Indo-Asian News Service | Updated: December 28, 2010 18:47 IST
Agra: India’s first indigenously-developed balloon-mounted radar that will greatly enhance the surveillance capabilities of the armed forces has been successfully launched.
The aerostat radar was launched from a military compound and will remain at a height of about one kilometre for the next two or three days. All its systems are working satisfactorily, Sudhir Gupta, the project director said.
The helium-filled aerostat has night vision cameras and sound recorders, weighs around 300 kg, and can be reused.
Gupta said the aerostat can survey areas upto 20 km away and with advanced cameras, its range can go beyond 100 km.
At the initiative of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Agra based Aerial Delivery Research Development Establishment designed and fabricated the high-tech platform.
The aerostat will be used for communication and surveillance. The platform integrates high-end technology, aerodynamics, balloon techniques, hydraulics and high-pressure cylinder technology, according to the scientists involved in the project.
The Indian army and air force hitherto rely on Israeli aerostats that are deployed along the country’s western borders but the Indian version would be a cheaper option. They supplement the efforts of the air force’s airborne warning and control systems (AWACS) that fly at a much greater height.
NEW DELHI: Probing the Tatra trucks procurement scam, the Central Bureau of Investigation is carrying out a background check on Lt Gen (Retd) Tejinder Singh as it prepares to question him later this week. The agency, sources said, has asked the defence ministry to provide all details related to Lt Gen Singh – files, his meetings and people who frequently met him. Sources said the agency was trying to establish Vectra chief Ravi Rishi’s link with Lt Gen Singh.
“To establish the bribery offer, we have to find out Lt Gen Tejinder Singh’s link with Vectra group. We will check files of MoD to know about people who visited him and documents signed by him when he was serving in the Army,” a top CBI officer said. The agency is also expected to convert the preliminary enquiry into the alleged bribery offer to Army chief General V K Singh into a regular case soon.
The agency has, meanwhile, collected around 64 files from Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML) to probe the Tatra scam. These files have details of proposals, tenders papers, technical examination documents, suppliers, supply orders and payments related to procurement of Tatra trucks since 1997 in the Indian Army. To understand these documents, two colonel rank officers are helping the CBI in the probe.
The agency is also looking at the “quid pro quo” angle in the Tatra procurement deal. It is probing whether somebody in the defence ministry or Army benefitted all these years for making sure that Tatra trucks were procured by BEML through Tatra Sipox (UK) only.
Meanwhile, the CBI on Tuesday again questioned Vectra executive Anil Mansaramani at its headquarters while another Vectra employee was quizzed in Mumbai. The Vectra employees are being confronted with several documents picked up from the defence ministry and BEML.
The Army chief has provided several documents to the agency and has assured that he would give more evidence. Gen Singh had claimed that Lt Gen Tejinder Singh had offered him a bribe of Rs 14 crore in his office on September 22, 2010 for clearing a tranche of sub-standard Tatra trucks. The agency has recorded the chief’s statement.
NEW DELHI: The Central Bureau of Investigation, which is probing Army chief General V K Singh’s claim that he was offered a Rs 14 crore bribe by Lt Gen (Retd) Tejinder Singh, has found that the “visitor’s register” of South Block has an entry showing that Lt Gen Tejinder Singh had visited the Army chief’s office on September 22, 2010.
The visitor’s entry in the register, which was taken by the CBI on Friday from South Block, has been signed by Lt Gen (Retd) Tejinder Singh and it mentions “official to meet” as Gen V K Singh.
A senior CBI officer said this was a “major evidence” to show that Lt Gen Tejinder Singh was in the Army chief’s office that day but what transpired inside the room, the alleged bribery offer, is yet to be proved. The Army chief assured CBI officials in his meeting on Friday that he would provide more evidence soon.
A CBI team had recorded Gen V K Singh’s statement in two rounds on Friday and picked up the ‘visitor’s register’. Apart from the register, the agency has also collected several documents provided by the Army chief, which reportedly include documents related to the Tatra deal and communications between the defence ministry and BEML.
Gen V K Singh had earlier this month given a written complaint to the CBI alleging that Lt Gen Tejinder Singh had come to his office on September 22, 2010 and had offered him a bribe of Rs 14 crore on behalf of Vectra group chairman Ravi Rishi to clear a deal of sub-standard Tatra trucks for the Indian Army. Sources said on that day, Gen V K Singh had asked his staff to “escort him (Lt Gen Tejinder Singh) out of his office” and reportedly asked Lt Gen Tejinder Singh “not to come again”.
