Tag Archives: CPIO

Drdo

First Appeal – Parking – DMSRDE

1 Comment

FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005

To,
  Shri Suranjan Pal,
  OS & Director DECS,
 First Appellate Authority, DRDO
  RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B , 
  DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
  New Delhi-110011

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005

Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 issued by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1.   Details of appellant:-applicant2.   Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-cpio kanpur

3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 received by appellant on 04 November 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)          An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 04 October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Parking“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 04 October 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)          Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of Corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c)          It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 04 October 2013 that “Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure”.

(d)          In point (c) (1) of reply dated 29 October, 2013 CPIO informed that “Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur has not ordered for construction of any vehicle parking stand inside DMSRDE not being constructed”. It was also mentioned “Other information related to vehicle stand are also irrelevant and not applicable”.

(e)          In point (d)(2) of reply dated 29 October, 2013 CPIO informed that “Regarding CSD Canteen, its functioning has started from 21st April 1977 and running continuously. The other information asked has no relevance with the allegations of Corruption. It is a social welfare activity and run in authorized manner with manually agreed terms & conditions of DMSRDE and MES office of, DMSRDE, Kanpur”.

(f)           CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 04 October 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on CPIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

(g)          Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

5.   Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.

(a)       Under the provisions of Section 24(1)  of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.

(b)       Appellant submitted an application dated 04 October 2013 under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 04 October 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(c)        Information was denied by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.

(d)       The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 04 October 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO as information sought is related to Establishment Matter and allegations of Corruption.

(e)       Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant for getting the information.

(f)         CPIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused Section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.

(g)       Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.

6.   Prayer /relief sought for:-

  1. Information sought vides RTI Application dated 04 October 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 04 October 2013.
  2. Direction may kindly be issued to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions.
    1. 7.   Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
    2. 1.     CIC decisions on notified organizations under Schedule II of

     RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

(i)       CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

(ii)      CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.

(iii)     These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.

(iv)     Information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 was pertaining to Establishment Matter

(v)      In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.

  1. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
  2. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  5. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  6. CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
  7. CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
  8. CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
  9. CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  10. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  11. CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)

(vi)     In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.

2.     Nature of information sought is not  related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

Information sought is related to “Parking”. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

3.     Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature is permissible & allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.

4.     Information sought is also related to allegations of Corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 04 October 2013. Information sought is having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of Corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on CPIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. In case the prima facie evidences of Corruption are available the appellant will approach to CVC/CBI not file RTI to get information pertaining to allegations of Corruption?

                  i.        It is alleged that Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE misused his powers to construct/erect the parking shade near CSD Canteen. It has been accepted by Director, DMSRDE vide Minute Sheet No.  AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 issued by Dr. D.N. Tripathi, Addl. Director (Admin).  Vide this order “all officers & employees of DMSRDE were ordered to park their vehicles in parking area/shades near CSD Canteen with effect from 01 October 2013”. Again Chief Security Officer issued ION dated 03.10.2013 on behalf of Director regarding Car-Parking near Admin. Building. Again an ION was issued by Dr. DN Tripathi, Addl. Director(Admin) regarding parking area near CSD Canteen.

                ii.        This parking shade/vehicle stand was not constructed by MES or CCE (R&D) North. It was constructed by Director, DMSRDE using private contractor of his favor M/s Gupta Constructions, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur. Thereby CPIO provided false information vides his letter dated 29 October 2013.

              iii.        MES(Military Engineering Services) and CCE(R&D) are the only agencies authorize for any construction of buildings , to execute minor & major work in buildings, construction /erect of shades/parking area etc. in Technical & Residential area of DMSRDE.

               iv.        The source of fund used to erect two shades was from one project fund and not from build-up fund. Project fund cannot be used for construction work. Hence Dr. AK Saxena, Director misused his powers to illegal and unauthorized construction of two parking shades near CSD Canteen inside the Technical Area of DMSRDE, to give undue advantage to M/s Gupta Construction, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur with vested interest.

                 v.        All supply orders for purchase of material used to erect the parking shades were issued to M/s Gupta Constructions who is neighbor to Dr. AK Saxena residence at Gandhi Gram, Kanpur.

               vi.        Misuse of powers for personal gains, unauthorized construction and misuse of funds is clear case of Corruption. Documents are available in records with DMSRDE which can be verified by FAA.

             vii.        It is quite evident from Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 that there exists building of CSD Canteen in DMSRDE near newly constructed parking area/shade.

            viii.        The nomenclature of building in which CSD canteen is running is CHEM STORE, as per MES record. Director, DMSRDE is using this building in unauthorized manner to run CSD Canteen in this building. CSD Canteen is a profitable URC under CSD hence it should pay rent as well as electrical charges to MES. In this connection MES also issued notice to CSD Canteen for payment of electrical charges and recently cut down the power of CSD  for fifteen days, thereby CSD was closed for about fifteen days.

               ix.        Information sought is related to “Parking”. This information is not related to any scientific/technical/strategic matter. Therefore information related to contract, supply order, purchase, construction and manufacturing etc. is disclosable under RTI Act, CIC decisions mentioned above and even by FAA, DRDO.

8.   Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21- Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DMSRDE/2013/Parking

Date: 08 November, 2013                                          

 Enclosure: Two 

(1)  Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 29 October 2013.

(2)  RTI Application dated 04 October 2013.

 

Drdo

RTI – DRDO Hqrs – Regarding reappointment of Sh A .K Musla, Ex-Scientist ‘G

1 Comment
To                                                                                                           23rd  October 2013
CPIO, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105

Hello,
Recently after superannuation  Sh A .K Musla, Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun joined Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), Kotdwara

As per government of India Office Memorandum No 27012/52000-Estt (A) Dated 5thDecember 2006.

Procedure for grant of permission to the pensioners for commercial employment after retirement.

