Tag Archives: CBI

Drdo

Gen VK Singh stalled BEML’s 1,000 truck order in 2010

Leave a comment

TNN | Apr 14, 2012, 12.29AM IST

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.

Drdo

New details emerge on Tatra truck deal

Leave a comment

THE HINDU

NEW DELHI, April 2, 2012

PRAVEEN SWAMI,VINAY KUMAR

CBI questions London millionaire again

Even as Central Bureau of Investigation detectives have begun questioning Ravi Rishi, the London-based millionaire businessman at the heart of the showdown between the Defence Ministry and Chief of the Army Staff V.K. Singh, fresh details have begun to emerge of the truck deal that precipitated the crisis.

Rajan Mukherjee, the general manager of West Bengal-based Ural India, has told The Hindu that General Singh — then General Officer-Commanding of the Eastern Command — had requested the firm to provide trucks for testing in 2008, after Tatra trucks sold by Mr. Rishi’s firm “miserably failed 17 Mountain for performing Quick Reaction Team and reconnaissance duties in [the] super-high altitude areas of northern Sikkim.”

“Defects”

“During the trials,” Mr. Mukherjee said in an e-mail to The Hindu, “the Tatra vehicle developed defects in engine assembly, whereas Ural’s engine performance was satisfactory even after running about 600 km at high altitude.”

Mr. Rishi owns Vectra, a conglomerate which has a controlling stake in Czech and Slovak-based specialist truck firm Tatra, which has supplied the Indian Army since 1986.

Rashi Verma, a Joint Secretary at the Defence Ministry, had said last week that the government had “never received any complaint from the armed forces” — a statement which suggests the Eastern Command either chose not to pass on its problems with the Tatra to the army headquarters in New Delhi, or that its reports were suppressed by higher authorities.

In an exclusive interview to The Hindu published on March 26, General Singh had said he was offered a Rs. 14-crore bribe, which, it emerged, was linked to an officer allegedly representing Tatra to clear a consignment of 600 trucks.

There is no information available so far if Ural India’s trucks were the sole platform tested by the Eastern Command in Northern Sikkim and if so, why. Ural is co-owned by Kolkata-based magnate J.K. Saraf, who knew Gen. Singh during his tenure as Eastern Army Commander. There is no allegation, however, of the relationship having caused improper influence to be exercised.

Mr. Mukherjee’s claims, however, stand in stark contrast to earlier statements by VRS Natarajan, the head of public-sector giant BEML, which co-manufactures Tatra trucks in India. Mr. Natarajan claimed that Ural India’s trucks had been knocked out of competition in the ongoing trials, a claim Mr. Mukherjee has denied in his e-mail to The Hindu, adding that his firm is considering “appropriate action.”

The BEML chief, however, has since been backed by Defence Research and Development Organisation chief V.K. Saraswat, who said Tatra trucks were “outstanding.” Both BEML and Tatra have said they are considering legal action against General Singh, but provided no details of their course of action.

Army sources said the problem encountered in Sikkim could have been related to the Tatra truck’s engine, which is designed for rugged battlefield use, compromising high-altitude performance in return for lower risks of breakdown.

CBI officials refused comment on the issues they had discussed with Mr. Rishi, but the businessman has been barred from leaving India until further notice.

He was earlier questioned by the agency officials last week, soon after the CBI registered an FIR in the case. CBI officials were also poring over and analysing a number of documents seized during raids in Delhi, Noida and Bangalore.

Apart from Mr. Rishi, the FIR refers to unknown officials of BEML, Vectra and the Army. The case was registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal conspiracy to cheat and under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The investigators are tasked with looking into all purchases of Tatra trucks made from 1997, when Vectra took control of Tatra. Since 1986, the Army has purchased some 7,000 Tatra trucks to transport troops and artillery.

Drdo

Tatra truck deal: Antony faces jail for neglect of duty?

Leave a comment

Manoj Mitta, TNN Apr 1, 2012, 06.13AM IST

NEW DELHI: Defence minister A K Antony had better come up with a “reasonable excuse” for waking up to corruption allegations in the Tatra deal two years after they had been brought to his notice. For, he would otherwise be liable for a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment up to six months.