Refuting the allegations, Lt Gen Tejinder Singh claimed in an interview that “he used to meet Gen V K Singh frequently for professional work and that he had gone to his (Gen V K Singh’s) office in September 2010 for some personal work”. He has also filed a defamation suit against the Army chief.
The agency is probing a preliminary enquiry into the alleged bribery offer and is expected to convert it into a regular case soon. Agency sources said they might question Lt Gen Tejinder Singh next week.
The agency has also collected some evidence in its probe in the Tatra procurement scam. Gen V K Singh too has provided important documents to the agency. The CBI has already approached Interpol to get details of companies related to Ravi Rishi in at least four countries- Czech Republic, Slovakia, UK and Liechtenstein.
NEW DELHI: Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML), which is in the eye of the storm kicked up by the Army chief’s claim about a Rs 14-crore bribe offer, was preparing to supply 1,000 Tatra trucks in 2010 when General V K Singh stalled the entire acquisition.
Sources said BEML, the Bangalore-based defence PSU, had on the assurance of the then Master General of Ordnance (MGO) of the Army in 2010, had taken “advance action” for supply of 1,000 Tatra vehicles. All these vehicles were to of 6×6 and 8×8 variants.
It is not clear if Gen Singh refused clearance after September 22, 2010, the day he was allegedly offered the bribe by Lt Gen Tejinder Singh on behalf of Tatra.
Tatra truck purchases are usually sent by MGO directly to the ministry of defence (MoD), BEML later pointed out to the MoD. But in 2010, the Army chief had asked for the Tatra file and put the acquisition on hold. Instead, the Army moved a proposal to the Defence Acquisition Council, headed by defence minister A K Antony, for a competitive global tender for the purchase of 6×6 and 8×8 trucks.
The last order for Tatra trucks were placed with BEML in March, 2010, a few days before Gen VK Singh took over as the Army chief on March 31. The last order was for 788 vehicles out a total projected requirement of 3,296.
While the last order was placed by MGO Lt Gen Vinay Sharma, his successor told the BEML that there was no requirement for new vehicles to be acquired from revenue budget.
The Army is presently processing the global competitive tender, which could take several months to complete.
The forces’ stand on Tatra acquisition would be a key component of the ongoing CBI probe into Gen Singh’s allegation that he was offered Rs 14 crore bribe for clearing the purchase of Tatra trucks.
While many of the documents related to Tatra deal – from the Army HQ, MoD and BEML – have been handed over to the CBI, indications are that the agency is yet to get any ‘breakthrough’ documents to show corruption trail in the Tatra deal.
CBI officials would be meeting with Gen Singh, who was away in Punjab on Friday, for collecting further clarification to his written complaint about the bribe offer.
1. Dr. Vijay Kumar Saraswat,Age: 62 yrs. Occupation: ServiceThe Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri andDirector General, Research & Development,DRDO, DRDO Bhavan,New Delhi- 110105.2. The Union of IndiaRepresented byThe Secretary,Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India,South Block,New Delhi -110 011. — Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION AND DAMAGES :- Re. 1/- (RUPEE ONE ONLY)
The plaintiff most respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court as under:-
1. The plaintiff was working in High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune, the unit of DRDO, under Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India. He was working as a Technical Officer ‘B’. It is a Gazetted Group ‘A’ post. He completed 26 years’ spotlessly clean service in HEMRL, Pune. Not a single letter of instruction / warning, any memo or any show cause notice is on his entire record.
But on 24.08.2009 at 16.45 hrs, the Plaintiff was suspended by fax order, all of a sudden, without any show cause notice. The suspension order bears the signature of Dr. Arun Kumar, the Director of Personnel (DoP). The order is issued as per section 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, but Dr. Arun Kumar is not the authority who can sign the suspension order of a Gazetted Group ‘A’ Officer. Dr. Arun Kumar, on 08.06.2010 has admitted this fact in his deposition as a Defence Witness before the Inquiry Officer. The Plaintiff immediately lodged a protest against this unauthorized and hence illegal order. As the Defendant No.1 is the Director General of DRDO and as he is the only Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had submitted a copy of the protest to him also.
2. Though the ultimate responsibility of the working of DRDO lies with Defendant No.1, he did not take any cognizance of the protest of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff submitted his grievance to the Defendant No.1 through his letters sent on 16.09.2009, 21.10.2009, 03.12.2009, 18.12.2009, 02.03.2010, 27.05.2010, 09.07.2010, 14.07.2010, 24.08.2010 and 01.12.2010. The Plaintiff sent him the legal notices on 14.09.2009, 02.03.2010 and 19.03.2010. But Defendant No.1 did not give any response to any of the letters or notices of the Plaintiff. He did not take any cognizance of the grievance of the Plaintiff.
