Tag Archives: 2015

Army moves to court martial officer accused of sexually abusing subordinate

By Pradip R. Sagar March 24, 2018 -THE WEEK

Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman with a group of women Army officers | Facebook account of Indian Army’s ADGPI

The Indian Army has initiated court martial proceedings against the former commanding officer of a Alwar-based military unit after a 27-year-old woman Army captain levelled allegations of sexual harassment against the officer.

Captain Poonam (name changed) joined the Army’s Signals Corps as a technical officer in 2013.

In August 2015, she filed a sexual harassment complaint against the commanding officer of her unit while she was posted at the Alwar military station in Rajasthan.

In her complaint to higher authorities, the woman officer alleged that her commanding officer started sexually abusing her soon after joining her unit. He allegedly touched her private parts and made remarks like “Do you have a boyfriend?”

When her complaint went unheeded, the victim wrote to then Army chief general Dalbir Singh Suhag, saying she approached him “bypassing all channels for redressal of my grievances because an earlier attempt through proper channel failed to provide justice.”

In fact, her father wrote to then defence minister Manohar Parrikar by making an emotional appeal, “If this is the way the Indian Army treats its daughters, I’m not sure if any parent will ever send their daughters to the Army.”

Eventually, Army Headquarters started a court of inquiry in late 2015, when her issue was highlighted by the national media.

After two years of extensive proceedings of the court of inquiry and subsequently the summary of evidences, which established prima facie guilt of the commanding officer, court martial proceedings were ordered to commence from Saturday (March 24).

“General Court Martial of the former Commanding Officer of 12 Field Sub area will commence from March 24,” an Army order stated; the order mentions two brigadiers have been made witnesses.

Rustom-II takes to skies as mystery over transfer of its project director continues

By Pradip R. Sagar February 26, 2018 THE WEEK
Over a month after ‘unceremonious departure’ of the project director of Rustom-II drone A.P.V.S. Prasad, DRDO on Sunday carried out test flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in Challakere in Karnataka’s Chitradurga district.

After the test, DRDO came out with a statement that a medium-altitude long-endurance UAV was “successful”.

However, colleagues of Prasad—“scientist-G”who was made project director of the Rustom-II UAV programme of DRDO in 2015—are still curious to know the reason behind Prasad’s sudden transfer from the project, which he actually revived. Insiders claim that Prasad’s departure was linked to his objection to the lobby, which was pushing for a particular engine for the Rustom-II. Rustom was being developed with an Austrian engine, but a few people in the organisation wanted to replace it with the engine made by an Indian firm, despite the engine’s failure to meet the ‘technical parameters’ to be used in the UAV.

Sensing foul play, Scientists Association of Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE)—DRDO’s laboratory making the UAVs—has approached Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to look into the matter (copy of the letter is with The WEEK). Following the complaint, a discreet inquiry is being conducted by the intelligence agencies.

On January 16, 2018, DRDO’s headquarters issued an order for transfer of Prasad to an another DRDO lab on grounds of “public interest”. Incidentally, Prasad was honoured with the best scientist award in 2017.

According to the letter from the ADE association, Prasad, who was in the DRDO for over 30 years, was promoted as the programme director of coveted Rustom-II in 2015. He actually rejuvenating the project, which was lying in a pathetic condition, and within a year of taking over, he managed to carry out first test flight of Rustom-II, the letter reveals.

When contacted, DRDO spokesperson Manish Bhardwaj declined to comment on the issue saying “he was unaware of the internal developments”.

On Sunday, DRDO came out with a statement saying “DRDO successfully flew its Rustom 2 today at its Aeronautical Test Range (ATR) at Chalakere at Chitradurga. This flight assumes significance due to the fact that this is the first flight in user configuration with higher power engine.”

Unarmed drone Rustom-II is being developed to carry out surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) roles for the armed forces with an endurance of 24 hours, on the lines of Predator drone of the US forces.

According to the officials, Rustom-II is capable of carrying different combinations of payloads like synthetic aperture radar, electronic intelligence systems and situational awareness payloads.

Disadvantages caused due to Bio-toilets introduced in the passenger coaches of Indian Railways – NFIR

National Federation of Indian Railwaymen
3, CHELMSFORD ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 055

No.II/34/Pt.12

Dated: 10.8.2015

The Member Mechanical,
Railway Board,
New Delhi

Dear Sir,
Sub: Disadvantages caused due to Bio-toilets introduced in the passenger coaches of Indian Railways reg.

