Tag Archives: 2013

Drdo, Uncategorized

Great Example of DRDO for Supporting and Giving Scot-free Passage for Senior Corrupt Officials

Leave a comment

CVC, MoD registered 9 cases against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Ex Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and other scientists as per CVC the complaints has been sent to CVO, MOD for further action, to Director Vigilance, DRDO with reference No. 1323/2014/Vigilance 9, 3617/2014/Vigilance 9, 5022/2014/Vigilance 9, 13248/2014/ Vigilance 9, etc.

Recently a RTI reply recived on 27 June 2019 at 10:53 AM from CVO, MoD revealed that

(1)      As per records available in the file the following complaints were received 
(i)       Complaint(s) dated 26.12.2013, 17.12.2013, 15.01.2014, 24.12.2013 and 07.01.2014. The matter was examined in consultation with CVC and it had been decided with the approval of the competent authority to take the following action:-

           (A) Close the following complaints

           (i)      Regarding irregularities in procurement of laboratory micro  processor based high temperature furnace.

           (ii)     Irregularities in procurement of antivirus for computers and 

           (iii)    Irregularities in procurement of analytical weighing balance.

(B)       Issue recordable warning to 8 serving officers found involved in irregularities in procurement of high temperature reactor system and 18 serving officers found involved in procurement of chemicals. 

(C)       No action against officers who have retired from service. 

(2)       As contents of the replies/correspondence/file of the DRDO contain information relating to other officials/officers including third party information and disclosing the names of the officers dealing with the matter is barred under Section 8 (1) (g) and (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Moreover disclosure of the information would not serve any larger public interest. 

(3)       As regards complaint letters forwarded by CVC to D(Vig) and further forwarded to DRDO for action, in this connection, it is stated that these dates back to 2013 and 2014 and records of forwarding letters to DRDO of these period are not available.

Question is that the recordable warning to 8+18 scientist are nothing they are the puppets of Director and signed all wrong doings of boss for their promotion not for financial gain.

The Saxena the main culprit and conspirator of case have guts to deny the email exchange with vendor to discuss the requirement and finalize the specs before raising the file and made arrangement to split the order as per financial power and so many evidences are available because of evidences only the recordable warning was issued then how come kingpin escaped scot free.

Second is if reactor’s design is copy right of DMSRDE then what is meaning of M/s De Dietrich Process Systems India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai mail which received by Dr A K Saxena via Mr Anish Gupta from M/s Manglam Traders with attached annexure

From: Anish Gupta  mangalam26@bsnl.in
Date: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:54 PM
Subject: Offer for High Temp. Reaction Unit
To: AKSAXENA  arvsaxena@gmail.com

“The line diagram attached is not exactly as per their offer, they have forwarded us understand it will be somehow like the same. As per our line of requirement they will send us in 2 to 3 days.”

Subsequently Dr. Saxena forwarded this mail to Sh JN Srivastava

From: arvind saxena arvsaxena@gmail.com
To: jn_sri@rediffmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Offer for High Temp. Reaction Unit

Dr. Saxena can you explain what does the meaning the following enclosed drawing of 50 Lt Reactor unit, is it your copy right or property of M/s De Dietrich Process Systems India Pvt. Ltd  

DMSRDE’s official can judge themselves  who is …………………………….

And everyone know that DRDO Hqrs is deaf & dumb

Here come the role of DRDO corrupt officials nexus before his retirement of Saxena the then DOP, DHR, DG, HR, Director Vigilance, DRDO played vital role to get vigilance clearance from, CVO, MoD, one can imagine that this clearance cost to Saxena in lots of 0000000

http://bit.ly/2KCNzda

http://bit.ly/31Zxrb0

So it is clear message to all corrupts of DRDO the chain is available at your service do full way corruption in all means and share some to the chain and get clearance.

Now people of India looking with great hope that present DRDO Chairman will weed out the corrupt nexus in DRDO Hq as well as in Labs, the observations shows that the spinning is started and corrupt DRDO officials may blow out from DRDO periphery.. Problem is some corrupt officials of DRDO still holding the roots of corrupt oldies who were basically the responsible of downfall of DRDO.

Drdo

DRDO whistle-blowers seek Sitharaman’s intervention

Leave a comment

Abhinandan Mishra
May 26, 2018 – Sunday Guardian Live

Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

Arun Jaitley had ordered action against two senior scientists in a case in DRDO.