3. The Plaintiff was illegally compelled to go through the Inquiry proceedings and was penalized on 08.12.2010 under Rule 11 (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules. This penalty order was issued by one Mr. S B Yadav, the Dy. DoP who is not at all the Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff. As if this was not enough, the Plaintiff was dismissed from the service. This Dismissal Order under Rule 11 (ix) of CCS (CCA) Rules was issued by one Mr. Abhinavjeet Ojha, the Dy. DoP, who is not at all the Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff.
As per Article 311 of the Constitution, no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
4. The DGR&D is the only Appointing and Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff. No officer below his rank can take any Disciplinary Action against the Plaintiff who is a Gazetted Group ‘A’ officer and a Doctorate fellow. As per Organization Chart of DRDO, DGR&D is on the top. Below him there are 11 CCR&Ds. And under one CCR&D, DoP is there. The person who has signed the dismissal order of the Plaintiff is one of the staff members of the Directorate of Personnel. There are no such posts as Associate Director, Deputy Director, Joint Director or Assistant Director in DRDO. Mr. Abhinavjeet Ojha is a self-styled and self-proclaimed Deputy Director of the Directorate of Personnel.
5. The Plaintiff filed a Criminal complaint No. 1198/2011 in the Court of Hon’ble J.M.F.C. Court No.9, Pune against Dr. Arun Kumar, the DoP and his 5 colleagues. Hon’ble Court issued process against them all under sections 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant No.1 to immediately suspend these accused as per Rule 10 (1) (b) of CCS (CCA) Rules.
6. Though the Defendant No.1 is the only Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff, the officers much below his rank issued suspension order and penalty orders without any authority. The Plaintiff put up his grievance to Defendant No.1 but he did not take any action against the unauthorized officers. He remained a silent spectator. Moreover, he protected his erring subordinates who, without any authority played with the service life of the Plaintiff.
7. The Plaintiff is dismissed from the service by the unauthorized officers and the Defendant No.1, the Head of DRDO is just looking at the situation as if he is not concerned at all. His inaction has deprived the Plaintiff of his service. Plaintiff has suffered a lot due to his inaction.
8. Revengefully and mercilessly the Plaintiff has been dismissed from the service without any monetary benefits. Without giving a single Rupee to the Plaintiff, he has been driven out of DRDO, after 26 years’ spotlessly clean service. The Plaintiff is running 56 years of his age and huge liabilities are ahead of him now. And at such time the Plaintiff is extinguished from the service by a blatantly unauthorized and low grade officer. The provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules regarding the suspension and the dismissal have been arrogantly flouted by the unauthorized officers who are systematically protected by Defendant No.1. This is nothing but a torture by a very responsible officer i.e. Defendant No.1. As per the Organization Chart of DRDO he is the apex authority. Being a Disciplinary Authority, he has not dared to sign the dismissal order of the Plaintiff. He remained behind the curtain. His cowardly behavior has ruined the service life of the Plaintiff. This unbecoming of a Government servant is liable for the torture of the Plaintiff. He is liable to pay the compensation to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff wants compensation for his sufferings from Defendant No.1
9. The amount of compensation is not material at all. Liability of Defendant No.1 to pay the compensation to the Plaintiff is material. The Plaintiff wants only one Rupee as the compensation. This one Rupee will definitely soothe the injury which Defendant No.1 has inflicted on the Plaintiff by his impotent neutrality in the matter.
10. Notice to Government: Actually this suit is not against the Government, but as the Govt. officer is involved in his personal capacity, the notice u/s 80 of Civil Procedure Code has been sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence on 27.04.2011 for information only. The Plaintiff has not received any reply to the said notice from Defendant No. 1 or 2. Defendant No. 2 has been made formal party to this suit.
11. Jurisdiction: As the plaintiff is residing in the city of Pune and cause of action has happened in Pune, Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try this case.
12. Cause of Action: First arose on 24.08.2009 when the Plaintiff was suspended by the unauthorized officer in DRDO. The cause of action is continuous since then till this date as the Defendant No.1 is protecting the illegal acts of his subordinates.
13. Court Fee: As this suit is for recovery of compensation of Rs.1/- (Rupee One only) it has been valued for Rs.1/- and required stamp of Rs.200/- is given herewith.