The concept of bio-toilets in passenger carrying coaches was given shape by the Railway Ministry some time in the year 2011 when in a few coaches of’ passenger carrying mail/express trains, the bio-toilets were first introduced. NFIR understands that the Railway Ministry plans to fit bio-toilets in all passenger coaches by 2021.

Federation has been receiving number of complaints from the C&W Staff on malfunctioning vis-a-vis disadvantages of the bio-toilets. In this connection, NFIR having gone into the complaints received from the C&W Staff, noticed the following problems which may cause serious health hazards to staff.

The bio-toilet system is very sensitive. It has more than 100% chances of choking even with a bit of ‘Pan Gulka’ spitted in the toilets by the passengers knowing or unknowingly if not flushed properly by the passenger in the moving or stationary trains. Choking in these toilets also takes place due to throwing of Napkins, Cigarette buds, Gutka Pouch, Ladies pads, Plastic Water Boltles or their covers, liquor boltles and garbage of food stuff by the passengers resulting toilet pans and leading to public complaints. This situation has been causing tremendous pressure on staff for no fault of theirs.

The ball-valve provided which should function to drain out the waste to the ground by operating a connected pedal, never works due to faulty design. It is also reported that designs differ from one manufacturer to another, causing problems in procurement of spares.

The RDSO designed simplified standard mechanism to operate the ball valve be not compatible with old designs.

It has been further complained that improper trials of revised versions/modifications before implementation has been the real problem in procurement of spares and has been creating confusion among the Supervisors and Staff in the course maintenance.

The C&W Supervisors and staff working in pit lines have been facing lot of inconvenience during under gear maintenance, examing brake beam, brake
block hanger, brake shoe assermbly, brake blocks, Safety wire rope & their pins, bogies frames and also facing serious inconvenience in piston stroke brake cylinder which faces tank of quite a big size and leaves narrow gap.

Bio-toilets required inspection & maintenance to ensure working of Ball-Valve & its operation linked with p-trap and Hose Connector, mounted and fitted in the narrow gap of the top surface of the tank and trough floor of the coach. C&W Engineers and Staff have been put to lot of difficulties during maintenance and have been subjected to more physical mental stress in day-to-day working. While working are being compelled to inhale foul smells emanating from the choked tanks containing human waste and have started acquiring diseases.

The process of draining out or the choked tanks generates unbearable filthy smell creating inconvenience to other technical staff working on other under gears and at times diverts their attention and Compels to ignore the necessary safety repairs due to bad work environment.
At present we have this system only on 10% of the coaches, causing serious problems. ‘The height of the problems can be measured when 100% coaches will have this system and will it be possible for staff to function? The C&W Supervisors and Slaff are reported to have become like human scavengers. It is worth-mentioning that the Government of India had banned scavenging in the year 1993 consequent to the directions given by the Apex Court through various judgements.

Federation has further been given to understand that as per Railway Board’s guidelines effluent test is required to be conducted to over 5% population of each type of coaches at an interval of 3 months and is to be conducted by the expert laboratory Staff. Unfortunatety, the Railway Authorities, instead of using Lab Staff for the said purpose, have been pestering C&W Staff to collect effluent from Bio-Tanks for conducting test in some Depots like Gwalior, despite the fact that this job is not related to C&W staff.

Federation notes with disappointment that the ‘Bio-toilet’ system introduced on the I.R. is claimed to be environment friendly but it is not so. particularly for the C&W Supervisors & Technical Staff of Mechanical Department.

NFIR, therefore. requests the Railway Board (MM) to kindly see that thorough review is conducted before proceeding further for introducing Bio-toilets in coaches.

Yours faithfully,
sd/-

(Dr M. Raghavaiah)
General Secretary
Source: NFIR

FCC BUSINESS IN DRDO: CORRUPTION IN R&D OF BPJ AT DMSRDE, KANPUR

To,                                                                                                                                  4th August 2017

Hon’ble Shri ArunJaitely

RakshaMantri, Bharat Sarkar

RakshaMantralaya,

South Block,

New Delhi-110011

Subject: FCC Business in DRDO- Corruption in DMSRDE, Kanpur by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Scientist ‘F’

Sir,

As you aware there are several questions raised by honorable members of Parliament regarding corrupt practice complaints against DRDO Directors and senior scientist but unfortunately DRDO “pull the wool over MoD eyes” in the name of constitution Fact Finding Committees for such complaints. The fact is the committees chairman and members are always their yes man/chamchas. The reports generated after consuming months and months and as per designed by DG and his loyal coterie. CVO, MoD only busy with correspondences for several years in each case.