The belated registration on Friday of a CBI case related to Tatra indicates Antony violated a legal duty when the bribery allegations had first been brought to his notice in writing by his party colleague Ghulam Nabi Azad in 2009 and then verbally by Army chief Gen V K Singh in 2010.

His prolonged failure to take action on the issue till it came out in the open flies in the face of the duty cast on “every person” by Section 39 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

When anybody becomes “aware of the commission of or of the intention of any other person to commit” any of the range of offences listed in Section 39 CrPC, he “shall … forthwith give information” to the nearest magistrate or police officer of “such commission or intention”.

The offences which every person is thus required to report immediately include those related to “illegal gratification”, which come under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Violations of Section 39 CrPC are punishable under Section 176 of the IPC, which prescribes a maximum six months is jail. It penalizes whoever is “legally bound” to give any information relating to “the commission of an offence or… for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence”.

The only loophole available to Antony is to cite some “reasonable excuse” for his failure to refer the Tatra issue immediately to the CBI. But then, Section 39 CrPC is so stringently worded that it casts a “burden” on the person concerned to prove the reasonableness of his excuse for not performing his duty.

It is doubtful whether Antony can cite the absence of written complaint by Singh as a “reasonable excuse” for not acting promptly. The Army chief, too, is liable under Section 39 CrPC for assuming he can leave it to Antony to initiate the legal process. Since the law requires him to report the matter, he cannot cite his communication to his superior as a “reasonable excuse”.

Drdo

DRDO passes its expertise to NTRO – I

Leave a comment

All the stalwarts of DRDO who were master of manipulating government funds, misinterpretation of government rules having expertise in inculcating a negative attitude towards self reliance and always planning commission and omission through bulk purchases were shifted to NTRO an agency established by the government after KARGIL debacle. The modus operandi of DRDO & NTRO experts/bosses are twin in appearance, if CBI enquires in depth the enquiry will reveal that the entire procurement/ recruitment system are identical.

Deccan Herald

Under veil of secrecy, elint outfit gobbles funds

Chandan Nandy, Bangalore, Mar 20, 2012, DHNS:

Less spying and more misuse of resources in elite security set-up

Eight years after its creation, the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), which was established on the lines of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and America’s National Security Agency (NSA), is in a mess. 

 Far from performing the responsibilities it was entrusted with after it was found that the country’s security establishment lacked effective technical/communications intelligence capabilities, the NTRO is battling serious allegations of corruption.And the lid has been blown off from within: a former NTRO scientist, V K Mittal, has been able to fight his way through the webs of secrecy and official pressure and intimidation to force the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to institute a special audit which the Supreme Court is now seized of.According to one estimate, misappropriation of funds in the NTRO is to the tune of Rs 800 crore, which was alloted Rs 9,832 crore in the 2011-12 financial year. The organisation spends approximately 62 per cent of the money on purchase of equipment and maintains a secret service fund of about Rs 36 crore. Most of the procurements were through single tenders.According to a February 29, 2012 CAG reply to Mittal’s RTI application, the audit body “noticed lack of transparency and non-compliance of rules and procedures in procurement of systems/stores/equipment and deficient procurement management, resulting in cases of excess payment/wasteful expenditure/loss to the exchequer.”Investigations by Deccan Herald revealed that despite objections from the chief of communications intelligence, senior NTRO officers procured satellite communication terminals worth Rs 18 crore in early 2009 from a blacklisted company, Singapore Technology.

The previous year (May 2008), Mittal, as head of NTRO’s Centre for Communications Applications (CCA) wrote to the then NTRO chairman K V S S Prasad Rao claiming that the use of satellite communication (SATCOM) equipment on board unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) was “never a part of the original request for proposal (RFP) or tender” and “hence no technical evaluation was carried out” at any stage by his division.

