Tag Archives: Details

FIRST APPEAL U/S 19 OF Right to Information Act, 2005 to IAF Regarding Rs 7900 Cr Scam in IACCS Project News Publish in First Post

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

Date: 20.06 2019

To,             

Air Marshal PP Bapat VSM

Air Officer-in-charge Administration

Air Headquarters (Vayu Bhawan)

Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110106

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19 of RTI Act 2005.

Reference:  i)    My RTI application dated 03rd May 19, received to CPIO Air HQ   on  17th  May 19 CPIO Air HQ

ii)   CPIO Air HQ Reply vide No Air HQ/23401/204/4/17049/E/PS dated 12th  June 2019

          

Sir, I’m disappointed with the reply of CPIO Air HQ. I hereby submit first appeal under Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005.

  1. Details of appellant: Name: Prabhu Dandriyal,

Address: 21 – Sunderwala, Raipur Dehradun, Uttarakhand, Pin – 248001   

  1. Details of CPIO:  Name  Wg Cdr Suman Adhikari

Address Room No. 160, Dte of PS, Air HQ (VB), Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110106

  1. Facts leading to appeal:

An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 3 May 2019 was submitted to CPIO Air Hq sought information on IACCS project executed by costing approx 7900 Cr as new series posted in various media regarding scam in IACCS project. Being a senior citizen and tax payer I have request for some facts which are not in nature of any strategic information. It is hard to believe that CPIO not denial nor gave requested information judiciously, send reply without application of mind. Copy of RTI application is attached as Enclosure-1.

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

Request information in Para 3 is not provide by CPIO Air Hq and mentioned – not held with this Public Authority, the IACCS directorate in same building and as per RTI act CPIO has to transfer under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 to concern  CPIO of Air Hq  who is responsible for  IACCS Directorate.

Request information in Para 4 is not provide by CPIO Air Hq quoted that “not held with this Public Authority”, But CPIO has to transfer under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 to concern  CPIO of Air Hq  who is responsible for  IACCS Directorate

Request information in Para 7 the CPIO, Air Hq not even denied or mention that information is not available with him, just ignored. Here a big question arise that the vision of RTI Act 2005 is to restrict the corrupt practices prevailing in the system should be checked by citizen of India. The CPIO act clearly shows that he want protect these corrupt practices running in Air force, because  in Para  8 also CPIO even not mention any word just ignored the request of information.

The act of CPIO to ignore the request of Para 7 & 8 shows that CPIO, Air Hq does not believe the constitutional provision of India. The request of information from common citizen is nothing to CPIO, but CPIO want to save culprits..

3. Facts & Grounds leading to appeal:-

the information requested are purely related to corruption and for to take corrective measures to restrict prevailing corruption in defence sector which is very highly dangerous to our national security. Compromising with quality and quantity and encouraging the false documents in procurement and execution in such important project is not anyway appreciable by common country man.

Information not providing vide Para 7 & 8 itself prove that official sitting on seat are not thinking of our future Air Force officials who will going to work their duties in IAACS project centers, basically they are playing with the life of children may be some   present Air Force official’s sons or daughters who wishes to join Air Force like their father.

The CVO reports shows that Air force deputed in these palaces not allowed the senior vigilance officer to visit site and other way they allowed to any tom dick harry of L&T subletting contractor to roam around. Secondly in IACCS Directorate are co-operting BEL corrupt offices in big way.

4, Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vides RTI Application dated 03.05. 2019 by appellant has been not provided properly it is incomplete information given by CPIO, Air Hq. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, Air Hq to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, Air HQ  to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 03 05 2019. Hope FAA will prove that FAA  with “Nabha Sprsham Deeptam” not with corrupt officials who are busy with minting money and compromising with national security and also playing with life of our future Air Force aspirants. 

5. Declaration:-

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

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

 Enclosure: Five

  1. Copy of My RTI Application dated 03 May 2019 to CPIO Air Hq
  2. Copy of Reply of  CPIO, Air Hq, Delhi dated 12 June 2019
  3. Copy of BEL, CVO recommendation regarding irregularities in IACCS Project
  4. Copy of email sent by site engineer which is clear evidence of BEL official corruption with support with Air Force officials.
  5. Copy of one Earth Profile related to IACCS Project

FAA Cabinet regarding Sh Avinash Chander Contractual Appiontment

To,
Dr. Amarpreet Duggal
FirstAppellateAuthority
ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110011
 

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

Reference: F. No. CABST/R/2014/60302-RTI dated 29 August 2014

Sir,

Aggrieved by decision of Shri Rajesh Nagpal, Under Secretary & CPIO, under the provisions of Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005, First Appeal is submitted herewith foryourkind consideration and speaking orders.