Sir, you just call a sample case from CVO, MoD on your table, will expose the modus operendi of these great manipulator scientists of DRDO. Whether case of R&D E, Ex Director Dr Guruprasad, Ex Director DMSRDE, Dr A K Saxena, Dr A K Tyagi, Scietist ‘G’, Ex C C &D, Dr Selvamurty and so many case are pending in the desk of CVO, MoD waiting for fake reports of FFIC’s and clarifications of show cause notices replies of DRDO.

Corruption and adoption of corrupt practices in routine office activities is inherent property of DMSRDE, Kanpur. Even after dozens of complaints on corruption to CVC and its slow motion action on these complaints, Hon’ble High Court Delhi Order in PIL WP(C) No. 3610/2015 dated 17 Dec 2015 and Show Cause Notices to more than 30 Scientists and officers of DMSRDE, Kanpur and approval of Charge Sheet under Major Penalty to Ex- Director Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena there is no fear in some daring Scientists of DMSRDE and once again Corruption started in DMSRDE, Kanpur.

The recent case is of Complaint dated 21 October 2016 by Shri K.K. Sharmaagainst Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Scientist ‘F’. As usual on receiving of complaint DRDO HQ constituted Fact Finding Committee (FCC) – Chairman Shri R.K. Sharma, Scientist ‘G’ , DPA, DRDO HQ.

The case relates to complaint dated 21 October 2016 sent by Shri K.K. Sharma, DMSRDE, Kanpur to Hon’ble RakshaMantri alleging corruption in procurement of material by using fake addresses of firms by Dr. R.K. Tiwari, Scientist ‘F’, DMSRDE, Kanpur in development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) GSQR 1318.

A File No. DVS/02/2039/P/22 was initiated in the matter and a revised report in accordance with Note No. 19 dated 09 March 2017 was seek by Director General (NS &M) and letter  was sent to Dr. N. Eswara Prasad, Director, DMSRDE on 21.03.2017 from Office of DG(NS&M).  He was asked to submit the revised report by 23 June 2017 vide DG(NS&M) letter No. DVS/02/2039/P/22 dated 19 June 2017.

As a matter of fact Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Scientist ‘F’ was Head of Composite Material Division and Project Head of Body Armour : Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) -GSQR 1318. He was removed from Head, Composite Division  and Shri A.S. Parihar , Scientist ‘E’ was made Project Head & Head of Composite Division by Director, DMSRDE under huge pressure of DRDO HQ. It is relevant to mention here that Show Cause notice has been issued to Shri A. S. Parihar , Scientist ‘E’ in Corruption matter of Dr. A.K. Saxena complaints and his promotion was also withheld by DRDO HQ for several months.

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Scientist ‘F’ is still posted at DMSRDE, Kanpur and no action has been taken against him. He is having blessings of Dr. N. Eswara Prasad, Director, DMSRDE and enjoying at DMSRDE, Kanpur. DRDO HQ is trying to wash out the matter by its FCC business ( means submit fake FCC report and protect the corrupt) and adopting delay tactics in this complaint.

Sir, your Government is having policy of “zero tolerance” on corruption then why not any disciplinary action has been initiated since last 09 months of filing the complaint? I kindly request you to take urgent action in the matter and issue orders to immediate transfer/posting of  Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Scientist ‘F’ out of DMSRDE as he is affecting the inquiry and influencing the case due to his contacts at DMSRDE. It is relevant to mention here that Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Scientist ‘F’ is posted at DMSRDE since the year 1990.

