NEW DELHI: Defence minister AK Antony has asked investigation agencies to probe into charges levelled against Delhi-based businessman Abhishek Verma, by his former partner, accusing him of acting as a middleman in several defence deals and parking over $205 million in accounts in a bank in the US.
“I have asked the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate to investigate the allegations. The defence secretary has also been asked to take necessary action,” Antony said.
These allegations have been made by C Edmond Allen, head of a New York-based company called Ganton Limited, in a series of letters to Antony. His charges cover purported dealings between Ganton, which Allen – a non-practising attorney – said was incorporated in the US state of Delaware on Verma’s instructions, and major equipment suppliers to the Indian armed forces such as Rheinmettal, Augusta Westland, Hellenic Defence Systems and Hawker Beechcraft.
A top CBI official said the investigations were at a preliminary stage. “We are in touch with Allen and have asked him to submit the documents in original,” said the official. He also said the agency is coordinating with the Enforcement Directorate as there were allegations of large scale money laundering.
Verma, the son of former Congress leader Srikant Verma, is an accused in the naval war room leak case where several sensitive defence documents were stolen and allegedly leaked to Thales, the maker of Scorpene submarines.
He has denied all charges levelled against him by Allen, and said documents implicating him have been forged. Verma said he had received a notice from the Enforcement Directorate asking for an explanation for the money in the accounts but was unable to comment since the matter was sub judice.
“As several petitions filed by me against C Edmonds Allen are pending in various Indian and foreign courts and these cases are somehow connected to alleged foreign exchange violations in which trial is going on in India under FERA Act for ten years, it will not be possible for me to comment as matters are sub-judice,” he wrote.
According to Allen, the escrow accounts belong to Verma but he had the right to handle them as a result of agreements signed between the two in April 2000 and February 2004. Allen has alleged that the money in these accounts has been obtained through illegal means and that Verma has acted as a middleman in several defence deals. Verma, in turn, has issued legal notices to Allen to return the money and a case has been filed in a district court in New York, according to documents reviewed by ET.
Verma, the son of former senior Congress leader Srikant Verma and MP Veena Verma has business links with Jagdish Tytler, a Congress Working Committee member and the party’s Odisha in-charge. Tytler’s fashion designer son, Siddharth, is a founder shareholder in a company along with a former director of Ganton, Arjun Arora. Siddharth Tytler had also signed a joint venture agreement with Ganton India.
Confirming this Jagdish Tytler also told ET that he knew Verma as his parents were colleagues of his. He denied any knowledge of defence deals that Verma is alleged to be involved in.
Tytler also confirmed being an arbitrator in a dispute involving Ganton and another company over nearly hundred acre of land in Noida which belongs to the Yamuna Express Industrial Development Authority.
People close to Verma say that the allegations levelled against him were at Tytler’s behest, a charge that has been strongly denied by both Tytler and Allen. Allen, however, told ET in an email that Tytler and Verma were very close but had fallen out recently over the Noida land deal.
Allen has also alleged that Verma has often flaunted his links with several powerful politicians which has supposedly ensured that no enquiry is initiated against him. Allen also claims to posses several sensitive defence documents allegedly emailed to him by Verma which show his ‘easy access within the government’.
Corruption Charges
The letters to Antony paint a picture of labyrinthine corruption in defence deals with Verma allegedly at the centre. Some of the documents linked to the case, were publicly released by India Against Corruption (IAC) in late April, a group linked to activist Anna Hazare, after Allen sent the documents to lawyer Prashant Bhushan. In a blog posting in New York Times dated April 27, Allen was quoted as saying that he had approached it after Indian authorities showed no interest in his allegations.
In a letter to Antony dated March 28, 2012, Allen alleged that German firm, Rheinmetall AG, paid Ganton $530,000 to reverse its blacklisting by India’s defence ministry. The money was supposedly paid through the firm’s UBS account in Switzerland, according to bank statements of Ganton Limited, and an invoice generated by the company.
Emails sent by ET to Rheinmetall officials did not elicit a response.
The Navy’s deal for procurement of torpedoes for Scorpene submarines from an Italian company has come in for questioning with a Member of Parliament writing to the Central Vigilance Commission seeking a probe into alleged corruption in the selection.
Jainarayan Prasad Nishad, who had earlier written to Defence Minister A K Antony, has alleged that WASS heavy water torpedo was selected for procurement “without validation of critical parameters at sea for speed and range” as specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP).