  1. Details ofappellant:-
Name Prabhu Dandriyal
Address 21, Sunderwala,Raipur, Dehradun-248001,Uttarakhand

 Details of Central Public Information Officer(CPIO):-

Name & Design. Shri Rajesh Nagpal, Under Secretary & CPIO
Address ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat ,Rashtrapati Bhavan,New Delhi-110011

3.Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:- Letter F. No. CABST/R/2014/60302-RTI dated 29 August 2014 from CPIO, ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat.

 4. Brief facts leading to appeal:

(a)       An application under Section 6 of RTI Act 2005 was submitted online to Shri Rajesh Nagpal, Under Secretary & CPIO on 01 August 2014.  Copy of the RTI application dated 01 August 2014 is enclosed

(b)       CPIO ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat denied/refused for information sought vide his decision letter F. No. CABST/R/2014/60302-RTI dated 29 August 2014.

(c)       CPIO denied for information under the provisions of Section 24 of RTI Act 2005.

(d)       Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi has not been placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 by Government of India.

(e)       Appellant is deeply aggrieved by this decision of CPIO, ACC Cell and this leads to appellant to file first appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

  1. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal and Prayer/Relief:-

(a)     Information sought was related to Business & Charter of Appointment Committee of Cabinet, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. The information sought was regarding appointment of Secretary, Deptt. of Defence R&D(DRD), MOD by Appointment Committee of Cabinet, GOI.

(b)     Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi has not been placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 by Government of India.

(c)     The information sought or any part of it was not at all concerned with details of DRDO projects and therefore Section 24 does not apply on the information sought.

(d)     The custodian of information sought is ACC Cell, hence denial of information is illegal under RTI Act 2005.

(e)     The information was denied to conceal the facts related to irregularities & illegality in contractual appointment of Shri Avinash Chander, CC (R&D) as Secretary, DRD, MOD by ACC.

(f)      Under the provisions of Section 7 subsection(8) [Disposal of Request], reproduced for your ready reference:

Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the request,—

(i) the reasons for such rejection;

(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred;   and

(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.

The CPIO should provide the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred and particulars of the appellate authority but such information was not provided in his letter dated 29 August 2014. Thereby CPIO fails to perform his duties properly and violated the provisions of Section 7(8)(ii) &(iii) so that appellant could not file first appeal.

(g)     As a matter of fact, an another application under RTI Act 2005 was filed on 29th January 2014 to CPIO, DOPT by appellant regarding contractual appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, DRD, MOD. (Annexure FA3)

(h)     The same application under RTI Act 2005(Annexure FA3) was transferred by DOPT vide letter No. 39/3/2014-EO(SM-I) dated 16-04-2014 to CPIO, ACC Cabinet Secretariat. The information sought in the said application under RTI Act forwarded by DOPT to ACC, Cabinet Secretariat was provided to the appellant by Shri K.A. Avinash, US & Link CPIO, ACC vide letter No. F 12015/277/2014 dated 19 May 2014.(Annexure FA4)

(i)       It is very surprising that same nature of information was provided by one CPIO of ACC, Cabinet Secretariat vide letter dated 19 May 2014 but now the same nature of information was denied by another CPIO, ACC on false & illegal grounds.

(j)       The information sought is neither related to DRDO nor DRDO is custodian of the information sought, information sought is not at all related to charter & activities of DRDO, ACC is sole custodian of the information sought and information sought is pertaining to activities, charter & business of ACC under Allocation of Business Rules 1961.

(k)     The denial of information by misusing section 24 of RTI Act 2005 by CPIO, ACC is motivated to protect the interest of particular officer and to conceal irregularities committed by ACC in appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, DRD, MOD.

(l)       CPIO denied information on illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant.

  1. Prayer /relief sought for:-

Appellant sought information vide his application dated 01 August 2014 under RTI Act to CPIO, ACC, Cabinet Secretariat and the information sought was denied by CPIO, ACC. Therefore, it is kindly prayed to FAA, ACC, Cabinet Secretariat that the orders may kindly be issued to CPIO, ACC, Cabinet Secretariat to provide the information sought by appellant in RTI Application dated 01 August 2014 based on the grounds/reasons mentioned above in Para(5).

