Tag Archives: CIC Decision

Drdo

RTI- DoPT- Dr AK Singh ke hath kanoon se bhi lambe hain

1 Comment
To
Sh R.K.Girdhar,                                                                                     16th April 2014
Under Secretary (RTI), PIO,
D/o.Personnel & Training, North Block,
New Delhi

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of my RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 filed online portal on 31/03/214 addressed to Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO, DRDO under department of Defence.  My RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 was returned online on 15th March 2014 with this remark which one unprecedented act of portal manager/ in-charge against the guideline.  Remark – Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.

As per Guideline – An applicant who desires to obtain any information under the RTI Act 2005 can make a request through this RTI Online Portal to only the Central Public Authorities of main Ministries/Departments located at New Delhi initially. In the first phase, this facility is available to Ministries/Departments/Apex Bodies mentioned in the list available in ‘GUIDELINES’

It is astonishing fact that DoPt official mentioning   that DRDO placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 but they forget they are not exempted for corruption and human right matters; it seems that the officials involved in are biased and supporter of corrupt official of DRDO.

  1. Provide me certified copy of concerned note of DoPT on the basis of my RTI application MODEF/ R/ 2014/ 60617 dated 31/03/214 was returned by above remark.
  2. Provide me the names and designations of the DoPT officials who initiated proposal and processed the given approval in concern file for returning online RTI application  unprecedentedly
  3. Provide the DoPT provision/guideline on the basis of my RTI application MODEF/ R/ 2014/ 60617 dated 31/03/214 was returned by above remark.
  4. Copy of proposal received from DRDO for not accepting in online RTI application in the name department of defence.
  5. Please provide that any ceiling to file RTI application by citizen of India.
 Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com
Registration Number       DOP&T/R/2014/61539

Final Status of   MODEF/R/2014/60617

Top of Form

Applicant Name Prabhu Dandriyal
Date of receipt 31/03/2014
Request Filed With Department of Defence
Text of Application To,                                                                                             31st March 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist G is presently holding the charge of DOP, DRDO at DRDO HQ. He is holding following post in DRDO since January 2007. Details are given as under:
SN Post Duration   Directorate
1.Staff Officer to CC(R&D) (HR) -Oct 2004- Dec 2006DRDO HQ, DRDO,
2.DirectorJan 2007 Sep 2010CEPTAM, DRDO,
3.DirectorOct 2010 27th Feb 2013Dte. of HRD, DRDO HQ,
4.Director28 Feb 2013 till date DOP, DRDO HQ
Note: He was holding the charge of two Directorates as Director, DHRD & Director, DOP from 01 Dec 2012 to 27 Feb 2013
In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
1.Procedure/Guidelines/Rules for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM, DRDO duly approved by DOPT, Government of India.
2.Criteria for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM (Seniority/Administrative & Management skill, qualification & experience etc.)
3.Charter of Duties & Nature of work carried out by Scientist appointed as:
I.Staff Officer to Chief Controller R&D(HR)
II.Director, CEPTAM
III.Director, DHRD
IV.Director, DOP
4.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Staff Officer to CCR&D (HR) & copy of appointment order
5.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, CEPTAM & copy of his appointment order
6.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD, DRDO HQ & copy of his appointment order
7.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DOP & copy of his appointment order
8.List of Scientist consider in the appointment of following post by DRDO Hqrs.
a.Director, CEPTAM Jan 2007- Sept 2010
b.Director, DHRD Oct 2010- Feb 2013
c.Director, DOP March 2013- Jan 2014
9.Administrative & Managerial Experience and Educational Qualification of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist F as on Jan 2007 when he was appointed as Director, CEPTAM, DRDO.
NOTE – Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) because Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD was part & parcel of implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO   (Violation of Article 309). He was also one of the candidates for scientist F to scientist G promotion in year 2011 assessment.
a.Please refer CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO)-
b.Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
Request document (if any) document not provided
Status RTI REQUEST APPLICATION RETURNED TO APPLICANT
Date of Action 15/04/2014
Remarks Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.
Drdo

How DRDO respects CIC orders- Case – II

1 Comment

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 1

Posted on September 7, 2012 by admin

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066


File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001207
Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan
Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012
Date of decision 09.08.2012

Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.

2. It is noticed that in the RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras about the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava. The CPIO had refused todisclose any information vide letter dated 2.11.2011 on the ground that the DRDO is an exempted organisation.

3. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the DRDO had advertised posts of Scientists ‘B’ in 2004 for which qualification was M.Sc. Bio Technology. Ms. Srivastava was M.Sc. in Environmental Biology. Thus, she was not qualified for the job. Yet due to the influence of his father Dr. Arun Kumar, who was then Deputy Director in DRDO, she was fraudulently selected as Scientist ‘B’
4. Shri Mishra submits that there is no one single file relating to this selection. In fact, there were about ten thousand candidates and to cull out Ms. Swati Srivastava’s record would be a herculean task. Further, the record is ten year old.

5. No doubt, DRDO is an exempted organisation, yet in my opinion, there is no harm if the appellant or his representative is given inspection of the entire records relating to the selection of Ms. Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’. As regards the difficulty expressed by Shri Mishra in tracing out the relevant record, I appreciate the same and yet I expect him to cull out the record for appellant’s inspection.

6. This order may be complied with in 05 weeks time.

Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.

( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar

Address of parties :-

1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.

2. Shri Rajiv Chauhan,
1053/3, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut-250005.

 

DRDO’ Action

 

Drdo

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 5

2 Comments

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

File No.CIC/LS/C/2012/001204

Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan
Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012
Date of decision 09.08.2012

Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.

2. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 1.11.2011, the appellant had sought the names of the officers/scientists who were given extension in service after their superannuation at the age of 60 years. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information vide letter dated 30.11.2011 on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organization.

3. The appellant is seeking establishment related information and not any scientific information. Despite the DRDO being an exempted organisation, in my opinion, there is absolutely no harm in disclosing the requisite information to the appellant. Ordered accordingly.

4. This order may be complied with in 04 weeks time.

Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.

( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar

Address of parties :-

1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.

2. Shri Rajiv Chauhan,
1053/3, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut-250005.

 

The Right to Information Act, 2005

Appeal before the Central Information Commission;

Appeal No. ———————– Dated ————————
As I am aggrieved by decision of Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate

Authority, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
1. Details of appellant:

1.1 Full Name: – RAJIV CHAUHAN

1.2. Full Address: R/O-1053/3, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT (U.P)-250005

1.3 Phone/Cell No.: 09412628314 ; 09258045938 ; 0121-4009512;

4 Email ID: rajivchauhan89@yahoo.co.in

2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):

2.1 Name/Designation: Dr.A.K.TYAGI ; SCIENTIST “F’ , CPIO, DRDO HQ;

2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105

2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

3. Details of First Appellate Authority [FAA]:

3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: Dr. ARUN KUMAR

3.2 Full Address of FAA: OS & DIRECTOR; DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL;

ROOM NO- 217, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105

4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:

4.1 To CPIO — 03 OCT 2011

4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011

5. Particulars of Decisions:

5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-

30 NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0291; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI

5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:-

20 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/122;

6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-

6.1 CPIO— 07 DEC 2011

6.2 FAA: — 27 JAN 2012

7. Details of information sought:-

Kindly inform to you that a high no. of scientists are working beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years in DRDO. It seems that the irregularity are carried out by the officers / scientists appointment / service extension / re- employment through the contract basis in DRDO. As per the DOPT letter no. dt.9th Dec.2002 regarding the grant of extension / re-employment to central govt. servants beyond the age of superannuation – issue of instructions regarding.-“ Re-employment : No proposal for employing a govt. servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years shall be considered. It is also clarified that no person can be appointed / re-appointed to central govt. service after the age of superannuation of 60 years through contract.” This is a case of the corruption so that the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice. . I hereby enclosed all related documents for your consideration and decision.

I want the following information’s as under-

S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Pl. provide the name of the officers / scientists who is working after the age of superannuation of 60 years. Pl. provide the name of the officers / scientists.

2. Pl. provide the financial detail which obtained by these scientists. Pl. provide the total financial details obtained by these scientists.

3. Pl. provide the name of the officers who recommended their name for extension. Pl. provide the name .

I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request to you please provide me the information by the speed post

8. Brief facts of the case:-

I submitted my RTI application before the CPIO, DRDO, New Delhi on dt.01-11-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office during the Re-employment of the scientist. CPIO reply is not satisfactory and not as per the law because the RTI is related with the allegation of the corruption and not exempted under section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.

