Tag Archives: Chennai

PMO

Appeal to Independent Directors of BEL on Rs 7900 Cr Scam in IACCS Project

Leave a comment

To

Dr. Bhaskar Ramamurthi, Director at IIT, Chennai,
Dr. R K Shevgaonkar, Professor at IIT, Mumbai,
Mrs. Usha Mathur, ex-Secretary to Govt. of India,
Mr. Sharad Sanghi, Entrepreneur,
Shri Mukka Harish Babu, Practicing Chartered Accountant,
Shri Surendra Singh Sirohi, ex-Secretary to Govt. Of India,
Shri Vijay S Madan, ex-Secretary to Govt. Of India,
Dr. Amit Sahai, Joint Secretary (P&C), Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production,
Ms J Manjula, Distinguished Scientist & Director General-Electronics & Communication Systems, DRDO,

ushamathur@hotmail.com,
harish@harishassociates.com,
bhaskar@iitm.ac.in,
vc@bennett.edu.in,
secretarial@hfcl.com,
sdpns@nic.in

MASSIVE CORRUPTION IN AIRFORCE UNDERGROUND STRUCTURE, IMPLEMENTATION AGENCY DEFENCE PSU BHARAT ELECTRONICS SUSPENDS ITS OWN INVESTIGATING OFFICERS FOR UNEARTHING ROLE OF CMD & TOP OFFICERS

In an unprecedented move the defence public sector undertaking Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) has suspended three senior officials, who unearthed massive irregularities in the Indian Air Force’s confidential IACCS project- underground bunkers- at 10 strategic locations. The three officials were part of Inquiry committee set up by the BEL’s Chief Vigilance officer (CVO) in July 2018 . The team exposing the role of high ranking officers and manipulation of awards of contracts in Rs.8000 Crore project had submitted the report in October 2018. Instead of taking action against the corrupt officers, BEL management led by its Chairman MV Gowtama, who himself is under the scanner in IACCS project, acted with vengeance and suspended the investigation team members.

It is pertinent to mention that after three-member probe committee submitted the report, BEL CVO , a senior IAS officer MR S.SHIVA KUMAR  1987 BATCH in his note dated 29 March 2019 exposed the deep-rooted corruption recommending strong action against erring officers and firms. Yet, the CMD , who is likely to be arrested if a probe is ordered, cracked the whip against inquiry committee members for doing honest job. This crackdown is in spite of  the fact that the CVO of the company as appointed by CVC of India had established and validated each point of the investigation report  and strongly recommended to management of BEL for immediate police and civil criminal action against concerned BEL officers and chief consultant of the project M/s RD KONSULTANT.  The role of senior DRDO officers is also under the scanner since it was DRDO which recommended and fully supported the name of RD Konsultant to BEL although it was done informally and BEL surreptitiously avoided DRDO role in the files.The role of DRDO officers was brought out and exposed by the BEL vigilance probe team which was suspended on 17 May 2019.  To distract the government’s IB report, CMD, BEL created suspension drama of three personal of BEL, 2 GM Vigilance and one manager to fooling the country. This shows the clear mockery of BEL management.

M/S RD KONSULTANT – DELHI  , which came out to be a shell company in investigation report , incorporated just 3-4 months before the award of PPR consultancy project with all false  and fabricated documents, and was wrongly  awarded DPR consultancy project also violating BEL own manual procedures as well CVC guidelines with a criminal intent of having control over all future activities of civil contract as well infrastructure/ Plant and machinery  items procurement worth more than Rs 3500 crores, as recorded in noting files  and  many senior management personals of M/S BHARAT ELECTRONICS , which is continuously being done since UPA CONGRESS REGIME 2011.

One very interesting fact of the whole case is that the two BHARAT ELECTRONICS senior management personals named Mr N.K. SHARMA DIRECTOR( MARKETTING) and MR CHANDERPRAKASH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (D&E) GAD, who were the chief &key persons for co ordinating the IACCS project getting approved from Indian air force, joined  a company named “OIS ADVANCE TECH” – 90% OWNDED BY MR SANJAY BHANDARI – famous arms dealer & power broker  and close associate of ROBERT WADRA immediately after their retirement from BEL in 2010 and 2011, and immediately after this this project got formally started by BEL . 

The detailed and very exhaustive investigation done by fact verification team in early 2018 and further investigation team in end 2018 and subsequently report by CVO of M/s Bharat Electronics has established the details of  massive corruption and mal practices done by M/S RD Konsultant, its associate/related firms and senior management persons of BEL  ( since 2011 onwards till now), by abusing their powers and violating all BEL manuals as well as documented CVC guidelines for tendering for award of civil project works and procurement of items worth more than 3500 crores.

These civil contract worth more than 1000 crores have been given of paper to reputed firms like M/S L&T but at almost 30 % higher and inflated rates (as also mentioned by then Director (Finance) Mr PRABHAT ACHARYA in file noting about more than 100 crore loss as well as violation of BEL Contract manual conditions as well as CVC guidelines) and after some period he resigned from company. After this project given to m/s L&T are being done by M/S RD consultant sister concern named M/S CS CONSTRUCTIONS at sites ( even MD- Mr Rahul Baucher  of M/S CS Construction used to come to BEL-Ghaziabad unit  for regular review meeting on behalf of L&T) – A serious violation of CVC  guidelines as well contract conditions of BEL & M/S RD KONSUL) , which seriously compromise the quality , as it is a very small petty company which in no way  has a technical capability and skill to deal such highly technical and secured project. This fact as validated by the fact that some sites were shown as collapsed during construction and crores of rupees were further approved by BEL management in name of deviation with fixing the responsibility on contractor.

