To 25th July 2013The CPIORecruitment & Assessment CentreLucknow Road, TimarpurDelhi- 110054
Subject: Transfer of Application AR No 0178 dated 10 July 2013
Sir,
My RTI application to CPIO, DoPT dated 27th May 2013 was transferred to Shri Rajiv Singh, CPIO, & Under Secretary, MoD, South Block vide letter no AB14017/4/2013-Estt (RR)(03074/RTIC/13) dated 28/6/2013. The CPIO, MoD transferred my RTI request to CPIO, DRDO vide letter no Mof D ID No 21(3)2013(1083)/D(RTI) dated 5/7/2013.
Subsequently I have received information of my RTI request point 2 from DoPT vide their letter no F.No.29/38/2013-EO(SM-II) dated 15th July 2013.
The CPIO, DRDO Hq transferred my RTI request vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0178 dated 18th July 2013 to your office for information of point 1 of my RTI request.
As per my previous experiences regarding RTI requests all DRDO establishments 99% replied with their fix quote –
“DRDO is an organisation which is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 and is therefore, exempted from disclosures of information under Section 24(1) except information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations.”
Therefore, it is requested that the information is pertaining to the allegations of corruption. Sh R K Agarwal’s promotion case is totally based on corruption & nepotism.
I would like to submit some evidences of nepotism of Sh. R. C. Aggarwal, Director, DEAL, DRDO.
Sh. R. C. Aggarwal after taking charge as Director, DEAL put all scientists/staff of his community in important positions. You can verify with Departmental Part orders.
He supported Sh. R K Agarwal for his false claim of work in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).
Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14
Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.
The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to Sh Surendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.
The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II
“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”
To, 29th June 2013Shri. Sameer Kumar Khare,Joint Secretary (Estt.) and Public Grievances & CVO,Ministry of Defence, of India,97, South Block, New Delhi -110 105.
Subject: Request to investigate the complaint against Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Scientist’F’,DRDO, Ministry of Defence.
Reference: Vide CVC letter No 011/DEF/018-121962 date 17/03/2011 complaint forwarded to CVO, Ministry of Defence, South Block.
Sir,
A complaint sent to CVC against Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Scientist’F’, DRDO, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi on 10th Nov 2010, Copy enclosed for your ready reference.
The CVC registered the case vide complain no 569/11/9 and further sent to CVO, Ministry of Defence, South Block vide CVC letter No 011/DEF/018-121962 date 15/03/2011(Copy enclosed)
Further in between I have sent an RTI request to DIAT, DRDO, Pune to get more input on the subject matter. (Copy enclosed)
I have received information that was enough to prove the irregularities in procurement and payment to vendors. (Copy enclosed)
Further Mr. Rajiv Chauhan, Advocate filed one more RTI and requested the details, after CIC intervention DIAT, DRDO provide the some documents for inspection related to procurement of online magazine costing around 22 lakhs plus. Copy of RTI and related information which we received from DIAT DRDO are enclosed herewith as evidences.
DRDO’s procurement practices are the most illogical and in the name secrecy DRDO is fooling the whole nation and in this act CDA is also equally responsible, in some cases knowingly, or in some cases unknowingly, because in the name of technology DRDO scientists are easily able to fool them.
This is a very small case of few lakhs or nearly 1.5 crores but it will show you the mechanism of how DRDO scientists are making money and fooling the system.
The ink signed order copy is not available in the department and the payment of more than 22 lakhs was done.
Like online ‘Nature Magazine” subscription available online, all the procurement papers i.e. order copy and other related papers in files are scanned papers.
Main questions in Dr. A K Tyagi case
1. Where is the ink-signed order copy of Online Nature Magazine? 2. Without ink signed order copy of Online Nature Magazine, how JCDA, Pune released the payments? 3. Are any records in DIAT, Library available which can show how many persons logged with Online Nature Magazine? 4. The observations of DIAT, DRDO enquiry committee against Dr. A K Tyagi still unanswered?
i. To understand the existing procedure for procurement of Books by Library, it was necessary to go through basis of existing procedure, record and files to related to procurement. In absence of OI/C,IC&L very limited records made available by Library and after arrival of OI/C,IC&L access to information and records was totally denied to the Board of Officers. ii. Existing Procedure and Anomalies- the following is observed by Board of Officers.
i) OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation/negotiation followed. it is noted that as per terms and conditions no discounts have been asked.