 

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal

21- Sunderwala, Raipur

Dehradun – 248008

Mobile -9411114879

Email id prabhudoon@gmail.com, ww.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosures:

  1. Hon’ble High Court Delhi relevant portion of Order in PIL WP(C) No. 3610/2015 dated 17 Dec 2015.
  2. Vigilance Clarence to Dr. A.K. Saxena dated 31 July 2015
  3. Letter DVS/02/2039/P/22 dated 19 June 2017 from Office of Director General ( NS &M), DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  4. Relevant portion (page 19-20) of noting approved by DG(NS&M) dated 21.03.2017

Anomaly claim in DIAT recruitment

Mohammed Akhef | TNN | Updated: Oct 1, 2016,
toi-1-oct-2016AURANGABAD: A city-based associate professor has sent a fresh complaint to the defence ministry alleging discrimination during a recruitment process by Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (DIAT) in Pune.
In support of his claim, the associate professor has attached a bunch of “self-contradictory” documents from the DIAT received under the RTI Act. The DIAT – a deemed university funded by the defence ministry – had published an advertisement on April 25, 2015, inviting applications for the post of assistant professor in the technology management. It received as many as 18 applications.
In an RTI reply, the DIAT clearly stated that the scrutiny committee shortlisted nine applicants – all holding a postgraduate degree in management. Subsequently, the shortlisted candidates were called for an interview on September 12, 2015. The interview was attended by all the shortlisted candidates, following which one was provisionally selected and his name was published on DIAT’s website on the same night.
Unconvinced with the selection, the Aurangabad-based associate professor, Dr Nitin Untwal, challenged the decision of the selection committee and sent a letter to the DIAT, claiming that the appointment was in violation of the University Grant Commission norms. Untwal holds an MBA, MCom, PhD and has cleared UGC SET.
Taking cognisance of Untwal’s letter, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has initiated a probe into the recruitment as the seat was reserved for an OBC candidate. Untwal has also lodged a series of complaints with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). The PMO, in its reply, cited a Supreme Court judgment in the case between one P Sushila and UGC for carrying out the recruitment process.
According to Untwal’s complaint, out of the 18 applicants, nine were disqualified on the grounds that they did not have a PG or a master’s degree in management. He added that eventually a candidate with an M-Tech degree was not only shortlisted, but selected.
Moreover, an RTI query with the National Institute of Technology in Calicut revealed that M-Tech under mechanical engineering (industrial engineering and management) is not equivalent to postgraduation in management.
In a fresh complaint, Untwal cited that a letter sent by the DIAT to the UGC – a copy which has been obtained under RTI on September 28, 2015 – the DIAT stated that the essential qualification for the post were as per para 4.4.5 of the UGC regulation 2010, which is a post graduate degree in management declared equivalent by AICTE/AIU.
In its RTI reply, the DIAT on May 23, 2016 stated that the essential qualification for the position were as per para 4.4.6.1 of the UGC regulation 2010, which says that “the essential qualification for the post is a postgraduate degree in engineering and technology”.
When contacted, DIAT officials refused to comment. But in a reply to a query posed via email, DIAT’s joint registrar (administration) T V Ananthasubramanian said, “I am directed to forward the following as our response: Dr Untwal was a candidate for the position of assistant professor for technology management. He was not found suitable by the duly constituted Selection committee and hence, not selected. His various queries to DIAT and various other agencies and authorities, including the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri/Chancellor, DIAT have been replied. The DIAT has nothing more to add to the answers given earlier.”

toi-pune-oct-2016

DRDO forgot Ethics for dealing sexual harassment case, proves that DRDO really following Different rules for different officers

To,                                                                                       22th July 2016

Shri Manohar Parrikar,

Defence Minister,

Room No -104 South Block,

New Delhi-110011 

Subject:  DRDO forgot Ethics for dealing sexual harassment case, proves that DRDO really following Different rules for different officers

Sir,

      As you already witnessing that in DRDO day by day number of cases are increasing of harassment whether it matter of service / minority / SC/ST/ Sexual harassment.

But surprisingly the processing/ handling of these cases are entirely different in each and every case, not a single case is dealing with proper ethics. Every case is dealing on the basis of accused/charged officer’s relations with his director and other connection with other senior officials sitting in DRDO Hqrs.

In some cases of sexual harassment accused were transferred or temporally attached to some other locations immediately without looking even their seniority, like one scientist ‘G’  from DIPAS transferred to INMAS.

Same time other cases like Sh Vipin Jain, Administrative Officer, ITM, DRDO Mussoorie and Sh V K Arora, Technical Officer ‘D’ IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun both are enjoying their power and position.

In Case of Sh Vipin Jain, Administrative Officer the charge sheet already served. He asked more time to reply i.e. 25th July 2016. See some great facts of DRDO culture.