The detailed design which was submitted by M/s R.D. Konsultants specified vendors for all the sub-systems which are used in the blast proof underground buildings. It is seen that these vendors are the same which they had brought out to be their partners during presented made by then during the Pre-qualification bid. The Order which was placed on BEL by Air Force was also based on the detail design report submitted by M/s R.D. Konsultants and hence all these vendors called in the order from Air Force were the same which were defined by M/s R.D. Konsultants.BEL has in turn placed many orders for the sub-systems based on the vendors defined by M/s R.D. Konsultants. A visit was made to the works of many of these European vendors by a team of engineers from BEL along with Air Force personnel. But is it said that the team was accompanied by a rep from M/s R.D. Konsultant and the visit was coordinated by M/s R. D. Konsultant. These foreign companies were allowed to supply materials on a single tender basis by the BEL chairman MV Gowtama. He in fact overruled his own officials and approved qualification of several firms despite they had failed to submit bid details during prescribed time. Such gross violation was similar to the ones seen during 2G scam. BEL Chairman violated the laid down norms by allowing these foreign firms despite objections duly recorded by the finance division.

All above shows a case of massive corruption, fraud and abuse of power with criminal intent and a huge loss to Government public money by BEL senior management persons in connivance with chief consultant, EX DRDO and some IAF officials. The whole investigation report findings are finally found true of the fact that as it is learnt from top BEL & DRDO sources last week M/s RD Konsultant has written to BEL MANAGEMENT that as his chief designer has left the company and the firm has gone bankrupt, he cannot give consultancy services to this project. Now on this bogus consultancy company’s  design, specifications and whole scheme of the project BEL management has already  spend thousands of crores of public money  and suppose its design does not work then who will own the responsibility of whole scam. Now the news that the firm M/S RD KONSULTANT is running out of project the reason could only be because his fraud has come out in media and BEL current management instead of taking legal action against the corrupt, trying to harass and victimize the honest and brave investigation team members ( in name of media leak- which even our prime minister call  as a strong pillar of democracy) .

The team which is suspended and currently facing all type of harassment, victimization and humiliation of suspension, but in spite of all pressures and threats, have unearthed this scam just to keep the spirit of national security and defence importance   and demand only for justice but calling for a detailed CVC/CBI/ED enquiry outside BEL management preview immediately and immediate intervention of MINISTRY OF DEFENCE for action on some BEL senior management for their misdeeds

A honest and sincere appeal to all  concerned officials of PMO/MOD /CVC/PRESS/JUDITARY that please take immediate action in this regard to keep “CHOWKIDAR “ alive in our souls  by safeguarding the honour of investigation team officials.

ABOVE ALL MATTER IS COVERED IN DETAILS BY  A REPUTED NEWPAPER

“FIRSTPOST”  IN ITS ARTICLE DATED 02 APRIL, 09 APRIL & 26 April 2019

Before publishing in media the matter was available with AF Intelligence, CVO, CBI, North Block, Chairman, DRDO, IB in March itself but god knows why any agency not take-up this matter seriously.

Hope you will take up matter seriously as you are responsible Member, Audit Committee and Director of BEL and may be aware of all developments from side of BEL management who are posing that matter is mare deviation of 50/60 lakhs as a bonafide fighter against defence corruption since more than 20 years I am fully aware of nexus. This nexus was designed by Retired Scientist of DRDO with ex DRDO chief because the U/G work of services was sole right of DRDO via SPIC, but when retirement stage these corrupt DRDO official gang create the scene and diverted this activity to BEL which doesn’t have any type construction division like DRDO have, U/G plant machinery experience either trading nor manufacturing in this tender only 500 cr electronics involvement can BEL claimed. As per investigation and observation it is clearly visualize that few greedy BEL official trapped in vicious DRDO official and for sake of few bucks they compromised with national security as well as their organization’s dignity. Please ask the vigilance report prepared by these three suspended BEL employees, Report is not an eye opener but will help govern to expose UPA era nexus who are responsible to siphon the defence budget under shadow of secrecy.

Drdo

DefExpo 2018: Policy paralysis during Congress rule had affected defence preparedness, PM Modi says

3 Comments

B Sivakumar | TNN | Updated: Apr 12, 2018, 13:21 IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Prime Minister was speaking at the defence expo in Chennai.
  • Modi said policy paralysis would not happen anymore.
  • The PM launched IDEX , a portal for startups to deal with the defence production department.

 CHENNAI: India is set to move faster in all fields as the NDA government has brought the country out of policy paralysis caused by the previous Congress government, said Prime Minister Narendra Modi while formally inaugurating the 10th edition of the defence expo – DefExpo 2018 – at Thiruvidandai near Chennai on Thursday.
“There was a time when, like many other aspects of governance, the critical issue of defence preparedness was also hampered by policy paralysis. We have seen how laziness, incompetence and perhaps some hidden motives can cause damage to the nation,” said the Prime Minister.
He said such paralysis would not happen anymore. “Issues that should have been long addressed by previous governments are being resolved now. You would have seen how the requirement of providing bullet proof jackets to Indian Army soldiers was kept hanging for years,” said Modi.
“You would also recall the long-drawn process of procurement of fighter aircraft that never reached any conclusion. We have not only taken bold action to meet our immediate critical requirements, but have also initiated a new process to procure 110 fighter aircraft. We do not want to spend 10 years in discussions without any tangible outcomes,” he said.
Promising honesty and transparency in all the dealings, the Prime Minister said, “We will work with you with a sense of mission to keep our defence forces equipped with state-of-the-art systems, and to create the necessary domestic manufacturing ecosystem to achieve this.”
Earlier, the Prime Minister launched IDEX (Innovations for Defence Excellence), a portal for startups to deal with the defence production department. “Today, we launched the ‘Innovation for Defence Excellence’ scheme. It will set up defence innovation hubs throughout the country to provide necessary incubation and infrastructure support to the startups in defence area,” said Modi.
He said the government would encourage private venture capital into the defence sector, especially for startups.
“New and emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and robotics are perhaps the most important determinants/of defensive and offensive capabilities for any defence force in the future. India, with its leadership in information technology domain, would strive to use this technology tilt to its advantage,” he said.
Quoting former President APJ Abdul Kalam, the Prime Minister said, Kalam asked us to dream, dream and dream. Our dream is to develop the ecosystem to foster an environment of new and creative entrepreneurship in defence manufacturing sector.
Modi said in the coming weeks the government would undertake extensive consultations with all stakeholders, including both Indian and foreign companies, about our defence production and defence procurement policy space. “I call upon all of you to actively participate in this exercise. Our aim is not just to discuss, but to draw the right lessons. Our intention is not to lecture, but to listen. Our goal is not merely to tinker, but to transform,” Modi said.
The Prime Minister witnessed live demonstration of the three services.

