Tag Archives: Director

Drdo

Foundation Laid for Recruitment Scam in DRDO

3 Comments
To,                                                                                                                  23rd  October 2013
Shri. Sameer Kumar Khare,
Joint Secretary (Estt.) and Public Grievances & CVO,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 97, South Block,
New Delhi -110 105.

Subject: Foundation Laid for Recruitment Scam in DRDO

CEPTAM was constituted with aim and objective to recruit the technical/ scientific/ admin allied man power, who can be the workforce in major national DRDO projects.

DRDO Hqrs made it a mockery and laughing object. DRDO has violated SRO from beginning of CEPTAM and there are several cases pending in CAT/High courts all across the India.

The recent recruitment drive tells a different story.

CEPTAM – 06 Advertisement Published in Employment News dated 04-10th May, 2013.

No of post advertised in various categories – 844

Approximately 5 lakhs application received (excluding hundreds of applications misplaced)

Approximately 1 lakh applications were rejected for silly reasons (example followed)

Approximately 2 lakhs candidates not able to appear for examination held on 25th August 2013

Approximately 3 lakhs candidates deprived by Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM

It is very big question, how DRDO can give permission to Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM to play with fundamental right of young citizen of India.

Please go through the following facts which clearly shows Sh Rajesh Goyal’s, Director, CEPTAM personal vested interest

  1. The SMS game – All interested candidates who wish to apply for DRDO Entry Test, are compulsorily required to register themselves on mobile no. 56677 of CEPTAM by sending a SMS in this format CEPTAM First choice of Exam City Code Post Code Date of Birth as ddmmyy NAME (Leaving a space between first, middle and last name) Example: CEPTAM 15 0112 231283 Rupesh Kumar Goyal (Name of Director’s son, it is example of pure chamchagiri environment of CEPTAM). Why this SMS system introduced by Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM

Approximately 5 Lakhs application received and each applicant paid Rs 3 for each SMS registration.

Total money received by CEPTAM 15 Lakhs

The contract was cooked with M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS  a computer peripheral supplier and well connected with Sh Rajesh Goyal since he was in ISSA. Anyone can verify these things with back record of firms supply orders vs with Sh Rajesh Goyal’s involvements. The M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS website http://milsys.co.in is shown the order of client list. If 5 lakhs applicants registered the money was huge 15 Lakhs and in open market bulk SMS service providers 6 to 7 paisa /SMS so any one can work out the play in this contract. The CEPTAM  did not give this contract through DAVP shows the corruption angle.

  • No approval from competent authority to induct compulsory Mobile registration.
  • No tender floated by CEPTAM for bulk SMS service providing
    • No minimum 7 vendors address procurement policy of DRDO followed (Limited tender)
  • CEPTAM was not approached to DAVP empanelled SMS bulk service provider

M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS – Provides -Selling of Computers & Related Peripherals such as :Range of Desktops / Servers – IBM / HP / COMPAQ / ACER etc.Range of POS and Kiosk / Billing Machines – Panasonic / Epson,Multimedia Products e.g. Video & Audio Processing Cards, Website designing and hosting. Man power Solutions / Recruitment Solutions /Data Entry. Annual maintenance contracts (AMC)

CEPTAM Website FAQ

Q-6.     Is it necessary to send application after registering through SMS?

A-6.     YES. Without registration number application will not be accepted. It is FIRST STEP for Applying for any post. (Note: Register for each post code separately if you are applying for more than one post code and get registration for each post code.)

Q-9.     I have submitted my application on prescribed format but could not register myself through SMS. Whether my application will be considered?

A-9.  NO; Applications received without registration number are liable to be rejected. Prior registration is mandatory for all posts, candidates applying for.

Application form the marked box for office use only
Application form the marked box for office use only

2.    In above application form the marked box for office use only so hundreds of candidates not filled the SMS registration, result in this basis CEPTAM rejected their applications, who is responsible. Is DRDO ready to repay the money/time wasted by individuals?

Question is whether this kind of provision for like diesel mechanic posts and for SC/ST candidates who belong to rural areas and do not have access or are familiar with internet to verify or clear their issues, is allowed by government of India?

Example rejection of application due to SMS Registration

Example rejection of application due to SMS Registration
Example rejection of application due to SMS Registration

3.    The CEPTAM asked applications by ordinary post and other option were put in 2 boxes in both gates of Metcalf House and 1 box in front of CEPTAM entrance. There was no mechanism to acknowledge applications. So what happened to hundreds of hundreds candidates who spent their days in front of CEPTAM reception but could not get their admit cards because simply they were told that their application was not found. If so then CEPTAM should show their accounts about how many postal orders they enchased against each application. The total number of available applications & postal orders will never match. There is no other example in entire government of India or PSU, Banks where application acknowledgement mechanism is not applied. CEPTAM violated fundamental right of young citizens of  India.