Although the SATCOM equipment were to be procured from two Israeli companies, Israeli Aerospace Industry (IAI) and ELTA, visits by CCA officers to these firms in Israel yielded little. “In all meetings (at least four times in Tel Aviv) CCA has been requesting IAA/ELTA to give details of the antenna and other systems associated with SATCOM onboard the UAV. Despite our concerted efforts and repeated demands, IAI/ELTA have refused to part with necessary information,” documents in possession of Deccan Herald say.

Alarmingly, the trials of the SATCOM for UAVs, instead of being carried out in India were undertaken in Australia despite strong objections on the ground that the tests should be carried out in Indian conditions. “The offer of trials outside India was firmly turned down by CCA due to various technical reasons in July-August 2007. Hence the rationale for trials oustide India, despite our strong opposition is not clear to us,” the document of May 9, 2008 says.

The main reason why trials (which were to be witnessed by representatives of the Army, Air Force and the Navy) in Australia were not considered feasible was the IAI/ELTA had provided incomplete information about the antenna proposed for SATCOM onboard UAVs. Besides, it was found that the antenna was “suboptimal” and “did not meet the requisite standard of radiation”, and that power amplifiers required modifications “to be able to meet digital modulation requirements.”

Documents in Deccan Herald’s possession suggest that the Israeli companies failed to demonstrate any SATCOM specialisation for the equipments, including electronic intelligence payload for the UAVs, a project that cost Rs 40 crore.

It was after Mittal was served a memo by the then NTRO adviser (in the rank of additional secretary) M S Vijayaraghavan for objecting to the SATCOM equipment deal that he quit the NTRO and blew the whistle on the goings-on in the country’s communications intelligence organisation. Subsequent internal inquiries and special audits by the CAG in January 2010 (the NTRO was outside the purview of any government audit when it was formed) led to the chargesheeting of seven officers.

A retired senior intelligence officer blamed “those in control of the country’s security apparatus” for NTRO’s “miserable condition.”

Under the scanner

* Internet monitoring system (Rs 30 cr)
* Information processing software (Rs 5 cr)
* Satellite communication monitoring system (Rs 30 cr)
* Civil works contract in Dehradun (Rs 40 cr)        
* Electronic intelligence payload (Rs 30 cr)

Drdo

Making Quite A Bomb

3 Comments

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279925

Making Quite A Bomb

How workers without intel clearance get into an explosives lab

A Defence Lab Breached?

  • The High Energy Materials Research Lab (HEMRL), Pune, has outsourced the production of TATB, an explosive, to a private firm, Viswaat, with which an ex-director of HEMRL is associated
  • The firm does not have a licence to manufacture explosives
  • Worse, the workforce—which does not have intelligence clearance—enters the HEMRL facility to carry out the work
  • Local auditors have questioned payments, attendance records etc
  • Based on anonymous complaints and these audits, the CBI is investigating all work undertaken by Viswaat Chemicals