  1. Declaration:-

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

Regards
Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008 
0135- 2787750,   9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com    www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number            CABST/A/2014/60037

To                                                                                                                            1st August 2014
Shri Rajesh Nagpal,
Under Secretary & CPIO,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 004

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Para (2) of appointment letter No. I2/9/2013-EO (SM.I) dated 31st May 2013 regarding appointment of Shri Avinash Chander, Distinguished Scientist & Chief Controller Research & Development (Missiles &Strategic Systems), DRDO as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri for a period of three years. The appointment of Shri Avinash Chander beyond his date of retirement i.e. 30.1 1.2014, would be on contract basis with the same terms and conditions as he would be entitled to Secretary (DRD) before the date of retirement.(Copy Annexed)

1.Provide copy of Contract Agreement between Government of India and Shri Avinash Chander for the reemployment on contract basis during the period 01 Dec 2014 to 31 May 2016.
2. Provide provisions and rules of Government of India under which Shri Avinash Chander was appointed on contract basis as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri after his normal retirement and completion of two extensions up to the age of 64 Years.
3. Whether an official appointed on contract after retirement can function as Head of Office for all administrative & financial matters in the department.(Yes/No)
4.File noting for appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri.
5. Whether appointment after age of 64 years violates provisions of FR 56(d). (Yes/No)

Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun
Ph 0135 2787750, Mobile 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.comcabinet RTI reply

SA appointment order0001 (1)avanash chander recuirtment details

Corruption Cases of Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur

To                                                                                                        Date 5th July 2014                  
Hon’ble
Shri Arun Jaitly,
Defence Minister,
South Block, New Delhi-110011

Subject: Corruption cases of  Dr.  Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

Defence Materials and Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is one of the establishments under Defence Research & Development Organisation. Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena was appointed as Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur with effect from 01 January 2011 and he is posted in DMSRDE, Kanpur since 28 April 1984. In past 30 years he developed deep connections with local vendors and after his appointment as Director since 01 Jan 2011, these pet vendors are playing major role in procurement of stores & items.

  1. As vigilant & patriot citizen of the country, I filed 12 complaints on issues of Corruption against Dr.  Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE to CVC and Hon’ble Defence Minister with proofs. Details of complaints on Corruption against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena is enclosed as Annexure-1.
  2. CVC has informed me vide his various letter & sms that my all 12 complaints have been forwarded to CVO, Ministry of Defence but till date no action has been taken against Dr.  Arvind Kumar Saxena. Copies of letters from CVC are annexed as Annexure-2.
  3. Since copies of all these complaints were also sent to Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri but till date no action has been taken against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena by Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO.
  4. The two statutory rules viz CCS (Conducts) Rule 1964 and CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 have been framed by Government of India for maintaining good conduct and discipline. Under Rule 14, Government of India Order on “Inquiry Officers to be senior in rank to the officers enquired against” it is mandatory that inquiry officer –Chairman as well as all members Inquiry Committee should be one  rank senior to the officer whose conduct is being inquired into. This principle has been reiterated in CVC Vigilance Manual, Railway Manual, CPWD Manual and all other DOPT Manuals.
  5. Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri is giving patronage to corrupt practices of Dr.  Arvind Kumar Saxena and promoting corrupt officers in the organisation. One simple example of patronage to Dr.  Arvind Kumar Saxena by Shri Avinash Chander, DG R&D, DRDO is to constitute an illegal Fact Finding Committee in Jan-Feb 2014 for inquiring complaints against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena. In this committee Shri SS Negi, Scientist ‘H’ was Chairman and Mr. Manoj Bali, Scientist ‘G’ and Shri Jagdeep, Scientist ‘F’ was members. This Committee was totally illegal as Chairman was of equivalent rank and two members of FFC were very junior to Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena. This establishes that Shri Avinash Chander, DG R&D, DRDO wilfully constituted an illegal committee for giving patronage & protection to corruption in DMSRDE, Kanpur by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena. Intentions of Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO is very open to protect corrupt officer Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena by any means.
  6. This Fact Finding Committee took only one complaint out of my several complaints and gave false report despite FFC did not interact with me and all proofs were submitted along with complaints. That complaint was regarding procurement of ‘REACTOR. The said REACTOR was procured by DMSRDE in 2012 and REACTOR was supplied to DMSRDE in January 2013. Till date payment of said REACTOR has not been made to the vendor.
  7. In light of the above, in the interest of organisation, I kindly request you to take appropriate action against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE   and issue directives to CVO (MOD) to speed up the investigation on my complaints.