ii) Order has been placed on single tender basis
iii. During limited observations it was seen that Books were accepted at higher prices than the order/approval price by the purchase committee. iv. No proof of price is being put up to the purchase Committee for approval. v. Firm Orders are being placed by OI/C,IC&L without bidding/negotiation vi. Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not registered. As per purchase procedure orders of only up to Rs 5000/- can be placed to unregistered vendors. This rule is not followed. vii. In our limited inquiry, we observed that large numbers of books were viii. Accepted at much higher price. We site few example-
a) Book ordered for Rs 6029.07 was procured for price Rs 81,936.00
b) Book ordered for Rs 13,156.00 was procured for price Rs 27,362.68
c) Book ordered for Rs 40,000.00 was procured for price Rs 3,60,00.00
d) Book ordered for Rs 3,292.24 was procured for price Rs 5,233.09
ix. We did not find any justification in orders or Terms & Conditions to accept such high billing prices for payment to vendors. x. OI/C,IC&L did not conduct independent investigation regarding over valued books supplied by the vendors for their correct price. xi. We found such number of cases where over payment was cleaned by OI/C, IC&L and Finance Officer without amendment or without bringing to notice of approving authority or VC xii. We did not find any power vested to OI/C,IC&L, Finance Officer to clear the over payment cases. xiii. Before payment to vendors, pre-auditing is mandatory (as per purchase procedure) No such pre auditing mechanism is found resulting in escaping the over payment cases from scrutiny and corrective action. We did not find any document or authority to exempt from pre –auditing. xiv. Functioning of Library in case Library procurement was found devoid of adequate check and balance and control mechanism. We can conclude that OI/C,IC&L and Finance Officer flouted the principle of FR-21
5. Who is saving the culprit?
As we are aware that now some cases of DRDO were taken up seriously with efforts, like Dr. Arun Kumar, Dr. S M Veerabhadrappa, etc.
We hope that you will take this matter seriously and personally because it was pending since 15/03/2011 in CVO, Ministry of Defence.
Copy of complaint sent to CVC against Dr A K Tyagi
Copy of CVC letter dated 15/03/2011
Copy of CVC Letter dated 17/03/2011
Copy of RTI to DIAT, DRDO, Pune
Copy of Reply of DIAT, DRDO, Pune
Copy of RTI request of Dr Rajiv Chauhan & CIC decision
Copy of procurement papers received during inspection at DIAT, DRDO, Pune
Copy of complaint sent to CVC against Dr A K Tyagi
Date -10th Nov 2010
To
The Chief Vigilance Commissioner
Satarkata Bhavan A-Block GPO Complex INA
New delhi : 110023
Complaint is being lodged against
Name – Dr.A K Tyagi, Tele 23007453
Designation- DRDO – Scientist ‘F’, CPIO, Head, RTI Cell, 314 A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110105
Dr. A.K.Tyagi, Scientist ‘F’, Head, RTI Cell, DRDO previously posted in Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, (DIAT), Deemed University. Defence Institute of Advanced (Deemed University) is a premier academic institute functioning under the aegis of Defence Research & Development Organization
Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT as O I/C(Officer In-Charge), IC&L(Information Center & Library) and Finance Officer during his posting.
He has violated the all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there Revised Edition 1999, DRDO manual of Procedure for Management of Library & Technical Information Centers. – DRDO Hqrs, Ministry of Defence.
Page No – 25 Para 4.2.3 No 4 Terms for procurement of books
Page No – 33 Para 4.3.4 Terms for procurement of periodical publication
Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself and as well as for his god fathers.
The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order.
There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher.
In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.
The God Father guide him to commit the corrupt practice and got protected by none other than Dr W Selvamurthy, CC R&D,DRDO.
With his blessing he purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs
Facts: Till date nobody from DIAT has seen the Nature Journal
The chairman for the Nature Journal procurement was Vigilance Officer of DIAT who approved this procurement from local vendor.
In other cases the books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds
The inquiry constituted to address this issue inspire of giving punishment the God Father Dr W Selvamurthy, CC R&D,DRDO than CC (HR) gave him safe passage and now DRDO Hqrs made him CPIO,DRDO Hqrs, Head RTI Cell and the best part of this
DRDO is exempted from RTI Act 2005 of Schedule-II only corruption & human right RTI entertained by DRDO so one can imagine the DRDO find most suitable corrupt official for the handling of RTI issues.
The finding of inquiry committee of DIAT (Board of Three Senior Officers)
1.Observations – To understand the existing procedure for procurement of Books by Library, it was necessary to go through basis of existing procedure, record and files to related to procurement. In absence of OI/C,IC&L very limited records made available by Library and after arrival of OI/C,IC&L access to information and records was totally denied to the Board of Officers.
2.Existing Procedure and Anomalies- the following is observed by Board of Officers.
i)OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation/negotiation followed. it is noted that as per terms and conditions no discounts have been asked.
ii)Order has been placed on single tender basis
iii)During limited observations it was seen that Books were accepted at higher prices than the order/approval price by the purchase committee.
iv)No proof of price is being put up to the purchase Committee for approval.
v)Firm Orders are being placed by OI/C,IC&L without bidding/negotiation
vi)Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not registered. As per purchase procedure orders of only up to Rs 5000/- can be placed to unregistered vendors. This rule is not followed.
vii)In our limited inquiry, we observed that large numbers of books were
accepted at much higher price. We site few example-
a) Book ordered for Rs 6029.07 was procured for price Rs 81,936.00
b) Book ordered for Rs 13,156.00 was procured for price Rs 27,362.68
c) Book ordered for Rs 40,000.00 was procured for price Rs 3,60,00.00
d) Book ordered for Rs 3,292.24 was procured for price Rs 5,233.09
viii)We did not find any justification in orders or Terms & Conditions to accept such high billing prices for payment to venors.
ix)OI/C,IC&L did not conduct independent investigation regarding over valued books supplied by the vendors for their correct price.