What Is TATB

  • TATB (or triamino trinitro benzene) is an explosive yellow powder
  • Being extremely stable, it’s called for in high-risk situations
  • One use of TATB is as a primer in nuclear warheads
  • Mixed with fuel oil or other binders, it can be used for bomb-making by terrorists When the CBI begins to investigate a premier defence research institute, the findings can be explosive. Quite literally so, in this case. Imagine the production of a restricted explosive substance being outsourced by a specialised government lab—that too to an unlicensed private firm. It’s just such a flagrant security lapse that was involved when the High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune, run by the venerable Defence Research & Development Organisation, parcelled out a production contract for the explosive triamino trinitro benzene (TATB) to Viswaat Chemicals. The storyline is by now familiar from other scams: a former director of HEMRL, Dr Haridwar Singh, is associated with Viswaat. The CBI probe began on anonymous complaints and local audits citing the conflict of interest. But especially worrisome is the security angle. One, Viswaat allegedly does not yet have a licence for producing explosives; and two, the workforce it provides does not have intelligence clearance.TATB may be a relatively lesser known one in the roster of explosive acronyms, but it packs quite a punch: it weighs in under rdx on the impact scale, but above TNT. Maj Gen G.D. Bakshi (retd), an explosives expert, says, “In the current scenario—take Monday’s terror attack in a high-security zone in Delhi—substances used to make explosives must always be guarded. If anyone manages to smuggle TATB out of the factory, it can be used for any purpose. The purpose of intelligence checks is to prevent free accessibility. Also, untrained personnel may, without knowing the implications, sell the stuff, leading to disastrous consequences.”Viswaat is said to have applied for the relevant manufacturing licence to the Union industries ministry’s chief controller of explosives, headquartered in Nagpur. (It issues licences under laws governing the manufacture, use and transport of explosives, petroleum products and flammable substances.) The non-issuance of a licence may well be attributed to procedural delay. But it’s the fact of the workforce supplied by the firm not having intelligence clearance that experts cite as a serious internal security threat. In such circumstances, uncleared employees—or anyone claiming connections to Viswaat, for that matter—could gain access to the high-security HEMRL facility.Vidya Krishnan, an SP with the Pune branch of CBI, which is in charge of the probe, confirmed the firm and the lab were being investigated but said “revealing anything beyond this wouldn’t be possible at this stage”. However, sources said Viswaat has been working with DRDO since 2000 on what are known as government-owned, company-operated (GOCO) projects, taking on assignments outsourced by the Advanced Centre for Energetic Materials (ACEM), Nasik, and the Advanced Systems Laboratory, Jagdalpur. Those close to the investigation said all contracts obtained by the firm are now under the scanner. The amount isn’t comparable, say, to the Devas–Antrix deal—it’s no more than Rs 15 crore—but the security angle, given that explosives are involved, helps it take on immense gravity.Before the CBI took on the case, local-level government auditors had in 2009-10 raised serious objections to the contracts, pointing to discrepancies in allocation of work and the bill claims made for the workforce. One report, for example, says: “Please intimate the costing formula adopted for fixing the price of TATB at Rs 11,000 per kg and whether any concurrence has been obtained from audit authorities”. They had also sought inspection of documentary proof of raw material being brought into HEMRL by the contractor for producing TATB and the roster of employees deployed for production schedules, saying there was no uniform system for maintaining attendance records. That is a security gap even accounts auditors homed in on, though they were looking at it only from the payments angle: records say Viswaat had provided less manpower in Jan-Feb 2010, but payments made to it weren’t calculated accordingly. Similarly, there were no records of the entry and exits of vehicles the contractor was supposed to provide; again, the auditors looked at it from the payments angle, but the security angle looms large.
  • Dr Singh put on a brave face when asked to comment. “I am aware of the CBI inquiry against Viswaat—these days an inquiry can be initiated against anyone,” he said. “But I know I’ll come out clean.” And although investigators believe he heads Viswaat, Dr Singh maintains his role is that of independent director, and hence “very limited”, which is why he doesn’t know much about the contracts obtained by the company. About the explosives licence, he says, “I think the company was not into explosives earlier, and then started working in the field, so it had to apply for one. I’m not involved with the company directly, so I wouldn’t be part of the process. They requested me after retirement to join them, so I did, as an independent director.”

    As for the DRDO, its public interface director, Ravi Gupta, was circumspect: “The contract related to production of TATB was awarded after following duly laid down procedures. It won’t be appropriate to make any further comments as the matter pertains to sensitive defence projects.” That really seems to be the whole point. Should a sensitive issue like this be handled in such a fancy-free manner?

Drdo

AMU VC committed financial impropriety’

2 Comments

15th January 2012

To
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

Reference: a)  Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21st March 2011
                       b)  Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th May 2011           
 

Honorable Sir,

The following news was published on Friday, 13th January 2012 Times of India, New Delhi.

‘AMU VC committed financial impropriety’: CBI is believed to have found that AMU VC P K Abdul Azis had committed financial impropriety and knowingly claimed allowances for which he was not entitled.

Sir, Dr Prahlada, VC, DIAT, DRDO has also did same corruption and the RTI reply from JCDA and DRDO Hqrs proved the same then why the similar action is not taken by Ministry of Defence ?