And this practice is very well being followed by DRDO, Please refer

Your letter no DVS/01/0326/M/04 dated 16th March 2011 – Lt Gen Dilip Bhardwaj
Your letter no DOP/04/47009/M/01 dated 5th Oct 2011 – Lt Gen R K Karwal
Your letter no DOP/04/40078/P/01 dated 23rd Feb 2012  

Office Memorandum No 27012/52000-Estt(A) Dated 5th December 2006.

Para (a) Permission will be required for post-retirement commercial employment of a retired officer who was a member of a Group ‘A’ Central Civil Service or held a Group ‘A’ post if the commercial employment is to be taken up within one year of retirement.

Para d) Before an application of the retired officer is considered, an undertaking from the retired officer is to be taken in the form of an affidavit that the factors mentioned in clauses (b) to (f) of the amended sub-rule (3)of Rule 10 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, do not come in the way of considering his application.

As per “The Gazette of India” Extraordinary No 568 dated 23rd November 2006 Part – II, Section-3, Sub section  (i)    

Para 3 (a) Whether a” No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment has   been obtained from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired.

              (c) Whether there is conflict of interest between the policies of the office he has held in the last three years and the interest represented of work undertaken by the organization he proposed to join.

(e) Whether service record of the officer is clear, particularly with respect of integrity and dealings with non- Government Organizations.

With reference to above kindly provide me the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

  1. Copy of permission letter of  Sh A .K Musla, Ex-Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun, DRDO before joining  Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), Kotdwara
  2. Copy of ” No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment    has   been obtained  by Sh A .K Musla, Ex- Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun, DRDO from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired.
  3. Copy of vigilance clearance from the competent authority.

Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) for the furtherance of business BEL, Kotdwara establishing an office/centre in the office complex of IRDE.

i.     Please provide terms & condition commercial
ii.    Payment condition for using office premises by BEL
iii.   As per government laid down rule MES permission and MES involvement is necessary, please provide the correspondence or MES approval of using   office premises from MES by Director, IRDE.
iv.    IB clearance for BEL officials using office premises has been taken by Director, IRDE yes/No

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” 

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order -17F 549288

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                            
 21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                                                                              0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                  prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com
Drdo

First Appeal – PCDA R&D

2 Comments

FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005

 To,
  Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma, IDAS
  Principal Controller
  PCDA (R&D), West Block-V
  R.K. Puram
  New Delhi-110066 

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005

Reference

  1. Letter No. AN/RTI CELL/2013/j-p-sharma dated 06.09.2013 issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi
  2. Letter No. AN-I/R&D/RTI CELL/2013/J.P.Sharma dated 18.9.2013 issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi

Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO), PCDA (R&D), New Delhi. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1.   Details of appellant:-

Name
J.P. Sharma
Address
J.P. Sharma, Advocate
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
Court Compound, Dehradun-248001(Uttarakhand)

2.       Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) whom RTI application was submitted:-

Name & Rank
Dr. Jairaj Naik, IDAS, Jt. CDA, CPIO
Address
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block-V
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066

3.     Details of Central Assistant Public Information Officer(CAPIO) who replied the application filed under RTI Act

Name & Rank
Shri D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer,CAPIO
Address
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block-V
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066

4.       Particulars of Decision/Order of CAPIO against which appeal:-

S.N. Decision Letter No. & Date Date Encl. No.
1. AN/RTI CELL/2013/j-p-sharma 06.09.2013 1
2. AN-I/R&D/RTI CELL/2013/J.P. Sharma, 18.9.2013 2
NOTE: Application dated 20.08.2013 received to PCDA(R&D) on 26.08.2013

Copy of the letters received by appellant on 16.09.2013 and 28.09.2013 respectively. Copy enclosed as Enclosure-1 and Enclosure-2.

5. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)    An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 20 August 2013 was submitted to CPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi for providing information regarding “Bills passed by PCDA (R&D) forwarded by DMSRDE, Kanpur“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-3.

(b)    Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO), PCDA (R&D), New Delhi transferred the application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 vide letters cited above.

(c)     Under the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, the application under RTI Act was illegally transferred by CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi with malafide intentions under planned conspiracy with Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi.

(d)    Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

6.       Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.

(a)    PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is a Public Authority under Central Government of India. As per information available on website of PCDA (R&D), New Delhi “The organisation of PCDA (R&D) is responsible for payment, accounting and internal/local audit functions relating to DRDO“.

(b)      PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is the sole custodian of the information sought under RTI Application dated 20 August 2013. Therefore transfer of application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 is illegal.

(c)      Under the provisions of Section 5 (2) of RTI Act, CAPIO is not authorized for transferring the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to any other public authority. CAPIO can only receive the application and forward to CPIO.

(d)      Under the provisions Section 5 of RTI Act, only CPIO is authorize to transfer the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005.

(e)      Vide CIC decision in case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003779/LS dated 27 August 2013 (J.K. Mittal vs. Delhi Police/PHQ), Hon’ble CIC held “CPIO is the fulcrum of the RTI regime.   As  per  section  7(1),  it  is the mandate  of   the  CPIO  to  provide  information  requested for by an informationseeker.RTI application can be transferred only by the CPIO to another CPIO and not by ACPIO”.

(f)      The application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 should be transferred within five days from the date of receipt of the application under the provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act. As mentioned above the application dated 20.08.2013 was received in office of PCDA(R&D) on 26.08.2013 therefore the application should be transferred up to 01 September 2013 but transfer of application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act on 06.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 is illegal under the provisions of RTI Act 2005.

(g)      Therefore, transfer of application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 by CAPIO is illegal. Hence both letters issued by CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi are illegal and invalid under the provisions of RTI Act.

(h)      Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid & illegal decision of CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before First Appellate Authority (FAA).