However in this Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454,clearly mentioned that- “37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”

I was not satisfied with the reply of CPIO,DRDO HQ, New Delhi, after that I submitted an appeal before FAA to take the information but the FAA of DRDO dismissed the appeal and failed to provide the information with the ref. of second schedule of the RTI Act & section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005

9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:-

That this information is directly related with the corruption and misuse of the office and not come under section 24(1) of the RTI Act because the high no of scientists are working and take the financial and other benefits after the violation of the-
(i)- DOPT rules as DOPT letter no. dt.9th Dec.2002 regarding the grant of extension / re-employment to central govt. servants beyond the age of superannuation – issue of instructions regarding.-“ Re-employment : No proposal for employing a govt. servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years shall be considered. It is also clarified that no person can be appointed / re-appointed to central govt. service after the age of superannuation of 60 years through contract.”
(ii)- Defence Research Development (DRDO)Service Rules no-9-“Probation- Persons appointed to the grade of scientist ‘B’ of the service either by direct recruitment or by promotion or by re-employment before the age of superannuation ,shall be on probation for a period of 2 years. Persons appointed to any other grade of the service viz. scientist ’C’. scientist ’D’ .scientist ’E’, scientist ’F’ and scientist ‘G’ .either by direct recruitment or by re-employment before the age of superannuation ,shall be placed on probation for a period of one year; Provided that the Director General may extend or curtail the period of probation in accordance with the instruction issued by the central govt. from time to time; Provided further that in case where it is proposed to extend the period of probation, the Director General shall give notice in writing of his intention to do so, to the officer with in twelve weeks after expiry of the initial or extended period of probation”

3- That the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice.
10. Any other information in support of appeal:-

This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the re-employment after the violation of the DOPT & DRDO service rules. I hereby enclosed all related documents for your consideration and decision.
11. Prayer/relief sought for:-
I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Pl. provide the name of the officers / scientists who is working after the age of superannuation of 60 years. Pl. provide the name of the officers / scientists.
2. Pl. provide the financial detail which obtained by these scientists. Pl. provide the total financial details obtained by these scientists.
3. Pl. provide the name of the officers who recommended their name for extension. Pl. provide the name .

I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the information’s by the speed post.
(2)- I request your honor to pass an order in favor of the applicant as deemed fit as an any relief .

Personal Presence at hearing:- — YES

Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with this commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.

Place: MEERUT

Date: —————-

Signature of appellant

Drdo

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 2

Leave a comment

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001209

Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan
Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012
Date of decision 09.08.2012

Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.

2. It is the appellant’s contention that Ms. Geeta, daughter of Dr. W. Silvamurthy, former Director, DIPAS, DRDO, New Delhi, was selected as Scientist ‘c’ in 2004. It is his allegation that said Ms. Geeta was not qualified to be selected as Scientist ‘E’ as she did not hold the Ph.D degree at that time. He also alleges that she obtained the Ph.D. Degree from Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, in an irregular manner. In this connection, vide RTI application dated 7.10.2011, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras. This was responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated 2.11.2011 wherein he refused to disclose any information on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organisation.

3. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Shri Mishra submits that he has not received a copy of the appeal memo and, therefore, it is not possible for him to respond to it off-hand. Besides, he also submits that Chairman, RAC, had conducted an inquiry into the matter and in report dated 24.12.2010 had held that the process of recruitment was in order. The Commission cannot comment on the validity of allegations made by the appellant. Even so, in my opinion, the requested information cannot be denied to the appellant only for the reason that DRDO is an exempted organisation. In fact, transparency demands that the records relating to the inquiry conducted by Chairman, RAC, are allowed to be inspected by the appellant or his representative. I order accordingly.

5. This order may be complied with in 04 weeks time.

Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.

( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar

Address of parties :-

1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.

2. Shri Rajiv Chauhan,
1053/3, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut-250005.

The Right to Information Act, 2005

Appeal before the Central Information Commission;

Appeal No. ———————– Dated ————————
As I am aggrieved by decision of Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate

Authority, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
1. Details of appellant:

1.1 Full Name: – RAJIV CHAUHAN

1.2. Full Address: R/O-1053/3, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT (U.P)-250005

1.3 Phone/Cell No.: 09412628314 ; 09258045938 ; 0121-4009512;

4 Email ID: rajivchauhan89@yahoo.co.in

2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):

2.1 Name/Designation: Dr.A.K.TYAGI ; SCIENTIST “F’ , CPIO, DRDO HQ;

2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105

2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

3. Details of First Appellate Authority [FAA]:

3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: Dr. ARUN KUMAR

3.2 Full Address of FAA: OS & DIRECTOR; DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL;

ROOM NO- 217, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105

4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:

4.1 To CPIO — 07 OCT 2011

4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011

5. Particulars of Decisions:

5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-

02 NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0256; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI

5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:-

10 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/112;

6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-

6.1 CPIO— 07 NOV2011

6.2 FAA: — 17 JAN 2012

7. Details of information sought:-

Kindly inform to you that Ms. Geeta D/o of Dr W Silavamurthy, Chief Controller of Defense (R&D) o/o DRDO New Delhi was selected Scientist”C’ through RAC(Recruitment and assessment centre of DRDO) Adv.no-64 item no83-scientist-C without completing the required qualification for the post as published in the advertisement as under-
1- That Ms Geeta is M.Sc (Biochemistry) and submitted his Ph.D during the selection,
but she was not awarded the Ph.d degree or nor completed three year research experience
which is must before the selection of scientist-C.