Dr. Prahlada is not only case in DRDO there are so many other senior officials who have committed similar corruption until my RTI was raised. Like Sh S Ravi, Scientist ‘G’, Sh Neeraj Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ etc.

Please find enclosed documentary evidences of above corrupt practices done by DRDO officials for your needful action.

Yours sincere effort is needed to clean the DRDO.

Thanking you

Regards

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

Enclosed

  1. RTI reply of JCDA
  2. RTI Reply of DRDO Hqrs in respect of Dr Prahlada, Sh S Ravi, Scietist’ G’ etc
  3. RTI Reply of DRDO Hqrs in respect of Sh. Neeraj Kumar Scientist ‘ D’
  4. DOP,DRDO Hqrs letter for HRA recovery dated 17thAugust 2011
    JCDA RTI Reply
    DRDO Hqrs Reply
    DRDO Qrs RTI Reply 2
    DRDO Hqrs RTI reply in respect of Sh Neeraj Kumar
    Neeraj Kumar HRA Amount

     

    DOP Letter

     

Drdo

Appeal to All Retired/Serving Officials of DRDO – Please Provide Inputs & Suggestion for PIL’s

2 Comments

Dear friends

To save our premier organization from clutches of corrupt official it is time to submit PIL’s in honorable Supreme Court/ High Court. The people who retired or serving in DRDO are very well know that how much neck deep corruption, nepotism, favoritism and misuse of funds prevailing in DRDO.

So far DRDO has escaped from the attentions of the various agencies like CAG, CVC, CBI, Income Tax, Custom and Sales Tax etc.  The www.corrutionindrdo.com received lot of information which can attract the above all agencies and in few cases the information also about how DRDO fooling or misleading these agencies.

We have to tell the honorable Court that DRDO senior management is as corrupt as Sh P J Thamos, Ex- CVC, or as Justice Soumitra Sen (first judge impeached by Rajyashabha) and some corrupt as Sh Andimuthu Raja (2G scam fame minister) as Smt Kanimozhi Karunanidhi (2G scam fame member of Parliament) as Sh Suresh Kalmadi ( CWG scam fame member of Parliament)  are now in Tihar Jail.

DRDO established in the year 1958 with a humble beginning to technical support to the defence forces, as an integral part Ministry of Defence along with defence production units. The successive war fought by India such as 1962 with China, 1956 & 1971 with Pakistan and 1999 Kargil war it has been proved that DRDO has not played significant role and exhausted billion of billion  poor tax payers money.

The promised were like bring moon on Earth as programs like IGMDP (Missile Program), MBT (Arjun), SAMYUKTA(Electronic Warfare), LCA(Tejas Aircraft), RADARS, SHIPS, SUBMARINE, Bread, Butter, Jam etc.

Until 1980 DRDO spread from Kanyakumari to Leh and Gujrat to North East. The huge Infrastructure were built (1 Lakh Crores) and high technical man power recruited                 ( 30000) by passing UPSC and aim was to develop import substitute but with the passage of time:-

  1. DRDO forgot all the commitments to the defence forces and instead of strengthen the forces it played role of obstacles for procurement latest technology.
  2. DRDO directors, Hqrs justify their successive failures but consumed 7-8 % of defence budget annually.
  3. The total failures were reviewed by ministry of defence and 439 projects was short closed/ aborted(before time)
  4. Programs which were initiated by 1990 with the promise of deliverable products were failed measurably the poor tax payer’s money which were supposed to play a positive role in country’s defence were mere wasted.
  5. Today we are importing the import substitute latest example like SDR and befooled the countryman.
  6. In the name of SECRECY article’s of 1927 & 1965 seals the corrupt DRDO top brasses and they are siphoning the precious money in the broad day light to their son’s, daughter’s, spouse, relatives and friends bank accounts.
  7. Orders are placed with foreign firms through open / limited tenders but the case is negotiated with these private pocket firms which are related to them. As a result huge DRDO money goes to massage parlour, Cocktails Party’s  and dowry with Mercedes Benz ( Ex Director DIITM, DRDO Hqrs was generously to give Mercedes Benz to his Son In Law)
  8. Fighting against corruption prevailing in DRDO since 2001 have collected enough information and ready to file PIL .  Through website www.corruptionindrdo.com many many honest, patriotic and nationalist people join their hands and supplied lot information about corruption, nepotism to save our DRDO.