7.   Prayer /relief sought for:-

  1. RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 submitted by appellant to CPIO, PCDA (R&D) has been illegally transferred under planned conspiracy of Public Authority of DMSRDE and Public Authority at PCDA including CPIO, CAPIO, PCDA(R&D), Main Branch, New Delhi.
  2. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi to allow this appeal and issue orders to CPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi to provide the full information as sought/seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 under the provisions of Section 7(1) of RTI Act.
  3. Under the provisions of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act the information should be provided to appellant with in the thirty days of the receipt of the application. Since the RTI application was received by CPIO, PCDA (R&D) on 26.08.2013 and information sought in the application should be provided by CPIO to appellant till 26.09.2013.
  4. Since the application dated 20.08.2013 was illegally and willfully transferred by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) with malafide intentions & motives to CPIO, DRDO HQ, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi. Therefore CPIO and CAPIO both are liable to be imposed penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act and disciplinary action u/s 20(2) of RTI Act by Hon’ble CIC.

8.       Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-

  1. Gross Violation of Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 in transfer of application to CPIO, DRDO HQ

a.    Provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act are reiterated here for your kind information.

Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—

(i) which is held by another public authority; or

(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the  functions of another public authority,

The public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.

b.    PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is a Public Authority under Central Government of India. As per information available on website of PCDA (R&D), New Delhi “The organisation of PCDA (R&D) is responsible for payment, accounting and internal/local audit functions relating to DRDO”.

c.      PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is the sole custodian of the information sought under RTI Application dated 20 August 2013. Therefore transfer of application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 is illegal.

d.      The information sought by appellant is not held by DRDO and DMSRDE, Kanpur as information about bills and payments related to vendors who supplied store and services to DMSRDE is held  only by PCDA(R&D) for Audit purpose.

e.       Therefore PCDA (R&D) is sole custodian of information sought and CPIO, CAPIO or Public Authority could not transfer the application u/s 6(3) of the Act.

  2. CAPIO is not authorize for transfer of application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005

a.     Under the provisions of Section 5 (2) of RTI Act , CAPIO is not authorized for transferring the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to any other public authority. CAPIO can only receive the application and forward to CPIO.

b.     Under the provisions of RTI Act, only CPIO is authorize to transfer the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO of other Public Authority.

c.      Vide CIC decision in case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003779/LS dated 27 August 2013 (J.K. Mittal Vs. Delhi Police/PHQ), Hon’ble CIC held “CPIO is the fulcrum of the RTI regime.   As  per  section  7(1),  it  is the mandate  of   the  CPIO  to  provide  information  requested for by  an  information seeker .           RTI application can be transferred only by the CPIO to another CPIO and not by ACPIO“.

d.      Vide the CIC decision mentioned in point(c) above, Hon’ble CIC gave verdict that “As per Section 5(2), APIO is empowered only to receive RTI applications and then transmit them to the CPIO concerned. On the other hand, CPIO is empowered not only to receive RTI applications directly but also to respond to them. Hence, the functions of the CPIO and APIO are distinct and not co-equal”.

3.     Planned conspiracy of CPIO,CAPIO & Public Authority at PCDA(R&D) with Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi

It is quite evident that information sought should be provided by PCDA(R&D) as this public authority has not been placed under Second Schedule of the Act, thereby PCDA(R&D) is bound to provide the information sought to the appellant within 30 days of receipt of the application under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.

Under the planned conspiracy of two public authorities PCDA(R&D) and Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur the CPIO did not provided the information to the appellant and illegally manages to transfer the application to CPIO, DRDO HQ (Public Authority – DRDO)  through his CAPIO Mr.  D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer.

Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur is involved in corruption and trying his all the best that evidences of his corruption could not be disclosed to the appellant. In promoting the corrupt practices of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE the officials at ACDA, AO (R&D), DMSRDE, Kanpur are involved. Thereby they ignored serious lapses in purchases at DMSRDE during tenure of Dr. A.K. Saxena from 01.01.2011 to till date.

I would like to expose the movement of application submitted under RTI Act by Appellant at PCDA (R&D), New Delhi. The copy of application was send to Shri VK Singh, ACDA, AO (R&D), DMSRDE, Kanpur. In the AO(R&D) Office at DMSRDE, Kanpur , one Shri Anurag Srivastava, AAO is posted since last more than 10 years in the same office however all other officials were transferred on rotation basis as per transfer policy of PCDA(R&D).

Shri Anurag Srivastava is having close association with Dr. A.K. Saxena , Director, DMSRDE on basis of casteism as both belongs to same cast known as Kayastha. Dr. A.K. Saxena managed stay of transfer/posting of Shri Anurag Srivastava several times using his official position.

On receiving of copy of application under RTI Act submitted by Appellant, Shri Anurag Shrivastava along with Shri V.K. Singh met to Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE in his office and also to Shri Sarvesh , PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. All of them planned a conspiracy to transfer the application to CPIO, DRDO HQ so that CPIO, DRDO deny the information under the shadow and shelter of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Thereby their corrupt & anti-national activities could not be exposed.

4.     Letters issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) are illegal under RTI Act 2005

The application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 should be transferred within five days from the date of receipt of the application under the provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act. As mentioned above the application dated 20.08.2013 was received in office of PCDA(R&D) on 26.08.2013 therefore the application should be transferred up to 01 September 2013 but transfer of application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act on 06.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 is illegal under the provisions of RTI Act 2005. Therefore the both the letters issued by CAPIO dated 06.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 are illegal & invalid as per provisions of Section 6(3) RTI Act 2005.

5.       Letters signed by Shri D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer, CAPIO, PCDA(R&D)

As per the information available on PCDA (R&D) website pcdarnd.gov.in, Mr. D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer is CAPIO in main office. Both the letters dated 6.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 are signed by Mr. D.S. Sheoron, Accounts Officer, CAPIO.