14. It is, therefore, prayed that:-
a. The Defendant No. 1 may kindly be ordered to pay compensation and damages of Re.1/- (Rupee One only) to the Plaintiff.
b. Permission may be granted to amend the suit, if required.
c. Any other just and equitable orders may be passed in the interest of the justice.
PuneDated: 29/08/2011Plaintiff(Dr. R G Taware)(Mr. B R Barge)
Advocate for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
I, Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware, Age – 55 years, Occupation – service, R/at- A-11, Vijayraj Sankul, S.No. 244, Aundh-Baner, D P Road, Pune- 411007, do, hereby, verify the above contents from Para 1 to 14 as true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and in witness whereof I have put my signature under it at Pune on this 29th day of August 2011.
Plaintiff
(Dr. R G Taware)
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE AT PUNE
Regular Civil Suit No. 1200/2011.
Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware . — Plaintiff
Vs.
Dr. V K Saraswat and other 1 — Defendants
List of Documents submitted by Plaintiff is as follows:-
Sr.No.
Description of Document
Date
Page No.
1.
Legal Notice to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, u/s 80 of Code of Civil Procedure
27.04.2011
01 – 02
2.
Notice to Defendant No.1 (Dr. V K Saraswat)
27.04.2011
03 – 05
3.
Suspension Order
24.08.2009
06
4.
Protest letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for suspension order
26.08.2009
07 – 09
5.
Legal Notice to Defendant No.1
14.09.2009
10 – 11
6.
Representation of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 against illegal order of suspension
16.09.2009
12 – 13
7.
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for subsistence allowance
21.10.2009
14 – 15
8.
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal suspension by DoP
03.12.2009
16 – 17
9.
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal extension of suspension period
18.12.2009
18 – 19
10.
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL for inquiry and action for C-PAR for the year 2008
02.03.2010
20 – 23
11.
Notice to Defendant No.1
02.03.2010
24 – 25
12.
Notice to Defendant No.1
19.03.2010
26 – 27
13.
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal extension of suspension period
27.05.2010
28 – 30
14.
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal suspension & extension of suspension period
14.07.2010
31 – 34
15.
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for anniversary of illegal suspension
24.08.2010
35 – 37
16.
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal extension of suspension period
01.12.2010
38 – 39
17.
Penalty Order under Rule 11 (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by Mr. S B Yadav, Dy. DoP
08.12.2010
40 – 41
18.
Dismissal from service : Penalty Order under Rule 11 (ix) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by Mr. Abhinavjeet Ojha, Dy. DoP
30.12.2010
42 – 43
19.
Protest letter against Punishment Order dated 08.12.2010 by Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL
01.01.2011
44 – 45
20.
Protest letter against Punishment Order dated 30.12.2010 by Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL
10.01.2011
46 – 47
21.
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal dismissal from the service
14.01.2011
48 – 50
22.
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for reservation of right of appeal
14.01.2011
51 – 52
23.
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for reinstatement after penalty order dt. 08.12.2010
15.01.2011
53 – 54
24.
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL regarding service benefits
07.03.2011
55 – 56
25.
Notice to Defendant No.1
14.06.2011
57 – 58
26.
Penalty Order by Mr. M Natarajan, DGR&D to Mr. M A Muhatte, STA’C’, HEMRL, Pune
30.06.2005
59 – 60
27.
Penalty Order by Dr. V K Saraswat, DGR&D (Defendant No.1) to Mr. D T Bhosale, TO’A’, ARDE, Pune
17.03.2011
61
28.
Regular Criminal Complaint by Plaintiff against Dr. Arun Kumar, DoP and his 5 colleagues in the Court of Hon’ble JMFC, PuneVerification of Complainant
Order below Exh.1 in RCC 1198/2011
Order below Exh.1 in RCC 1198/2011
21.03.2011
09.06.2011
07.05.2011
13.06.2011
62 – 67
68 – 71
72
73
All Xerox copies of documents are submitted by the Plaintiff.
Express Investigation: Delayed Research; Delayed Organisation – Part – Four
23 yrs and first fighter aircraft hasn’t taken off
Amitav Ranjan , Siv Aroor
Tags :
Posted: Wed Nov 15 2006, 00:00 hrs
New Delhi, November 14:
At its last meeting in December 2005, the General Body of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the society developing the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, recorded one fact: the Indian Air Force, despite official plans to ultimately buy 220 LCAs, would order only 20 aircraft.