With kind regards,

(Prabhu Dandriyal)
21, Sundarwala, Raipur Road
Dehradun-248008

Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com   website – www.corruptionindrdo.com 

Copy to:

  1. Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, PMO, New Delhi.
  2. Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO and SA to RM, New Delhi.
  3. Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.

Annexure:

  1. Details of complaints on Corruption against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena to CVC.
  2. Copies of letters from CVC.

 

List of Complaints to CVC against
Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur
list of complaints dmsrde
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CVC ON COMPLAINTS AGAINST
DR. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR, DMSRDE, KANPUR

RTI was filed to CVC on 29 Jan 2014 and ACPIO replied vide letter No. CVC/RTI/13/1862-24017 that “Information has been gathered, a suitable reply will be sent shortly”.

Vide letter No. CVC/RTI/13/1862/241925 dated 18.03.2014 CPIO, CVC informed that:

  1. Complaint dated 29.11.2013 was sent for necessary action to CVO, MOD vide OM No. 1323/2014/V9 dated 30.01.2014.
  2. Compliant dated 17.12.2013 was sent for necessary action to CVO, MOD vides OM No. 2056/2014/V9 dated 19.02.2014.
  3. Complaints dated 24.12.2013, 26.12.2013, 22.01.2014 have been received in the Commission and their complaint Nos. are 5022/2014/Vigilance9, 4967/2014/ Vigilance9 & 5387/2014/Vigilance9 respectively. These complaints are under consideration in the Commission.
  4. Complaints dated 28.12.2013, 06.01.2014 & 09.01.2014 have been received and these have been sent to CVO, MOD for necessary action vide Commissions OM No. 30714/2013/Vigilance9 dated 26.12.2013, 3617/2014/Vigilance9 dated 10.03.2014 respectively.
  5. Complaints dated 12 Jan 2014, 06 Feb 2014 & 03 March 2014 are consideration of Commission.
  6. Complaint dated 11 June 2014 has been forwarded to CVO (MOD) for further action.
  7. Complaint 13248/2014 has been forwarded to CVO (MOD) for further action on 26th June 2014

FAA Reply for SF Jagdalpur RTI Appeal

28th October 2011

Dear SFcian friends from Jagdalpur,

After receiving of the denial of RTI request by CPIO, DRDO, I appealed the matter to Appellate Authority as expected by us the denial of Appellate Authority, DRDO received by me.

As you already know about Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO, he is the one of the most corrupt official of DRDO and he is the total responsible for downfall of the DRDO. He is the man behind the all manipulations to uplift the incompetent and corrupt  officials of DRDO, their promotions, their posting, their extensions, their illegal financial benefits all matters are taken care by Dr Arun Kumar but question is up to which date because everyone very well know if somebody doing illegal activities it is limit and one has pay for that.

Since the website completed 17 months and in this period I have come across only one good act of Dr Arun Kumar, DOP that is the transfer of two blinds Sh Laxman, Admin Assistant, ACEM, Nasik & Sh Ravindra Gauda, HEMRL, Pune to their hometowns lab, but it was after the pressure of Sh Rajiv Varshnay, SA’s staff officer only. I want to thanks both of them for this noble cause.

I am requested Dr Arun Kumar please act for some good cause in last step of your service, so people will forget wrong doings.

After few months when you will retire no one can even like to say hello to you.

Dear SFcians pleas find below their denial of DRDO, but we will take up this matter to CIC soon and will get proper and legal solutions for issues.

Some important question

  1. The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
  2. The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011

Whether Above info is nature of strategic?

Since they have already  “One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.

I really don’t our honorable SA put these inhuman persons in such important posts.

Thanking you

Regards 

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun 248008
Phone – 0135-2787750, Mobile,  9411114879
E-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com/

Enclosed

1. My appeal to  Appellate Authority, DRDO

2. FAA Reply for SF Jagdalpur RTI Appeal

The Right to Information Act, 2005

First Appeal for Central Govt.