Uncategorized

Chennai: Police arrest RTI applicant for refusing to stand at hearing

Leave a comment

Chennai: Police arrest RTI applicant for refusing to stand at hearing
08-01-2015
CHENNAI: Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC), in an unprecedented assault on the spirit of the Right to Information Act, under whose provisions the commission is set up, called in the city police to arrest an applicant for refusing to remain standing up and asking to be allowed to sit down in front of a two-member bench hearing an appeal by the applicant at the commission’s headquarters in Teynampet here on Wednesday.
There is no rule that an RTI applicant should remain standing during an appeal, but when NGO Satta Panchayat Iyakkam (Legal Panchayat Movement) president Siva Elango asked for a chair during the hearing of a second appeal after TNSIC rejected his RTI application and first appeal, chief information commissioner K S Sripathi and commissioner S F Akbar refused to accede to the request.
When the SPI president took a chair, the commissioners informed the Teynampet police and lodged a formal complaint. Police picked up Elango from the TNSIC headquarters and booked him under IPC Sections 353 (preventing a government servant from discharging his duty), 294 (b) (obscenity) and 506 (1) (criminal intimidation).
Police presented Elango in a magistrate’s court, which remanded him in judicial custody for 15 days. Elango is currently in Puzhal Central Prison here.
RTI activists seeking to expose corruption have been at the receiving end of threats and attacks by politicians and bureaucrats, and some of them have even been murdered for their efforts, but this is the first time that a state information commission has gone out of its way to stymie an appeal for information and intimidate an applicant, activists in the city said.
Elango, who has filed several RTI applications and represented various applicants, said TNSIC members and staff have routinely sought to derail his petitions for information and harass him. “On Wednesday commission staff even deflated the tyres of my motorcycle,” he said.
Wednesday’s hearing of Elango’s second appeal was on an RTI application he filed on February 22, seeking details of advertisements issued by the state government from 1991 to 2014. “I approached TNSIC after the government failed to reply to my application,” he said. “Instead of penalising the PIO concerned for not providing the information on time, the commissioners have been misbehaving with me during the proceedings.”
Chief information commissioner Sripathi was unavailable for comment, but commissioner Akbar said TNSIC had given Elango “sufficient opportunities” to obtain the information he requested. “He did not follow some procedures,” he said. Asked what specific procedures he was referring to, Akbar said, “I cannot divulge everything that happened during the hearing.”
SPI general secretary Senthil Arumugam said information commissioners in the state continue to be lax even after applicants protested against them. “They should treat applicants with some dignity. Unfortunately, they safeguard errant PIOs instead,” Arumugam said.
Enraged by Elango’s arrest, RTI activists said they will organise a sit-in protest at the TNSIC headquarters on Friday. Lok Satta Party (TN) spokesperson N Narayanan issued a statement condemning the TNSIC after Elango’s arrest.
Activists have been urging the commission to webcast proceedings on its site and allow applicants to record proceedings. In July 2014, SPI released a video that captured commission member P Thamilselvan abusing an applicant during the hearing of an appeal.
TOI recently reported that the number of RTI appeals disposed of by TNSIC plunged by more than 50% in 2014 from the previous year. Statistics from the commission’s website (Tamil Nadu Information Commission) show the number of appeals the commission attended to dropped from 19,889 in 2013 to 8,121 till November 2014. The commission receives an average of 60,000 RTI applications a year.

Chennai: Police arrest RTI applicant for refusing to stand at hearing – The Times of India

Uncategorized

Chennai: RTI activist jailed for refusing to stand at hearing

Leave a comment

Anna Isaac, CNN-IBN
Chennai: In a bizarre case, an RTI activist has been jailed for refusing to stand at a hearing. The RTI activist had asked for a chair so that he could sit in front of a 2-member bench hearing an appeal at the headquarters in Chennai.
The victim, NGO Satta Panchayat Iyakkam President Siva Elango, asked for a chair during the hearing of a second appeal after Tamil Nadu State Information Commission rejected his RTI application. When the RTI activist took the chair, they lodged a complaint with the Teynampet Police.
He has been booked under IPC Sections 353 (preventing a government servant from discharging his duty), 294 (b) (obscenity) and 506 (1) (criminal intimidation) The court has remanded the RTI applicant Elango in judicial custody for 15 days.