  • Director, ITM give him full executive powers and always try to spend more to more time with him and giving full moral support to accused, who already found guilty by ICC, and bases of that he was chargesheeted.
  • Additional Director, ITM sharing lunch with him in daily basis.
  • Sh Vipin Jain, Administrative Officer trying to influence witness with all means.
  • As per reliable sources he already got written statement from 4 witnesses in his favor, because he is in position to ruin the carrier of any witness with holding their all official/ personal/financial records.
  • Sh Vipin Jain, Administrative Officer trying to throughout victim from official accommodation.
  • The chairman of ICC who conduct the inquiry is in trauma to see the favor given to accused/charged officer, the height of ITM management they served a notice/explanation to her on demand of accused. (Copy enclosed for your ready reference)

See the Director, ITM reaction on such sensitive matter.

Date of incident 26th January 2016 day time by the evening Director knows the total incident but try to bury the case to help Sh Vipin Jain;

Although very next day victim reported verbally to Ms Gopa Chaudhari, Chairman, women cell but Director was not ready to take cognizance such serious matter.

On 2nd March 2016 the victim submit written complaint to Ms Gopa Chaudhari, Chairman, women cell, ITM, DRDO Mussoorie (Copy of Complaint enclosed for your ready reference because I know the Insensitive officials of DRDO cannot going to show you real picture of the incident like they always did for even project status also).

On same day Ms Gopa Chaudhari act very efficiently and submit her report to Director with her recommendations in capacity of Presiding Officer, ICC. But nothing has been done by Director, ITM. (Letter enclosed for your ready reference)

On 4th March 2016 news flashed on TOI and the matter blow in Delhi and next day then CC (HR) flown to ITM, Mussororie but as per DRDO legacy system they did nothing up to 8th March 2016.

After pressure from Delhi Director ITM give direction to ICC to investigate the matter vide letter no ITM/Dir/ENQ/2016/2 dated 8 March 2016, referred the ICC letter No ITM/ICC(W)/2015-16 dt 2/3/2016. See the seriousness of Director on such sensitive matter, it takes 6 days to release the order, he gave sufficient time to accused to settle the course but unfortunately Sh Vipin Jain not able to convince victim and his family.

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.

Sir, as per above facts you can realize the pathetic situation of DRDO management and their HR policies. There is famous that DRDO management follows “Different rules for different officers”

I personally feel if any one go through the victim complaint and statement, which she narrated in front of ICC will shake heart of any sensitive person. So it is no need to say what action is required.

 

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,

21-Sunderwala, Raiput, Dehradun-248008

Phone 0135-2787750, Mobile 9411114879

Email prabhudoon@gmail.com website-www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed

  1. Copy of written complaint by victim dated 2nd March 2016
  2. Copy of ICC report 2nd March 2016
  3. Copy of Director ITM letter
  4. Copy of Statement of victim

  

Sachin Tendulkar sought favours from defence minister Manohar Parrikar: Report

July 19, 2016, International Business Times
By S V Krishnamachari

Sachin Tendulkar sought favours from defence minister Manohar Parrikar: Report Sachin Tendulkar, cricket player and Rajya Sabha member, reportedly sought favours from defence minister over a holiday retreat that was in a dispute with DRDO. In Picture: Tendulkar (C) speaks to the media after taking oath at the Indian parliament in New Delhi June 4, 2012 (Representational image).Reuters file
Sachin Tendulkar sought favours from defence minister Manohar Parrikar: Report
Sachin Tendulkar, cricket player and Rajya Sabha member, reportedly sought favours from defence minister over a holiday retreat that was in a dispute with DRDO. In Picture: Tendulkar (C) speaks to the media after taking oath at the Indian parliament in New Delhi June 4, 2012 (Representational image).Reuters file

Cricket star and MP Sachin Tendulkar apparently lobbied with Defence minister Manohar Parrikar last year to settle a dispute between his friend’s retreat in Mussoorie and a defence institute over an ‘illegal’ construction.

Parrikar however declined to intervene in the matter, reports The Economic Times.
The urgency of the matter could be gauged from the fact that Tendulkar had to advance his return to India from Australia to take up the matter with the minister, the daily said, citing defence ministry officials.

The holiday retreat — Dahlia Bank in the Landour cantonment area — had allegedly violated the 50-foot, no-construction zone next to the Institute of Technology Management, a sensitive DRDO establishment, the daily said.