I.D. No_________ Date: _________ [For office use]To                                                                                                                   
Dr Arun Kumar
OS & Director, Directorate of Personal
Room No.-217, DRDO Bhawan , Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105

Sir,
As I am aggrieved by decision/no decision of Central Public Information OfficerI hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.

The reply of CPIO, DRDO, is completely confusing, misleading, incorrect, unjustified and willful not give any information, does not following the spirit of RTI Act 2005.

The information asked about SF Complex Jagdalpur is not come any norms of secrecy. I am not asking about any work or project information of SF Jagdalpur Unit.

1. Details of appellant
1.1       Full Name:                  Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
1.2.      Full Address:               21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
1.3       Phone/Cell No.            0135-2787750 / 919411114879
1.4       Email ID:                     prabhu@dandriyal.com
2. Details of CPIO:
2.1 Name/Designation:           Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, Head RTI Cell, Scientist ‘F’
2.2 Full Address :                    Room No 314 A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India

3. Details of RTI application to CPIO:
Date of Application  : 19th July  2011
Mailed on:   19th July  2011
by  speed post

4. Particulars of payment of filing fee:
Paid Rs.10/- by   Postal Order No. 90E 611227

5. Details of information sought:

1)      The official address of SF Complex (one of the labs/Establishment of DRDO), JAGDALPUR?

2)       Copy of D O part order or any other order regarding the place of reporting duty at Plant Girola Village which is 40 Kms away from Jagdalpur.

3)            Copy of   D O part order any other order in which the employees posted at SF complex first they report to duty at SF Complex then report for duty at Girola Plant Site.

4)      The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011

5)    The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.

Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and human right not come under schedule -II – why because it is noticed that without proper movement orders and without proper maintained vehicles the employees of SF complex are going daily at Girola plant. Earlier in one accident case it is heard that the movement order was made by SF Complex administration in back date to give financial benefits to the deceased family.

6. Particulars of Decision of CPIO:

Date of CPIO’s  Decision:9th August 2011

Date of receipt of decision by the appellant:12th August 2011

7. Brief facts of the case: 

The official address of SF Complex is “SF COMPLEX, AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING, JAGDALPUR-494001”. SFC Employees are given appointment letters with above address as reporting place. But, all are forced to report at the above address as well as at its work centre located at Girola village, Bakawand block, Bastar district. This location is completely out of 40 Kms away from municipality (Jagdalpur) of the official address.

As per rule they should report at the place of posting as per the appointment letter. But it is not so. Is it (forcing to report at other place) not violation of an employee’s right to report at the posting place? The management says that reporting place is at Girola and same time management says Airport terminal building, Jagdalpur. It is clear cut case of harassment of employees of SF Complex.

One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.

If the travelling from Jagdalpur to Girola and back is official and as per the rule and the rule position should be clear for all for management, employees and the general public. After this accident all the staff of SF Complex Jagdalpur took a decision and reported at posting place only. This happened for two days and later management has interfered and threatened to them for report at Girola and told them if they will not report at Girola, will get termination letter.  Employees were forced to report at Girola. It is a violation of Human Right? Reporting at posting place is not correct? Then why appointment letters were given like that?  DRDO has to duty to provide them proper necessary papers as per rule position of Central Government.

The requested information is not come under 8(1) (a) and 24 (1) of the RTI Act at all because the information asked not in the nature of secrecy like The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority. This the major concern of family and friends of employees of SF complex for their safety and well beings. For mere few thousand Rupees from contractors as bribe the Top DRDO officials playing with the life of SF Complex Employees.

The required information is fall under corruption and as well as violation human right and therefore in any means it is not come under schedule –II exemption of RTI Act 2005.

“RTI is a key instrument for imposing democratic values, accountability and transparency in our public administration,” Dr.Shah Faisal (IAS topper 2010 & RTI activist of J&K RTI Movement NGO) told Sakàl Times

 
8. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:
i)     To know the sensitiveness and work environment of DRDO

ii)     To expose the corrupt practices prevailing in DRDO

9. Any other information in support of appeal: 

10. Prayer/relief sought for: 

It is requested that please provide me correct information as per request of my RTI dated 19th   July 2011   in larger public interest, because it is directly related to corruption and violation of Human rights.

11. Enclosures: 

i)              My RTI request dated  19th July 2011

ii)              Denial of CPIO, DRDO Hqrs dated 09 August 2011

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

 

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

Denial of Appellate Authority page 1

Denial of Appellate Authority page 2