of Agni-5 began in 2009 and according to DRDO it will likely be inducted in 2015.

Agni-5 gives India the ability to launch nuclear weapons from land at will from anywhere in India. It will give India the ability to hit back or have second-strike capability even after a nuclear strike.

It was also a super charged farewell gift for DRDO chief Avinash Chander who retires today. India’s Integrated Missile Programme has been a resounding success with the Agni missiles giving the country a credible nuclear deterrence. As a scientist and team leader, Dr Avinash Chander has achieved significant success in his work.

 

 

Drdo

रक्षा उपकरणों के परीक्षण ही बने सेना की फांस

Leave a comment

जागरण ब्यूरो, नई दिल्ली : रासायनिक हमले व हथियारों की जांच के लिए खरीदे गए विदेशी उपकरण सेना की फांस बन गए हैं। सारा पेंच उपकरणों की खरीद से पहले और बाद में कराए गए परीक्षणों के नतीजों को लेकर है। कंपनी और सेना मुख्यालय के बीच सौदे की परफार्मेस बैंक गारंटी को मामले के निपटारे तक बढ़ाने पर रजामंदी बन पाई है।

सूत्रों के मुताबिक उपकरणों की खरीद से पहले अंतरराष्ट्रीय प्रयोगशाला में हुए परीक्षणों को स्वीकार कर लिया गया था। हालांकि, बाद में सेना ने रक्षा अनुसंधान और विकास संगठन की प्रयोगशाला (डीआरडीओ) में भी इसकी जांच की। डीआरडीओ के नतीजे ही इस विवाद की जड़ हैं, क्योंकि इसके बाद ही सेना ने उपकरणों को तापमान और आद्र्रता के पैमानों पर निष्प्रभावी करार दिया।

उपकरण निर्माता फिनलैंड की कंपनी इनवायरॉनिक्स डीआरडीओ की प्रयोगशाला में हुए परीक्षण को चुनौती दे रही है। कंपनी अंतरराष्ट्रीय प्रयोगशाला में इसके परीक्षण को लेकर भी हीला-हवाली कर रही है। यह सवाल अहम है कि आखिर किन परीक्षणों के आधार पर उपकरणों की खरीद को हरी झंडी दी गई। साथ ही खरीद से पहले डीआरडीओ प्रयोगशाला में परीक्षण क्यों नहीं किए गए?

इस सवालों पर सेना मुख्यालय की चुप्पी के बीच करोड़ों रुपये की खरीद अब बेकार हो गई है। भारत ने 2009 और 2010 में करोड़ों रुपये की लागत से जहरीले रसायनों का पता लगाने वाले उपकरण खरीदे थे।

chempro 100i I dainik Jagran 21 Nov 2014

Budgetary Price approximately $9,500 

Purchase Price – Rs 100000/- each in bulk purchase                                                (more than $ 16000/each)

Army has purchased instrument ICAD Chempro 100i (Qty: 999 No’s, Make: Environics) against contract nos B/28704/NBC-4C/ICAD/GS/WE-6 Dated 23 Jun 2009 and B/28704/NBC-4C/Option/ICAD/GS/WE-6 dated 26 Mar 2010 for approximately 100 Crore (INR). This instrument detects the chemical warfare agents and is of utmost importance for the defence services. Having cleared the payment after the delivery, it was found that all these instruments failed to perform as per the specification and have technical problems. It is evident from the letter enclosed that performance related issues were raised in Nov 2012 and since then no action has been taken. Few officials are trying to cover up the issue by changing the specification instead of taking 100 Crore back.

As per the information gathered from the sources, these instruments were first purchased by   M P Kaushik from DRDE Gwalior (A DRDO Laboratory and Nodal Agency in Chemical Warfare). Satisfactory working certificate were given to the company and payment was cleared. Later Army gave the contract. It seems that with the help of M P Kaushik few official of army has executed this act.

chempPro 100 hand held chemical detector

Environics's reply regarding non function of Chempro100i
Environics’s reply regarding non function of Chempro100i
chempro 100i I dainik Jagran 21 Nov 2014
Environics’s reply regarding non function of Chempro 100i
mp
Prof. Dr M P Kaushik,Director,DRDE, DRDO, Gwalior

Chemical Warfare Agents result from Chem Pro 110

Drdo

Request to PM for DEEMED SUSPENSION OF DR. G. MALKONDIAH, DS AND CCR&D (HR), DRDO AS under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965