x)We found such number of cases where over payment was cleaned by OI/C, IC&L and Finance Officer without amendment or without bringing to notice of approving authority or VC
xi) We did not find any power vested to OI/C,IC&L, Finance Officer to clear the over payment cases.
xii) Before payment to vendors, pre-auditing is mandatory (as per purchase procedure) No such pre auditing mechanism is found resulting in escaping the over payment cases from scrutiny and corrective action. We did not find any document or authority to exempt from pre –auditing.
xiii) Functioning of Library in case Library procurement was found devoid of adequate check and balance and control mechanism. We can conclude that OI/C,IC&L and Finance Officer flouted the principle of FR-21
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, RaipurDehradun-248008UttarakhandCell No- 9411114879, Landline- 0135-2787750e-mail-prabhu@dandriyal.comCopy of CVC letter dated 15/03/2011CVC letter dated 15/03/2011
Copy of CVC letter dated 17/03/2011
CVC letter dated 17/03/2011
Copy of RTI to DIAT, DRDO, Pune
To Date 15th February 2011 The CPIO No RTI/DIAT/HARASS/14/2/2011 Defence Institute of Armment Technology (DIAT) Simhagad Road, Girinagar Pune-411 025
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In respect of online subscription of Nature magazine by DIAT, Pune
The copy of order of online subscription for NATURE magazine. With terms & condition
The copy of demand initiative for Nature magazine if any.
Copy of recommendation if any by approval committee of library.
Copy of renewal of subscription if any
Present status of subscription.
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 172113
Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com
website – www.corruptionindrdo.com Copy of Reply of DIAT, DRDO, PuneDIAT, DRDO, Pune Reply page1DIAT,DRDO,Pune RTI Reply page 2
Copy of RTI request of Dr Rajiv Chauhan & CIC decision
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001219
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. The appellant had filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2011 seeking information
about the purchase of certain books and other materials by the Defence Institute of Armament Technology, Pune. This information was denied to him on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organisation. During the hearing, the appellant submits that he will be satisfied if he is given inspection of the file/files relating to the order placed by Dr. A.K. Tyagi, the then Library Incharge, DIAT, Pune, for online subscription of ‘Nature Magzine’ against payment of about Rs. 25 lacs
3. The appellant also produces a copy of the letter dated 14.3.2011 of Dr. S.S.Sirurmath, University Librarian, in which he had informed the appellant that copy of order and terms and conditions of Nature Magazine(on line) were not available. He expresses surprise at this response in as much as an order of Rs. 25 lacs could not have been placed without due processing in the file.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that CPIO may give inspection of all records relating to the online subscription to the appellant or his representative 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.
2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.
IMPORTANT NOTE :-
The RTI information is related with the corruption of the CPIO of RTI Dr.A.K.TYAGI during the office-in charge ,information centre/ library & finance officer of DIAT (Defense institute of Advanced technology). So that the decision on my RTI decision given by- Deepak Mishra , Addl.Director, RTI Cell, DRDO BHAWAN , NEW DELHI-110105
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 — 29 OCT 2011
4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011
5. Particulars of Decisions:
5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-
22nd NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0283; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI
6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-
6.1 CPIO— 28 NOV2011
6.2 FAA: — 17 JAN 2012
7. Details of information sought:-
Kindly inform to you that Dr.A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi. He has violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself .The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order. There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher.
In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.
He purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs
Facts : Till date nobody from DIAT has seen the Nature Journal
This journal was not useful for DIAT as the same deals with life sciences and DIAT area is ARMAMENT ENGINEERING, APPLIED MATHEMATICS, METALLURGY, COMPUTER ENGINEERING, APPLIED PHYSICS, AEROSPACE ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, EXPLOSIVES & APPLIED CHEMISTRY, ELECTRONICS The chairman for the Nature Journal procurement was Vigilance Officer of DIAT who approved this procurement from local vendor.
In other cases the books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds
The finding of inquiry committee of DIAT (Board of Three Senior Officers)
1. Observations – To understand the existing procedure for procurement of Books by Library, it was necessary to go through basis of existing procedure, record and files to related to procurement. In absence of OI/C,IC&L very limited records made available by Library and after arrival of OI/C,IC&L access to information and records was totally denied to the Board of Officers. 2. Existing Procedure and Anomalies- the following is observed by Board of Officers. i) OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation/negotiation followed. it is noted that as per terms and conditions no discounts have been asked. ii) Order has been placed on single tender basis iii) During limited observations it was seen that Books were accepted at higher prices than the order/approval price by the purchase committee. iv) No proof of price is being put up to the purchase Committee for approval. v) Firm Orders are being placed by OI/C,IC&L without bidding/negotiation vi) Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not registered. As per purchase procedure orders of only up to Rs 5000/- can be placed to unregistered vendors. This rule is not followed. vii) In our limited inquiry, we observed that large numbers of books were accepted at much higher price. We site few example- a) Book ordered for Rs 6029.07 was procured for price Rs 81,936.00 b) Book ordered for Rs 13,156.00 was procured for price Rs 27,362.68 c) Book ordered for Rs 40,000.00 was procured for price Rs 3,60,00.00 d) Book ordered for Rs 3,292.24 was procured for price Rs 5,233.09 viii) We did not find any justification in orders or Terms & Conditions to accept such high billing prices for payment to venors. ix) OI/C,IC&L did not conduct independent investigation regarding over valued books supplied by the vendors for their correct price. x) We found such number of cases where over payment was cleaned by OI/C, IC&L and Finance Officer without amendment or without bringing to notice of approving authority or VC xi) We did not find any power vested to OI/C,IC&L, Finance Officer to clear the over payment cases. xii) Before payment to vendors, pre-auditing is mandatory (as per purchase procedure) No such pre auditing mechanism is found resulting in escaping the over payment cases from scrutiny and corrective action. We did not find any document or authority to exempt from pre –auditing. xiii) Functioning of Library in case Library procurement was found devoid of adequate check and balance and control mechanism. We can conclude that OI/C,IC&L and Finance Officer flouted the principle of FR-21
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 / commission / higher courts in the interest of law and justice .