2- She was taken the junior / senior research fellowship for her Ph.D from DIPAS
(defense institute of psychology & allied sciences, new delhi ) where her father was the

director at that time. Her father constituted / approved the screening / selection
committee of JRF (junior research fellowship) and award 8000/- per month during JRF.

It is clear rule of RAC/DRDO to select the scientist ‘C’-

(i)- At least First class Master Degree in science subject, mathematics or psychology or

first class degree in engineering or technology or metallurgy from a recognized university

or equivalent.

(ii)- Three year experience in research or design or development production in the

Required area.

(iii)-Weightage for higher qualification to be equated as research experience for lateral

requirement as under –

Post graduate degree in engineering-two years.

Doctorate degree in Science.-three years.

Doctorate degree in engineering-four years.

NOTE ;- RAC website clarify that the candidate’s Ph.D degree should be awarded up to

the closing date as given in the advertisement for scientist ‘C’post.

Here I want to clear you that Ms. Geetha Ph.D was not awarded till closing date as given

in the advertisement.However Ms.Geetha did not fulfill the minimum eligibility

qualification and experience as published, since after that she was selected with the

criminal conspiracy of her father with board members of the RAC/DRDO. who

dishonestly and cheated all the participants applied for the post and forged the official

documents to select as a scientist.

Ms. Geeta did not obtained his Ph.D then how selection

committee consider this research period as an three year experience ?

Her father constituted / approved the screening / selection committee of JRF (junior

research fellowship) as Director of the DIPAS and awarded 8000/- per month

scholarship and violet the Prevention of the corruption act-1988 – 13(d)- ii.
I here by enclose all related documents to prove the corruption during the selection

as an Interview letter / Ph.D submission detail. Her Ph.D was not awarded till time up to

the application submission date for the scientist-C post as per the RAC rules.

I want the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Did Ms.Geetha’s father / Director of DIPAS/ drdo Rr. W.Silvamurthy constituted / approved the screening / selection committee of JRF and awarded @ Rs.8000/- per month during JRF to her daughter?
Yes/No
2. Ph.D degree should be awarded up to the closing date as

given in the advertisement for scientist’C’ post. Or Three

year experience in research or design or development

production in the required area is essential? Yes/No
3. Was Ph.D degree awarded to Ms.Geetha up to the closing date as given in the advertisement for scientist ‘C’ post. Yes/No
4. Have Ms. Geetha completed essential qualification for scientist ‘C’ post at the time up to the closing date as given in the advertisement?
Yes/ No
5. Provide the photocopy of the application form filled by Ms. Geetha for the scientist’C’ post against the advertisement published. Provide the photocopy of required application form filled by Ms. Geetha.

I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request to you please provide me the information by the speed post.

8. Brief facts of the case:-

I submitted my RTI application before the CPIO, DRDO, New Delhi on dt.07-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office during the selection of the scientist. CPIO reply is not satisfactory and not as per the law because the RTI is related with the allegation of the corruption and not exempted under section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.
However in this Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454,clearly mentioned that- “37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”

I was not satisfied with the reply of CPIO,DRDO HQ, New Delhi, after that I submitted an appeal before FAA to take the information but the FAA of DRDO dismissed the appeal and failed to provide the information with the ref. of second schedule of the RTI Act & section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.

9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:-

1- That the RTI application is related with the public information because many participant were applied for the above mentioned scientist post after the publication of the advertisement in employment news paper .
2- That this information is directly related with the corruption and misuse of the office and not come under section 24(1) of the RTI Act .
3- That the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice.