4 Comments
To                                                                                                                         6th October 2014
Hon’ble
Shri Narendra Modi,
Prime Minister of India,
Room N0 -152, PMO, South Block,
New Delhi-110011

 

SUBJECT:  DEEMED SUSPENSION OF DR. G. MALKONDIAH, DS AND CCR&D (HR), DRDO AS under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965

Hon’ble Sir,

Hon’ble Madras High Court Judgment dated 24 Sept 2014 in Contempt Petition No.1711 of 2012 inW.P.No.13067 of 2005 and Sub Appln.No.602 of 2012 in which Dr. G Malkondiah, Distinguished Scientist and Chief Controller Research & Development (HR & TM) was one of the respondents. By the order dated 24 Sept 2014, Hon’ble Court pronounced following order:

Para 40 of judgement – Therefore, we propose to impose punishment of sentence of imprisonment onthe respondents 2 and 3 for their wilful disobedience of this Court’s order. In the facts of this case, we feel that merely imposing fine on the second and third respondents would be inadequate and ends of justice would be served, only if they are awarded imprisonment and fine.

Para 41 of judgement – In the result, respondents 2 and 3 are held guilty for civil contemptunder Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and they are punished with Simple Imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- each personally. The Government is directed to take appropriate departmental action against them for the reckless negligence and wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, which lead to insurmountable sufferingsfor the petitioner for more than a decade.

Para 42 of judgement –  The contemnors are directed to surrender for undergoing the punishment of imprisonment within one week from today, failing which the Registry is directed to issue warrant of commitment to prison for undergoing the sentence imposed upon them.

Para 43 of judgement- By this order, the issue has not come to an end and the liability ofthe petitioners/contemnors in W.P.No.13067 of 2005 to comply with the orderdated 30.04.2009, does not abate. Therefore, they are directed to comply with the order forthwith.

  1. Dr. G. Malkondiah has been punished with simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Therefore Dr. G. Malkondiah, CCR&D (HR&TM) has been convicted by Hon’ble Madras High Court for civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
  1. Hon’ble Madras High Court stated in their order “A sleeping man can be woken, but not a man who pretends to sleep. Here the Contemnors belong to the latter category and they can never be woken up unless orders in this Contempt Application are passed. Therefore, we hold that the second and thirds respondents have wilfully committed contempt of the order of this Court dated 30.04.2009 in W.P.No.13067 of 2005 as affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court”.
  1. Provisions of Rule 10.(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 reproduced here for ready reference:

(2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority –

(a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours;

(b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.

  1. Provisions of Rule 10(5)(a) CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 reproduced here for ready reference:

(5)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shallcontinue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authoritycompetent to do so.

  1. Therefore, under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) , Dr. G. Malkondiah is now under deemed suspension wef 24.09.2014 and his deemed suspension shall remain continued  until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.
  1. The formal orders of deemed suspension has not been issued till date by the authority competent to do so in MOD and he is continue as CCR&D(HR&TM).
  1. Vide [G.I. , MHA, Letter  No. 39/72/51-Ests., dated the 23rd October 1951] and [G.I. , MHA, O.M. No. 25/70/49-Ests., dated the 26th December, 1949], conviction of Government servants to be promptly communicated to administrative authorities. Whether Dr. G Malkondiah has informed to authority competent so about his conviction or not, is matter of investigation by the competent authority, if not then it will be regarded as suppression of material information and will render him liable to disciplinary action on this ground alone.
  1. Under the provisions of Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, the authority competent to do so in case of Dr. G. Malkondiah, should take necessary action as per rules.
  1. Dr. G. Malkondiah challenged the said order dated 24.09.2014 of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court vide civil appeal D No. 31977/2014 dated 25 Sept 2014.
  2. The hearing of the civil appeal D No. 31977/2014 along with civil appeal D No. 31978/2014 took place at Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.09.2014 and Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the order dated 24.09.2014 of Hon’ble Madras High Court in contempt petition no. 1711/2012.
  3. Dr. G. Malkondiah knowingly victimizing & mentally torturing the employee of minority community since past ten years by misusing his official position and deliberately disobeying the Court orders. Hon’ble Madras High Court makes comment on his act as “wilful disobedience of Court orders “. This act of Dr. G. Malkondiah is of moral turpitude and should not be ignored by authority competent to do so.
  4. Dr. G. Malkondiah, Distinguished Scientist, took over as Chief Controller R&D (HR) at DRDO HQ on January 01, 2013. As matter of fact Directorate of Personnel (DOP) report to CCR&D (HR) and all legal matters of DRDO be taken care by DOP under CCR&D (HR). Thereby Dr. G. Malkondiah misused his official position to satisfy his ego by contemning the Hon’ble Court order and on the other hand victimizing the man of minority community who was unemployed since the year 2004. Thereby Dr. G. Malkondiah wasted lakhs of rupees from public fund in fighting the cases from Hon’ble Tribunal to Hon’ble Supreme Court since 2004 to 2014.