Whistle-blowers and scientists working with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) have written to Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, seeking her intervention in an alleged corruption case within the DRDO. Sitharaman’s predecessor Arun Jaitley had ordered disciplinary action against two senior scientists in this case, but no action has been taken yet. This newspaper is in possession of a correspondence that was shared by the whistle-blower with the Defence Minister. As per this correspondence, R.K. Jain (Director, Joint Cipher Bureau of the DRDO) and A.K. Singh (Director, Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences) were allegedly found to have been involved in “wasting” government money by conducting interviews for the promotion of scientists in DRDO, despite statutory rules barring such interviews. The DRDO had later stated that even though Rs 1 crore had been spent on calling 255 scientists for the interview, the results of the interview were not used to decide the promotions.

At the time of the interviews in 2011, R.K. Jain was the director of DRDO’s Recruitment and Assessment Centre (which takes care of recruitment and promotions), while A.K. Singh was the director of Directorate of Human Resource Development.

As per DRDO’s own admission, the amount spent on conducting similar interviews in subsequent years (2012 and 2013) was far less than what had been spent in 2011, though a greater number of scientists were interviewed—333 in 2012 and 376 in 2013. When contacted, Manish Bhardwaj, the spokesperson of DRDO, sought some time to respond and told this newspaper on 17 May: “The matter is being examined by a committee on the direction of Hon’ble Raksha Mantri. The committee shall submit the report in 3-4 days. After submission, DRDO would be in a position to provide the information sought by you.” However, no further information regarding the submission of the said report was shared by the spokesperson with this newspaper.

Official sources within the DRDO stated that no such committee was ever constituted in the matter.

The entire incident had come to light when a whistle-blower from DRDO first wrote to the Defence Minister and the Chief Vigilance Officer in July 2014, detailing how public money was wasted and that the whole process was used by the individuals concerned to indulge in alleged corruption.

“Instead of taking action against the two officials for their deliberate misconduct, DRDO rewarded them by awarding R.K. Jain with ‘Best techno managerial services/popular science communication award for his performance in 2011. A.K. Singh was promoted from the grade of Scientist F to the grade of Scientist G in 2011,” reads the latest communication to Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. In June 2017, the then Defence Minister Arun Jaitley had ordered disciplinary action against Jain and Singh for causing a loss of Rs 1 crore to Government of India. “DRDO is known for using delaying tactics to shield officers. It deliberately sits on disciplinary orders of defence ministers to make sure that the officials in question retire without facing any punishment. They did this when Jaitley was the Defence Minister and are doing the same under Nirmala Sitharaman,” one of the whistle-blowers said.

Drdo

Def Minister’s inquiry in DRDO’s TOT could open can of worms

4 Comments

Prateek Goyal- Friday, May 4, 2018 – Sakal Times

“Many old TOTs by DRDO given to industries will be under the scanner.”

The inquiry was ordered after a news report about the repetitions of TOT by DRDO at the Defence Expo held at Chennai in April.

Similiarly, in year 2013, one of the TOTs in question of an explosive device kit prepared by High Enegy Material Laboratory (HEMRL) Pune received a lot of media attention after the signing of MoU with a US-based company.

Sakal Times has found out that a propaganda of TOT was promoted in order to boost the image of DRDO after the corruption and nepostism in it was exposed by the audit report of Comptroller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) in 2012.In order to Boost the image of DRDO Avinash Chander,the then director of DRDO in year 2013 served the old wine in new bottle and created a propoganda for reverse technology transfer to USA by forged TOT of explosive device kit prepared at HEMRL, Pune.

According to documents with Sakal Times, the patent for EDK was falsified and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed with one South Carolina-based company – which was actually a car accessories’ company with only two employees.

Murky background
HEMRL developed the EDK technology and applied to patent it in March 1996. In February 2010, the EDK was patented in the name of its inventors – Rabindra Kumar Sinha, Jaman Singh Gharia, Usha Devi Ramchandran Nair and Hira Lal Yadav.

Despite this, HEMRL falsely credited the innovation on the name of another scientist who was not the inventor – Reny M Roy – and was sent to America. The letter from HEMRL stated that she is the team leader and her presence in USA for the demonstration is necessary.

Roy claims this is wrong information. “The team had not completed their work, it was us who made it operational. Nothing is on anybody’s name, please don’t do such things as DRDO is doing good work,” she said.