Tendulkar had been trying to meet the minister and an appointment was set up. He spoke at length about the property case, which was heard out. However, no action was taken on the request put forward,” ET quoted a senior defence ministry official as saying.
The dispute arose over Tendulkar’s business partner Sanjay Narang constructing buildings, despite having sought and obtained approval to construct a tennis court in the restricted, high-security zone.
The Dahlia Bank controversy was in the news even in 2014, when Ajit B Reddy, CEO of Landour Cantonment, referred to the construction activities at the retreat as “unauthorised,” according to a Hindustan Times report in December 2014.

Tendulkar’s friend Sanjay Narang approached the Supreme Court to appeal against an Uttaranchal High Court order that ruled against him.

In February 2015, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision. An SC bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Gosh and Ranjan Gogi, termed the construction work as “illegal,” The Tribune had reported on Feb. 25, 2015, referring to the February 17 judgment.
The Institute of Technology Management was set up in 1962 to train defence personnel.

Tendulkar has multiple sports and business interests. He is a mentor of the IPL team, Mumbai Indians, co-promoter of Smaaash Entertainment, and co-owner of ISL team Kerala Blasters.

DRDO’s cause for Agni test delay under cloud

By Hemant Kumar Rout Published: 04th July 2016
BHUBANESWAR:
The clarification of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on the inordinate delay in test firing of India’s most potent and longest range nuclear capable ballistic missile Agni-V has put a question mark on the competency of the premier arms research and development agency.

DRDO Chief Selvin Christopher has been quoted by a news agency that Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Agni-V has been stuck due to a technical snag with its battery and not because of any other considerations. Christopher, however, did not respond to confirm the report. Other senior scientists involved in the Agni-V programme also refused to comment.
The fourth test of the home-grown missile, already tested successfully thrice, has been postponed twice. The test holds significance as it would pave way for the missile’s early induction in the armed forces.
On May 8, The Express had run a story titled ‘PM’s US visit trips Agni-V launch plans’ citing that the test was postponed due to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s US visit. Dismissing it, the DRDO Chief was quoted saying there is a problem with the battery and the issue can be resolved. This has, however, raised eyebrows as it appears that the organisation has failed to rectify the fault for the last several months.

Battery is required for on-board electronics which need power. Defence experts said the glitch could not be that big which will take so much time to be rectified.

As it pertains to the defence armaments of the nation, can the DRDO devote so much time for rectifying the glitch?

An eminent national security expert and professor at New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research (CPR) Bharat Karnad termed it a lame excuse by the DG of DRDO.

“The Agni-V test was originally slated during Autumn of 2015. Is it Christopher’s contention that the supposed battery ‘snag’ is so grievous in nature that ASL, Hyderabad has been unable to fix it for the last nine months?” he wondered.

Actually, Karnad observed that the clarification of the DRDO chief confirms the suspicion that Agni-V testing has been stalled for political reasons to avoid friction with the US.
Indian Express 4 July 2016

CORRUPTION IN ARUNODAYA PROGRAMME OF DRDO AT DRL, TEZPUR – CIVIL HIRED VEHICLE

To,                                                                        11 June 2015                                                             Shri Manohar Parrikar,                                                                                                                       Defence Minister,                                                                                                                                 Room No -104 South Block,                                                                                                                  Ministry of Defence,                                                                                                                            New Delhi-110011

SUBJECT: CORRUPTION IN ARUNODAYA PROGRAMME OF DRDO IN  CASE OF CIVIL HIRED VEHICLE  AT DRL BY DR. VIJAY VEER, DIRECTOR , DEFENCE RESEARCH LABORATORY (DRL), TEZPUR, DRDO, MIN. OF DEFENCE