10. Any other information in support of appeal:-

This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the selection. Secondly, In a RTI reply of the Bharathiar University vide his letter no COE/Ph.D/RTI Act/2011/2173 dt.20/12/11 Ms Geetha Ph.D awarded date clearly showing that , she was not completing minimum eligibility qualification during the submission of the application form for the scientist – C post.[encl]. Thirdly Central Vigilance Commission investigate the case and I wants clear evidence to put up before him through this RTI.
11. Prayer/relief sought for:-
I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Did Ms.Geetha’s father / Director of DIPAS/ drdo Rr. W.Silvamurthy constituted / approved the screening / selection committee of JRF and awarded @ Rs.8000/- per month during JRF to her daughter?
Yes/No
2. Ph.D degree should be awarded up to the closing date as

given in the advertisement for scientist’C’ post. Or Three

year experience in research or design or development

production in the required area is essential? Yes/No
3. Was Ph.D degree awarded to Ms.Geetha up to the closing date as given in the advertisement for scientist ‘C’ post. Yes/No
4. Have Ms. Geetha completed essential qualification for scientist ‘C’ post at the time up to the closing date as given in the advertisement?
Yes/ No
5. Provide the photocopy of the application form filled by Ms. Geetha for the scientist’C’ post against the advertisement published. Provide the photocopy of required application form filled by Ms. Geetha.
I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the information’s by the speed post.
(2)- I request your honor to pass an order in favor of the applicant as deemed fit as an any relief .

Personal Presence at hearing:- — YES
Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with this commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
Place: MEERUT

Date: —————-
Signature of appellant

Drdo

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 1

Leave a comment

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066


File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001207
Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan
Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012
Date of decision 09.08.2012

Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.

2. It is noticed that in the RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras about the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava. The CPIO had refused todisclose any information vide letter dated 2.11.2011 on the ground that the DRDO is an exempted organisation.

3. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the DRDO had advertised posts of Scientists ‘B’ in 2004 for which qualification was M.Sc. Bio Technology. Ms. Srivastava was M.Sc. in Environmental Biology. Thus, she was not qualified for the job. Yet due to the influence of his father Dr. Arun Kumar, who was then Deputy Director in DRDO, she was fraudulently selected as Scientist ‘B’
4. Shri Mishra submits that there is no one single file relating to this selection. In fact, there were about ten thousand candidates and to cull out Ms. Swati Srivastava’s record would be a herculean task. Further, the record is ten year old.

5. No doubt, DRDO is an exempted organisation, yet in my opinion, there is no harm if the appellant or his representative is given inspection of the entire records relating to the selection of Ms. Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’. As regards the difficulty expressed by Shri Mishra in tracing out the relevant record, I appreciate the same and yet I expect him to cull out the record for appellant’s inspection.

6. This order may be complied with in 05 weeks time.

Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.

( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar

Address of parties :-

1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.

2. Shri Rajiv Chauhan,
1053/3, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut-250005.

The Right to Information Act, 2005

Appeal before the Central Information Commission;

Appeal No. ———————– Dated ————————
As I am aggrieved by decision of Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate

Authority, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.

1. Details of appellant:

1.1 Full Name: – RAJIV CHAUHAN

1.2. Full Address: R/O-1053/3, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT (U.P)-250005

1.3 Phone/Cell No.: 09412628314 ; 09258045938 ; 0121-4009512;

4 Email ID: rajivchauhan89@yahoo.co.in

2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):

2.1 Name/Designation: Dr.A.K.TYAGI ; SCIENTIST “F’ , CPIO, DRDO HQ;

2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105

2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

3. Details of First Appellate Authority [FAA]:

3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: Dr. ARUN KUMAR

3.2 Full Address of FAA: OS & DIRECTOR; DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL;

ROOM NO- 217, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105

IMPORTANT NOTE :-

The RTI information is related with the corruption of the First Appellate Authority of RTI Dr. Arun Kumar & her daughter during the selection as a scientist “B’, so that the decision on my RTI first appeal decision given by-

Dr. S. SUNDARESH, CC R&D(ACE), SI&DS; TRANSPARENCY OFFICER, DRDO,

DRDO BHAWAN , NEW DELHI-110105

4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:

4.1 To CPIO — 03 OCT 2011

4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011

5. Particulars of Decisions:

5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-

02 NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0250; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI

5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:-

11 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/113; CC R& D (ACE), SI&DS;
TRANSPARENCY OFFICER;DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI

6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-

6.1 CPIO— 07 NOV2011

6.2 FAA: — 17 JAN 2012

7. Details of information sought:-

Kindly inform to you that Ms. Swati Srivastava,D/o Dr. Arun Kumar,Director DRDO Bhawan,Rajajimarg,New Delhi was selected Scientist”B’ through RAC(Recruitment and
assessment centre of DRDO) Adv.no, item no34 without having the required qualification for the post as published in the advertisement. The required qualification for the post was M.Sc- Biotechnology, where as the qualification of Swati Srivastava is M.Sc in Environmental Biology. Her father Dr. Arun Kumar ,was the Addl.Director of the DRDO at that time. One RAC interview board external member of Ms. Swati Srivastava was her teacher. However Ms. Swati Srivastava was not completing the minimum eligibility qualification as published, then also she was selected with the criminal conspiracy of her father with board members of the RAC. Ms. Swati Srivastava, Dr. Arun Kumar and RAC board Chairman and Members did dishonesty and cheated all the participants who applied for the post and forged the official documents to select as a Scientist “B” to Ms. Swati Srivastava.