Sinha, one of the inventors of EDK, said, “We completed the project and we don’t know why our name has not come and it doesn’t affect us.”

The DRDO director in 2013, when the MOU was signed, Avinash Chander, is currently based in Hyderabad and defended his actions saying, “I am not responsible for this, I was not the head of HEMRL lab. You should ask the concerned director.”

Propaganda and repeated MOU of TOT

  • 2011: HEMRL signed the first MOU with Crowe and Company, a Summerville,South Carolina-based car accessory and consulting services company with annual revenue of USD 1 lakh and has two employees. The MOU was signed between the then HEMRL director Shubhanand Rao and Fay Crow, who was the president of Crowe and company. It is significant to note that before signing the MOU with Crowe and company, DRDO signed a licensing agreement for EDK with a NOIDA based company by the name of Vantage Integrated Security Solutions-which used to deal in the assembling of CCTV Cameras
  • 2012: Controller General of Defence Accounts audit reveals large scale corruption in DRDO projects and VK Saraswat, the then Director General was relieved from his services. The new Director Avinash Chander again signed an MOU with Crowe and Company in Washington DC.
  • 2013:The new Director Avinash Chander again signed an MOU with Crowe and Company in Washington DC. A big function was organized by the DRDO at US Chamber of Commerce building. A dinner party was also hosted by the then Indian Ambassador to Amercia Nirupama Roy for DRDO official and family members of Fay Crowe. A delegation of a dozen scientist including Chander, Roy and Satish Naik, a Technical officer took part in the event.
  • 2015: Chander was sacked by the then Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar. DRDO team comprised Chander, Reny Roy and Satish Naik, technical officer in addition to nine officials

DRDO’s explanation

  • Though DRDO claims that no explanation was demanded from them, Directorate of Public Interface (DPI) of DRDO has sent an explanatory letter to Defence Minister dated April 23.
  • The letter stated that TOT’s were not repeated during the Defence Expo 2018, and that earlier the technology was demonstrated to clients and later a proposal for TOT was sent to them.
  • DRDO spokesperson Manish Bhardwaj told Sakal Times, “No such inquiry has been ordered by Honourable Raksha Mantri on this matter. The news report refereed by you is factually incorrect. A rebuttal was already sent to the concerned media by the Directorate of Public Relations (DPR), Ministry of Defence.”

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

www.cooruptionindrdo.com inputs on above article

DRDO News letter of May 2011 – EDK ToT news 

DRDO News letter of September 2013 –   EDK ToT in US with same company news 

Avinash Chander launching EDK ToT with Fay Crowe, Crowe & Company, US 

Dinner party was also hosted by the then Indian Ambassador to Amercia Nirupama Roy for DRDO official and family members of Fay Crowe.

 

Uncategorized

More SCR trains to feature bio-toilets

Leave a comment

Staff Reporter – The Hindu HYDERABAD:, MAY 17, 2013

The bio-toilet costs about Rs.80,000 apiece and uses uses bacteria to decompose night soil. Authorities plan to install 200 of them in Padmavathi, Ajanta and other trains

After conducting a successful trial run of using bio-toilets in 17 coaches of Hyderabad-Mumbai and Kacheguda-Bangalore Express trains, the South Central Railway (SCR) has now decided to install 200 bio-toilets in a few more trains very shortly.

Bacterial decomposition

Developed by Railway Research and Standard Organisation (RDSO) and Defence Research Development Establishment (DRDE), a bio-toilet, has six compartments and uses Inoculums (bacteria) to decompose night soil.

The night soil from commode enters into the bio-tank, where the inoculums are stored and gets decomposed by the bacteria. The decomposed human soil will next enter into chlorine tank and to get purified. Finally, the out put will be water and gas, said SCR spokesperson.

Onerous task of hygiene

Maintaining cleanliness at railway stations, especially the tracks at stations is always a task. Conventional toilets in trains discharge night soil onto the track, causing unhygienic conditions and corrosion to track and coach fittings, he said.

But with simple design and easier installation in coaches, these bio-toilets help in ensuring zero discharge of night soil on the tracks. SCR had commenced a trail run of using these bio toilets in Hyderabad-Mumbai and Kacheguda-Bangalore Express trains in January and it was found beneficial, he informed.

Each bio-toilet costs about Rs.80,000 and authorities are planning to install 200 of them in Padmavathi, Ajanta and other trains in a few months, he explained.