Therefore, in light of the facts stated above suitable disciplinary action may kindly be initiated by Government against Dr. G. Malkondiah, CCR&D(HR&TM), DRDO and he should be placed under deemed suspension by written order by the competent authority so that  justice and rule of law could be establish in DRDO.

Regards

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

Annexures:

  1. GOI OM 23 October 1951 under Rule 19 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965
  2. SC order dated 25.09.2014
  3. SC order dated 26.09.2014cca rulesITEM NO.56                              COURT NO.4               SECTION XII

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Civil Appeal Diary No(s).                 31977/2014

     G MALAKONDIAH                                                                Appellant(s)

    VERSUS

      S. JOSEPH RAJ AND ORS                                              

    Respondent(s)

    (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and permission to file appeal. And office report)

    WITH C.A. D 31978/2014

    (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and appln.(s) for permission to file appeal. and Office Report)

    Date : 26/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

    CORAM :

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT

     

    For Appellant(s)                  Mr.   Mukul Rohtagi, AG

                                        Mr.   R. Bala, Adv.

                                        Mr.   R.K. Verma, Adv.

                                        Mr.   B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.

      For Respondent(s)                 Mr. V. Balaji,Adv.

                                        Mr. Asai Thambi, Adv.

                                        Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv.

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

    O R D E R

    Permission to file appeal is granted.Perused the photocopy of the certified copy of the order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Signature Not Verified Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711 of 2012.

    Digitally signed by

    Rajni Mukhi

    Date: 2014.09.29

    12:12:10 IST

    Reason: Petitioner is allowed two weeks’ time to file affidavit enclosing the copy of the said order.

    Notice be issued on respondents returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

    Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1.   He may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder   Affidavit, if any, be filed   within a week thereafter.

    In the meantime, the order dated 24 th September, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711/2012 arising out of Writ Petition No. 13067/2005 and sub Application No. 602 of 2012 shall remain stayed.

    (Rajni Mukhi)                                    (H.S. Parasher)

    Sr. P.A.                                                       Court Master

Drdo

Ex-DRDO Chief Gets Jail Sentence

2 Comments

By T S Sekaran Published: 26th September 2014 The New Indian Express

CHENNAI: Dr V K Saraswat, former Scientific Adviser to the Minister of Defence and Director General, DRDO and Dr G Malakondaiah, former Director of DMRL in Hyderabad have been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks by the Madras High Court for not obeying the court’s orders passed way back in in 2009.

A division bench of justices S Rajeswaran and P N Prakash awarded the punishment while allowing a contempt application from S Joseph Raj, on Wednesday.

Raj lost his job as the school in which he was working as a librarian was closed. Holding that he was not a Central government employee, the government refused to reinstate him. Confirming the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, a division bench of the Madras High Court had directed the government to consider Raj for the post of Senior Technical Assistant.

Contending that this order had not been complied with, Raj filed the present contempt petition. “Even though an appointment order had been issued on July 14, 2009 to Joseph Raj, the duo did not allow him to join duty. Thereafter, they suppressed this fact before the Supreme Court. Therefore, we find that the duo have wilfully disobeyed the orders of this court,” the court said in its order.

Drdo

DRDO Hqrs Not Having Capabilities to Manage Fake/ Unrecognized Diploma /Degree Business – VI

1 Comment
To,                                                                                   7th February 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011                             

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to  your RTI reply RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0387 dated 27th December 2013 regarding  on acquiring higher qualification by DRDO officials at their own. As per details provide by DRDO RTI cell the following DRDO official acquired their qualification from Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University. As per Orissa High Court order in respect of W.P.(c) No. 16718 of 2013 1 & Misc. Case No. 15613 of 2013 Tirthabasi Pradhan vs Union of India on 6 September, 2013

Stated that  “ genuineness of his B.Tech degree is doubted. The Diploma awarded by JRN University, through Distance Education mode has not been approved by UGC, AICTE and DEC as required by the meeting dated 04.06.2009 held at 11 A.M. in the Board Room of IGNOU Maidan Garhri.  