Drdo

DRDO to make unmanned combat systems

1 Comment

S. SANDEEP KUMAR, November 24, 2014 17:04 IST THE HINDU

Projects on unmanned reconnaissance aircraft and combat aircraft are underway, but there is a need to evolve a policy for inclusion of such systems into the armed forces, DRDO Director General Dr. Avinash Chander said.
Projects on unmanned reconnaissance aircraft and combat aircraft are underway, but there is a need to evolve a policy for inclusion of such systems into the armed forces, DRDO Director General Dr. Avinash Chander said.

“it is going to be the future, it will be a fight against one technology over the other, than the conventional man against man wars,” DRDO Director General Avinash Chander said.

Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Director General Dr. Avinash Chander underscored the need for a policy to induct unmanned combat systems into the armed forces and make them an integral part.

Many advanced countries, especially the United States, are focusing on developing unmanned security systems and the DRDO is working on different unmanned combat system projects for aerial, underwater and surface applications.

Presently, projects on unmanned reconnaissance aircraft and combat aircraft and others are underway but there is a need to evolve a policy for inclusion of such systems into the armed forces. It is going to be the future, it will be a fight against one technology over the other, than the conventional man against man wars, said Mr. Chander.

Strengthening biochemical capability

Sensing a potential threat through dreadful viruses, bacteria and other bio agents, the defence organisation is working on strengthening biochemical capability by developing vaccines for detection and protection.

“We have developed a vaccine for detection of HINI flu virus and are working on detection of anthrax in association with department of food research. They are still under clinical evaluation and we need to get clearance. It is a long process,” said Mr. Chander, who was in the city to lay the foundation for the Centre of Excellence in Composites at V.R. Siddhartha Engineering College in Vijayawada on Monday.

Akash MK-II missile

Sharing details about the upgrading of Akash MK-II surface-to-air missile, he said Akash, in its present form, was very successful and met with the aspirations of the armed forces. “It has got a very good hit rate and now efforts are on for enhancing range and it is still on the drawing board,” he said.

On other projects, the DRDO Director General said the organisation was setting up a centre of technology for robotics at Jagadalpur and there are plans to set up 10 such centres for propulsions etc at Mumbai, Chennai and other locations in the country in the next five years.

The objective was to inculcate research interest among students and DRDO will be funding such centres, he added.

Drdo

Dr Vijay Veer and Dr AK Singh two gems of DRDO

7 Comments

Dr Vijay Veer, Director, DRL, Tezpur and Dr AK Singh, DOP, DRDO Hqrs have taken a joint project in DRL on not giving transfer even after completion of tenure. They are trying their best to fulfil their ego even when Honourable CAT, Guwahati has ordered the same. Both are putting all efforts to harass their fellow colleagues. Had they even ask their conscience regarding that? I think the answer is no. From the history we know that there is always a rise and fall of dynasties. We do not know what will be the future of them.

This CAT, Guwahati Bench order no. 317/2014 is another example of their joint venture.  In this connection, I would like to draw your kind attention another CAT, Guwahati Bench order no. 49/2010.

Kindly see the point 9 and 10 of CAT, Guwahati Bench order no. 49/2010. It is very important judgement.

CENTRAL ADMINISRATIVE TRIBUNAL

GUWAHATI BENCH

Original Application No. 49 of 2010

Date of Decision: This, the 15th day of March, 2010.

HONBLE SHRI MADAN KUMAR CHATURVEDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Shri R.Periasamy
Sub-Divisional Engineer
Meghna Division
Central Water Commission
Silchar-788 006
Dist: Cachar, Assam.

Applicant

By Advocate: Mrs. U.Dutta

-Versus-

  1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary
Ministry of Water Resources
Govt. of India, Rafi Marg, Shram Shakti Bhawan
New Delhi – 110 001.
  1. The Chairman
Central Water Commission
Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram
New Delhi-110 066.
  1. The Member (WP&P)
Central Water Commission
Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram
New Delhi-110 066.
  1. The Chief Engineer (HRM)
Central Water Commission
Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram
New Delhi-110 066.
.. Respondents

* * * * * * * *

O R D E R (ORAL)

MADAN KUMAR CHATURVEDI, MEMBER (A):

Applicant is aggrieved against letter dated 06.07.2009 which

reads as under :-

To
The Superintending Engineer (C)
Office of the Chief Engineer B&BBO4/16/2014 Untitled Page
http://judis.nic.in/judis_cat/detail.aspx 2/4
Central Water Commission
Rebekka Ville, Barik Point
Temple Road, Lower Lachumiere
Shillong.

Sub: Representation for transfer of Shri B.Jayakumar,SDE reg.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter o.1/4/(G)/2006-BBB/1972 73, dated 4-6-2009 on the above mentioned subject and to say that after careful consideration of the same the competent authority has not agreed to the requests of S/Shri B.Jayakumar, R.Shankarpandian & R.Periasamy, Sub Divisional Engineers for their transfer from B&BBO, Shillong to C&SRO, Coimbatore.

  1. Adverting to the facts I find that applicant initially joined as Junior Engineer under Central Water Commission on 25.01.1979. After serving at different places, he was eventually transferred from Chennai to Meghna Division, Silchar on 04.07.2007 and has since been continuing in the same station.
  2. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance vide its O.M. No.20014/3/83-E.IV, dated 14.12.1983 granted some incentives to various categories of Central Government employees for serving in North Eastern States of India. Said O.M. provides, inter alia, that there will be fixed tenure of posting of 3 years at a time for officers with 10 years service or less and 2 years at a time for officers with more than 10 years. Officials on completion of fixed tenure of service may be considered for posting of their choice as far as possible. Applicant has completed more than 20 years of service for respondents organization. He joined at Silchar (Assam) on 04.07.2007 and completed prescribed tenure of 2 years in N.E.Region on 04.07.2009. As such he became entitled to his choice place of posting.On 17.01.2009 applicant has given choice place of posting as under:-

By Advocate: Mrs. U.Dutta

-Versus-

  1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources

Govt. of India, Rafi Marg, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001.