Bio-toilets with provision to replenish inoculums and chlorine are easy to maintain.

However, these toilets would get choked, if passengers dump bottles, plastic carry bags, cups, napkins etc into it via commode. It would choke the toilet, making it unusable, he added.

Drdo

R&DE (E) refuses chariot for palkhi procession from Alandi

Leave a comment

TNN | Updated: Jun 5, 2017, 08.01 AM IST
PUNE: The Research and Development Establishment (Engineers), a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) laboratory, has decided to not provide its chariot for the annual Sant Dnyneshwar Maharaj palkhi procession that will be began on June 17.
Recently, an official communication in this regard was sent to the Shri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan Trust (SDMST) in Alandi, which manages the procession.
Confirming the development, SDMST president Ajit Kulkarni said, “We have received a communication from the Research and Development Establishment (E) authorities stating that the chariot will not be given for the procession henceforth. They have not specified a reason. It is their entirely decision.”
According to Kulkarni, the particular chariot had been used for the procession between 2013 and 2015. “Last year, the laboratory’s authorities had cited that there was some technical glitch in the chariot and hence they could not provide it. Since the chariot is in their possession, we were not aware about its actual status,” Kulkarni added.
On June 13, 2012, a bullock drawing the chariot had died near Phulenagar at Vishrantwadi on the Pune-Alandi road. The weight of the old chariot was one of the reasons cited for the death. The chariot weighs about 4 tonnes.
Following the episode, the trust had requested authorities to construct a special, lighter chariot. Then Research and Development Establishment (E) director R Guruprasad sought requisite permission from the scientific adviser to the defence minister and took on the project
Commenting on the functioning of the chariot, a SDMST member said, “The new chariot was lighter and they had developed a mechanism wherein the battery-operated chariot would draw power when it traveled uphill and got charged while going downhill. Thus, reducing the bullock’s burden.”
Other members of the trust pointed out that the DRDO’s chariot had helped complete the procession smoothly. “Thousands of devotees would get injured as their legs would come under the wheels of the old chariot. But, the DRDO chariot had reduced this risk ,” a trust member explained. When contacted, Research and Development Establishment (E) director VV Parlikar refused to comment on the matter.

Drdo

Extension for Nirbhay, panel to identify flaws

Leave a comment

By Hemant Kumar Rout | Express News Service | Published: 07th January 2017
BHUBANESWAR: India’s own cruise missile project Nirbhay has got an extension of 18 months amid speculations over the weapon system’s operational capabilities. Launched in 2004, the projected date of completion for the prestigious project was December 31 last.

At a recent review meeting, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar gave green signal for the extension. Ministry of Defence sources said the Nirbhay team has been asked to deliver their best by June, 2018.

Under developmental trial since 2013, the missile is yet to perform as per the expectations. Of four tests in as many years, the indigenously developed weapon had failed three times though it could cover the intended range once in 2014.

Meanwhile, an independent technical committee has been formed to identify faults in the system that led to failure of the missile during its fourth trial on December 21.

The probe committee led by founder director of ISRO Inertial Systems Unit Dr Nagarajan Vedachalam will not only ascertain the faults but also recommend possible measures to make the system robust.

Like in its maiden trial and third test, the missile had veered off the trajectory minutes after take off during the last launch and the mission had to be aborted mid-air.

An official associated with the project, however, informed that the blame game between two laboratories of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) cost the project more than the faults in the system.

While Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), which has designed the missile, has been blaming Research Centre Imarat (RCI) for supplying defective hardware, the latter points fingers at ADE-developed software for recurring failure of the missile.

‘’The probe committee will ascertain which is defective, the software or hardware. It may also inspect metallurgical deficiencies,’’ the sources said.

Having a strike range of around 1,000 km, Nirbhay is first homegrown subsonic cruise missile project. According to DRDO, the missile can challenge weapons of its class.

Nirbhay blasts off like a rocket and unlike a missile, it turns into a vehicle akin an aircraft. Flying at tree-top level, it can deceive enemy radars making it difficult to be detected. Unlike other ballistic missiles, this cruise missile has wings and distinct tail fins. After reaching near the target area, it can hover around, hitting at its will from any direction.

Drdo

Will be ever improve ?

6 Comments
To – prabhudoon@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:09 PM

Sir,

I am herewith sending you the letter addressed to Sri Narendra Modi, PM

as on date, no action was taken.

Regards

K.Surya Kumari.