6.      Information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption

Dr. A.K. Saxena , Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur is involved in corruption, financial irregularities , violation of purchase rules as specified in Purchase Management 2006 and misuse of financial power vested to him by DRDO HQ. The information sought will expose the corruption in DMSRDE and nexus between DMSRDE and ACDA, AO(R&D) Office, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

Appellant is surprised from the action and role of PCDA(R&D), CPIO and CAPIO on application dated 20.8.2013 by transferring the application to CPIO, DRDO HQ under gross violation of Section 6(3) of RTI Act and verdict in various decisions of Hon’ble  Central Information Commission. It appears that like ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur the officials at PCDA (R&D), New Delhi are working under pressure of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

9.         Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 
J.P. Sharma
Advocate
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
Court Compound,
Dehradun-248001(Uttarakhand)

 

Appeal No.: FA/JPS/PCDA(R&D)/2013/01

Date: 15 October, 2013                                                 

 Enclosure: Three 

(1)  Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 06 September 2013
(2)  Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 18.09.2013
(3)  RTI Application dated 20 August 2013.
(1)Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 06 September 2013
(1) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 06 September 2013
(2)Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 18.09.2013
(2) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 18.09.2013

 

To,                                                                                                                   20th August 2013
Dr. Jairaj Naik, IDAS
Jt. CDA, CPIO
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block
R.K. Puram
New Delhi-110066

Subject: Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly provide the following information under section 2(f), 2(i), 2(j) and 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide the details of bills passed for payments of third party (Vendor/ supplier /Firms) claims forwarded by DMSRDE, Kanpur by O/o PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and O/o AO (R&D), ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur for the period 01/01/2013 to 31/07/2013 for the amount between One lakh to Fifty lakh for purchase of store and services with following information in each bill.

i.     Particulars of store (item purchased) and service hired
ii.    Particular of vendor/firm to which payment was made(Cheque issued)
iii.   Amount of bill/cheque issued
iv.   Date of payment
v.    Mode of tendering- Single/Single with PAC/Limited/Openi.                                             vi.   Whether repeat order(Yes/No)

  1. Details of all bills passed and cheque issued by AO(R&D), ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur and O/o PCDA(R&D) in favour of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd., New Delhi/ SM Carapace Armor, New Delhi with following information.

i.   Particular of store (item purchased) and services hired.
ii.  Amount of bill
iii.    Date of payment/ cheque issued                                                                                             iv.   Mode of Tendering- Single/Single with PAC/Repeat Order/Limited /Open

  1. In one year how many repeat order can be issued as per Purchase Manual 2006 of DRDO/Any other Govt. Rules in case of      

  i.    Store                                                                                                                                              ii.    Services

4.    Whether repeat orders could be issued in case of services/AMC/ services hired like hired vehicle for transport etc as per PM 2006. (Yes/No)

5.      If answer to point (4) is yes then provide the copy of said rule.
6.      Whether M/s SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd/SM Carapace Armor/or any other subsidiary of SM Group is registered with DMSRDE, Kanpur or with HEMRL, Pune (Yes/No)

7.     If answer to point (6) is yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by DMSRDE, Kanpur or HEMRL, Pune.

8.     Provide the details/category under which any subsidiary firm under SM Group New Delhi like SM Pulp/SM Carapace is registered with HEMRL / DMSRDE as per Rule 3.2 of PM 2006.
9.     If registered at HEMRL/DMSRDE then date of registration.
10.    Copies of Supply Orders issued to SM Pulp Packaging/SM Carapace Armor for the Financial years

  • 2010-2011
  • 2011-2012
  • 2012-2013
  1. Inspection of documents/records for passing the bills of SM Pulp Packaging and SM Carapace Armor , New Delhi for the FY 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2012-2013.

An IPO of Rs. 10 No. 16F 966245 is enclosed as application fee.

Date – 20th August 2013

                                                                                                                                                           ( J P. Sharma)
Advocate
Chamber No.64, First floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
Court Compound
Dehradun-248001
Uttarakhand                    
 
copy
Shri V.N. Singh, ACDA
AO (R&D), DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013

 

 
 
Drdo

Finally Dr AK Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Charge Sheeted yesterday F/N

5 Comments

Status of Complaint No: 569/11/9 against your one great scientist Dr Anil Kumar Tyagi, Sc ‘G’ CPIO, DRDO Hqrs
Date: 8/10/2013
Sent to CVO for Investigation/Action Taken Report on date : 16/3/2011
CVO Report Received on date: 18/7/2013

Prima facie material has been found against the officials involved. Regular Disciplinary action is recommended on: 9/9/2013

Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs finally charge sheeted on 8th October 2013 F/N. Charge Sheet signed by Honorable Defence Minister, Sh A K Antony.

On 26th April 2011 I have posted a letter to Defence Minister regarding “DRDO Prefers to Give RTI Cell Responsibilities to Tainted Officers “

DRDO RTI Cell
1. Dr.Arun Kumar, D.O.P. – First Appellate Authority-Vigilance case is pending
2. Dr A.K Tyagi Scientist ‘F’ – CPIO – Case Registered in CVC No.569/11/9
3. Dr Prahlada, CC R&D – Ex F.A.A.- Case is pending with SC/ST commission
4. Sh S Ravi, Scientist ‘G` – Ex CPIO – Case of embezzlement(ITM Mussoorie)

Two were fixed

Dr.Arun Kumar, Ex – D.O.P. Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist was suspended and Charge sheeted – proceeding initiated
Dr A.K Tyagi , Scientist ‘G’ CPIO, DRDO Hqrs – Charge sheeted –

Next two are under lens of honest employees and both will be fixed

Dr A.K Singh present DOP is supporting Dr A.K Tyagi in all means – it shows his approaches, Dr A.K Singh leave protecting the corrupts and give attentions towards genuine transfer cases of Sh.Sachin, Scientist ‘C’ GTRE and Sh Naval Gupta, Scientist ‘B’ PM-2 Site.