  1. The Chairman Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110 066.
  2. The Member (WP&P),Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110 066.
  3. The Chief Engineer (HRM), Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110 066.

.. Respondents

* * * * * * * *

O R D E R (ORAL)

MADAN KUMAR CHATURVEDI, MEMBER (A):

Applicant is aggrieved against letter dated 06.07.2009 which reads as under :-

To
The Superintending Engineer (C)
Office of the Chief Engineer B&BBO4/16/2014 Untitled Page
http://judis.nic.in/judis_cat/detail.aspx 2/4
Central Water Commission
Rebekka Ville, Barik Point
Temple Road, Lower Lachumiere
Shillong.

Sub: Representation for transfer of Shri B.Jayakumar, SDE reg.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter o.1/4/(G)/2006-BBB/1972 73, dated 4-6-2009 on the above mentioned subject and to say that after careful consideration of the same the competent authority has not agreed to the requests of S/Shri B.Jayakumar, R.Shankarpandian & R.Periasamy, Sub Divisional Engineers for their transfer from B&BBO, Shillong to C&SRO, Coimbatore.

  1. Adverting to the facts I find that applicant initially joined as Junior Engineer under Central Water Commission on 25.01.1979. After serving at different places, he was eventually transferred from Chennai to Meghna Division, Silchar on 04.07.2007 and has since been continuing in the same station.
  2. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance vide its O.M. No.20014/3/83-E.IV, dated 14.12.1983 granted some incentives to various categories of Central Government employees for serving in North Eastern States of India. Said O.M. provides, inter alia, that there will be fixed tenure of posting of 3 years at a time for officers with 10 years service or less and 2 years at a time for officers with more than 10 years. Officials on completion of fixed tenure of service may be considered for posting of their choice as far as possible. Applicant has completed more than 20 years of service for respondents organization. He joined at Silchar (Assam) on 04.07.2007 and completed prescribed tenure of 2 years in N.E.Region on 04.07.2009. As such he became entitled to his choice place of posting.

On 17.01.2009 applicant has given choice place of posting as under:-

  1. OPTED STATIONS/REGIONS:-

3). Delta Sub Division-Karikkal under C&SR Region-Coimbatore To buttress the claim following reasons were adduced:-

1). My 75 years old mother staying with my family. She needs constant medical care. Hence my

presence is required at Chennai.

2). I have 27 years Son & 23 years Daughter at Chennai, to fix suitable alliance, as a father my presence is very essential.

  1. It is palpable from the perusal of impugned letter dated 06.07.2009 that request made by applicant was turned down without assigning any cogent reason. Mrs.U.Dutta, learned counsel for applicant strongly relied on the decision of this Bench rendered in the case of Sanjay Garg vs. Union of India in O.A. No.175 of 2009 dated 04..02.2010. Relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced below:-
  2. We have heard the rival submissions. It is stipulated in the office memorandum dated 14.12.1983 that officers on completion of the fixed tenure of service in the State or Union Territories of North East Region may be considered for posting to a station of their choice as far as possible. May is an auxiliary verb qualifying the meaning of another verb by expressing ability, competency, liberty, permission, possibility, probability or contingency. Regardless of the instrument however, whether Constitution, statute, deed contract or whatever, Courts not infrequently construe may as shall or must to the end that justice may not be the slave of grammar. However, as a general rule, the word may will not be treated as a word of command unless there is something in context or subject matter of act to indicate that it was used in such sense. It appears that to attract competent officers to serve in the North East Region the provision for choice transfer was made. Right to give a choice was bestowed on the employees. Once a right is created it cannot be disturbed without any legal justification. Jurisprudentially, speaking right is an interest, protected under the law. The justification which is given by the respondents qua, the non consideration of choice is correct in the context of normal transfer rules but when it is stipulated that officer on completion of fixed tenure of service at North East

Region may be considered for posting to a station of their choice, it is incumbent on the authorities concerned to accommodate the officer at the place of his choice as far as possible. However, for some reasons, if such posting is not possible, opportunity of being heard, must be provided and detailed order should be passed stating the reasons as to why the concerned officer could not be accommodated at the place of his choice.

  1. Transfer can uproot a family, cause irreparable loss to an employee and drive him into desperation. It disrupts education of his children and leads to numerous other complication and problems and cause hardship and demoralization. It therefore follows that policy of transfer should be reasonable and fair and should apply to everybody equally. It cannot be gain said that transfer is an exigency of service and may be ordered for administrative reason and the employer is the best judge in this regard. In a Welfare State to maintain the rule of law attempt should be made to ensure fairness and equality of treatment, arbitrariness should be avoided at all cost. The proposition that who will be posted where is within the discretion of the authorities in control of the matter, is not absolute. It is subject to the limits of law. By serving in the North East Region applicant gained right of consideration for posting to a station of his choice. This fact was not correctly appreciated by the respondents.

The obligation which emanated out of the assurance given to the employee for coming to North East Region was not properly discharged. The issue was not examined in the right perspective. The rule of audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard) was not followed. Taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case, we direct the respondents to accommodate the applicant at the place of his choice within four months from the date of this order. Meanwhile applicant be not disturbed from the place of his present posting.

I find that facts of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid ruling. In the present case also I find that obligation which emanated out of the assurance given to the employee for coming to North East Region was not properly discharged. The issue was not examined in right perspective. The rule of audi alteram parterm (no one should be condemned unheard) was not followed. Respondents did not assign any reason in rejecting the request for choice posting. Having regard to the facts, I direct the respondents to accommodate the applicant on the place of his choice within a period of four months from the date of receipt of order. Meanwhile, applicant be not disturbed from his present place of posting.