The RFP clearly stated that only those vendors who could successfully perform dynamic trials of the offered torpedo would be considered but “this was totally ignored in the case of WASS, Italy and the deal was pushed in favour of WASS, thereby ignoring the technical conditions laid in the RFP, Nishad has said.
Citing “(defence) ministry sources” and articles published in some defence magazines, the JDU MP from Bihar has claimed that in the case of the deal, the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) was “manipulated and violated for pecuniary financial gains”.
In his letter to Antony, Nishad has contended that the then DG Acquisition had recommended re-issuance of the RFP as the Defence Procurement Procedure was “not being followed and the RFP was ab-initio defective” but later, the Navy used the “excuse” of urgency to reverse the decision and sent it to the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) for approval to consider WASS “as a resultant single vendor”.
Alleging wrongdoings in the process that dates back to 2007 and 2008, the MP claimed that to ensure the RFP was not cancelled, the Navy had “deliberately cleared” another bidder ATLAS Elektronik of Germany at the TEC (Technical Evaluation Committee) stage and rejected it after trials.
“Creating a single vendor scenario through manipulation to overcome the DPP, which has happened in this case, and selecting an inferior product, could lead to the security of the nation being compromised for pecuniary financial gains,” he warned in the letter to Antony.
On getting no response from Antony, the MP shot off a letter to CVC Pradeep Kumar along with the one written to the Defence Minister in January this year. “This has vigilance angle,” he wrote, requesting probe into the matter “seriously” and take necessary steps to stop any possibility of corruption in the deal.
Earlier, ATLAS Elektronik had also cried foul play and sent letters of complaint to the Defence Ministry.
Meanwhile, reacting to the allegations levelled by Nishad, Navy spokesperson Commander P V S Satish said, “For the moment all I can say is that all acquisitions undertaken by the Indian Navy are done with due care and adherence to laid down procedures”.
“Trials were conducted as per the procedures approved by the DAC and were acceptable to both the vendors (in the contract),” he added. The Navy has plans of procuring around 100 torpedoes for the fleet of its six Scorpene submarines, which are being constructed by the Mazagon Dockyarads Limited (MDL) in partnership with French DCNS.
India became a nuclear state with underground explosion on 18th May 1974, known as Pokhran-I (Smiling Buddha). The economic condition then did not permit this misadventure as the fallout was international sanction.
Sh. Atal Bihari Bajpai, then opposition leader expressed his view in the parliament “A hunter went for hunting the lion in the deep & dense forest on a bullock cart, when the lion appeared and roared the hunter in hurry asked his subordinate to load the gun, the helping hand said sorry sir, in a hurry we forgot to bring the gun but license is with us. The hunter requested the lion please give me some time to bring the loaded gun and then I assure you a decisive fight”
What Sh Bajpai said then was proved during KARGIL WAR 1999, the active defence asked for latest arsenal from DRDO and in return DRDO showed them the license.
DRDO bosses show the licenses instead the loaded gun (Product) and when the user demand they always seek more time. This mockery will continue until a firm accountability is implemented and user active participation in project/ program is made mandatory.
User requirements if not met in time then concerned officers who participated in developmental process should be made accountable.
Until these steps are taken, DRDO will only show the licenses of doing research even if country faces next KARGIL like scenario.
DRDO needs similar determination in development projects/programs like the US & Russia. When Americans developed the mother of bomb GBP-43/B with blast yield 11 Ton in 2003, then in 2007 Russia produced Father of Bomb (ATBIP) with blast yield 44 Ton. And now US produced MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator) which penetrate 60 feet thick concrete wall bunker and will reach the target with satellite guidance.
SA to RM is not only to enjoy the personal gym which was constructed and procured at Development enclave under project funds but he is also supposed to accelerate the developmental efforts in frontline technologies having 20 years life.
The constitutional limitation of SA to RM is such that he is not able to take timely decision/action to save the image of DRDO like Sh T Mohan Rao, Director, GTRE’s massage parlour episode; he has overlooked GTRE lab which is running without suitable and committed head since May 11, 2011. Similarly like Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, lots of cases/complaints pending against him with documentary evidences right from Defence Minister, CVC, Women Cell, Court etc but SA to RM does not bother about the image of DRDO.
This type of corrupt team of DRDO are becoming role model for the young scientists and in the process sincere scientists leaving DRDO.
The decision made for extension of service is without any analysis. The incompetency is growing, the deserving are the sufferers, the team lead by aspiring seniors stop working and result no output is poor tax payer of the country is ultimate looser.