I want the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Is it true that Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi ?
Yes/No
2. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation / negotiation followed ? Yes/No
3. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L has been placed orders on single tender basis? Yes/No
4. Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not
registered?
Yes/ No
5. Book cost was approved by library committee in US dollor 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds ?
Yes/No
6. Order copy and term, conditions for the nature Magazine is not available. So the order place by Dr. A.K.Tyagi for Nature Magazine verbally or in written? Pl. provide suitable reply with authentic documents.
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.29-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office by Dr.A.K.Tyagi . He violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself .The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order. There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher. In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs. He purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs
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 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 the tenders generally published in news paper / internet for the purchasing of the books as per the DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication.
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 books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds
3- In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.
4- 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:-
1- This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the purchasing of the books / periodical publication.
2- Dr.A.K.Tyagi violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself.
3- That this action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. This committee was put up an adverse report to the authorities.
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 it true that Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi ?
Yes/No
2. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation / negotiation followed ? Yes/No
3. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L has been placed orders on single tender basis? Yes/No
4. Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not
registered?
Yes/ No
5. Book cost was approved by library committee in US dollor 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds ?
Yes/No
6. Order copy and term, conditions for the nature Magazine is not available. So the order place by Dr. A.K.Tyagi for Nature Magazine verbally or in written? Pl. provide suitable reply with authentic documents.
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
Copy of procurement papers received during inspection at DIAT, DRDO, Pune
It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II. This RTI request will reveal the policy of DRDO in which DRDO official stated that they give reply of all RTI requests but not to give the requested information.
DRDO RTI cell is always lead by corrupt official, like Dr. Prahalada who held the position of appellate authority very long time. He is a corrupt person did a lot of corruption in DRDO and is still doing corruption sitting as Vice Chancellor of DIAT, DRDO.
One CIC decision exposed his corrupt practice that year of years he claimed the HRA from the government and simultaneously enjoyed the government accommodation. Although as per DRDO RTI reply that he refunded a few lakh but no administrative action was taken against him for his corrupt practice.
Dr. Arun Kumar is facing suspension and disciplinary action against him after intervention of Honorable Defence Minister, was also holding the position of appellate authority for long time in DRDO.
Present CPIO, DRDO Dr A K Tyagi also faced numerous enquiry and transfers due to his involvement in corruption.
Following RTI of Bangalore, CPIO, ADE and Dr Prahalada then appellate authority provide wrong/false information to applicant.
To Date 5th January 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 meeting.
A meeting was chaired by Dr. Prahlada, then Appellate Authority, CC R&D, Mr.S.Ravi, then CPIO, DRDO Hqrs, Dr. Arun Kumar, then DOP, DRDO, One Joint Director, DRDO, Director DEAL, Dehradun with his three representatives, Mr.YV Ratna Prasad, DMS, DRDL, Hyderabad, Mr. Narsimha Reddy, Consultant, DRDL, Hyderabad, on 16th June 2010 at Dr Prahlada’s good office.
The agenda of the meeting was how to stop Prabhu Dandriyal’s RTI requests. It was not a general RTI issue meeting because the officials who were called to the meeting were directly involved in tackling the issues which I had raised through RTIs.
Name and designation of officials who were present in above meeting.
Copy of meeting agenda if any.
Copy of minutes/proceeding
Total amount of TA/DA expenditure of out station officials.
The temporary duty reports of out station officials who attended the above mentioned meeting. Mainly Mr.YV Ratna Prasad, DMS, DRDL, Hyderabad and Sh K K Mishra, Joint Director, DEAL, DRDO. After completion of any temporary duty DRDO officials always submits the TD reports to his parent department stated what the purpose of visit was and what the outcome of visit was, etc.
DRDO is already aware that this matter is related to exposing corruption prevailing in the organization. Dr. Arun Kumar, then DOP, DRDO already suspended on 30th November 2012 by MOD due to his involvement in corrupt activities in the organization. It is requested that you please furnish the above information in prescribed period of RTI Act because this matter is directly related to corruption the evidences are enclosed herewith for your ready reference. The Chairman of the meeting was Dr. Prahlada, then Appellate Authority, CC R&D, Mr.S.Ravi, then CPIO, DRDO Hqrs, Dr. Arun Kumar, then DOP, DRDO are now exposed through RTIs for their corrupt activities.