Visakhapatnam,

D/21-9-16

From

Smt. K.Surya Kumari (Retd.),

R/o H.No.13-24, LN Nagar,

Sujatha Nagar Post,

Visakhapatnam – 530051 (AP)

To

Dr. Narendra Modi,

Prime Minister of India,

7, Race Course Road,

New Delhi – 110001

Sir,

Sub: Non-issuance of Pension

Ref: 1) Cabinet Committee report on Sexual Harassment constituted

Vide Cabinet Secretariat order No.501/IV/3/2012-VCC dt.5-8-13.

2) CAT, Hyderabad orders on OA Nos.309 and 310 / 2010

3) High Court, AP order on WPMP No.36603 in WP

No.29554 / 2011

4) DRDO Hq. Letter dt.14-9-2012 on non-posting anywhere else.

5) Cabinet Secretariat Memo dt.9-12-2015 to S.Christopher,

Secretary, DG DRDO.

6) On line grievance No.DDRDO/E/2016/00111 dt.20-7-16.

I have served in NSTL, DRDO for 35 years 10 months and retired on 29th Feb. 2016 as Technical Officer-B (Class-I Gazetted).  I gave complaint against Sri SV Rangarajan on sexual harassment dt.18-12-2007.  Without any proper enquiry, DRDO  served me 3 charge sheets and suspended me for 33 months period.

Vide 2nd reference CAT stated that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, making allegations against several officers by petitioner also cannot be a ground for extension of suspension.  DRDO revoked my suspension on 7th Oct. 2011 and transferred me to NPOL, Kochi on the same day.  Vide 3rd reference, on 29th Aug. 2012, High Court suspended the transfer order stating that they are prima facie of the opinion that in effect it is an act of victimization and amounts to punishment.

Vide 4th reference, DRDO stated that my joining at NSTL cannot be permitted as the Department has filed a vacate petition at AP High Court.  High Court has dismissed the Vacate petition filed on transfer order suspension on 4th Feb. 2013.   From 1st Nov. 2011 to 3rd March 2013 i.e., my transfer period and joining not permitted period were not regularized till date.

….2.

-: 2 :-

Vide 1st reference the Committee stated that hostile environment creation by Sri SV Rangarajan (Page No.11), DRDO is lack of sensitiveness, lack of attention to the application of rules and procedures (Page No.12), attitude and action of DRDO administration which has shown a casual and insensitive approach in dealing with the case (Page 13), DRDO and NSTL created a hostile environment in which the petitioner found it difficult to function (Page No.13) which conforms that NSTL and DRDO officials have harassed me in several aspects.  No action was taken by Cabinet / Ministry on the findings of the Report.

Suspension period was regularized after my retirement (i.e, after 4 years) with imposing a penalty (though the matter is pending at High Court).  Transfer period and non-posting period was not regularized so far and my pension and retirement benefits were not settled (even after 7 months of retirement) by which I am facing hardship, mental egony.

The PGPORTAL online grievance as referred 6 above also disposed off as per false and baseless information provided by Dr. Hina Gokhale, DOP, DRDO without proper investigation.

Now the organization processed the partial pension without 2 increments (2013 and 2014) for transfer period which is even less than the provision pension as per PGDA phone inquiry.  Therefore, it is requested to instruct the concerned to take immediate action on the 1st reference report, Court cases, and release of proper pension and settlement of retirement benefits as early as possible (Gratuity, Commutation and Earned leave encashment).

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

(K.SURYA KUMARI)

 

Copy to

1) Dr.S.Christopher, DG (DRDO), DRDO Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.

2) Hina Gokhale, DOP, DRDO Bhavan, New Delhi-110011

3) Director, NSTL, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-530027

Drdo

DRDO Chief is serious to handle sexual harassment cases

5 Comments

DRDO Chief Dr. Selvin Christopher dealing sexual harassment case in good spirit but the mindsets of senior officials not ready to co-op him for change of existing rotten handling process of DRDO. The getting justice in sexual harassment case is near to impossible in DRDO women scientist and employees.

There are number of example exists where DRDO management failed to deliver justice and always successes to buried the complaints.

The DRDO workforce of more than 30000 and nearly 20% women are working different level top to bottom, even in good positions like DG, Directors etc but harassment complaints are reaching to national women commission, national schedule cast commission etc is the clear evidence the failure of dealing these incidents by existing system of DRDO inspite of having good number of women official.