Dr A.K Singh was bothering for image of DRDO but not able to handle Dr CP Ramanarayanan, who was made worst comment in DRDO history.

Some of senior DRDO’s officials are thinking they are GOD and they have power to ruin any one future, now it is not possible because thousands/ lakhs of eyes are watching your every moment.

Wait for GOD’s justice.

[M.O.F. No. F.15(8)-E IV/57, dated 28th March, 1959].
Circumstances under which a Government servant may be placed under suspension –
Cases where continuance in office of the Government servant will prejudice the investigation, trial or any inquiry (e.g. apprehended tampering with witnesses or documents);

Where the continuance in office of the Government servant is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office in which the public servant is working.
Where allegations have been made against the Government servant and preliminary inquiry has revealed that a prima facie case is made out which would justify his prosecution or is being proceeded against in departmental proceedings, and where the proceedings are likely to end in his conviction and/or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service.
Suspension
(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension-
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending

Drdo

First Appeal – Sh R K Agarwal’s False Claim

Leave a comment

FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005

To,
Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS
First Appellate Authority, DRDO
RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011

             Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005

Reference:  No.DEAL/RTI/0010/2013 dated 3rd September 2013

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.

I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1.    Details of appellant:-

Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com

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

Name & Rank
Dr. Sangeeta Khare , Scientist ‘G ‘
Address
DEAL,Raipur Road, Dehradun-248001

3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:

Decision vide letter No. DEAL/RTI/0010/2013  dated 3rd September 2013. Copy enclosed as  Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun was promoted wef 1st July 2012.

In DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO.Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL   “his main contribution has been the development of NARAD, the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed 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 (Copy enclosed)

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 ShSurendra 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 and castism. (Copy enclosed)

5.  Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

  1. RTI request sent to DoPT and DoPT furnished partly information which is also mark as confidential, but after result it was a open document.(Copy Enclosed)
  2. DoPT transferred my RTI request to Ministry of Defence for rest information vide their letter no F.No/29/38/2013-EOSM-II Dated 15th July 2013.
  3. Subsequently  MOD transferred to RTI Cell, DRDO vide Mof D ID No 21/(3)/2013(1083)/ D/(RTI) Dt 5/7/2013
  4. Subsequently  RTI Cell, DRDO transferred to CPIO,RAC, DRDO vide  RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0178 dated 10th July 2013
  5. Subsequently CPIO,RAC, DRDO informed me vide letter no RAC/03/RTI/95/2013 Dated 1st August 2013 that my application sent back to RTI Cell, DRDO for further action. (Copy enclosed)
  6. Unexpectedly I have received 6th September 2013 a letter from CPIO,DEAL, Dehardun stated that they received a letter from CPIO,RAC, DRDO on 20th August 2013 (no letter no reference) stated that the information (Biodata) of Sh R K Agarwal marked as confidential, hence it cannot be disclosed (copy enclosed)
  7. As Sh R K Agarwal worked in DEAL in various projects and “only those project are classified as secret/confidential which have been sanction under staff project (ARMY/Air force/Navy/ Services   Branch, the rest of the project sanctioned to DRDO comes under R&D Projects.

Sh R K Agarwal himself quote in DRDO News Letter (September 2012) that he was associated with Project “NARAD” his claim was totally false and supported by Sh R C Agarwal, Director, DEAL for his promotion to Scientist ‘H’ and this act come under corruption. (“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”) 

Corruption – Giving or obtaining advantage through means which are illegitimate, immoral, and/or inconsistent with one’s duty or the rights of others. Corruption often results from patronage)

viii. DRDO is protecting Sh R K Agarwal for his false claim and to stop this corrupt practice in DRDO, it is very well require exposing false claims especially in R&D atmosphere because these practices demoralize young scientists. As CPIO, DEAL already committed in one RTI reply no information and document evidence is available in DEAL regarding Sh R K Agarwal’s claim.

6.    Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vide RTI Application dated 28th May 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DEAL,Dehradun. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO,DEAL, Dehradun to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 28th May 2013 (Copy Enclosed)

7.    Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-

1.      CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of  RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

(i)        CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

(ii)       CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.

(iii)      These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.

(iv)     In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.

  1. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
  2. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  5. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  6. CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
  7. CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
  8. CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
  9. CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  10. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  11. CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)

(v)      In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only“. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act”.

2.      Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.

3.      Misuse & wrong interpretation of section 8(1) (j) by CPIO, DRDO HQ: – It appears that either CPIO did not apply his mind on content of information sought or he is supporting corrupt practices of Director, DEAL, Dehradun

8.    Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                                
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879
Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com  

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/RKA/DRDO HQ/2013/03

Date: 3rd October, 2013                                           

 Enclosure: 

(1)   My RTI Application to CPIO,DoPT, New Delhi dated 28th May 2013
(2)   DoPT reply Dated 15th july 2013
(3)  MoD letter Dated  5 th July 2013
(4)  CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18th July 2013
(5)  CPIO, RAC, letter  dated 1st August 2013
(6)  CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3rd September 2013
 
My RTI Application to CPIO,DoPT, New Delhi dated 28th May 2013
To                                                                                                                28th May 2013
The Under Secretary (RR- II  )
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
Department of Personnel and Training
Room No. 268 – B , North Block
New Delhi- 110011
 

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun

As per SRO- 36 dated 9t May 2011 ( FileNo. DHRDn6205IDRDSlRRlClP/10/1022/D(R&D))

Para 2

“(iv) The Peer Committee as specified in Schedule ID shall assess suitability for appointment of Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist in Defence Research and Development Service”.

In DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO. Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL   “ his main contribution has been the development of NARAD, the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed 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 (Copy enclosed)

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 and castism. (Copy enclosed)

Kindly provide the following informations under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005

  1. The certified copy of  Sh R K Agarwal’s credentials submitted to then Peer Committee by DRDO for consideration for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist).
  2. The certified copy Peer Committee recommendation for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist) in respect of Sh R K Agarwal

Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.