The PMO, the Finance Minister is not able to find the hole in their GDP. In last 20 years technology import by DRDO has bypass all the procurement policy. For DRDO Directors “money is flowing”. The government has show leniency and the technology being imported is on its peak. 90% of the sanction budget for DRDO is being spent on 15 years old abandon technology of developed nations.
The experts from DRDO justify the procurement as the supplier agents offers them massage parlour to hefty commissions, good food, spa and stay in a 5 stars for a brief period.
The obsolete technology are imported as custom built item and 5 to 10 times higher cost and paid in Indian currency. The global tenders placed two to three times until the desired supplier decides the percentage of commission with journey to country from where technology is being imported. Further in the name of AMC signed MOU to ensure their periodical personal inputs and this periodical revenue is the sole cause of extension in service.
With this attitude of DRDO top brasses and MoD’s inability to handle the situation can we imagine to ever see the Vision – 2020? It is a big question?
To
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011
Reference: a) Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21st March 2011 b) Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th May 2011
Honorable Sir,
The following news was published on Friday, 13th January 2012 Times of India, New Delhi.
‘AMU VC committed financial impropriety’: CBI is believed to have found that AMU VC P K Abdul Azis had committed financial impropriety and knowingly claimed allowances for which he was not entitled.
Sir, Dr Prahlada, VC, DIAT, DRDO has also did same corruption and the RTI reply from JCDA and DRDO Hqrs proved the same then why the similar action is not taken by Ministry of Defence ?
Dr. Prahlada is not only case in DRDO there are so many other senior officials who have committed similar corruption until my RTI was raised. Like Sh S Ravi, Scientist ‘G’, Sh Neeraj Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ etc.
Please find enclosed documentary evidences of above corrupt practices done by DRDO officials for your needful action.
RTI Reply of DRDO Hqrs in respect of Dr Prahlada, Sh S Ravi, Scietist’ G’ etc
RTI Reply of DRDO Hqrs in respect of Sh. Neeraj Kumar Scientist ‘ D’
DOP,DRDO Hqrs letter for HRA recovery dated 17thAugust 2011
JCDA RTI ReplyDRDO Hqrs ReplyDRDO Qrs RTI Reply 2DRDO Hqrs RTI reply in respect of Sh Neeraj KumarNeeraj Kumar HRA Amount
To
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011
Reference: a) Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21st March 2011 b) Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th May 2011
Honorable Sir,
During UPA-I you assured the nation to fixing accountability on DRDO an organisation which has never been questioned since its inception in 1958.
Sir, until 1980 the cost of projects were few crores but due to the visionary thought of then Prime Minister late Smt. Indira Gandhi the projects/programs were planned for self reliance in south east Asia and in particular in the Indian sub continent. The neighbors Pakistan and China were supporting each other to keep their upper hand but nothing deterred Smt. Gandhi to take decisions which may culminate to self reliance in the defence sector.
Initially the projects were planned collecting inputs from the literature available elsewhere. The proposals worked out where the cost benefit ration never assessed.
The changing technology was constraint and therefore projects/ programs during 90’s were given extensions time repeatedly, in some cases without enhancing the cost, where the cost was enhanced with proper justification were made. The examples are LCA, MBT, SAMYUKTA (EW) etc.
Easy methods were worked out under the guys defence secret to persue the projects beyond sanctioned time, without financial implications. Today in the last ten years the projects/ programs for which PDC extended did not consume more than 7000 crores rupees an amount equal to the annual budget of DRDO.
What is the fall out?
The revenue and buildup money sanctioned for running the projects were diverted to meet the day to day expenses of the projects the projects/ programs, which were running on PDC extensions. The manpower, the infra structure, the electricity bills, the salary, the TA/DA expenses were more than the cost of build up.
This imbalance between revenue and buildup was supposed to be checked by finance ministry.
Without active project and constant engagement of manpower in dead project resulted in to growing incompetency of laboratories.
What to talk about the Scientist ‘G’, Scientist ‘B’ were started giving justifications for the failures and compared the annual expenditure of DRDO as the expenditure meet to counter the natural calamity like earth quake.
Then the top brass of DRDO says 100 crores projects is not a big amount for DRDO. Indian Air Force is losing every alternate day on a MIG-21.
Let SA to RM justify the extensions of services to his beloved/blue eyed boys.
Sir, there are hope of Indian people with you please fix accountability on DRDO.
At least the finance ministry should cross check the equal flow of money in revenue and build up.