And that the IAF had refused to push the order up until it’s convinced that the new 2010 deadline, the project’s third consecutive time over-run, would be met.
The IAF had more than a reason.
According to latest official figures that will shortly be tabled by the Standing Committee on Defence in a report for Parliament, available with The Indian Express, DRDO’s 23-year-old indigenous fighter aircraft programme, taken as a whole — including the radar, jet engine and Naval variant — would have wiped away a minimum of Rs 9444.5 crore by 2010. Aggregate cost over-run: Rs 4,094 crore. Delay: 12.5 years and counting.
By DRDO’s own testimony in June to the same committee, there are still “certain complexities,” although it claims it will produce the 20 LCAs on order from the IAF by December 2011. But that would still be understandable if the LCA was in any way ready.
Five months after the ADA meeting, Air chief S P Tyagi communicated in no uncertain terms to then Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee that his force could not depend on the programme in the short term. Shortly thereafter, he told The Indian Express: “We have to see if it is a suitably modern aircraft when it is complete. Right now we just cannot take any decisions. We can only wait for initial operational clearance (in 2008).”
The implication: the IAF is not sure if the LCA would have slipped down a few generations by the time it’s inducted. But the Standing Committee only had this to say: “The Committee are constrained to note that, keeping in view the ever-increasing delay in operational clearance of LCA, early induction of the same as IAF squadrons seems to be an unrealistic proposition.”
Just how unrealistic it is is something that has come to characterize the LCA programme ever since its inception in August 1983, and culminating now in a gravely unready fighter aircraft that the IAF could have no choice but to induct in large numbers from 2012.
Consider the following: Despite a battery of nine test pilots who have been embedded with the LCA programme, the IAF has refused to officially certify any technological aspect of the LCA apart from its structural strength, until initial operational clearance (IOC). Air Headquarters said so, in a written reply to this newspaper. The clearance should have been achieved by 2007 but its new schedule is 2008.
After a four-year wait following the rollout of the LCA technology demonstrator in 1997 for a first flight, former Air chief S Krishnaswamy made out an official case in 2003 for a “limited series induction” of the aircraft to give the IAF a chance to familiarize itself. He told The Indian Express, “The LCA is not full in any way, each prototype is different. I was a staunch supporter of indigenisation but am also very critical. How long can you keep on developing a product?”
The eight promised Limited Series Production fighters, envisaged as a part of the Rs 3,301.78 crore second phase of the programme, are nowhere in sight. The LCA, which should have undergone weapons trials by 2003, will now only undergo “dummy” trials in December 2007 according to DRDO chief M Natarajan, putting a big question mark on the possibility of IOC by 2008.
The real problem: the HAL-DRDO multi-mode radar, the very brain that will guide the LCA’s weapons, is not ready. After spending Rs 166.8 crore since 1997, HAL has decided to bring in a foreign technical partner to bail it out. The radar has been tested on an HS-748 Avro, but persistent problems with software and its signal processor have forced HAL and DRDO to admit their failure.
DRDO has justified the delays and their impact on the IAF’s preparedness by pointing to a revision of the development strategy because of a foreign exchange shortage in the 1990s, US sanctions, re-designing composite wings for weapon definition after January 2004 and extensive on-ground and independent evaluation.
After a cost and time overrun of Rs 2,456 crore and 13 years since 1996, DRDO admitted to the Standing Committee in June that it could complete the Kaveri engine only under a foreign joint venture. Problems that have crippled the Kaveri, according to the latest DRDO testimony, include critical glitches in aerodynamic, aero-mechanical, combustion and structural integrity.
Most significantly, DRDO has admitted to the Committee that to improve performance and safety issues, a JV could be attempted. Former DRDO chief V K Aatre said: “When I retired (in August 2004), there were some loose ends in the programme involving the radar and jet engine. But I am surprised they have still not been resolved.”
The DRDO was pulled up in January by the Standing Committee to explain how the LCA’s delays would impact the IAF’s modernization. Their reply: “IAF only can state the possible impact of delay on modernization exclusively due to LCA.”
But at Air HQ, an unofficial and approximate damage analysis of the LCA’s delay, shared with The Indian Express, is to the tune of Rs 11,440 crore in forced upgrades (some variants of the MiG-21 that the LCA was to replace will be forced to serve till 2019-2021 at least) and stop-gap acquisitions.