Sir,

  1. Defence Research Laboratory (DRL), Tezpur (Assam) is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Ministry of Defence.
  2. Vijay Veer, Scientist ‘G’ is Director, DRL, Tezpur with effect from 01 March 2012 and Mr. Baikuntha Jyoti Gogoi (B.J. Gogoi), Scientist ‘D’ is Nodal Officer of Programme Arunodaya at DRL, Tezpur.
  3. Manas Kumar Mandal, Distinguished Scientist is Director General of the Life Sciences Cluster with effect from 02 September 2013. Dr. Mandal was a Professor of Psychology at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT, Kharagpur, prior to joining DRDO and his recruitment in DRDO is mystery well known to CVO, MOD and DRDO.
  4. The Arunodaya Programme was sanctioned by GOI letter No. DGLS/DRL/P(TD)/14-15/99/1957/D(R&D) dated 25 August 2014 and DPC letter No. DRDO/DPC/DIR/32500/LS/2014 dated 27 August 2014 signed by Ms. Nabnita R Krishnan, Director, Directorate of Planning & Coordination (DPC), DRDO HQ. Total cost of the Programme is about Rs. 38 crore with PDC of 05 Years (Aug 2014 to Aug 2019).
  5. Under the guidance and approval of Dr. Manas Kumar Mandal Life Sciences cluster planned a project known as ARUNODAYA PROGRAMME “Soldier Preparedness in High Mountain of NE Region: Arunodaya Programme” with Project No. TD/14-15/DRL-99 and Cost about Rs. 18 crore was sanctioned to DRL, Tezpur.
  6. DRL, Tezpur is nodal laboratory of Arunodaya Programme. Mr. H.K. Gogoi, Scientist ‘F’ is Project Coordinator and Mr. Baikuntha Jyoti Gogoi, Scientist ‘D’ is Nodal Officer of Arunodaya Programme.
  7. The business of eating and looting public money has started in this Arunodaya Programme by Mr. B.J. Gogoi and Dr. Vijay Veer under patronage of Dr. Manas Kumar Mandal, DG, Life Sciences. One such example of corruption is submitted as case study.

CASE STUDY

  1. Draft (not Minute Sheet/ Statement of Case) dated 11 December 2014 under Programme Arunodaya from Programme Office, Arunodaya, DRL, Tezpur initiated by Mr. B.J. Gogoi, Scientist ‘D’, Nodal Officer for “Provision of Civil Hired Transport (Light Vehicle- 4×4 Mahindra Scorpio Diesel or Equivalent) on monthly rental basis for Programme Office Arunodaya at DRL, Tezpur for the year 2015”. The same was approved by Dr. Vijay Veer, Director, DRL on 12 December 2014. Copy enclosed
  2. The Project No. S&T-09/DIH-116 entitled “Development of Specific Technologies to meet the fresh food requirement of Armed Forces under different Operational Environments” was sanctioned by DRDO HQ vide letter No. DLS/79/99705/DIH-116/745/D(R&D) dated 31 March 2009 in which DRL, fund of Rs. 1484 Lakh was sanctioned to DRL, Tezpur in the said project and there was provision of procurement of vehicle with fund of Rs. 9.0 Lakh. Copy of the relevant sanction for procurement of vehicle under project fund
  3. Tata Safari was purchased under the project with approximate cost of Rs. 8.5 lakh in year of 2011. As a matter of fact, DRL, Tezpur is already having a project vehicle Tata Safari with Registration No. 11B108688Y that was purchased under the Project No. S&T-09/DIH-116 sanctioned in April 2009. Since the project is completed hence this project vehicle should be used in any other project and there was no need of hired transport as DRL, Tezpur was already having project vehicle. Photo of the said Project Vehicle Tata Safari is enclosed.
  4. B.J. Gogoi, Scientist ‘D’ and Dr. Vijay Veer, Director make a master plan for looting public money by hiring 4×4 Mahindra Scorpio vehicle at about 8 lakhs/year. If their intensions were positive they would have thought of purchasing such vehicle rather than hiring the same at 8 lakhs/year, despite the Tata Safari (Project Vehicle) was already available with DRL.
  5. In the demand dated 12.12.2014, under point (2) of Note at page no. 2, it is stated that “The firms are registered/will be got registered before tender enquiry”. According the demand dated 12.12.2014 initiated by Mr. M.G. Vairale, Scientist ‘C’ & MTO and countersigned by Mr. B.J. Gogoi, Scientist ‘D’. This demand was endorsed by Store Officer and OI/C Budget & Project Cell.
  6. As per the demand, the tender enquiry was floated to following seven firms. In demand the column of registration No. is blank for all vendors, which itself proves that none of the vendors were registered at DRL, Tezpur as per basic requirement of Purchase Manual 2006.drl hired vehicle case table
  7. In scope of work under point (1) Service, it is stated “Provision of Vehicles registered as Commercial Vehicles with licensed drivers” but the hired vehicle provided by the contractor is having white number plate with Registration No. AS 25 E 1645, Blue Color Mahindra XUV. In case this vehicle have been registered as commercial vehicle at RTO then it should have been having yellow number plate and should have been registered as Commercial Vehicle(Taxi). This establish the Vehicle No. AS 25 E 1645 is personal vehicle and not the commercial vehicle. The indenter, nodal officer as well as Director are fully aware of this fact and it grossly violated the scope of work and terms & condition of the contract agreement. Photo of hired vehicle at DRL – Mahindra XUV 500 REG No. AS 25 E 1645 enclosed.
  8. The contract is for 12×7 = 84 Hours /Week but in DRDO office hours are 09:00 to 17:30 and 05 days week, then how hired vehicle was utilized 12 hours per day and seven days in week. This proves the contract is bogus and main objective is misappropriation of public fund by Mr. B.J. Gogoi and Dr. Vijay Veer on the name of hired vehicle.
  9. Two Project Vehicles may be purchased hardly within one month as there was provision of Rs. One crore in sanction of the project for hired vehicle/transport but why till date vehicles were not purchased? The answer is very simple – corruption and eating money by Nodal Officer and Director.
  10. Through Investigation and Verification of Registration of vehicle as Commercial Vehicle, Entries in the Log Book of the said vehicle, Service Tax payment by vendor to Custom & Excise Department, Tour Program/Movement Order/ Tour Claims of official of DRL and bill submitted by vendor to DRL will itself show the whole conspiracy on the name of Hired Vehicle at DRL, Tezpur in Arunodaya Programme.
  11. There are several such cases are available in DRL, Tezpur regarding fake claim and misappropriation of public fund in hired vehicles.