Thanking you
RegardsPrabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com, prabhu@dandriyal.com Website – www.corruptionindrdo.comCopy to
1. Prime Minister, PMO, south Block, New Delhi – 110011
2. Finance Minister, North Block, New Delhi – 110011
3. Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, United Progressive Alliance Fax no.23018651
To 15th September2011
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011
Reference: a) Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21st March 2011 b) Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th May 2011
Honorable Sir,
To expose the corrupt practices of DRDO top brasses I sought under RTI Act -2005 several informations and as I have already reported you few cases to you , where DRDO took the shelter under schedule-II exemption and did not gave the information. I approached the appellate authority but he also outright dismisses my requests which were asked in larger public interest.
Finally when I appealed to CIC (Chief Information commissioner) and CIC ordered DRDO authority to furnish the information to applicant.
Now DRDO compelled to issue a letter seeking recovery of HRA (House Rent Allowances) from those scientist/ officers who have stayed/staying in guest houses and also claimed/ claiming the HRA (House Rent Allowances)
The enclosed letter No DOP/03/3100/M/05 dated 17th August 2011 is meaningless until the HRA (House Rent Allowances) recovered with interest from guilty scientist/ officers
DRDO top officers are enjoying this corrupt practice since early 1990.
In this connection an interesting case is that a senior top officer was posted to DRDO Hqrs was stayed in guest house and in the same time he was allotted Type IV/V Government accommodation, which he was rented to private person and collected approx Rs 30000 /month even after his retirement from DRDO. He was continued hold that house almost 5 years after retirement. This is the one of the famous case of DRDO and SA to RM knows it very well. It can happen in only in DRDO.
To stop this corrupt practice permanently from DRDO, Sir, you are requested to consider following and pass the appropriate order to Defence Secretary on this subject matter.
All those scientist/ officers who are staying/or stayed in guest house and claiming or claimed HRA (House Rent Allowances) should refund the amount with interest as per CCS (CCA) rules.
This deliberated attempt to fool the system and generate the illegal money should appropriately deal as per CCS (CCA) rules and to be reflected in their service book.
To 30th August 2011
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011
Honorable Sir,
Promotion of Sh R K Jain, Director, RAC, I have earlier informed you the neck deep nepotism flourishing in RAC, DRDO after Dr P S Goel took the charge of Chairman, RAC. The cut paste technology of RAC Chairman has helped Sh R K jain to claim 50 publications without the references of Journals year of publication, Page Nos etc.
It has been confirm by RAC that out of 50 publications claimed by Sh R K Jain, 37 Publications are technical reports and 10 was abstracts presented in symposia /seminars. The ugly part of these publications, Chairman RAC Dr P S Goel recommended Sh R K Jain “Scientist of the Year” award
What is happening in DRDO, Please order an inquiry, enclosed representation is received by www.corruptionindrdo.com on 29th August 2011
ToDr AK Anthony Dr VK SaraswatDefence Minister SA to RMSouth Block DRDO BhawanNew Delhi New Delhi
Ref— DRDO News Letter-August 2009— Promotion to Bluff Master in “outstanding” category
Dear Sir(s),
Please notice the Resume of Shri RK Jain, Director RAC for promotion from Sc ‘F’ to Sc ‘G’ in ‘outstanding’ category published in DRDO Newsletter- August 2009 – enclosed
flag A Back ground- not the work in the scale of Sc ‘F
flag B Got promotion for installing CCTV. Is it a scientific work? CCTVs are installed in shops, malls, poles, on roads, airports, railway stations, schools, colleges, private offices, PSUs, banks, ministries, homes, community centers.
Is it a work worth even mentioning?
Installing Videoconferencing- Even non scientific organisations are using this technology. Is it a scientific work? Is it research work?
flag C “responsible for 50 publications which include 37 technical reports, chapters in 5 b09ks, monographs and published/presented more th_an 10 papers”
The sentence itself is meaningless, Publications do not include technical reports
50 publications include 10 publications/presentations? What does this mean?
How many publications shri Jain has?
How many presentations has he given?
Where has he ever presented any paper?
What are these five books?
With Internet search, not a single publication is visible.
flag D Misleading- was scientist of the year award in 2006 given for work done 1995? This is not the work done in the scale of Sc ‘F’ and should not have been mentioned at all
This indicates that DRDO promotions have nothing to do with work. The higher ups decide whom to promote No matter what is the work of the scientist or wI1at he writes in his resume – without verifying CCs approves it and the committee is asked to pass it.
Does the work worth giving promotion in ‘outstanding’ category.
Was the promotion given to Sh RK Jain, Director RAC for manipulations in recruitments and assessments??