I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

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

“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” 

Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order  98E 528553

Regards,
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id  prabhudoon@gmail.com ,  website- www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
DoPT reply Dated 15th july 2013
dopt reply0001
dopt reply0002
dopt reply0003
 
MoD letter Dated  5 th July 2013
MOD replyrk0002
 
 
CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18th July 2013
reply drdohq
 
 CPIO, RAC, letter  dated 1st August 2013
rac reply
 
CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3rd September 2013
deal reply
Drdo

First Appeal – Development of Bullet Proof Jacket under GSQR-1318 in DMSRDE – DRDO Hqrs

1 Comment

FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005

To,
 Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS
First Appellate Authority, DRDO
 RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
 New Delhi-110011

 

     Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005

Reference: Letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0196 dated 23 August 2013 issued by CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi

 Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Central Public Information Officer, DRDO HQ, New Delhi. I hereby submit  this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1.    Details of appellant:-

Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com

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

Name & Rank
Dr. A.K. Tyagi , Scientist ‘G ‘
Address
DRDO HQ
314-A, ‘B’ Block, DRDO Bhawan
New Delhi-110011

3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-

Decision vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0196 dated 23 August 2013. Copy enclosed as  Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)          An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 18 July 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi for providing information regarding financial irregularities etc against Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur in development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) under GSQR-1318. Copy of the RTI application dated 18 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)          Central Public Information Officer, DRDO HQ, New Delhi rejected the application u/s 24(1) & 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0196 dated 23 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c)          CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi rejected the RTI application dated 18 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of the Public Authority, DRDO HQ. This act of CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi attracts action on CPIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

(d)          Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

5.    Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.

(a)        Under the provisions of section 24(1)  of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.

(b)        Appellant submitted an application dated 18 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 18 July 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(c)        Information was denied by CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi on the ground of section 24(1) & 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.

(d)        The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 18 July 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO.

(e)        Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with mala fide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.

(f)         CPIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.

(g)        Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.

6.    Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vide RTI Application dated 18 July 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 18 July 2013.

7.    Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1.      CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of  RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

(i)        CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

(ii)       CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.

(iii)      These decisions of CIC are binding on  all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.

(iv)     In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.

  1. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
  2. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  5. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  6. CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
  7. CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
  8. CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
  9. CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  10. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  11. CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)

(v)      In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only“. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act”.

2.      Subject/nature of information sought is already in public domain and not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

Various GSQRs, their detail specifications, cost of BPJ, requirement of Army for BPJ, Tenders for procurements of BPJ & their purchase details are already in public domain by means of Parliamentary Reports, Parliamentary Questions, Print & Electronic media, various reports from MOD etc. Hence information sought is not confidential/secret.

Besides these the information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

3.      Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.

4.      Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 18 July 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on CPIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption.

5.      Misuse & wrong interpretation of section 8(1) (j) by CPIO, DRDO HQ: – It appears that either CPIO did not apply his mind on content of information sought or he is supporting corrupt practices of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

Information sought in point (1) is regarding copy of the complaint of financial irregularities by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. This information (copy of complaint) is public document held by DRDO HQ when it has been received by the Public Authority of DRDO and not personal information of complainant. Therefore this information does not fall under the provision of section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act.

  1. Information sought in point (2) is not personal information as it relates to Estt. Matter of DRDO and not come under section 24(1) and 8(1) (j) as per various decisions of CIC as cited above.
  2. Information sought in point (3) is also not personal information as it relates to Estt. Matter of DRDO and not come under section 24(1) and 8(1) (j) as per various decisions of CIC as cited above.
  3. It is very surprised that CPIO is claiming that date of enquiry is personal information. In fact date of enquiry is not personal information as it relates to Estt. Matter of DRDO and not come under section 24(1) and 8(1) (j) as per various decisions of CIC as cited above.
  4. Information sought at point (5) is related to tour programme and tour details of Dr. K. Muraleedharan, Sc’G’, DOM from New Delhi to Kanpur. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act as pronounced in various decisions of CIC. For ready reference of FAA, appellant would like to mention some decisions of CIC regarding tour programme, travel expenses etc of a public servant.
    1. Case No. 07/IC (A)/CIC/2006 dated 6.3.2006, Dinesh Berry Vs BPCL. Decision pronounced as “The information sought by the appellant relate to the tour programme and travel expenses of a public servant, which can not be treated as personal information“
    2. Case No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000952 dated 13 April 2010, Shri Janardhana Rao Vs UCO Bank. Decision pronounced as “Copy of the tour programme and copy of TA bills are not personal information“.
    3. Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000996/SS dated 13.3.2012, U.P. Kamal Vs Coal Mine PF. Decision pronounced as “Official tours undertaken under the budgetary resources of the public authority can not be considered personal information“.
    4. Information sought at point (6) is related to Estt. Matter and not exempted u/s 24(1). Besides this the enquiry report is not a personal document or personal information as enquiry has been conducted by public servant and source of financial expenditure incurred in conducting an enquiry is public money. Hence information sought does not attract section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act.
    5. Appellant is surprised from the action of CPIO by replying in Hindi language however RTI Application was written in English. CPIO is not aware of CIC decision in Case No. CIC/SM/A/2012/001234 dated 06.02.2013 Sita Ram Vs DOPT and CIC/WB/A/2006/00117 dated 13 June 2006 JK Jain Vs DDA in which it has been decided that “Reply should be provided in the same language in which the application has been made as long as it is a local or national language”. Therefore FAA, DRDO  is kindly requested to issue instructions to CPIO to follow the CIC decisions regarding reply of RTI application in English to be replied in English only.