Therefore in light of above mentioned facts and evidences following actions are requested.

  • Cancel the contract immediately to save public money as Project Vehicle Tata Safari is available at DRL, Tezpur.
  • To procure two new project vehicles at earliest
  • Through investigation of all procurement/contracts cases etc in Arunodaya Project made by Mr. B.J. Gogoi till now.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,                                                                                                                               21-Sunderwala, Raipur                                                                                                                       Dehradun-248008                                                                                                                               Email prabhudoo@gmail.com website- www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed:- documentary evidences mentioned above

Copy to: Maj Gen. Ajay Gupta, Director, Dte of Vigilance & Security, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105

With reference to your Directorate letter no DVS/02/2052/P/26 dated 25 May 2015 (copy enclosed) as this project vehicle is using as staff car putting red beacon with front mounted Director, DRL name plate proves the use

Statement of Case dated 11 December 2014 under Programme Arunodaya from Programme Office, Arunodaya, DRL, Tezpur initiated by Mr. B.J. Gogoi, Scientist ‘D’, Nodal Officer
Project Sanction Letter
Project Sanction Letter
Project Sanction Letter Page 3
Project Sanction Letter Page 3
drl hired vehicle case4
Hired Vehicle with private number
Project using  vehicle using as staff car by Director, DRL
Project using vehicle using as staff car by Director, DRL
dvs letter
Dte of Vigilance & Security, DRDO letter no DVS/02/2052/P/26 dated 25 May 2015

 

PIL STATUS – DMSRDE Case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3610/2015 & CM No.6436/2015 (for directions).

PRABHU  DANDRIYAL ….. Petitioner

Through: Mr. R. Sathish, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ….. Respondents

Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC and Naginder

Benipal, Adv. for R-1 to 3.

Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh,

Advs. for R-5.

Mrs. Rajdipa Behura, SSP with Mrs.

Monica Gupta, Adv. for R-8.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

O R D E R

27.05.2015

Heard both parties.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 to 3 states that the report of the Fact Finding Inquiry is ready and the same will be filed in a sealed cover during the course of the day.

Judgment reserved.

CHIEF JUSTICE

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

Strange thing of this case is no above mentioned respondents Advocates were physical present there.

Second is  the request of respondents no.1 to 3 for  submit the report of  Fact Finding Inquiry will be filed in a sealed cover.

It itself proves that DRDO afraid to show the fact finding committee reports because the corruption will be expose or manipulation in fact finding inquiry will be expose.

Same report is also asked by Loksabha unstarred question no 6929, any how matter will going to expose either by High court or by Loksabha.