  1. In the result, O.A. stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

(MADAN KUMAR CHATURVEDI)

MEMBER (A)

/BB/

O.A.49 of 2010

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

GUWAHATI BENCH

Original Application No. 040/00317/2014

Date of Order: This, the 08th Day of September, 2014

THE HONBLE SMT. MANJULA DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER

THE HONBLE MOHD. HALEEM KHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Dr. C. Rajendran,
Scientist D,
Defence Research Laboratory,
Defence Research & Development Organization,
Post Box No.2, Tezpur,
Assam-784 001.

Applicant

By Advocates: Mrs.U.Dutta & Mr.C.S.Hazarika

-Versus-

  1. The Union of IndiaRepresented by the Secretaryto the Ministry of FinanceSouth Block, New Delhi-110001.
  1. The Director General,Defence Research & Development Organization,Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi 110 105.
 
  1. The Director,Directorate of Personnel,Defence Research & Development Organization, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi 110 105.
  1. The Director, Defence Research Laboratory, Defence Research & Development Organization, Post Box No.2, Tezpur, Assam-784 001. Respondents

Advocate:

O R D E R (ORAL)

MANJULA DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

By this O.A., applicant makes a prayer to direct the respondent to consider his choice posting in any of the stations of his choices, namely Coimbatore, Chennai, Mysore or Gwalior.

  1. Mrs. U.Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that applicant has joined as Scientist B for the post Parasitology (Microbiology) in Defence Research Laboratory, Tezpur on 07.01.2004. He was promoted to the grade of Scientist C from 01.07.2007 and further to the grade of Scientist D on 01.07.2014 and he has been continuing at Tezpur as such.
  1. According to the learned counsel, applicant is a permanent resident of village Chathirappatti, Thanjvur district of11/15/2014 Untitled Page http://judis.nic.in/judis_cat/CaseNo_Cat_Result.aspx 2/3 Tamilnadu and he has completed his fixed tenure of 3 (three) years in the N.E. Region way back in 2007 and on completion of his fixed tenure of posting at N.E. Region, he is entitled to any of his choice place of posting. To buttress her argument, learned counsel has drawn our attention to Clause (i) of the O.M. dated 14.12.1983 which reads as under:-

(i) Tenure of posting/deputation:

There will be a fixed tenure of posting of 3 years at a time for officers with service of 10 years or less and of 2 years at a time for officers with more than 10 years of service. Periods of leave, training, etc. in excess of 15 days per year will be excluded in counting the tenure period of 2/3 years. Officers, on completion of the fixed tenure of service mentioned above, may be considered for posting to a station of their choice as far as possible. The period of deputation of the Central Government employees to the States/Union Territories of the North Eastern Region will generally be for 3 years which can be extended in exceptional cases in exigencies of public service as well as when the employee concerned is prepared to stay longer. The admissible deputation allowance will also continue to be paid during the period of deputation so extended.

According to the learned counsel, aforesaid beneficial provision was subsequently extended by the O.M.s dated 01.12.1988 and 22.07.1998.

  1. According to the learned counsel, applicant’s mother who is a widow is staying alone in his native village and has been suffering from various heart related problems since several years and there is no one to look after her. Applicant being the eldest son in his family has not been unable to look after her in her need as applicant is posted far off place. That apart, according to the learned counsel during his stay at Tezpur, applicant, his wife and son had developed certain ailments due to extreme weather and climate do not suited them.
  1. According to the learned counsel, due to the aforesaid compelling reasons applicant submitted various representations before the respondents i.e., on 07.04.2008, 12.06.2008, 02.05.2011, 12.09.2012, 13.05.2013, 02.07.2013, 11.07.2013, 23.07.2013 and 24.07.2014 seeking posting in any of the choice places, namely Gwalior, Coimbatore, Chennai or Mysore upon completion of his fixed tenure in N.E.Region, but the respondents have not considered any of his representations till date.
  1. Learned counsel further submitted that as many as five Scientists, namely Dr. Mehbuba Begum, Shri Y V S Rao, Dr.Jubilee Purkayastha, Dr. Anurag Pandey and Dr. Gaurav Agnihotri, who have jointed at DRL, Tezpur much later than the applicant, have been transferred out to their choices out of N E Region, but in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner the respondents, the respondents have not yet transferred the applicant to any of his choice places despite completion of his tenure at N.E. Region.
  1. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and material placed before us.
  1. Clause (i) of the OM dated 14th December 1983 prescribes that there will be a fixed tenure of posting of 3 years at a time for officers with service of 10 years or less and of 2 years at a time11/15/2014 Untitled Page http://judis.nic.in/judis_cat/CaseNo_Cat_Result.aspx 3/3 for officers with more than 10 years of service. It was further prescribed therein that – officers, on completion of the fixed tenure of service mentioned above, may be considered for posting to a station of their choice as far as possible. The said OM confers a right upon the applicant to be considered for being posted at his place of posting as far as possible. Applicant has completed his tenure of three years in 2007 at DLR, Tezpur. Upon completion of his fixed tenure in N.E.Region, applicant has opted for 4 choice places of posing, namely, Gwalior, Coimbatore, Chennai or Mysore in his representations, the respondents ought to have considered his request, inasmuch as applicant has been continuing at DLR, Tezpur for more than 7 years even after the completion of his tenure.
  1. In the case of Union of India vs. Dr. Umesh Kr. Mishra WA No. (SH) 17/2012, Honble Gauhati High Court has held that Fairness requires that if a policy has been laid down, the same may be deviated from only if there is any reason to do so. If no reason is forthcoming, the exercise of power of transfer in violation of a laid down policy may be held to be arbitrary. This Tribunal in its decisions rendered in the cases of S K Garg v. UOI & Ors (OA.179/2009 and R.Periasamy v. UOI & Ors (OA.49/2010) held that it was incumbent on the authorities to accommodate the officer at the place of his choice after completion of his fixed tenure and if such posting is not possible opportunity of being heard must be provided and detailed order should be passed stating the reasons as to why the concerned officer could not be accommodated at his place of choice.