I appeal to my brothers and sisters of serving and retired DRDO officials to join hands in support the PIL’s for cleaning the DRDO from corrupt officials and make DRDO a perfect productive organization so our future talented boys and girls not quit from DRDO due to unethical environment.

The proposed PIL will be submitted through Sh Vinay Kumar Mittal, Ex Scientist ‘G’, DRDO and whistle blower of NTRO. The PIL’s will be presented by Sh Prashant Bhushan the noted advocated   Sh Anna’s right hand.

  1. Extension / contracts/ consultancy of corrupt DRDO officials beyond the 60 years of service
  2. Recruitment/ Assessment tool used to encourage corruption/ nepotism/favoritism and kick backs in recruitment and assessments( DRDO RAC activities and the role of RAC chairman)
  3. To fix the accountability. So far nobody is answerable to anybody in DRDO. It has inculcated a culture to encourage bluff and give benefit to bluff masters.
  4. To expose all DRDO serving/ retire top officials having companies which are involving in unethical business directly or indirectly and siphoning the poor tax payer’s money.

Sh Vinay Kumar Mittal, Ex Scientist ‘G’, DRDO has kindly agreed and offered his services to submit PIL’s who already brought the NTRO corruption in the notice of honorable Supreme Court as well as in the notice of common people of India.

Thanking you

Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com,  prabhu@dandriyal.com                                          Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com

From   Vinay Kumar Mittal vkm021055@gmail.com
To       prabhu@dandriyal.com
Date    Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:48 AM

Subject  Request for information for filing PIL in Delhi High Court against DRDO

Dear Prabhu,

i am an avid reader of your site about what is happening in DRDO.

DRDO of today is not the DRDO of yesteryear’s . There no doubt that there is massive corruption , favoritism , nepotism , misuse of official position and funds in various laboratorieses of DRDO. DRDO Laboratory Director are ‘neo kings’ who are law unto themselves . I remember a Director’s conference in mid 900’s when Dr. Arunachalam was SA and T.N Sheshan was Defence Secretary . He very open  said that  ‘”when you visit a DRDO lab there will be  a long pathway –  you open one gate then second gate and finally a third gate to see the king (Director)  sitting and ruling over his empire. They consider themselves nothing less than kings – the Maharaja with lab staff and scientist as their praja”.

I have personally witnessed all this and deeply saddened

What went wrong with NTRO is this DRDO culture which was imported by DRDO crowd i.e. KVSS Prasad Rao and M.S.Vijayraghavan .This DRDO culture destroyed NTRO. Now Hon’ble Supreme Court taking a very very serious view of happenings in NTRO , things are expected to move in right direction. Based on  the evidence provided by me , I have reasons to believe that some very very senior functioneries will definately be arrested after Hon’ble Supreme Court goes throught CAG and CVC report on NTRO.

I am now filing four more PILs in Supreme Court throught Sh. Prashant Bhushan  to the issue of corruption in NTRO with all the evidnece . This became essentail since there were many issues which could not be covered in my earlier PIL/SLP in the matter related to NTRO.

I have a request to make . Kindly provide me with evidence ( RTI responses, copies of documents if any and details of cases ) about corruption, misuse of official position , favoritism , nepotism in DRDO and I will file PIL in Delhi High Court against DRDO. This is essential since many of you are already working in DRDO and give3n the poor moral character of officials of DRDO , you may not like to take up the issue with you bosses. As far as as I am concerned , i have nothing to loose and worry about – iIhave faced enough threats of liquidation , arrest etc and I have taken this in my stride . When you challenge this corrupt system , this is bound to happen.