The reason is also very crystal clear the top existing women officials are not competent and got their position not on the basis of merit. That is the reason like so called famous scientist not able to give justice to victimized SRF.

In this darkness suddenly DRDO Chief Dr. Selvin Christopher sends direction to IRDE and ITM to deal these sexual harassment cases in seriously as per rule.

But unfortunately both the labs not taking it seriously the following enclose letter is showing the mindset of senior official of IRDE, who are openly violating the VISHAKHA guidelines of Honorable Supreme Court.

In following letter is clear example that how accused is trying to hostile the witness with putting through Director and the letter is trying to perusing through divisional head to witness.

The DRDO Hq directed to Director IRDE to take appropriate action against Admin Officer who gave false evidence in support of accused officer but till date Director IRDE not dare to take any action.

In ITM accused is enjoying his post/position after getting charge sheet. Here interesting fact of DRDO working that during the period three director handle the file, Mr M Kishor, Dr R S Pundir, as additional Charge and Sh Sanjay Tandon but no one able to shift the accuse from post of admin officer. As per rule everyone knows that what action is required after issuing such serious charge sheet.

The best part of Director’s order is the inquiry should be done as per DOPT F. No. 11013/2/2014-Estt (A-II1) Dated July 16th, 2015 but they forgot the following the rules or just giving privilege to accused to harass and manage the witness as he is holding all executive powers of ITM.

 

As per DOPT F. No. 11013/2/2014-Estt (A-II1) Dated July 16th, 2015

Suspension

  1. A Government servant may also be placed under suspension before or after issue of a Charge Sheet where his continuance in office will prejudice the investigation, for example if there is an apprehension that he may tamper with witnesses or documents. Suspension may also be resorted to where continuance of the Government servant in office will be against wider public interest such as there is a public scandal and it is necessary to place the Government servant under suspension to demonstrate the policy of the Government to deal strictly with officers involved in such scandals. It may be desirable to resort to suspension in case of misdemeanor involving acts of moral turpitude.

Special provisions to deal with threats or intimidation

  1. Disciplinary Authority may also dispense with inquiry under Rule I 9(ii), and action may be taken without the inquiry when the Disciplinary Authority concludes that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry. The circumstances leading to such a conclusion may exist either before the inquiry is commenced or may develop in the course of the inquiry. Such situation would be deemed to have arisen:

(i) where the Government servant, through or together with his associates terrorizes, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal in order to prevent them from doing so; or

(I) where the Government servant himself or with or through others threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the Disciplinary Authority, Members of the Committee, the Presenting Officer or members of their family.

It is requested DRDO officials please go through the Vishakha Guidelines were a set of procedural guidelines for use in India in cases of sexual harassment. They were promulgated by the Indian Supreme Court in 1997 and were superseded in 2013 by The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Drdo

CORRUPTION IN DRL, TEZPUR BY DR. VIJAY VEER, DIRECTOR, DRL, TEZPUR – PART-II

5 Comments

To                                                                                                                                                           Chief Vigilance Commissioner                                                                                                   Central Vigilance Commission                                                                                                         Satarkta BhavanA-Block,                                                                                                                 GPO Complex, INA                                                                                                                           New Delhi-110023

SUBJECT: CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF STORE ITEMS FOR TRANSIT GUEST FACILITY AT TAWANG, BY DR. RKR SINGH, TECHNICAL, OFFICER ‘C’ AND DR. VIJAY VEER , DIRECTOR, DRL, TEZPUR , DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