Minister Sir is requested to verify the truth of this resume
To 22th August 2011The Honorable Prime MinisterPMO, South BlockNew Delhi -110011
Subject: Grant of Extension of service of Scientists beyond the age of superannuation
Honorable Sir, Department of Personnel and Training O M No.26012/8/2011-Estt. (A) Dated the 16th May, 2011 stats that the laid down criteria for extension of service to the scientist should be in term of proviso to
i) FR 56 (d)
ii) Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRCs) headed by the Secretary of the Scientific Departments are constituted by the DOP&T with the approval of Prime Minister for a term of 2 years to consider the cases of extension of service of scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years.
iii) Extension of service of eminent scientists of international stature
iv) Indicate whether this will block promotion opportunities of others in the Department
v) Will be processed further for approval of ACC through the office of the Establishment Officer
Sir, the above guidelines thoroughly overruled by DRDO establishment. When Dr APJ Kalam was granted extension of service he had the expertise and international recognition in his field (Missile Technology). Dr M Natrajan was granted extension on the basis of his work in MBT (Arjun Tank). Dr U R Rao, ISRO got extension because of his contribution in space technology.
DRDO, once Dr V K Atre became, SA to RM overruled the guidelines of DoPT provisions for extension. A new culture was established that is those scientists who were close to Dr Atre they were recommended for extension without justifying their contributions to science & technology. Afterwards the secretary of DRDO used this tool for those who are expert in misappropriation and manipulation of Government funds and misinterpretation of Government rules to their personal benefits.
These scientists nowhere stand as per guidelines of FR 56 (d) and you will find most of cases the scientists are involved totally in administrative job for years. Interestingly Secretary DRDO removed the required paras of Annexure FR 56 (d) where it states the justification why his service is needed and the details of contributions are thoroughly overruled.
Surprisingly, no one pointed these corrupt practices in the process of granting extension. Some applications which I have received by RTI from DoPT are enclosed for your ready reference. Which are the self explanatory, under the name of Defence research and under the shadow of official Secret Act 1923 and the bonafide possession of CCS Rules 1965 they have be-fooled the DoPT,PMO,ACC etc.
DRDO at an interval of every three months gives extension to at least 10-12 scientists, out of which not a single scientist deserve the recommendation as per guide lines of DoPT O M No.26012/8/2011-Estt. (A) Dated the 16th May, 2011 Normally DRDO Hqrs recommend extension to the (Service Provider) like Sh T Mohan Rao, Ex Director, GTRE (Massage Parlour Fame), DRDO recommend Dr S K Vasudeva of SPIC even beyond 64 years of age as he arranged the all cocktails parties + in 5* with help of CS Constructions etc and provide Mrs Kanimozhi‘s methods routing money through her daughter’s firm M/S M V- Grfix as IB already reported to PMO.
DRDO recommends the name of scientists/Directors who manage the misappropriation of funds of projects/ programs. As an example the case of Sh R C Aggarwal, Director, DEAL, Dehradun and Sh Iqbal Singh of IRDE, Dehradun Sh R C Aggarwal joined as Charge-man and become Director, DEAL as Scientist ‘G’ in 2007.
He has no international publications,No patents,No significant contribution in any projects at LRDE, NPOL, DLRL and DEAL where he was posted earlier
As a director he wrote an essay (cut paste copy technology) on Software Defined Radio and prepared a proposal for sanction having 60 sub contracts paras. This proposal opened up an avenue to distribute poor tax payer’s money. Rs 100 Crores sanctioned for SDR project and with few months he was promoted as Scientist ‘H’ and also got extension for two years and waiting Scientist for Director’s post Sh K N Rao of DEAL died with shock (Heart Attack).
Sh R C Aggarwal’s extension was recommended by Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO who was Scientist ‘E’ in 2001 when Sh R C Aggarwal was Scientist ‘F’. The DPRC which recommended Sh R C Aggarwal had a external member Dr P S Goel, Charman, RAC, whose contribution in ISRO as scientist is big zero, No international publications, No patents, only cut copy paste technology expertise.
Sh R C Aggarwal spent Rs 10 Lakh on TA/DA per year so he is able to contribute Rs 1.25 Lakhs per month in GPF account. As he is using Red beacon on his vehicle drawing Transport allowance using official driver in private car for fooling department.
Sh R C Aggarwal very bluntly says “the development of SDR will take 20 years time” and the PDC of SDR is 36 months.
Dr S C Jain who is enjoying extension but in the same time did not get the promotion to Scientist ‘H’, when he was not fit for promotion then how come he was recommended for extension in service, it can only happened in DRDO.