7.      To provide reasons when information denied u/s 8(1)(j)

  1. CPIO, DRDO HQ is not aware of CIC decision in case No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 07.07.2006 . Decision pronounced is “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act“.
  2. CPIO has not given any reasons as to how he arrived to the conclusion that information sought is personal information u/s 8(1)(j). CPIO also not mentioned the grounds on which he rejected the RTI application under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Thereby he violated the CIC decisions and provisions of RTI Act. To use the shadow of section 8(1)(j) by CPIO for rejection of RTI application is  illegal , prejudice and malafide.

8.      Provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005

Appellant would also like to draw kind attention of FAA, DRDO  on the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 “Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person“.

The information sought by appellant regarding “Enquiry of financial irregularities in development of BPJ-1318” has to be provided to Parliament by DRDO, thereby the information sought   should be provided to appellant.

8.    Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                                
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879
Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com
Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com   

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DRDO HQ/2013/01

Date: 07th September, 2013                                                                           Enclosure: two 

(1)  Letter from CPIO, DRDO HQ dated 23 Aug 2013

(2)  RTI Application dated 18 July 2013.

dmarde hqrs reply20004

 

To                                                                                                                               18th July 2013
Dr. A. K. Tyagi
Scientist ‘F’ and Head RTI Cell
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
DRDO HQ, Room No. 314-A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011                         

 Hello,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  1. Provide copy of the complaint filed regarding financial irregularities etc against Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur in Development of Bullet Proof Jacket under GSQR-1318.
  2. Whether any enquiry was conducted by DRDO HQ on this complaint. (Yes/No)
  3. The name & designation of officer who conducted the enquiry at DMSRDE, Kanpur.
  4. Provide the date on which enquiry was conducted.
    1. Provide copies of movement orders in respect to Dr. K Muraleedharan Scientist ‘G’, Director of Materials (DOM) to visit DMSRDE, Kanpur during 01 January 2013 to 30 June 2013.
    2. Provide copy of enquiry report/findings of the Enquiry Officer after enquiry was completed.

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

It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II.  This RTI request is directly related with corruption.

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  98E 528555

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

Drdo

Fooling the RTI applicant by DRDO with help of DoPT

3 Comments
To                                                                                                                 2nd August 2013
Shri R K GIRDHAR
Under Secretary 
RTI Section, Room No 215 A /II                                                                                                                                                   North Block, New Delhi

Subject: Fooling the RTI applicant by DRDO with help of DoPT

Sir,

  1. I have send a RTI request CPIO,Under Secretary (Estt.A-IV) R.No.202, North Block, D/o.Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi on 23rd July 2013. (Copy enclosed for your ready reference.)
  2. I have received a letter from Sh B Bandyopadhyay, Under Secretary, & CPIO, vide letter No 28034/265/2013-Estt.(A) dated 29th July 2013 stated that my application forwarded to CPIO,DRDO Hqrs for providing information directly to me. Copy enclosed)
  3. Subsequently vide letter no RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0210 DRDO Hqrs CPIO, Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’   refused to disclose this information u/s 24 (1) of the RTI Act.

In view of above I would like to inform you some facts for your kind perusal.

  1. In 11th July 2011 I had requested similar RTI request to DoPT and received proper information from Sh Mohd. Moniruazzaman, CPIO vide letter F.No 29/41/2011/EO(SM-II) date 2nd August 2011. ( Copy enclosed)
  2. The DRDO Hqrs CPIO, Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’ is facing CVC probe vide CVC No.569/11/9. Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’ major concern to protect corrupt officials by not providing information to RTI applicants who want expose DRDO officials  corrupt practices in procurement/ recruitments/ promotions / extensions etc.                         The current status of Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’ case is the case file No 203/D/(Vig.II)/2011 was referred to CVC on 17th July 2013 from CVO, Ministry of Defence for further action.
  3. In my RTI request is directly related to corruption in Sh R C Agarwal’s extension case, the guidelines FR 56 d was not followed properly.   Sh R C Agarwal have no international or national reputation credits, his second extension backed by DRDO for Software Defined Radio Project (100 Cores),  without any output PDC Date 27th July 2013, there is no further extension received by DEAL, DRDO till date. As per sources 18 members team of Project Management Review Committee found that project is not feasibly fit for further extension on 14th August 2013 but the DRDO will manage to get extension for another 12 months for wasting rest Rs 40 corers precious poor tax payers’ money.

It is requested to do needful action to replace Dr A K Tyagi from the duty of CPIO as he is facing CVC inquiry against him.

It is requested to kindly directed Sh B Bandyopadhyay, Under Secretary, & CPIO to provide the requested information as earlier followed by DoPT.

Regards,

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

Enclosed

  1. Copy of RTI request sent to CPIO,Under Secretary (Estt.A-IV) R.No.202, North Block, D/o.Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi on 23rd July 2013.
  2. Copy of letter of Sh B Banddyopadhyay, Under Secretary, & CPIO, vide letter No 28034/265/2013-Estt.(A) dated 29th July 2013.
  3. Copy of denial letter no RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0210 dated 16th August 2013 from  DRDO Hqrs CPIO, Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’
  4. Copy of   Sh Mohd. Moniruazzaman, CPIO vide letter F.No 29/41/2011/EO(SM-II) date 2nd August 2011

Copy to

  1. Prime Minister of India, PMO, South Block, New Delhi
  2.  Defence Minister of India, Room No 104, South Block, New Delhi.
  3. Dr. Syamal Kumar Sarkar, Secretary, MOP, Room No-112, North Block, New Delhi
Drdo

RTI – DMSRDE- PCDA (R&D)

Leave a comment
To,                                                                                                                   20th August 2013
Dr. Jairaj Naik, IDAS
Jt. CDA, CPIO
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block
R.K. Puram
New Delhi-110066

Subject: Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly provide the following information under section 2(f), 2(i), 2(j) and 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide the details of bills passed for payments of third party (Vendor/ supplier /Firms) claims forwarded by DMSRDE, Kanpur by O/o PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and O/o AO (R&D), ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur for the period 01/01/2011 to 31/07/2013 for the amount between One lakh to Fifty lakh for purchase of store and services with following information in each bill.
  • Particulars of store (item purchased) and service hired
  • Particular of vendor/firm to which payment was made(Cheque issued)
  • Amount of bill/cheque issued
  • Date of payment
  • Mode of tendering- Single/Single with PAC/Limited/Open
  • Whether repeat order(Yes/No)

2.    Details of all bills passed and cheque issued by AO(R&D), ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur and O/o PCDA(R&D) in favour of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd., New Delhi/ SM Carapace Armor, New Delhi with following information.