In the Director, DRDO fax message 03/8/2004 for RAC Adv.No.66,item.34, eligibility subject showing Biotechnology. RAC,DRDO document of assessment sheet dt. 26/9/2004 for adv.66 subject of Ms. Swati Srivastava forgely filled in Biotechnology list.
However , as per the DRDO letter RTI/01/2091/p/2011-12/005 dt. 6/4/11, Ms.Swati Srivastava subject is environment biology. Therfore Ms. Swati Srivastava without fulfill the eligibility qualification got the scientist “B” post in DRDO on forged documents of the RAC. (Recruitment and assessment centre of DRDO)

Secondly, In the seniority list for promotion of scientist “C” as published on july 2010 page no.45 of DRDO official document again dishonestly changed Ms. Swati Srivastava qualification belive to be a forged M.Sc-Biotechnology instead of M.Sc in Environmental Biology. I hereby enclosed all related documents for your consideration and action.
I want the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY

1. Is Ms.Swati Srivastava, Scientist “B”,DIPAS the daughter of Director DRDO, Mr.Arun Kumar ?  Yes/No

2. What was the eligibility subject of RAC Adv. No.66, item 34 ? Biotechnology/ Environmental Biology –  Yes/No

3. What was the subject qualification of Ms. Swati Srivastava in her M.Sc ? Biotechnology/Environmental Biology – Yes/No

4. Did RAC – DRDO,ADV.NO-66 Assessment sheet mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms.Swati Srivastava ?  –Yes/ No
5. Did promotion list of the DRDO mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms. Swati Srivastava ?  – Yes/No

I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request to you please provide me the information by the speed post.

8. Brief facts of the case:-
I submitted my RTI application before the CPIO, DRDO, New Delhi on dt.03-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office during the selection of the scientist. CPIO reply is not satisfactory and not as per the law because the RTI is related with the allegation of the corruption and not exempted under section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.
In his reply CPIO mislead to me with the reference of Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454. However in this Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454,clearly mentioned that- “37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.
The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”

I was not satisfied with the reply of CPIO,DRDO HQ, New Delhi, after that I submitted an appeal before FAA to take the information but the FAA / Transparency officer of DRDO dismissed the appeal and failed to provide the information with the ref. of second schedule of the RTI Act & section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.

9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:-
1- That the RTI application is related with the public information because 63 participant were applied for the above mentioned scientist post after the publication of the advertisement in employment news paper .

Encl- (a)- List of the 63 participant applied for the post.
(b)-Employment advertisement no-66; dt-2/4/2004

2- That this information is directly related with the corruption and misuse of the office and not come under section 24(1) of the RTI Act because the required qualification for the post was M.Sc- Biotechnology, where as the qualification of Swati Srivastava is M.Sc in Environmental Biology. Her father Dr. Arun Kumar ,was the Addl.Director of the DRDO at that time. One RAC interview board external member of Ms. Swati Srivastava was her teacher. However Ms. Swati Srivastava was not completing the minimum eligibility qualification as published, then also she was selected with the criminal conspiracy of her father with board members of the RAC. Ms. Swati Srivastava, Dr. Arun Kumar and RAC board Chairman and Members did dishonesty and cheated all the participants who applied for the post and forged the official documents to select as a Scientist “B” to Ms. Swati Srivastava.

3- That the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice.

10. Any other information in support of appeal:-
This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the selection. Secondly, In a RTI reply of the CPIO, DRDO HQ vide his letter no rti/01/2091/p/2011-12/005 dt 6/4/11 Ms Swati subject is environment biology however as per the seniority list for promotion as published on july 2010 page no.45 of DRDO official document Ms. Swati subject is M.Sc- Biotechnology.

Encl- (a)- RTI reply vide letter no-o rti/01/2091/p/2011-12/005 dt 6/4/11 Ms Swati subject is environment biology.
(2)- seniority list for promotion as published on july 2010 page no.45 of DRDO official document Ms. Swati subject is M.Sc- Biotechnology.