Dr. Prahlada, then FAA, CC R&D , – Illegal drawn HRA – Enclosed RTI reply
Mr.S.Ravi, then CPIO, DRDO Hqrs, – Illegal drawn HRA -Enclosed RTI reply
Dr. Arun Kumar, then DOP,DRDO – Suspended by Vigilance MOD – copy CVC advise
Note –
It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II. This RTI request will reveal the policy of DRDO in which DRDO official stated that they give reply of all RTI requests but not to give request information.
Requested information is directly related to me and not any kind of defense strategy
Requested information is related to liberty and threat to life, as safety measure I am requesting for the information in which DRDO officials are planning to ruin my life as I am trying to expose their corrupt activities.
Para wise reply pertaining to years 2009 and 2010 is as under:
(a) Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest House at Delhi —105
(b) DRDO officials availing DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station — 17
(c) Sh. S Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 10 Jul 2009 to 10 Sep 2010.
(d) Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 26 Mar 2010 to 20 Mar 2011. – False Information
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001190
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. The appellant submits that there are a large number of senior scientists who have lived or are living in Government guest houses and yet claiming House Rent Allowance which is contrary to the rules. Thus, they are defrauding the Government. He provides a list of such scientists which is as follows :-
1. Dr. Prahlada, Chief Controller(R&D);
2. Sh. S. Sundaresh, Chief Controller(R&D);
3. Dr. K. Sekhar, Chief Controller(R&D);
4. Dr. r. Sreehari Rao, Chief Controller(R&D);
5. Dr. K.D. Nayak, Chief Controller(R&D);
6. Shri Ravi, Scientist ‘G’, CPIO;
7. Shri S. Sankaran, Director, ER&IPR;
8. Sh. H.V. Ssrinivasa Rao, Director, ISSA;
9. Sh. Ajay Ssingh, Chief Executive;
10. Sh. S. Shanker, Director, DCV&E;
11. Shri R.C. Katoch, Chief Tech Examiner;
12. Sh. B. Choubey, CCE and
13. Sh. Abhay Kumar, CCE.
3. He also produces a copy of the letter dated 17.8.2011 of Dr. Arun Kumar, Director of Personnel, wherein orders for recovery were made. The said letter, addressed to the Directors of all Labs/Establishments for recovery of HRA is reproduced below :-
4. “1. It has been observed that some officers posted to a Lab have stayed/are
staying in DRDO transit facilities/Guest house from the date of their reporting to that station Officers, if have stayed/staying in the DRDO transit facilities/Guest house for more than a month and have simultaneously claimed /claiming HRA for the said period of stay, is against govt. orders/regulations.
2. In view of the above, officers posted at any station who have stayed/staying in
DRDO transit facilities/Guest house for a month or more from their date of reporting and also have claimed/claiming HRA for the said period are required to refund the amount of HRA wrongly claimed forthwith by 15 Sep 2011 through MRO under intimation to the undersigned.
4. This has the approval of the competent authority.
5. The contents of this letter may please be communicated to all concerned.” He wishes to know as to why no recoveries have been effected so far.
6. To this, Shri Mishra would respond that recoveries have been made from all of the scientists.
7. In my opinion, this does not mitigate the irregularity committed in claiming HRA by the above named scientists. Even so, it is to be noted that recoveries have been made from all concerned. If so, the appellant may be informed accordingly in 03 weeks.
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.
This is old one after Quashing this advice by CAT, DRDO received another advice from CVC
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001219
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. The appellant had filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2011 seeking information
about the purchase of certain books and other materials by the Defence Institute of Armament Technology, Pune. This information was denied to him on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organisation. During the hearing, the appellant submits that he will be satisfied if he is given inspection of the file/files relating to the order placed by Dr. A.K. Tyagi, the then Library Incharge, DIAT, Pune, for online subscription of ‘Nature Magzine’ against payment of about Rs. 25 lacs
3. The appellant also produces a copy of the letter dated 14.3.2011 of Dr. S.S.Sirurmath, University Librarian, in which he had informed the appellant that copy of order and terms and conditions of Nature Magazine(on line) were not available. He expresses surprise at this response in as much as an order of Rs. 25 lacs could not have been placed without due processing in the file.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that CPIO may give inspection of all records relating to the online subscription to the appellant or his representative 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.
2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.
IMPORTANT NOTE :-
The RTI information is related with the corruption of the CPIO of RTI Dr.A.K.TYAGI during the office-in charge ,information centre/ library & finance officer of DIAT (Defense institute of Advanced technology). So that the decision on my RTI decision given by- Deepak Mishra , Addl.Director, RTI Cell, DRDO BHAWAN , NEW DELHI-110105
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 — 29 OCT 2011
4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011
5. Particulars of Decisions:
5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-
22nd NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0283; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI
6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-
6.1 CPIO— 28 NOV2011
6.2 FAA: — 17 JAN 2012
7. Details of information sought:-
Kindly inform to you that Dr.A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi. He has violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself .The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order. There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher.
In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.
He purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs
Facts : Till date nobody from DIAT has seen the Nature Journal
This journal was not useful for DIAT as the same deals with life sciences and DIAT area is ARMAMENT ENGINEERING, APPLIED MATHEMATICS, METALLURGY, COMPUTER ENGINEERING, APPLIED PHYSICS, AEROSPACE ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, EXPLOSIVES & APPLIED CHEMISTRY, ELECTRONICS The chairman for the Nature Journal procurement was Vigilance Officer of DIAT who approved this procurement from local vendor.
In other cases the books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds
The finding of inquiry committee of DIAT (Board of Three Senior Officers)
1. Observations – To understand the existing procedure for procurement of Books by Library, it was necessary to go through basis of existing procedure, record and files to related to procurement. In absence of OI/C,IC&L very limited records made available by Library and after arrival of OI/C,IC&L access to information and records was totally denied to the Board of Officers. 2. Existing Procedure and Anomalies- the following is observed by Board of Officers. i) OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation/negotiation followed. it is noted that as per terms and conditions no discounts have been asked. ii) Order has been placed on single tender basis iii) During limited observations it was seen that Books were accepted at higher prices than the order/approval price by the purchase committee. iv) No proof of price is being put up to the purchase Committee for approval. v) Firm Orders are being placed by OI/C,IC&L without bidding/negotiation vi) Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not registered. As per purchase procedure orders of only up to Rs 5000/- can be placed to unregistered vendors. This rule is not followed. vii) In our limited inquiry, we observed that large numbers of books were accepted at much higher price. We site few example- a) Book ordered for Rs 6029.07 was procured for price Rs 81,936.00 b) Book ordered for Rs 13,156.00 was procured for price Rs 27,362.68 c) Book ordered for Rs 40,000.00 was procured for price Rs 3,60,00.00 d) Book ordered for Rs 3,292.24 was procured for price Rs 5,233.09 viii) We did not find any justification in orders or Terms & Conditions to accept such high billing prices for payment to venors. ix) OI/C,IC&L did not conduct independent investigation regarding over valued books supplied by the vendors for their correct price. x) We found such number of cases where over payment was cleaned by OI/C, IC&L and Finance Officer without amendment or without bringing to notice of approving authority or VC xi) We did not find any power vested to OI/C,IC&L, Finance Officer to clear the over payment cases. xii) Before payment to vendors, pre-auditing is mandatory (as per purchase procedure) No such pre auditing mechanism is found resulting in escaping the over payment cases from scrutiny and corrective action. We did not find any document or authority to exempt from pre –auditing. xiii) Functioning of Library in case Library procurement was found devoid of adequate check and balance and control mechanism. We can conclude that OI/C,IC&L and Finance Officer flouted the principle of FR-21
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 / commission / higher courts in the interest of law and justice .
I want the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Is it true that Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi ?
Yes/No
2. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation / negotiation followed ? Yes/No
3. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L has been placed orders on single tender basis? Yes/No
4. Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not
registered?
Yes/ No
5. Book cost was approved by library committee in US dollor 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds ?
Yes/No
6. Order copy and term, conditions for the nature Magazine is not available. So the order place by Dr. A.K.Tyagi for Nature Magazine verbally or in written? Pl. provide suitable reply with authentic documents.
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.29-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office by Dr.A.K.Tyagi . He violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself .The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order. There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher. In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs. He purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs
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 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 the tenders generally published in news paper / internet for the purchasing of the books as per the DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication.
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 books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds
3- In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.
4- 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:-
1- This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the purchasing of the books / periodical publication.
2- Dr.A.K.Tyagi violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself.
3- That this action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. This committee was put up an adverse report to the authorities.
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 it true that Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi ?
Yes/No
2. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation / negotiation followed ? Yes/No
3. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L has been placed orders on single tender basis? Yes/No
4. Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not
registered?
Yes/ No
5. Book cost was approved by library committee in US dollor 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds ?
Yes/No
6. Order copy and term, conditions for the nature Magazine is not available. So the order place by Dr. A.K.Tyagi for Nature Magazine verbally or in written? Pl. provide suitable reply with authentic documents.
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
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.
2.2 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
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.
2.2 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
To, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Central Vigilance Commissioner, New Delhi;
Subject : CVO / Director (Intelligence & vigilance) / Add. Director (Intelligence & vigilance) O/o the DRDO; Ministry of Defense involved in corruption to give shelter to corrupt senior scientist
Dear Sir,
I can give you my affidavit whenever you require to put my strong complaint related with the CVO / Director / Add. Director (Intelligence & vigilance); O/o –DRDO that they are working for providing the shelter to the corrupt officers and scientist in DRDO. After having strong evidences they ignored and give the clean chit to the corrupt officers / scientist. This clean chit is used by the corrupt officers and scientist to show their integrity. A lot of honest departmental senior officers and scientist put up complaints against the corrupt DRDO scientist but this Directorate of Intelligence and vigilance give the shelter to corrupt persons and recommended the action against the honest officers and scientist. This is a very good joke in your corruption preventive department. Can you scrutinize the complaints investigated by this CVO / directorate (Intelligence & vigilance) of DRDO? If yes than a lot of honest officers / scientists / NGO’s and individuals will give you strong evidences related high level corruption in DRDO, Ministry of Defense.