  • Particular of store (item purchased) and services hired.
  • Amount of bill
  • Date of payment/ cheque issued
  • Mode of Tendering- Single/Single with PAC/Repeat Order/Limited /Open
  1. In one year how many repeat order can be issued as per Purchase Manual 2006 of DRDO/Any other Govt. Rules in case of
  • Store
  • Services
  1. Whether repeat orders could be issued in case of services/AMC/ services hired like hired vehicle for transport etc as per PM 2006. (Yes/No)
  2. If answer to point (4) is yes then provide the copy of said rule.
  3. Whether M/s SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd/SM Carapace Armor/or any other subsidiary of SM Group is registered with DMSRDE, Kanpur or with HEMRL, Pune (Yes/No)
  4. If answer to point (6) is yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by DMSRDE, Kanpur or HEMRL, Pune.
  5. Provide the details/category under which any subsidiary firm under SM Group New Delhi like SM Pulp/SM Carapace is registered with HEMRL / DMSRDE as per Rule 3.2 of PM 2006.
  6. If registered at HEMRL/DMSRDE then date of registration.
  7. Copies of Supply Orders issued to SM Pulp Packaging/SM Carapace Armor for the Financial years
    1. 2010-2011
    2. 2011-2012
    3. 2012-2013
  1. Inspection of documents/records for passing the bills of SM Pulp Packaging and SM Carapace Armor , New Delhi for the FY 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2012-2013.

An IPO of Rs. 10 No. 16F 966245 is enclosed as application fee.

Date – 20th August 2013
 ( J P. Sharma)
Advocate
Chamber No.64, First floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
      Court Compound
Dehradun-248001
Uttarakhand                    
Copy to
Shri V.N. Singh, ACDA
AO (R&D), DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013
Drdo

RTI- CVO,MoD

2 Comments
To                                                                                10th August 2013
Samir Ranjan Amin
U/Secretary &  CPIO
Room No – 340, Office of Director of Vigilance
B- Wing Sena Bhawan
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Dr A K Tyagi, Sc ‘F’,DRDO Hqrs, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,New Delhi.

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 by undersigned.

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

Information Sought

  1. Provide the copy of correspondences between CVO,MoD and DRDO Hqrs in respect of Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Scientist ’F’, DRDO, Ministry of Defence.
  2. Current status of vigilance enquiry – completed/ still in investigation stage

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  16F 964391

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com
Drdo

DMSRDE – RTI

2 Comments
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’
CPIO
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013

Sub:            Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide list of Scientists/Officers claiming rebate in Income Tax on rent paid by submitting rent receipt to DMSRDE, Kanpur in the following format for-

(i) FY 2010-2011                    (ii) FY 2011-2012               (ii)  FY 2012-2013

 

S.N. Name of Scientist & Rank Financial Year Rent claimed per month as per rent receipt Total rebate on rent paid in Income Tax
  1. Provide the addresses for which the Scientists/Officers submitted rent receipt in following format
S.N. Name of Scientist & Rank Financial Year Address in rent receipt Rent claimed per month
  1. Provide the copies of Form 16 issued by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur for AY 2012-2013 and AY 2013-2014 in respect of Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
  2. Provide copies of verified rent receipt submitted by Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ to get income tax rebate on house rent paid for the AY years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 ( Financial Year 2011-2012 & 2012-2013).
  3. Provide the copy of the undertaking given by Shri Amit Kumar , Scientist ‘D’ to Director, DMSDRE in respect to that ‘He will liable to pay Income Tax and Penalty on Income Tax in case it was found that his claim for both HBA interest and rent paid was found illegal’.
  4. Provide Copy of Income Tax Rules  on ground of which Shri Amit Kumar was allowed to get rebates in income tax both on rent paid and  on HBA interest by Director, DMSRDE , Kanpur.
  5. Copy of Declaration in Form No. 10BA under Rule 11 (B) of IT Act by Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ during FY 2011-12, 2012-2013.
  6. Provide copy of salary slips for the months June 2013 and July 2013.
  7. Provide Owner name and address of house for which the rent receipts were submitted by Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
  8. Provide Copy of the Performa submitted by Shri Amit Kumar to finance division for claiming rebates and informing saving details duly verified by Administration Division after confirming the present address from his personal case.
  9. The date on which Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ left the Government Accommodation . Provide copy of vacation report/certificate issued by MES to Estate Division in respect of Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
  10. The date from which Shri Amit Kumar is submitting rent receipt in order to claim/get rebate in rent paid in Income Tax.
  11. Whether any Vigilance Committee/other Committee was constituted by Director, DMSRDE to verify that the concerned Scientist/Officer claiming rebate on basis of rent paid is living on the address claimed and not submitting fake/forge receipt for house rent? (Yes/No)
  12.  If Yes then provide the copy of the letter by which the said Vigilance Committee/Other Committee for this purpose was constituted.

This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010.

Besides this the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005. An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee is enclosed.

Date: 31 July, 2013                                                                                       
                                                                                                           (Rajiv Chauhan)                                                                                              
                                                                                                       1053/3,Shastrinagar, Meerut(UP)-250005

Enc : IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No  16F 964390