This does not include the purchase of 126 fighters potentially worth Rs 30,000 crore that the IAF will shortly begin an acquisition process for. In an unusual move, the Naval LCA will use air data systems from Russia’s state-owned Rosobornexport, which will also create a shore-based test facility for the Rs 948.90 crore development. MiG Corporation will conduct a design review and be DRDO’s chief consultant.
Please refer the subject decision of CIC 29 Jun 2011 received in this office on dated 03 Aug 2011
The information, as directed by CIC, is as under:
(1) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000381
(a) The amount spent on Long Term Post Graduation Training Programme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 6,38,33,535/-
(b) The amount spent on PhD Programme under RT Scheme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 3,38,143/-
(2) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000384
The total amount spent during 2008, 2009 and 2010 on the following Awards:
(a) Agni Award for excellence in self reliance – ‘ 75 Lakhs
(b) DRDO Award for Performance Excellence.- 60 Lakhs
(c) Scientist of the year Award — 60 Lakhs
(3) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000385
(a) Numbers of papers published by the Scientist of DRDO during last five years:
Journal of Applied Physics — Nil
Electronics Letters – Nil
(4) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000386
(a) Visits of Dr. Prahlada on official duty during 2009 & 2010. Number of visits to Hyderabad – 22
Total amount of TA/DA drawn – 4,11,900/-
(c) Visits made by Shri R C Aggarwal on official duty during 2007 to 2010. Number of visits — 26
Total amount of TA/DA drawn — 18, 23, 672/-
(5) File No. CICILSIAI2O11/000387
Number of sanctioned strength of substantive Joint Directors and Deputy Directors in DRDO.
(a) Joint Directors — 04
(b) Deputy Directors — 20
(6) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000412
Para wise reply pertaining to years 2009 and 2010 is as under:
(a) Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest House at Delhi —105
(b) DRDO officials availing DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station — 17
(c) Sh. S Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 10 Jul 2009 to 10 Sep 2010.
(d) Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 26 Mar 2010 to 20 Mar 2011.
(7) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000413
No Gazette Notification of D0PT is available.
(Dr. A K Tyagi)Scientist ‘F’CPIO, DRDO HQ
Copy to:
Central Information Commissioner – With refer to your 10 decision dated
Room No. 308, B —Wing 29 Jun 2011 in respect of Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
August Kranti Bhawan, Bikaji Kama Place
New Delhi – 1 10 066
Real Facts:
1. File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000381
What I have asked in my RTI
Total amount invested on long term post graduation training program and PhD program under R & T scheme, and under Post Graduate Training (PGT) scheme of DRDO during period forApril 1990 – March 2010 under following heads
i) Adhoc advances
ii) Study leave salary
iii) Reimbursement of expenditure on account of stationary items, preparation of thesis, purchase of books and journals etc.
iv) Non refundable fee
v) TA
vi) DA
vii) Financial incentive on acquiring higher qualification at their own
2. Total number of official Grade wise/Post wise/ Categories wise received MS/ME/MTech, PhD degree during period April 1990 – March 2010
i) Full time
ii) Part Time
iii) External Registration
3. The Institution from where degree of MTech/ PhD was awarded from April 1990 – March 2010
4. Total amount invested on short term training/ workshops/seminars/courses in India (Including DIAT/ITM/IIM’s/ IIT’s, NIT’s, ESCI, ASCI, IISc’s etc.) and abroad, during period from April 1990 – March 2010
i) Training/ Courses/Delegations Fee/Registration Fee
ii) TA
iii) DA
5. Total number of Scientist resigned from April 1990 – March 2010
6. Total number of scientist joined DRDO from April 1990 – March 2010
Why I asked this Information –
DRDO sends annually many officers for higher studies particulars to IIT’s and national Universities. The admission which granted normally after tough competitions are available to DRDO’s sponsored candidates was easily.
Aim of such higher studies is to use the academic platform to solve the complicate technical issues. DRDO in turn give the IIT’s or Universities sufficient grants against project and R&T schemes.
No one gets benefited neither the institutions nor the DRDO, it is because the most of the individuals after getting higher education working as admin, allied works, and the reaction of this most of them leave the organization. For example Dr.DP Singh, Estate Manager, Scientist ‘F’ did his post graduation and PhDs from DRDO sponsoring and performing duty of admin purely non scientific assignment. Sh A.K Musla, Sc ‘F, holding post Joint Director Admin in IRDE, Dehradun, he also did his B.Tech and M.Tech from DRDO sponsored funds and working as purely in admin. I am quoting only two names as tip of the iceberg, because in DRDO you will find 100 of such cases. DRDO is shear wasting the corers and corers rupees public funds in the name of higher education programs. Although, the aim and object of the higher education program is really good, but in hands of bad corrupt officials, the output is wasting by DRDO.