Secondly , however RTI is not your jurisdiction but a lot of the RTI file before CPIO, o/o DRDO to take the corruption related information’s, but CPIO never give the corruption related information to the RTI activist and get sheltered from 24(1) of the RTI act. If you can take the notice on RT I applications related with corruption than definitely you can get evidences against the corruption.
Thirdly, a lot of the scientist are involving in spy the researches and leak the classified information’s. This Directorate (intelligence and vigilance) O/o – DRDO is fully aware about these things but after that they are given the shelter to the corrupts.
Fourthly, I put up more than 100 complaints scrutinized by the (intelligence and vigilance) O/o – DRDO and give shelter to the corrupt offices / scientists—-
1- Scientist ’F’ O/o-DRDO; Neelam Bhalla complaint for recruitment of Swati Srivastava Scientist D/o-Mr Arun Kumar, Director O/o- DRDO HQ.
2- Senior Administrative Officer, O/o- DRDO Mr Prakash Singh , more than 40 corruption related complaints.
3- My corruption related more than 20 complaints against RAC OF DRDO.& others.
4- Spy of the research related complaints by the honest DRDO Scientists.
5- More than 50 corruption related complaints through www.drdocorruption.com
TOP senior scientists of the DRDO directly related with corruption, so that CVO / Directorate (intelligence and vigilance) O/o – DRDO give the shelter to his senior involved in corruption.
I request you to re-investigate the all corruption related cases of the DRDO investigated by the CVO / Directorate (Intelligence & vigilance) of DRDO through another investigating agency or directly by the CVC. I assure you that you will find out the heavy corruption in DRDO. I will be highly obliged for your kind consideration and necessary action.
Regards,
Rajiv Chauhan
COPY TO THE :
1- Hon’ble President of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
2- Hon’ble Prime minister of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
3- Hon’ble Home minister of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
4- Hon’ble Defense Minister of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
5- Hon’ble CIC of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
6- Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, for kind consideration and necessary action.
7-Director, Intelligence Bureau, for kind consideration and necessary action.,
Please see the following RTI Reply from DRDO RTI Cell, in which DRDO RTI cell provide wrong and false informations.
RTI request
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest houses at DELHI.
How many DRDO officials are availing DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station i.e. Delhi from 1st Jan 2007 to 31st May 2010
Total number of days Sh. S.Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO Hqrs has been availing the DRDO guest house facilities since his posting to DRDO Hqrs till date.
Total number of days Dr. Prahalda , CCR&D,(Ae &SI),DS, DRDO HQRs has been availing the DRDO guest house facilities since his posting to DRDO Hqrs till date.
Please intimate me date time for inspection of guest house records under Right to Information Act 2005 section 2 (j) (i) & (ii
DRDO Reply _ File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000412
Para wise reply pertaining to years 2009 and 2010 is as under:
(a) Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest House at Delhi —105
(b) DRDO officials availing DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station — 17
(c) Sh. S Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 10 Jul 2009 to 10 Sep 2010.
(d) Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 26 Mar 2010 to 20 Mar 2011. (False Information by RTI Cell, DRDO)
1. Facts : Dr. Prahalda , CCR&D,(Ae &SI),DS, DRDO HQRs availed the DRDO guest house facilities since his posting to DRDO Hqrs to 20 Mar 2011.
2. The Date of transfer of Sh S Ravi not provided
Brief facts of the case
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. I think 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 the HRA. So how can Indian citizen expect any right information from these corrupt officials?
There more 9-10 CC R&D and Directors who are belongs to Hyderabad and Bangalore and their families are staying Hyderabad and Bangalore respectively and they all are staying in DRDO guest houses they are giving their residence address in telephone directory at DRDO guest houses and enjoying HRA also. They are frequent fliers, they all are already break the Milkha Singh ‘s (Flying Sikh of India) records and relishing without fear with TD with poor tax payers money.
Following DRDO senior official are staying in guest house since their positing to DRDO Hqrs and drawing the 30% HRA . it is big money and two major points i.e. one -these guest house not meant for permanent residence and second when the official come from various station to attend the meeting these guest house are not available for them and they have to spent precious poor tax payers money in luxury hotels.
There are more than 15 room is permanently occupied by DRDO senior officials in C-7, DRDO Guest House, Qutab Enclave, &6 official also unauthorized /occupied the DRDO Guest Development Enclave Rao, Tularam Marg, because as per sanction both places are as DRDO guest house facility in Govt .of India’s records. This is the purely dadagiri of DRDO.
Following DRDO senior official are staying in guest house as DRDO telephone Directory
Name of Official Office Ph No. Residence Ph No Residence Address
After receiving of the denial of RTI request by CPIO, DRDO, I appealed the matter to Appellate Authority as expected by us the denial of Appellate Authority, DRDO received by me.
As you already know about Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO, he is the one of the most corrupt official of DRDO and he is the total responsible for downfall of the DRDO. He is the man behind the all manipulations to uplift the incompetent and corrupt officials of DRDO, their promotions, their posting, their extensions, their illegal financial benefits all matters are taken care by Dr Arun Kumar but question is up to which date because everyone very well know if somebody doing illegal activities it is limit and one has pay for that.