He has no international publications,No patents,No significant contribution in any projects at DEAL
But he is master in manipulation of government funds and misinterpretation of government rules in the interest of his boss. The reason he was benefited, was to get extension and job for his son who has fake qualification.
Sh Iqbal Singh Scientist ‘H’, IRDE, Dehradun got extension without justification of his scientific contribution.
He has no international publications,No patents,No significant contribution in any projects at IRDE
Only significant contribution is misappropriation of government funds, he gave orders to a firm where his son works
Dr S S Sundaram, Director, IRDE, Distinguished Scientist got extension for his golden achievement in project SAMYUKTA (Electronic Warfare), it is well known that Project SAMYUKTA started with Rs 250 Crores initial cost in May 1994 and when buried unceremoniously in 2006 it consumed Rs 6000 Crores of poor tax payer’s money.
Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO never did science and there is no question of scientific contribution. He is master in manipulation the governments rules and extend the path of favoritism to benefit DRDO’s top brasses wards. Appointment of his own daughter as scientist ‘B’ by violating all recruitment rules of DRDO. The enquiry is going on without any result like DRDO projects because the chairman of enquiry Dr Salwan, Ex DRDO scientist got Rs 80 Lakhs project with Rs 1 Lakh/month salary from Dr Arun Kumar itself.
The Honorable Prime Minister is requested to stop this criminal act of DRDO’s extension business, which they are recommending without justification. Please go through the recommended applications of DRDO scientists which I have received from DoPT through RTI.
Sir, this is the major reason of brain drain in DRDO because I am receiving lot of mails of ex DRDO young scientists from all over the world in my website www.corruptionindrdo.com, they share their experiences in this pathetic condition of DRDO.
Defence Minister, Room No 104- South Block, New Delhi- 110011
Shri Shashi Kant Sharma, Defence Secretary, Room !01- South Block, New Delhi – 110011
Ms. Alka Sirohi, Secretary (Personnel), Room No 112, North Block-110011
Dr V K Saraswat, D G (R&D), DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi=110105FR 56 (d) comparisonNo.26012/8/2011-Estt. (A)Government of IndiaMinistry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions(Department of Personnel and Training)North Block, New Delhi,Dated the 16th May, 2011
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Grant of Extension of service of Scientists beyond the age of superannuation – Issue of instructions regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel & Taining O.M. No.26012/6/2002-Estt.(A) dated 9.12.2002 (copy enclosed) on the subject mentioned above laying down the criteria for considering cases of extension of service of Scientists in terms of proviso to FR 56(d) and to state that the guidelines for extension of service of eminent scientists of international stature beyond 62 years have been further reviewed as a need has been felt for a rigorous Peer group screening by an inter disciplinary Committee of experts.
2. Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRCs) headed by the Secretary of the Scientific Departments are constituted by the DOP&T with the approval of Prime Minister for a term of 2 years to consider the cases of extension of service of scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years.
3. It has now been decided with the approval of Prime Minister that the existing/reconstituted Departmental Peer Review Committee shall also do the first stage screening of Scientists for their extension beyond 62 years of age and thereafter the DPRCs’ recommendations will be placed before the Committee under the Cabinet Secretary provided that the DPRCs’ have at least two outside experts apart from Secretary (Personnel & Training). The DPRCs must give detailed justification for such extension based on merits of the case; the international stature of the person recommended and also indicates whether this will block promotion opportunities of others in the Department. Such recommendations of the DPRCs for extension of service of Scientists beyond 62 years will be sent of the Establishment Division of the Department of Personnel & Training for placing the cases before the Committee under Cabinet Secretary. Only such cases recommended by the Committee under Cabinet Secretary will be processed further for approval of ACC through the office of the Establishment Officer. Cases of extension of service of Scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years recommended by DPRC will continue to be sent directly to the office of Establishment Officer in DOP&T as at present.
4. All proposals for extension of service of Scientists beyond 62 years in terms of the 3rd proviso to FR 56(d) may, therefore, be processed keeping in view the above guidelines in addition to the criteria stipulated in the OM dated 9.12.2010.
(P.Prabhakaran)Director (E)
DoPT RTI replyDoPT Reply for Sh R C Aggarwal Page 1DoPT Reply for Sh R C Aggarwal page 2DoPT Reply For Sh R C Aggarwal page 3DoPT Reply for Sh Iqbal Singh page 1DoPT Reply for Sh Iqbal Singh Page 2
To 18th August 2011
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011
Reference: a) Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21st March 2011
b) Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th May 2011
Honorable Sir, The mood of country man from village to industry, to Government agency has taken in one line- fight against corruption.