Therefore, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the applicant for his posting at any of his 4 choices after completion of his tenure at N. E. Region and in the event of their inability to accommodate him at any of his places of choice; reasoned order ought to have been passed after affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Such steps having not taken, it is a fit case to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for his posting in any of his 4 choices.

  1. For the reasons, narrated above, we direct the respondents to consider his transfer to any of his choice places, namely, Gwalior, Coimbatore, Chennai or Mysore subject to the availability of vacancy in the light of the aforesaid OMs as well as the observation made hereinabove, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this order.
  1. O.A. stands disposed of accordingly at the admission stage. No order as to costs.

(MOHD. HALEEM KHAN) (MANJULA DAS) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Drdo

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

4 Comments
To,                                                                               5th February 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011                             

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to  your RTI reply RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0387 dated 27th December 2013 regarding  on acquiring higher qualification by DRDO officials at their own. As per details provide by DRDO RTI cell the following DRDO official acquired their qualification from ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI. As per website of ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI the B.Tech is not in the list Programmes Offered in Distance Mode.

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

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

  1. Sh R Anandh, STA ‘B’ CVRDE acquired B.Tech (E &C Engineering) in 1 December 2010 from  ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI
  2. Sh S Purshotham, STA ‘B’ CVRDE acquired B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) in 1 December 2010 from  ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI

In respect of above please provide following information.

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

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

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com
  1. Enclosed : Web page of ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI

Registration Number               MODEF/R/2014/60229

Drdo

DRDO violated the Article 309 by implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade in 2011 without proper amendment in SRO.

3 Comments

DRDO violated the Article 309 by implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO.

NO Assessment interview requirement for Promotion from scientist ‘F’ to Senior scientist ‘G’ as per the DRDO service rule-1979-Rule-8(2)(e) ; but Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment of DRDO forward name before promotion committee after “ INTERACTION ’’ .

What is the meaning of interaction and what is its need against the rule?  Nothing except the violation of law for corruption. UPSC conducted examinations for thousands participant for few seats then how RAC chairman want to stop the limited scientists opportunities to appear before the committee directly. Intention of Chairman is very clear.

Then Chairman, RAC Dr. P. S. Goel’s letter RAC/01/Assessment/PSG, dated 22-3-11 introduced this mechanism to give favor to incompetent few DRDO scientists  and for this act in return he got Prof. MGK Menon’s chair, RCI, Hyderabad  which fed him 84 lakhs per year. It is pure kick back or DRDO should prove the justification of his appointment.

What is this, is it not corruption? Best part of this type of corruption is money which he is receiving is poor tax payer’s money.

Question is, if he was competent authority to amendment of this kind of mechanism than why later DRDO amended this through Government of India gazette notification. He doesn’t have knowledge of the constitution of India, he is not competent authority to amend the  DRDS rules which are framed under Article 309 of  the constitution of India.

Where is law, where is administration, where is governance, it is happening in every stage in DRTC promotions also, where incompetent fake certificates holders are getting promotions and all relevant benefits, in recruitment of scientists lot of cases are exposed like Arun Kumar’s daughter, Selvamurty’s daughter, A K Bansal’ daughter and now several in queue like Narendra Kumar’s daughter, R B Singh’s son appointment are under lenses

Recently in CEPTAM recruitment   drive nearly 5 lakhs applications was received by CEPTAM, they made almost Rs 15 lakhs or more by introducing mandatory SMS registration, pure corruption by CEPTAM management god only knows who is patronizing this kind of corruption in DRDO. The 1 lakh applicant were rejected,  and thousands were not appeared due to examination center, CEPTAM did great job candidate who want center in nearby DELHI put him to Goa, Mizoram, Ajmer, Kolkata, Chennai etc.

RTI Request to DRDO

 
To                                                                                                                           9th September 2013
CPIO, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105 

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of the  following

The amount of expenditure incurred on Internal Screening Committee ( Main ) held for promotion from the grade of Scientist `F` to the grade of Scientist`G`, under the following Heads separatelyfor the Year 2011,2012 and 2013

a)    TA/DA on the Chairman and Members of the Internal Screening Committee (Main).

b)    TA on the candidates ( Scientist `F`) who have appeared before the Internal Screening Committee ( Main )

c)    Miscellaneous Expenditure, i.e. other than above (a) and(b), on the Internal Screening Committee ( Main )

Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II

The requested information is pertain to routine establishment / administrative matter which is not covered under exemption as decided by CIC (refer to CIC decision no CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22/03/2013).

There was no government approval for conducting ISC, main in assessment year 2011, and it was conducted illegally against the DRDS rules for the benefit to few incompetent scientists of their choice.