The petitioner failed to produce any letter of approval issued by the Joint Committee jointly signed by the Secretary, UGC, Member Secretary AICTE and Director DEC in respect of courses offered by JRN University, Rajasthan.

Refer to DOP&T O.M. No. 1/2/89 – Estt. (Pay-I) dated 9-4-1999 para -3

“The qualifications meriting grant of incentive should be recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education, Department of Electronics, Deemed University, University or recognised by the Government”

In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to get any interim protection and accordingly the misc. case is dismissed.

  1. Sh Rakesh Kumar Soni, STA ‘C’   acquired B.Tech (Chemical Engineering)  from  JRN University, Rajasthan, date of grant 13 July 2012 Sno.79 of RTI reply No RTI/01/2091/P/2013 dated 27 Dec 2013.
  2. Sh Shankar K N, STA ‘C’ LRDE acquired B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) in 12 Jan 2013 from  JRN University, Rajasthan.
  3. Sh Amit Chawla, STA ‘B’ LASTEC acquired B.Tech (Electro & Comm Engineering) in 16 August 2012 from  JRN University, Rajasthan (Till date Sh Amit Chawla has not submit any proof of appearing B.Tech like any Fee receipt, any date sheet, any leave records for appearing examination etc.)

In respect of above please provide following information.

  1. The certified copy of verification before approving lump sum grant of incentive to above officials.
  2. Certified copy of recommendation for lump sum grant of incentive received by competent authority from their respective establishments.

Note : Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1)

Regards
Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,  

 

Registration Number            MODEF/R/2014/60251

Orissa High Court

Tirthabasi Pradhan vs Union of India on 6 September, 2013

W.P.(c) No. 16718 of 2013 1

Misc. Case No. 15613 of 2013

Para

In the case of Parshavnath Charitable Trust & Ors. Vs. AICTE & Ors., (2013) 3 SCC 385, the petitioner is not entitled to any interim relief. Assuming that the petitioner is eligible to take admission in M.Tech, such admission cannot be granted after the cutoff date, i.e., after 15.08.2013. But fact remains that the petitioner is not eligible to take admission in M.Tech. course as genuineness of his B.Tech degree is doubted. The Diploma awarded by JRN University, through Distance Education mode has not been approved by UGC, AICTE and DEC as required by the meeting dated 04.06.2009 held at 11 A.M. in the Board Room of IGNOU Maidan Garhri. The AICTE has already published a Public Notice for existing students/prospective students pursuing/wanting to pursue the education through Distance Mode under AICTE, UGC and DEC, thereby advising to check the approval by Joint Committee of DEC, UGC and AICTE in the Web Portal of AICTE. If the institution has not been approved by the Joint Committee, the qualifications acquired by the students of such institution are not approved by the AICTE. It is the public policy of the AICTE not to recognize such Certificates acquired by the students as per the aforesaid Notification.

The Deemed University concerned in the present case does not have the recognition from joint Committee consisting of UGC, AICTE and DEC after 2005. Moreover, the JRN University does not have AICTE approval for the programmes/courses offered by it in technical/professional subjects which are exclusively covered under the AICTE Act, 1987. Unless the programmes/courses are approved by AICTE, the BPUT cannot accept such courses and allow the students to enter into the BPUT system to prosecute their higher studies. Apparently, the courses and programmes taken by the student from JRN University is incomplete and the degrees/diplomas/ certificates issued by such University are all defective and illegal.

12 (b) Secondly, the minutes of the meeting on the issue of recognition of diploma awarded by JRN University by Distance Education Council held on 4.6.2009, inter alia, contains the following :

“The AICTE nominee informed that they have not recognized the diploma in engineering course offered by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeetha. Further the AICTE nominee informed the members that AICTE does not accord recognition to technical programmes offered through distance mode and till date they have got (sic) given any approval to start any technical programme through distance education. AICTE Council has recommended not to start any programme through distance education except MBA, MCA and DBM.”