The patriotism has come out and the nuisance mongers are still denying the facts. They have no courage to face the real scenario. In DRDO a practice has been followed for a quite some time that DRDO must have a big programs without the feasibility study and without the realizing the strength and weakness. A 100 crores was sanctioned to DEAL, Dehradun to develop Software Defined Radio (SDR), but the truth behind the green room is the laboratory has not developed a single frequency radio on its own and when they are talking to develop SDR it appears a big crime.
The knowledgeable team with in the country who has knowledge about radio they have not contacted prior to conceive the proposal of “SDR”. One such reaction of a patriot and technocrat is enclosed.
This reaction is result of the open tender floated by DEAL, Dehradun’ SDR’s team. Tender: DEAL/206/4043/2011-2012/D100/074 Dated: 09, Aug 2011, Opening Date: 27, Sep 2011 tender for Development of SCA Core Framework.
The expert feels that specification have been laid down by a person who does not know a bit of radio.
The file has initiated with the estimated cost of Rs 6 Crores with a delivery period as mentioned in tender is not later than 82 weeks from the date of signing of contract. It is interesting to note that the PDC of SDR project is July 2013 and this assignment of Development of SCA Core Framework definitely going to cross the PDC limit of the SDR.
The sources said that the estimated cost is exorbitantly high and Malafide intension and misappropriation of government money is clearly visible. The tender directly or indirectly will go to hand of M/s Spectrum Signal Processing BC Canada
This is for the information of ugly act of Sh R C Aggarwal, Director, (extension) DEAL, Dehradun.
Note – This 100 Crores project encourage him to increase GPF subscription upto 1.25 Lakh per month, hope this input will compel you to think twice for DRDO corrupt bosses.
Enclose – E-mail of a Technocrat regarding SDR Project
Dear sir, I have gone to yr site. It is really interesting to see how these govt departments are working for the benefit of our beloved country. See I have enclosed one tender fr one of labs of drdo . I hav had a bitter experience with them in the past. They do not know anything but pretend that they r all experts. This tender documents clearly shows that they r not only trying to get a partner for developing their project and that too at their own interest. They do not know a bit about radios forget software radios. How goverment has sanctioned them this project when there under-statement in the tender clearly shows that they hardly know the software architecture of the their would-be-radio.yet They r all set to review the work of tenderer. They will try to get it done for themselves and yet not share the IPR and Copyrights. Finally they will get it procured from somewhere and put their stickers on it and claim that it is theirs. I have come to know from our principals in US they (MOD) have already STUCK A DEAL with a Company for supply of items for three service and the project is only to fill the gaps. The persons in DEAL have hardly any experience in writing codes and data how they r going to evaluate from others. Perhaps they will get to learn a lot from the DP. Sir pl give this tender wider publicity because it is only a farce. They get all the information from you and will abort the contract later on. Beware all tenderers! they r all fraud and corrupt people.
Keep doing good work sir,
Warm regards
Tender Details – “Development of SCA core framework”, DEAL* Defence Electronics Application Laboratory, DRDO. Dehradun Start Date 10-08-2011 16:20:33 End Date 27-09-2011 13:30:00
Contact
For any technical queries the DPs may contact the following:
Shri L. C. MangalScientist ‘F’Group Head – SDR Baseband Systems GroupPhone-0135-2223113 / 2789081Email-lcmangal@deal.drdo.inShri Satendra Kumar YadavScientist ‘E’Phone-0135-2223173Email-satendra@deal.drdo.in
To
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011
Reference: a) Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21st March 2011
b) Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th May 2011
Honorable Sir,
As the chancellor of DIAT, Pune you have taken the decision to remove Dr. L M Patnaik but have decided to place Dr Prahlada who is yet another big corrupt DRDO official. Sources reveal that yesterday Fax order’s saying Dr L M Patnaik was terminated; it shows the situation (discipline) of high profile deemed Defence University.