According to the ministry, a total of 1,107 scientists, mostly young entrants, have resigned from the DRDO between 2003 and 2007, implying that on an average one person leaves every two days.
What I have received
(a) The amount spent on Long Term Post Graduation Training Programme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 6,38,33,535/-
(b) The amount spent on PhD Programme under RT Scheme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 3,38,143/-
(2) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000384
What I have asked in my RTI
The DRDO Awards Scheme, in its present form, was introduced in the year 1999 to motivate DRDO scientists, engineers and partners in industries and academic institutions in contributing for the cause of national security and self-reliance. The present Award Scheme, instituted by the Government of India, are therefore, meant to encourage DRDO scientists and our partners in the Private Sector Undertakings (PSUs), the private firms as well as the academic institutions in performing even better towards accelerating the pace of development of critical technologies, transfer of technologies from laboratories to industries as well as productionisation of the state-of-the-art defence systems
The Scheme consists of a total of 17 awards, out of which, 4 awards are given by the Directors of the concerned laboratories/establishments in recognition of outstanding contributions of their scientists and other supporting staff consisting of technical, administrative and allied cadres. The remaining 13 awards are decided at the DRDO HQrs for which nominations are called every year from all laboratories/establishments. The nominations are initially short listed by the Screening Committee under the chairmanship of the Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC). The short listed nominations are, thereafter, examined by the Apex Committee for finalisation of the awards which also consists of two outside experts. These awards are normally given away by the Prime Minister of India on the “Technology Day” which falls on 11th May of every year.
In this connection it is requested to provide the following detail information
Total amount of investment made on DRDO awards year wise from 1st April 1999 to till date 2010
i) Total amount invested in arranging Award ceremony
ii) TA/DA on recipient of the awardees and spouse
iii) All categories of all cash award by all Laboratories/Establishments and DRDO Hqrs. during period of April 1999 to till date. In following format
Why I asked this Information –
The awards given by Government of India like Padma Award, Shanti Swaroop Bhatnager Award etc all these awards are given with an aim to encourage/motivate/ recognize the contribution of individual recipients and therefore it carries a citation.
DRDO constituted its awards like Scientist of the year, Young Scientist awards, Technology Leadership Award etc. with the aim to inculcate a culture of hard work, dedication, scientific achievements, and technology breakthrough leading to the technology development for national security.
But the award given in DRDO, the mode of selection, the encouragement to the scientific team does not rely on the standards.
Different rules for different occasion or different rules for different officer, the motto of DRDO or the definition of DRDO is suitably implemented..
The public would like to know the manner DRDO spending nearly 2 crores of rupees annually to these awards, the recipients does not know that he has been chosen for this award, there is no scientific presentation of technology. The recipients, are even unable to operate any scientific instruments like network analyzer, spectrum analyzer etc because most of awardees scientist or technical personals are working as Director Management Services, Head Material Managements, Security Officer, Library In-charge, Works In-charge and other suitable position from where they can feed their Akas(Boss).
If any one look in to the list of award recipients and analyses year wise, he will be find the most of citation actually not even justify the work or relation between award and awardees.
There is N number of examples available in various labs where most of awards were not justified; it is purely depending upon the Director’s choice. So nut shell DRDO awards are like ”Andha banten revari apne apne ko de” it is nothing doing with their contribution whether the awardees is related to technology or not. How come a person sitting in security, MT will entitled to get technology award, when DRDO having other awards for non technical working area.
It is really big question in front of country people?
Like in Kargil, one officer got gallantry award and later it was found that the fake encounter was staged for award. (Famous ketchup Colonel Case)
Same tactics is adopted by DRDO they are distributing awards to their own boys with fake technology propaganda.
Since money belongs to poor tax payers, when Padama award citation are available to citizen of India then how can DRDO deny give details in the name of schedule –II exemption.
One award Defence Technology Absorption Awardis using by DRDO for giving color to their pet firms. Anyone can judge from the recipients list that these firms are really worth does these firms have any significant signature in field of respective industry like M/s Resins & AlliedProducts, Vijayawada. received this award from Honorable Prime Minister Sh Man Mohan Singh is related to Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC R&D, Director, HEMRL)
What I have received
The total amount spent during 2008, 2009 and 2010 on the following Awards:
(a) Agni Award for excellence in self reliance – ‘ 75 Lakhs
(b) DRDO Award for Performance Excellence.- 60 Lakhs
(c) Scientist of the year Award — 60 Lakhs
(3) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000385
What I have asked in my RTI
How many technical paper were published by DRDO Scientists in International Journals like Journal of Applied Physics, IEEE Transactions, Proceedings IEEE, Transactions IEE, Electronics Letter, SPICE etc. from 1990 to March 2010?