“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty”

Regards

PrabhuDandriyal
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879
prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com
psg1
psg2
 
RTI Request has been filed successfully on RTI Online Portal. The following are the details:-
Registration Number: MODEF/R/2013/60363
Name: Prabhu Dandriyal
Date of Filing: 10/09/2013
Request filed with: Department of Defence
Contact Details:-
Telephone Number: 23015187
Payment Details:-
RTI Fee Received: 10
Payment Mode: Internet Banking
SBI Reference number : IK33631057
Transaction Status: Successfull
Drdo

Arjun, Main Battle Tanked

Leave a comment

Express Investigation: Delayed Research; Delayed Organisation – Part – Three

Arjun, Main Battle Tanked

Amitav Ranjan                                                                                                                  Posted: Tue Nov 14 2006, 00:00 hrs                                                                                New Delhi, November 13:

The Arjun tank has no future. It still cannot fire straight. The T-90, a far superior tank, can kill the Arjun. We would not cross any border with these tanks.

Strong words, from Brigadier D K Babbar, the Army’s pointsman for the Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun project at the Mechanised Forces directorate until he retired last year from the 94th Armoured Brigade. Babbar, who spoke to The Indian Express, has reason to be disillusioned. So has Army chief General J J Singh who was more diplomatic last month: “We will see where we can use it to get optimum use.”

It’s not going to be easy.

Over 30 years after Project Arjun was sanctioned by Indira Gandhi’s Cabinet to make a home-grown battle tank that would address the armoured deficit identified during the 1971 war, the Army is now faced with a troubling prospect: inducting a lumbering, misfiring, vintage design tank like the Arjun, and that, too, in large numbers.

This, after DRDO over-shot Arjun’s project deadline by 16 years — from 1984 to 1995, finally closing the project only in 2000 — and the cost over-run is almost 20 times the original estimate. This is the highest percentage over-run for any DRDO project.

With five pre-production tanks forced upon the Army’s 43rd Armoured Regiment in 2004 and 23 tanks to be handed over shortly, MBT Arjun is about to be pushed into full-rate production outside Chennai, with the Army bound by its commitment to buy 124 for two regiments, all of which are to be delivered by 2008.

Still having 58 per cent of its content imported – including its engine, the integrated gunner’s main sight and tracks— the Arjun tank was put through confirmatory trials in the Mahajan ranges in July but the Army wasn’t holding its breath.

 

Consider these: At a mammoth 58.5 tons, Arjun is a full weight class over the Russian T-90 and nowhere near as agile.

• In May, the Defence Ministry publicized the Army chief’s inauguration of a product called Bogie Flat Arjun Tank (BFAT) built by Bharat Earth Movers in Bangalore. What it didn’t say: these were specially built rail wagons wide enough and reinforced to carry the massive 3.85-m-wide Arjun. For, the tank will crack the existing freight wagons.

• According to the Army’s latest trials, the decade-old problem of overheating persists. Two of the tank’s main subsystems, the fire control system (FCS) and integrated gunner’s main sight, which includes a thermal imager and laser range-finder, are rendered erratic and useless by the Arjun’s abnormally high peak internal temperature, which moves well beyond 55 degrees Celsius. This is in testimony to the Parliamentary committee.

• Following failed trials in summer 1997, which were criticized in a 1998 CAG report for a series of malfunctions, transmission failures and overheating, and an exodus of scientists from DRDO the same year, the tank’s production cost shot up steeply. Its unit price in 1997 was Rs 10.8 crore. It’s official unit price now: Rs 16.8 crore.

Former chief Gen Shankar Roy Choudhary had promised his service quick inductions, only to be faced with yet another extension by DRDO. In the same period, the Sino-Pak Al-Khalid tank was productionised and had begun inductions. When contacted, Roy Choudhary said: “I was a strong proponent of the Arjun tank but its performance was disappointing.”

• On October 12, Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh told The Indian Express that it was decided — after the recent trials — that the production-series tanks will be stripped of their indigenous tracks and will have imported ones. So will the first few tanks that roll out of the Heavy Vehicles Factory outside Chennai. In other words, after three decades of research, Main Battle Tank Arjun cannot stand on its own “indigenous” feet.

• The project, according to testimony provided in January by the Defence Ministry to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence, has produced virtually nothing. DRDO admitted to the same committee in June that it would be able to develop an indigenous engine, gunner’s main sight and tracks only if the Army places an order beyond 124 tanks. However, the Army has no such plans, making it uneconomical and non-feasible to reduce import content.

“License production of the above items may be feasible with enhanced order quantity for Arjun tanks and may result in reduction in import contents,” admits DRDO. It is, therefore, no surprise that the Army will progressively begin inducting between 800-1000 T-90 Bhishma tanks, which will be built under license from Russia, from 2008, making the letter ‘M’ in Arjun’s prefix not just superfluous but bogus. Why?

“It is important for the Army to maintain combat superiority over its adversaries. There have been delays and slippages in the MBT Arjun project,” Army Headquarters said in written replies to The Indian Express. Five months ago, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence said, “The Committee also desires that accountability for delay in production of the Arjun Tank may be fixed.” But the Arjun, which has cost the exchequer Rs 305.6 crore so far (representing one of the largest ever cost-overruns in percentage terms), has the influential DRDO high command unfalteringly behind it. DRDO chief Manthiram Natarajan, chief architect of the Arjun programme and a 2002 Padma Shri, has been associated with the programme since its birth in 1974 and became Programme Director in 1987. When contacted, he said, “Defence scientists are conscious that there have been time over-runs on some of the projects. But even today, it is much more cost efficient than tanks of same calibre being produced elsewhere.”

But DRDO is undeterred. With the Army’s armour perspective plan drawing out 60 regiments by 2020, DRDO told the Parliamentary panel that it’s now developing what it calls Tank-X, a hybrid consisting of an Arjun gun turret mounted on a T-72 chassis. Two tanks have been prepared, and DRDO has said it will shortly offer them to the Army for an evaluation. No guesses for why the Army isn’t terribly excited.