11. Prayer/relief sought for:-
I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the following information’s as under-

S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Is Ms.Swati Srivastava, Scientist “B”,DIPAS the daughter of Director DRDO, Mr.Arun Kumar ?
Yes/No
2. What was the eligibility subject of RAC Adv. No.66, item 34 ? Biotechnology/
Environmental Biology
3. What was the subject qualification of Ms. Swati Srivastava in her M.Sc ? Biotechnology/
Environmental Biology
4. Did RAC – DRDO,ADV.NO-66 Assessment sheet mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms.Swati Srivastava ?
Yes/ No
5. Did promotion list of the DRDO mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms. Swati Srivastava ?
Yes/No

I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the information’s by the speed post.
(2)- I request your honor to pass an order in favor of the applicant as deemed fit as an any relief .

Personal Presence at hearing:- — YES

Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with this commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
Place: MEERUT

Date: —————-
Signature of appellant

Drdo

CIC Decisions on RTI -4

Leave a comment

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION                                                                    Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

Information Asked Regarding How many technical papers were published by DRDO Scientists in International Journals like Journal of Applied Physics, IEEE Transactions, Proceedings IEEE, Transactions IEE, Electronics Letter, SPICE etc. from 1990 to March 2010.

Why I asked this Information – Almost 400 Corers of rupees are distributing through these boards and different DRDO projects to IIT’s, Universities’ and Colleges and even some NGO’s, in the name of  expanding and deepening the knowledge-base, Enhancing core competence in the field of knowledge, To encourage and provide funds for basic research in pertinent scientific disciplines etc.

The most of funds distributed till date to maximum private universities and private institutions and especially in last ten years out of total grants has gone to southern states. DRDO in its charter of duty has specifically mentioned Kashmir to Kanyakumari and Gujarat to North East the equal opportunity will given to universities/institutions.

The DRDO is giving funding for various R&T projects with IIT’s, IIsc’s and various premier scientific institutions. In return DRDO sends annually many officers for higher studies particulars to IIT’s and national Universities.

The number of international papers can justify the real out of projects working with IIT, IIsc and other various institutions.

I am surprised that DRDO is deny for giving information related to paper publish in international journals, where is schedule-ii exemption is comes in between.

Information sought is already publish in journals, so why DRDO afraid to give information. It shows that DRDO is not respect for RTI Act 2005.

International publications are basically the most valuable achievement of any scientific institute /organization and it always proudly mentioned by each and every institute /organization.

So deny of such information is not understand by RTI requester.

The reason of denial is following

Under the chairmanship of DRDO’s Appellate Authority, so called expert of DRDO Hqrs, DRDL, Hyderabad and DEAL, Dehradun met on 16th July 2010 at First Appellate Authority’s Office and decided not to give single information to RTI requester but only to reply to obstruct the giving of correct information to RTI requester they wasted lot of public money on TA/DA for said government officials who attended the said meeting from Hyderabad and Dehradun.

Camouflage of exemption under schedule –II of RTI Act 2005 has been deliberately taken to circumvent to deny the required information

The DRDO Appellate Authority Dr. Prahlada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS have not given his residence address and contact details in any documents or website or any other public domain. It is therefore considered that he is staying in DRDO Bhawan itself.  The CPIO and FAA of DRDO Hqrs both are on their posting at DRDO Hqrs,   staying in DRDO Guest House and drawing HRA.

APPELLANT – Shri Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
PUBLIC AUTHORITY – DRDO.
DATE OF HEARING – 29.06.2011
DATE OF DECISION – 29.06.2011

Facts:-

Heard today dated 29.06.2011.   The appellant is present.  DRDO is represented by Dr. A.K. Tyagi, Scientist ‘F’ and Dr. Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.  These appeals are being disposed of through a common order.  The parties are heard.  The order passed in each case is as follows:

The RTI Request –

To                                                                                                                       Date 9th June 2010
The CPIO & Addl Director, DRDO HQ                                         No RTI/DRDO/INPB/9/6/2010
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan , Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110 105

Hello,

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

  1.  How many technical paper were published by DRDO Scientists in International Journals like Journal of Applied Physics, IEEE Transactions, Proceedings IEEE, Transactions IEE, Electronics Letter, SPICE etc. from 1990 to March 2010?
format
            2.  How many authors were awarded by DRDO for their contribution and keeping                       the flag of DRDO high?
             3.  How many such authors were assigned the administrative task to lead the                                DRDO Labs as Director and then CC R&D?

             4.  How many such authors were left the DRDO during April 1990 to March 2010                       period?
 Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II

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 provision 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 above request, where I may require file first appeal.