The selection of Vice Chancellor for DIAT is not done in accordance with the guidelines of Government of India, which is laid down for such prestigious appointments. Please refer the Gazette Notification No 146, Part-II, Section-4 –
The Universities are Independent bodies and the university Vice Chancellor is the leader of an institution of higher education. According to the standard he / she must be a noted scholar (Dr.Parhalada rules to accomplish this?), who is responsible and excellent (Dr.Parhalada meet these criteria?), as well as the person who has high moral. (Who once said to an SC DRDO Scientist “you people are not born for higher studies”). Sir, you are very well aware of this incident of DRDO’s M Tech selection board. http://bit.ly/p20SwG
He was posted as CC (R&D) in DRDO Headquarters in November 2005 and since then he was staying at C – 7 Guest House. JCDA, R&D reveled in RTI response that he is drawing HRA as well. He has also attracted disciplinary action as in the CCS (CC & A) 1965 rules of action against Dr. Prahlada. Why not take steps to DRDO pending lawsuit against Dr. Prahlada. (RTI Enclosed for your ready reference)
The working of DRDO is now in full swing corruption and nepotism. In Vice Chancellor for DIAT advertisement it was put on Internal Intranet DRONA of DRDO. It is 100% violation of recruitment rules for such higher post and the best part of this out of 7356 so called best scientists, only the most corrupt official was chosen. No patents, no international publications, no academic excellence was considered in the case of Vice Chancellor for DIAT.
Sir, your image in the country is one of most honest persons and recently UPA Chairman; Smt. Sonia Gandhi had also shown her faith on you by delegating powers in absence of her. But in the cases of DRDO it is not understandable that why you are taking such lenient steps by allowing these corrupt scientists of DRDO to thrive in spite of receiving all the evidences against them. You simply believe that constituting a committee is the only way to handle the situation.
i) The case of DLRL the complete documentary evidences are being submitted for your kind consideration. What happened to your letter I received in the following context — http://bit.ly/phH6vR
A committee constituted – Ms Shobha Verma, Addl Director, Mr Sashtri, Director Anurag Cell and Sh SL Badnikar, Director GAETEC. They recorded all statements and submitted the report but nothing about corrupt officials of DLRL.
ii) The Case of Sh T Mohan Rao against whom the FIR was registered and he spent one night in jail but next day he got the bail with the help of same lawyer who bailed out the supplier of GTRE Sh VN Narayan, representative of ILN Technologies. The question was raised by Honorable Member of Parliament Sh Navtej Singh Siddhu on 8th August 2011 but Joint Secretary replied that matter is sub judicious, Sh Mohan Rao was only removed from the Directorship of GTRE but has been attached with CEMILAC another Lab of DRDO in Bangalore. Sh T Mohan Rao even not informed his superior about his detonation officially and very next day he went to GTRE and made another Identity card from the security, as his mobile and identity card were seized by the police during interrogation. It is difficult to digest that such a high profile man enjoying extension of service without work and on the other side you only announced the removal in Commodore Sukhjinder Singh for Admiral Gorshkov similar case. Why so soft corners for DRDO corrupt officials? http://bit.ly/p8m6Vahttp://bit.ly/qYJOzq
iii) The case of Dr S K Vasudeva, working in contract in SPIC DRDO where plenty of unaudited funds are looted by corrupt officials, you already verified it with IB. the list of companies which were indulging in SPIC game is so lengthy and you are aware about it through the IB reports. Still the Dr S K Vasudeva is enjoying his status in SPIC while the new Director, Dr Satish Kumar is only puppet. The daughter of Dr S K Vasudeva, Ms Vinita just removed her stuff from the involved company’s premises few days ago. She is the owner of M V Grafix and her role is like Mrs Kanimozi in 2G Scam.
iv) Irregularities being committed by Dr. Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO Hqrs. in the matter of recruitment of appointment to the post of Scientist ‘B’ ( A Group ‘A’ Gazetted Post in DRDO) http://bit.ly/npjQ8X
An independent inquiry committee has been constituted in DRDO HQ, New Delhi Vide Directorate of Vigilance and Security Note No. DVS/02/2053/P/01 Dated 17Mar. 2011 regarding the acts of corruption committed by Dr. Arun Kumar in getting her daughter Ms. Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’ in response to the advertisement no. 66 item no. 34 meant for stream of Biotechnology. Ms. Swati Srivastava did’t has MSC. in Biotechnology, but she had her MSC in Environmental Biology. The concerned file no. is DRDO/V&S/ INQ- AK/2011. http://bit.ly/pFaMUe
Dr.Arun Kumar also manipulated in DRDO Official records, in the seniority roll of his daughter the information is as follows
Pin No S.No. Name Estt DoB Date of Appt. Education Discipline 2004AB1131 1542 Swati Srivastav DIPAS 23/9/1981 1/7/2009 MSc(BiotTech) Biotechnology
Why are your hands closed for taking any decisions to these most corrupt and anti-national official of DRDO or they are managing any deal like NTRO’s Dr MS Vijayraghwan. http://bit.ly/mRpdU9
Sir, I am requesting you to please take appropriate action to restore the faith in DRDO’s best young talents otherwise they will leave this esteemed organization as more than 1200 scientist have done during the last three years.