  1. Through the note sheet dated 26.09.2013, Dr. Vijay Veer approved the procurement of some items but surprisingly the amount of procurement items for which approval was sanctioned not mentioned and mode of purchase was not mentioned. Which is essential for the approving the financial sanction by CFA under Purchase Management 2006 of DRDO.
  2. A note sheet dated 26.09.2013 was initiated by Dr. RKR Singh, Technical Officer ‘C’ , OI/C , DRL Detachment(Dett.), Tawang to Director & CFA DRL Tezpur. The said note sheet was approved by Dr. Vijay Veer, Director and CFA on 26.09.2013. Copy of the note sheet is annexed as Annexure No. -1.
  3. This case is regarding false procurement of furniture (bed), Blanket and mattress by submission of improper  bills.
  4. He is involved in various kinds of financial irregularities and misappropriation of public funds by making fake procurement with help of his favourite very junior officers at DRL, Tezpur.
  5. Vijay Veer, Scientist ‘G’ taken over as Director, DRL, Tezpur w.e.f. 01st March 2012. As per DRDO legacy Dr. Vijay Veer start running DRL, DRDO, Tezpur violating all laid down rules of GOI. His superannuating on 31 December 2015.
  6. Defence Research Laboratory (DRL), Tezpur (Assam) is an establishment of Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Ministry of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  7. The Indents were initiated under cash purchase in Performa DRDO.MM.09 (Prescribed Performa for Cash Purchase under Purchase Management 2006). All these indents were initiated and countersigned by Dr. RKR Singh, himself as OI/C, DRL Dett. Tawang, HOD, High Altitude Division and finally approved by Dr. Vijay Veer, Director and CFA on 10.10.2013. Copies of all three cash purchase demands (indents) are annexed as Annexure No. – 2A, 2B & 2C. The summary of said procurement is given below.RKR case tableRKR case table
  8. The Receipt, Issue & Expenditure Boucher No. CRV/100 dated 19.11.2013 is attached as Annexure No. – 3.
  9. Copies of bills submitted by Dr. RKR Singh for said procurement under cash purchase are annexed as Annexure No. – 4.GROUNDS
  10. It is quite evident from facts & documents attached above those three demands were initiated by Dr. RKR Singh, Technical Officer ‘C’ both as Indenter & HOD. These demands were raised on 09.2013, 07.10.2013 and 07.10.2013 respectively.
  11. These demands get financial sanction from Accounts Officer, Store Office, OI/C Planning & Coordination and Director/CFA on 10.2013.
  12. Items not came in DRL premises, no entry of item at Security Gate is available, no physical verification of items purchased which is quite evident as Wooden Bed were purchased at Tawang which 350 kms away from Tezpur.
  13. Surprisingly the bill submitted by Dr. RKR Singh, Technical Officer ‘C’ is of dates 09.10.2013, 01.10.2013 and 09.10.2013, which are prior to the date of sanction/approval by Director/CFA. Such practices are not permissible under Purchase Management 2006.
  14. This establishes that the items were procured even before sanction/approval by CFA and without withdrawing Cash Section of Finance Division or Cash Purchase Officer.
  15. Since procurement was not visible so improper bills were submitted as without getting fund from Finance Division of DRL, Tezpur, then from which money Dr. RKR Singh purchased the said items for which he submitted false bills.
  16. On perusal of items it establishes the items were purchased for creation of Temporary Transit Facility in the already available structure at DRL, Dett. Centre, Tawang. There was no exigency in the matter as Tawang is 350 kms away from Tezpur and none of the official visiting there regularly. The said items should be purchased after due sanction and approval of CFA and withdrawal of fund from Finance Division of DRL, Tezpur.
  17. The DRL Dett. Centre, Tawang is at 350 km from Tezpur and there is no permanent/temporary/prefabricated structure at site of DRL Dett. Centre, Tawang. Only two teen shades of small size are there and one garage. Even the toilets, bathroom and boundary are not there on site of DRL, Dett. Centre, Tawang. Copies of recent photographs of DRL Dett. Centre site are annexed
  18. It is self explanatory from these photographs of DRL Dett. site that there is no Temporary Transit Facility existing in DRL Dett. Centre, Tawang. Even there is no boundary wall and kitchen etc then how any official of DRL, Tezpur can can stay there.
  19. Two employees Mr. N. Tashi, Security Attendant ‘A’ and Mr. L. Rinchin, Security Attendant ‘A’ who originally hails from living at Tawang unauthorizedly without any Posting Order (DO-I) or Movement Order  for Temporary Duty.This establishes whole conspiracy for misappropriation of fund by Dr. RKR Singh and Dr. Vijay Veer by submitting false demands, false bills and misappropriation of Rs. 24533.00 without purchasing any item.

    However, the amount of public fund is small but it establishes doubtful integrity of Dr. Vijay Veer, Director, DRL, Tezpur and Dr. RKR Singh, Technical Officer ‘C’. It warrants disciplinary action against both of them under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

    Regards

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

    Enclosed – Annexure

    blanket purchase RKRcash purchase RKRapproval noting rkrbill rkrrkr1KB center bill RKRreceipt rkrtawang-Dt for RKR case

DRL, Twang Dte, Arunachal –  Annexure 5

 

 

 

 

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.