Unfortunately DRDO has escaped attention of the agencies/ institutions  because of  general impression that ‘ they are poor scientists only and not Income Tax , Sales Tax or other public dealing departments”. We have to tell the world that DRDO senior management is as corrupt as any other department.

Please do not worry about the cost . This can be worked out separately in an transparent manner.

Please put this appeal on your web site. The documents can be provided either through you or directly to me at following address

Vinay Kumar Mittal
605, Satpura Apartment
Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad 201010
email-vkm021055@gmail.com 
Mobile – +919811333195
Res- 0102-2776171
 
Drdo

Appeal to all young Scientists of DRDO to save DRDO from Blackmailers

1 Comment

Dear friends you are observing in your respective labs that a new trend of extension in service is increasing day by day and the eligible people are missing the goal of top post of lab.   Surprisesly the increasing trend is due to blackmailing of higher-ups. Friends carefully observe the list; you will not find any single deserving candidates who are getting extension, because the deserving scientists are not able to get chance of extension in list recommended from DRDO.    You will be  shocked to know that extension awardees are facing vigilance inquiries and lot of complaints are pending with Criminal cases/civil cases/CVC/Women Cell/CBI/DRDO vigilance cell but due to blackmailing power SA & CC’s are bound to overlook all these and recommend all blackmailers for extensions.

So what is the solution?

All extensions are given on the basis of criteria for grant of extension/re employment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation are laid down in the DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt. (B)  Dated the 18th May, 1977

Please go through the following and send your observation about those blackmailer scientists from your respective labs. These blackmailer scientists put others work in their name and you people only can expose their tactics because the ministry officials who process the file are non technical they cannot assess the game plan of these intellectual scientific mafia’s.

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal 
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com ,  prabhu@dandriyal.com
Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com/

No. 26012/6/2002-Estt. (A)

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions

(Department of Personnel & Training )

New Delhi, dated 9th December, 2002

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject : Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government  servants  beyond the age of superannuation – issue of  instructions regarding.

The undersigned is directed to say that the criteria for grant of extension/re employment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation are laid down in the DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt.(B)  dated the 18th May, 1977.  After May, 1998 and when the age of retirement  of the Central Government employees increased from 58 to 60 years, some  of the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 18th May, 1977 referred to above have lost their relevance.  Accordingly, it has been decided to revise the instructions relating to extension/re-employment to Central Government employees.

2. In the absence of specific orders to the contrary by the competent authority, a Government servant must retire on the due date.  The date of superannuation of a Government servant is known in advance and ordinarily there should not be a question of failure to make arrangements for his release sufficiently in advance.  It is the responsibility of the administrative authority concerned to ensure that the Government servants under their control retire on the due date.

3.  Extension: F.R. 56(d) states that no Government servant shall be granted extension of service beyond the age of 60 years.  However,  provisions exist in the rules to grant extension of  service to certain  category of Government servants only.  Therefore, it must be ensured that no  Ministry/Department  should propose to grant extension in service unless the case is covered by the Rules.

4. The proposal for grant of extension in service to the categories of  personnel referred to in the first, second and third proviso to F.R. 56(d)    -2- shall be referred to the Estt. Division of Department of Personnel and Training two months prior to the date on which the individual concerned is  due for superannuation.   The procedure for grant of extension to the Scientists is laid down in DoPT d.o. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO(SM-II) dated the 10th July, 2000.

5. Procedure for consideration of cases for extension of specialists in the medical and scientific fields:- It should be appreciated that even in the case of extension to specialist in the medical or scientific fields, it is not only the next man who misses promotion but often several people miss consequential promotions all along  the hierarchy.  Thus, too many cases of extension in service or reemployment are likely to cause frustration and affect the morale of the upcoming scientists who have exposure to latest technological developments in connecting fields.  Keeping in view these circumstances, the following criteria and procedure has been evolved with a view to ensure that extensions in service to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances.  The overriding consideration for the grant of extension is that it must be in the public interest and in addition satisfy one of the following two conditions:-

i)    that the retiring specialist is  not just one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest; or

ii)   that other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the  job.