I do hereby declare that I am the 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 expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No 60E 128289

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008 Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,  
e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com Blog – http://corruptionindrdo.blogspot.com

 The RTI request was denied by CPIO, DRDO Hqrs on 2nd June 2010

The Appellate Authority, DRDO Hqrs was denied on 16th August 2010

 File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/000385:-

The CPIO is directed to provide the number of papers published by the scientists of DRDO during last five years in the following publications:-

         (i) Journal of Applied Physics; and

          (ii) Electronics Letter.


Drdo

CIC Decisions on RTI -2

Leave a comment
                                                             CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
 Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

Information Asked Regarding DRDO’s policy for encouraging employees for higher studies

Why I asked this Information – DRDO sends annually many officers for higher studies particulars to IIT’s and national Universities. The admission which granted normally after tough competitions are available to DRDO’s sponsored candidates was easily.

Aim of such higher studies is to use the academic platform to solve the complicate technical issues. DRDO in turn give the IIT’s or Universities sufficient grants against project and R&T schemes.

No one gets benefited neither the institutions nor the DRDO, it is because the most of the individuals after getting higher education working as admin, allied works, and  the reaction of this most of them leave the organization. For example DR.DP Singh, Estate Manager, Scientist ‘F’ did his post graduation and PhDs from DRDO sponsoring and performing duty of admin purely non scientific assignment. Sh A.K Musla, Sc ‘F, holding post Joint Director Admin in IRDE, Dehradun, he also did his B.Tech and M.Tech from DRDO sponsored funds and working as purely in admin. I am quoting only two names as tip of the iceberg, because in DRDO you will find 100 of such cases. DRDO is shear wasting the corers and corers rupees public funds in the name of higher education programs. Although, the aim and object of the higher education program is really good, but in hands of bad corrupt officials, the output is wasting by DRDO.

According to the ministry, a total of 1,107 scientists, mostly young entrants, have resigned from the DRDO between 2003 and 2007, implying that on an average one person leaves every two days.

APPELLANT – Shri Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
PUBLIC AUTHORITY – DRDO.
DATE OF HEARING – 29.06.2011
DATE OF DECISION – 29.06.2011

Facts:-

Heard today dated 29.06.2011.   The appellant is present.  DRDO is represented by Dr. A.K. Tyagi, Scientist ‘F’ and Dr. Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.  These appeals are being disposed of through a common order.  The parties are heard.  The order passed in each case is as follows:

The RTI Request –

To                                                                                                               Date 2nd June 2010       The CPIO & Addl Director, DRDO HQ                            No RTI/DRDO/HEd/2/6/2010     Room No. 314A DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg                                                                           New Delhi – 110 105

Hello,

Kindly provide me the following information requested under the purview of Right to Information Act. 2005.

  1. Total amount invested on long term post graduation training program and PhD program under R & T scheme, and under Post Graduate Training (PGT) scheme of DRDO during period for April 1990 – March 2010 under following heads
                 i)        Adhoc advances
                ii)       Study leave salary
                iii)      Reimbursement of expenditure on account of stationary items, preparation of thesis, purchase of books and journals etc.
                iv)     Non refundable fee
                   v)      TA
                 vi)     DA
                 vii)    Financial incentive on acquiring higher qualification at their own

         2.    Total number of official Grade wise/Post wise/ Categories wise received                                  MS/ME/MTech, PhD degree during period April 1990 – March 2010

                          i)      Full time
                          ii)     Part Time
                         iii)    External Registration
           3.   The Institution from where degree of MTech/ PhD was awarded from April 1990                   – March 2010

          4.    Total amount invested on short term training/ workshops/seminars/courses in                     India (Including DIAT/ITM/IIM’s/ IIT’s, NIT’s, ESCI, ASCI, IISc’s etc.) and                       abroad, during period from April 1990 – March 2010

                         i)      Training/ Courses/Delegations Fee/Registration Fee
                        ii)     TA
                        iii)    DA
  1. Total number of Scientist resigned from April 1990 – March 2010
  1. Total number of scientist joined DRDO from April 1990 – March 2010

Note: – Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II

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 provision 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 above request, where I may required file first appeal.

I do hereby declare that I am the 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 expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No 60E 034929

Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com Blog – http://corruptionindrdo.blogspot.com

The RTI request was denied by CPIO, DRDO Hqrs on 2nd June 2010

The Appellate Authority, DRDO Hqrs was denied on 16th August 2010

File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/000381:- CIC Decision 

The amounts spent on Long Term Post Graduation Training Programme and Ph.D Programme under RT Scheme for last three years, viz. 2008, 2009 & 2010 may be supplied to the appellant