The minutes of the meeting further contains the relevant Clause of the MoU signed between UGC, AICTE and DEC as under :

” Based on the recommendations of Joint

Committee, the letter of approval may be issued by the Joint Committee. The letter should explicitly state. This has the approval of UGC/AICTE and DEC. The letter should be jointly signed by Secretary, UGC Member Secretary, AICTE and Director, DEC.”

The petitioner failed to produce any letter of approval issued by the Joint Committee jointly signed by the Secretary, UGC, Member Secretary AICTE and Director DEC in respect of courses offered by JRN University, Rajasthan.

9. Law is well-settled that education is national wealth. Merit and excellence assume special significance in the context of professional studies. Selection for admission is necessarily to be merit based. Merit of the student is sole criteria and there is no substitution of it.

10. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to get any interim protection and accordingly the misc. case is dismissed.

B.N. Mahapatra,J.

ssd

Drdo

DRDO Hqrs Not Having Capabilities to Manage Fake/ Unrecognized Diploma /Degree Business – II

1 Comment
To,                                                                               3rd  February 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011                           

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to  your RTI reply RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0387 dated 27th December 2013 regarding  on acquiring higher qualification by DRDO officials at their own. As per details provide by DRDO RTI cell the following DRDO official acquired their qualification from Jawharlal  Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. The website of Jawharlal  Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad stated in their website that “ the school was offering B.Tech correspondence – cum – contact programme (CCC) from 1983 to 2009. Keeping in view of the ACITE guidelines for B.Tech (CCC) has been suspended since 2010.”

Refer to DOP&T O.M. No. 1/2/89 – Estt. (Pay-I) dated 9-4-1999 para -3

“The qualifications meriting grant of incentive should be recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education, Department of Electronics, Deemed University, University or recognised by the Government”

  1. Sh. Siyaram, STA ‘B’  RCI acquired B Tech Mech Engg in 1 June 2010 from JNTU, Hyderabad
  2. Shri A Venkateshwara Rao, STA ‘B’ DRDL, acquired B Tech Mech Engg in 1 August 2010 from JNTU, Hyderabad
  3. Sh. G Venkatesh STA ‘, DMRL acquired B Tech Civil Engg in 7 March 2012 from JNTU, Hyderabad
  4. Sh. B Baludu, TO’A’ RCI, acquired B Tech Mech. Engg in 7 March 2012 from JNTU, Hyderabad

In respect of above please provide following information.

  1. The certified copy of verification before approving lump sum grant of incentive to above officials.
  2. Certified copy of recommendation for lump sum grant of incentive received by competent authority from their respective establishments.
  3. Copy of DRDO’s procedure followed for verification of Degree’s/Diploma/M.Sc/ Ph D

Note : Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1)

Regards

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

Registration Number            – MODEF/R/2014/60222

jntu

 

RTI  http://bit.ly/1lwUyBO  Reply from DRDO

RTI reply RTI reply1 RTI reply2 RTI reply3 RTI reply4 RTI reply5 RTI reply6 RTI reply7 RTI reply8 RTI reply9 RTI reply10

Drdo

DRDO makes own rules on pay scales

2 Comments

Jatinder Kaur Tur,TNN | Jan 14, 2014, 02.34 AM IST

HYDERABAD: Sixteen months after it was pulled up for sanctioning projects without the approval of the government, the Hyderabad-based Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has done it again. This time, the premier defence research establishment has amended the pay scales of its employees on its own in violation of the rules and without the approval of the Union finance ministry.

Documents in possession of TOI show that DRDO amended or upgraded the Grade Pay of Technical Officer ‘A’ from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800. The defence organization effected the hike in 2009 with retrospective effect from 2006 and it came to the knowledge of the Union finance ministry in April 2012 through a query raised under the Right To Information (RTI) Act. A furious finance ministry then held that the order was ‘irregular’ and sought a strong-worded explanation from DRDO. The defence organization was also directed to withdraw the higher pay scale already granted to its Technical Officers.

But what followed was hilarious! In response to the reprimand from the Centre, DRDO reportedly sought retrospective permission for amending the Grade Pay scales. At this, an even furious finance ministry turned down the request in a strongly worded letter saying that the “arrangement was irregular, contrary to the accepted recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and in violation of allocation and transaction of business rules since it had been undertaken suo motu without reference, much less concurrence.”