Test (ii) would be satisfied only if there is shortage in particular specialization, or if it is not possible to find a suitable successor or if the specialist is engaged on a work or project of vital importance, which is likely to produce results in a year or two.  If specialists in the next lower post are not eligible for promotion on the ground that they have not put in the minimum service in the lower grade prescribed under the rules, no promotions can be made to the higher grade, unless such specialists put in the requisite length of service.  But specialists who are eligible for promotion  to the post against which extension is recommended, should not be rejected solely on the ground that they do not have as much experience as the retiring specialist.  They should be considered for promotion according to the -3- recruitment rules and if they are found suitable they should be promoted to the posts being vacated by the retiring specialists.

6. Whenever any specialist is considered for grant of extension, his character roll and personal file should be carefully scrutinized and all other relevant information that may be available should be taken into account to judge whether the specialist had good reputation for integrity and honesty.   In cases where the specialist is not considered to have good reputation for integrity and honesty, he should not be considered for grant of extension in service.  The appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry should furnish a certificate of Integrity along with the Annexure-I as follows where it proposes to grant extension of service.

“Having scrutinized in character roll and personal file of

Shri/Smt./Kum._____________________ and having taken into account all other relevant available information, I certify that he/she has a good reputation for integrity and honesty.”

7. While making proposals for extension of service in higher posts, it is all the more necessary to apply higher standards of efficiency to persons whose appointments to the higher posts are recommended for approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.  The number of top posts is bound to be very limited and a few persons should not have them for too long.  No Government servant who is on extension of service after the prescribed date of retirement should be promoted to another post during the period of extension of service.

8. No extension of service should be considered on the ground that a suitable successor is not available unless it is established that action to select a successor had been taken well in advance but the selection could not be finalized in time for justifiable reasons.  A proposal for the grant of extension of service based merely on the consideration that the specialist’s predecessor had been given extension should obviously not be accepted. -4-

9.  Re-employment: No proposal for employing a government servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years shall be considered.  It is also clarified that no person can be appointed/ reappointed to Central Government service after the age of superannuation of 60 years through contract.

10. Re-employment of military pensioners who have not reached the age of superannuation for Central Government employees will not be governed by these instructions.

11. Appointment of Consultant:-

Detailed instructions have been issued for appointment of consultant vide DoP&T’s Office Memorandum No. 16012/7/97-Estt.(Allowance) dated 13th  February, 1998. Hindi version will follow.

                Sd/-

Mrs. Pratibha Mohan

Director (E-II)

To

 All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.

(As per standard list)

 

 

Annexure-I

 

Performa for sending proposals  for approval of Department of Personnel & Training for grant  of extension to Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.

 

1. Designation of the post:

2. Duration of the post     :

3. Scale and terms of the post and perquisite attached, if any:

4. Whether financial sanction for the creation of the post/continuance of post for the    duration shown at (2) has been obtained:

5. Method of recruitment:

6. Name and the terminal date of appointment of the outgoing incumbent of the post:

7. Name of the specialist proposed for appointment and the service to which he belongs:

8. Full service particulars of the Officer with date of birth and pay drawn:

9. Names of other Officers considered:

10. If promotion post, whether copies of proceedings of a D.P.C. are being enclosed? If not, why not?

11. Whether character roll of the specialist proposed and those considered are being sent.  If not, why not?

12. Please indicate:

(i) (a) Whether the post  is scientific or medical specialist.

(b) Periods of extension granted earlier to the officer, if any

(c) Date from which extension is to be granted.

(d) Period of extension of service.

(ii) Justification for grant of extension:

(a)  The date from which it was known that vacancy would occur.

(b) Action taken to select a successor with chronological details.

(c) If selection is being made, reasons why this could not be finalized in good time.

(d) Can some officiating or ad-hoc arrangements be made, pending fresh appointment by proper selection? If not, why not?

(iii) Whether orders of the Minister-in charge have been obtained?

13. Whether the prescribed Integrity Certificate, from the appropriate authority, is enclosed.