Since the website completed 17 months and in this period I have come across only one good act of Dr Arun Kumar, DOP that is the transfer of two blinds Sh Laxman, Admin Assistant, ACEM, Nasik & Sh Ravindra Gauda, HEMRL, Pune to their hometowns lab, but it was after the pressure of Sh Rajiv Varshnay, SA’s staff officer only. I want to thanks both of them for this noble cause.
I am requested Dr Arun Kumar please act for some good cause in last step of your service, so people will forget wrong doings.
After few months when you will retire no one can even like to say hello to you.
Dear SFcians pleas find below their denial of DRDO, but we will take up this matter to CIC soon and will get proper and legal solutions for issues.
Some important question
The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011
Whether Above info is nature of strategic?
Since they have already “One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.
I really don’t our honorable SA put these inhuman persons in such important posts.
I.D. No_________ Date: _________ [For office use]To Dr Arun Kumar OS & Director, Directorate of PersonalRoom No.-217, DRDO Bhawan , Rajaji Marg New Delhi – 110105
Sir,
As I am aggrieved by decision/no decision of Central Public Information Officer, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
The reply of CPIO, DRDO, is completely confusing, misleading, incorrect, unjustified and willful not give any information, does not following the spirit of RTI Act 2005.
The information asked about SF Complex Jagdalpur is not come any norms of secrecy. I am not asking about any work or project information of SF Jagdalpur Unit.
1. Details of appellant
1.1 Full Name: Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
1.2. Full Address: 21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
1.3 Phone/Cell No. 0135-2787750 / 919411114879
1.4 Email ID: prabhu@dandriyal.com 2. Details of CPIO:
2.1 Name/Designation: Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, Head RTI Cell, Scientist ‘F’
2.2 Full Address : Room No 314 A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India
3. Details of RTI application to CPIO:
Date of Application : 19th July 2011
Mailed on: 19th July 2011
by speed post
4. Particulars of payment of filing fee:
Paid Rs.10/- by Postal Order No. 90E 611227
5. Details of information sought:
1) The official address of SF Complex (one of the labs/Establishment of DRDO), JAGDALPUR?
2) Copy of D O part order or any other order regarding the place of reporting duty at Plant Girola Village which is 40 Kms away from Jagdalpur.
3) Copy of D O part order any other order in which the employees posted at SF complex first they report to duty at SF Complex then report for duty at Girola Plant Site.
4) The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011
5) The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and human right not come under schedule -II – why because it is noticed that without proper movement orders and without proper maintained vehicles the employees of SF complex are going daily at Girola plant. Earlier in one accident case it is heard that the movement order was made by SF Complex administration in back date to give financial benefits to the deceased family.
6. Particulars of Decision of CPIO:
Date of CPIO’s Decision:9th August 2011
Date of receipt of decision by the appellant:12th August 2011
7. Brief facts of the case:
The official address of SF Complex is “SF COMPLEX, AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING, JAGDALPUR-494001”. SFC Employees are given appointment letters with above address as reporting place. But, all are forced to report at the above address as well as at its work centre located at Girola village, Bakawand block, Bastar district. This location is completely out of 40 Kms away from municipality (Jagdalpur) of the official address.
As per rule they should report at the place of posting as per the appointment letter. But it is not so. Is it (forcing to report at other place) not violation of an employee’s right to report at the posting place? The management says that reporting place is at Girola and same time management says Airport terminal building, Jagdalpur. It is clear cut case of harassment of employees of SF Complex.
One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.
If the travelling from Jagdalpur to Girola and back is official and as per the rule and the rule position should be clear for all for management, employees and the general public. After this accident all the staff of SF Complex Jagdalpur took a decision and reported at posting place only. This happened for two days and later management has interfered and threatened to them for report at Girola and told them if they will not report at Girola, will get termination letter. Employees were forced to report at Girola. It is a violation of Human Right? Reporting at posting place is not correct? Then why appointment letters were given like that? DRDO has to duty to provide them proper necessary papers as per rule position of Central Government.
The requested information is not come under 8(1) (a) and 24 (1) of the RTI Act at all because the information asked not in the nature of secrecy like The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority. This the major concern of family and friends of employees of SF complex for their safety and well beings. For mere few thousand Rupees from contractors as bribe the Top DRDO officials playing with the life of SF Complex Employees.
The required information is fall under corruption and as well as violation human right and therefore in any means it is not come under schedule –II exemption of RTI Act 2005.
“RTI is a key instrument for imposing democratic values, accountability and transparency in our public administration,” Dr.Shah Faisal (IAS topper 2010 & RTI activist of J&K RTI Movement NGO) told Sakàl Times
8. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:
i) To know the sensitiveness and work environment of DRDO
ii) To expose the corrupt practices prevailing in DRDO
9. Any other information in support of appeal:
10. Prayer/relief sought for:
It is requested that please provide me correct information as per request of my RTI dated 19th July 2011 in larger public interest, because it is directly related to corruption and violation of Human rights.
11. Enclosures:
i) My RTI request dated 19th July 2011
ii) Denial of CPIO, DRDO Hqrs dated 09 August 2011
12. 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 any information commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com website www.corruptionindrdo.comDenial of Appellate Authority page 1Denial of Appellate Authority page 2
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