The finance ministry also rubbished the claims of DRDO that this was done to maintain ‘relative hierarchy of Senior Technical Assistants (STA ‘C’) vis-a-vis Technical Officers ‘A’. DRDO was reminded that 6th CPC’s recommendations were aimed at de-layering the government and that ensuring the same ‘relative hierarchies’ as existed before the CPC awards defied the very purpose of rationalisation/standardization of pay scales attempted by successive Pay Commissions. At the end, DRDO was once again asked to withdraw the orders.

And now, DRDO in an attempt to cover up its administrative blunder, has distressed its more than 1,100 such technical officers across its 52 laboratories of which almost 124 promotees have already retired. In December 2013, DRDO not only downgraded these officers of DRDO Research and Technical Cadre, but also asked these officials to appear for special review and assessment and interview schedule in addition to the recovery of money so paid to them.

Meanwhile, the aggrieved officials maintain that it took them five years residential period and rigorous assessment tests to earn technical officers promotions from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800 grade. The DRTC Officers Association has reportedly urged defence minister A K Antony to bring the erring officers to book. These officials have been asked to return money to the tune of Rs 1,000 to Rs 5,000 earned monthly all these years as a result of this increased grade pay.

This was the second instance that DRDO has been found indulging in arbitrary functioning. About 16 months ago, a clandestine audit conducted by the Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) on the instructions of defence minister Antony, found major anomalies in DRDO’s arbitrary functioning. The defence organization was found guilty of sanctioning projects without government approval etc.

When asked about the developments, DRDO director general Avinash Chander said “while following the orders, the defence organization is trying to find a solution to the problem and issues raised by the technical officers issue.” Dr G Malakondaiah, chief controller, R&D (HR) at DRDO, while refusing to comment upon the orders in the past, said attempts are on to find a way out of the situation stemming out of the technical officers’ pay scale issue.

Curious case of pay hikes

In violation of rules and without the approval of the Union finance ministry, DRDO has amended the pay scales of its employees in 2009

The premier defence research establishment upgraded the Grade Pay of Technical Officer ‘A’ from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800 with a retrospective effect from 2006

After coming to know about it in April 2012, the Union finance ministry reprimanded the DRDO and directed it to withdraw the ‘hikes.’ In response, DRDO sought a retrospective permission from the finance ministry instead

A furious finance ministry then held that the order was ‘irregular’ and sought a strong-worded explanation from DRDO

DRDO in an attempt to cover up its administrative blunder, has distressed more than 1,100 technical officers across its 52 laboratories of which almost 124 promotees have already retired.

Drdo

Defence estate officer gets 2-yr RI for accepting bribe

Leave a comment

Express News Service : Pune, Tue Sep 03 2013, 01:58 hrs

A special CBI court on Monday sentenced a former defence estate officer (DEO), Pune Circle, to two-year rigorous imprisonment (RI) for accepting a bribe of Rs 50,000 from a retired chartered account who wanted his son’s name entered on government land records in 2009.

Special judge (CBI) Sudhakar Yarlagadda also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on Nadikattu Srinivasa Reddy (51), a resident of Pune Camp.

The case was investigated by CBI inspectors N M Parab and Alok Sinha. Special Public Prosecutors Vivek Saxena and Ayyub Pathan examined 10 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. Retired chartered accountant Shapoor Homi Irani, a resident of Kondhwa Road, had lodged a complaint.

As per Irani’s complaint, Reddy had demanded Rs 5 lakh to enter his son’s name with respect to their two bungalows on Castellino Road in the Camp area.

Following his mother’s death, Irani had filed an application in February 2009 seeking mutation entry of the bungalows in favor of his son Bahram. However, the process was delayed and Irani met Reddy who asked for bribe on October 6, 2009. Irani lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), CBI, Pune. A verification of the bribe demand made by Reddy before witnesses revealed he had asked Irani to pay Rs 3 lakh as the first installment and Rs 2 lakh later. The conversation was also recorded for evidence.

CBI officials, who had laid a trap near Reddy’s office-cum-residence on Rajendra Sinhji Road, caught him receiving bribe red-handed from Irani.

A case was registered against Reddy under the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A search at his residence had led to the recovery of about Rs 3.67 lakh in cash, documents of immovable properties owned by him and wife, a locker key, gold and silver ornaments worth over Rs 10 lakh and investment certificates of over Rs 4 lakh.