How many authors were awarded by DRDO for their contribution and keeping the flag of DRDO high
How many such authors were assigned the administrative task to lead the DRDO Labs as Director and then CC R&D?
How many such authors were left the DRDO during April 1990 to March 2010 period?
Why I asked this Information –
Almost 400 Corers of rupees are distributing through these boards and different DRDO projects to IIT’s, Universities’ and Colleges and even some NGO’s, in the name of expanding and deepening the knowledge-base, Enhancing core competence in the field of knowledge, To encourage and provide funds for basic research in pertinent scientific disciplines etc.
The most of funds distributed till date to maximum private universities and private institutions and especially in last ten years out of total grants has gone to southern states. DRDO in its charter of duty has specifically mentioned Kashmir to Kanyakumari and Gujarat to North East the equal opportunity will given to universities/institutions.
The DRDO is giving funding for various R&T projects with IIT’s, IIsc’s and various premier scientific institutions. In return DRDO sends annually many officers for higher studies particulars to IIT’s and national Universities.
The number of international papers can justify the real out of projects working with IIT, IIsc and other various institutions.
I am surprised that DRDO is deny for giving information related to paper publish in international journals, where is schedule-ii exemption is comes in between.
Information sought is already publish in journals, so why DRDO afraid to give information. It shows that DRDO is not respect for RTI Act 2005.
International publications are basically the most valuable achievement of any scientific institute /organization and it always proudly mentioned by each and every institute /organization.
What I have received
(a) Numbers of papers published by the Scientist of DRDO during last five years:
After taking his charge as CC R&D at DRDO Hqrs, how many days he stayed in DRDO Hqrs up to 31st March 2010
How many temporary duties to Hyderabad he had been with total stay at Hyderabad.
How much in total TA/DA he has drawn year wise from his joining as CC R&D at DRDO up to 31st March 2010.
With Reference to Shri RC Agarwal, Director DEAL, Dehradun
After taking his charge as Director DEAL, Dehradun , how many days he stayed in Dehradun up to 31st March 2010
How many temporary duties to Bangalore he had been with total stay at Bangalore
How much in total TA/DA he has drawn year wise from his joining as Director, DEAL up to 31st March 2010.
Why I asked this Information
The information sought for is not related to end senior officer in his individual/personal capacity but in his capacity being a public authority.
Too frequent visit to a particular destination on Government expenses require to justify and as to how much it was beneficial to the organization and how much to the officer especially when he belongs to that particular destination. It appears that the permanent residence is his Hqrs and place of posting is a temporary duty station. The frequent move availability of the officer in the Hqrs. station may lead to problem of command and control and discipline, which may hamper the progress and led to undue delay and time and cost overrun to ongoing projects of DRDO.
In this particular case I requested the TD details of Dr. Prahlada, Appellate Authority, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, who is staying C-7 Qutab Enclave, DRDO guest house since his posting to DRDO Hqrs, for him most of time he took his breakfast in his Hyderabad residence and lunch in DRDO Hqrs and evening for dinner he was again back to his Hyderabad residence. Please see his TD detail and then decide.
Second one is Shri RC Aggarwal, Director DEAL, Dehradun, since his posting he use to out from DEAL, Dehradun almost more than 250 days out of 365 days. How can the armed forces expect trustworthy products from these so called senior scientists?
There more 9-10 CC R&D and Directors who are belongs to Hyderabad and Bangalore and their families are staying Hyderabad and Bangalore respectively and they all are staying in DRDO guest houses they are giving their residence address in telephone directory at DRDO guest houses and enjoying HRA also. They are frequent fliers, they all are already break the Milkha Singh ‘s (Flying Sikh of India) records and relishing without fear with TD with poor tax payers money.
What I have received
(a) Visits of Dr. Prahlada on official duty during 2009 & 2010. Number of visits to Hyderabad – 22
(b) Total amount of TA/DA drawn – 4,11,900/-
(c) Visits made by Shri R C Aggarwal on official duty during 2007 to 2010. Number of visits — 26
(d) Total amount of TA/DA drawn — 18, 23, 672/-
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