Example  application – not received /found

Example application – not received /found
Example application – not received /found
Example application – not received /found
Example application – not received /found

4.   Approximately 2 lakhs candidates could not appear due to wrongly assigned examination centers. It is not possible that the huge number of candidates themselves asked for the centre, this whole thing is deliberately done by CEPTAM on the direction of Sh Rajesh Goyal or otherwise it is clearly proved that he is incompetent to handle such a task. Please find some examples of admit cards issued by CEPTAM.

post5
In Application centre city code clearly mentioned – 09 (Delhi NCR)
Admit Card centre city code given – Ranchi (Code -24)
Admit Card centre city code given – Ranchi (Code -24)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Kanpur (Code 16)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Kanpur (Code 16)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Ahmedabad (Code 02)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Ahmedabad (Code 02)

5.    Although CEPTAM corrected some centre errors and provided that list on the website but numbers (First list -89, http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/ceptam/CityChangeList.pdf second list 54 http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/ceptam/CityAndPCDlist.pdf) were few in respect to the numbers of candidates who were not able to appear i.e. 2 Lakhs.

6.     There are many example in which any one can see, how Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director chose data entry firms who played with the future of young India.

Examples

Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Photo placed wrongly by data entry firm and Centre wrong
Photo placed wrongly by data entry firm and Centre wrong
Photo Lalita and name in admit card Rajnish Kumar
Photo Lalita and name in admit card Rajnish Kumar

7.      In one of my RTIs, I have requested information regarding selection boards’ expert members, because it is observed that Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM engaged his wife, his co-brother and other blood relation persons as expert in different selection boards all over India. Like Dr Madhu (Madhuri) Goyal , Mr M C Goyal,  Mr Sekher Gupta,  Mr Anupam Gupta . The act of Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM assigning his relatives as experts violated the laid down rules CCS rules. No prior approval from competent authority was taken in this regards. This act can give liberty to do manipulation in recruitment. My RTI dated 2nd May 2013 and CPIO, CEPTAM Reply is enclosed here with for your ready reference. (Assessment Boards and Recruitment Board constituted in the year 2012) This mechanism is also following in recent recruitment drive. (RTI request and reply of CPIO, CEPTAM enclosed herewith for your ready reference.)

8.     Please find enclosed list of the name and phone numbers of some candidates from whom you can visualize how CEPTAM, DRDO played with the future of young Indians for their own vested interest. (List enclosed as annexure)

Sir, above all examples are enough evidences to investigate the CEPTAM-06 recruitment drive, beside this lot of complaint already received by honorable Defence Minister and various authorities. The CEPTAM director putting his efforts to diluting and burring the subject matter. It is requested kindly do needful urgently for the future of young citizens of India.

Regards

 Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand
Cell No- 9411114879, Landline- 0135-2787750
e-mail- prabhudoon@gmail.com, website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed

  1. Copy of my RTI request to CPIO,CEPTAM dated 2nd May 2013
  2. Copy my RTI request to CEPTAM dated 9th June 2013
  3. List of the name and phone numbers of some candidates

 

 

Drdo

Constitutional crises in DRDO

Leave a comment

DRDO comes under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India and all central government rules are applicable.

However, beginning with 1980 (prior to this DRDO was running under defence secretary) when D G (R&D) post was created and approved by cabinet with status of secretary as independent charge of R&D, foundation were laid for an autonomous & central govt. body both.

Special status was given for program director of IGMDP with permission sign 10 cr papers while directors/lab heads limitation was 2.5 Lakhs.

In the name of science & technology development, recruitments were made to develop defence specific weapons/equipments/infrastructures. A separate recruitment and assessment centre (RAC) was created with consent of UPSC and with approval of government.

The absolute empowerment of secretary DRDO gave the individual to implement his decision and with passage of time the interest of nation was over shadowed. The secretary DRDO made the entire lab directors independent and unaccountable.

Today the scenario is no system exists in DRDO, every director following their own rules, whether it is case of procurements/ recruitments / assessments / maximum time busy with construction/renovations etc.

They don’t bother new born D.Gs, DOP, RTI cell and even Secretary, DRDO. Why? Because they know after few days, Dr Avinash Chandra will be working in contract basis. No one is listening his order as well as his advice. For example, Director, Dr CP Ramanarayanan, GTRE not honoring the order of Dr Avinash Chandra, the new DG Electronics Communication System Sh. S S Sundaram also supporting the acts and deed of Director, Dr CP Ramanarayanan, GTRE (because of regionalism). Transfer case of Mr Sachin GTRE to DEAL is a clear cut example of environment of DRDO; the words uttered by Dr. CP Ramanarayanan are resonating in the ears of all top DRDO Hqrs officials.

Dr Avinash Chandra told a scientist that your request is genuine but I am helpless. The scientist got transfer order one and half year back but the because of the dictatorship of Director, LRDE, Sh S Ravind the transfer is still pending and our  Dr Avinash Chandra, SA, Dr G Malakondaiah, DS & CC R&D (HR & M), and DOP, Dr A K Singh all are helpless. Although Dr G Malakondaiah talked in front of the individual scientist with Sh S S Sundaram (conversation was in Telegu) but it did not turn positive.

Surprisingly, the aim and objective of Rama Rao committee was that the power is decentralized for fast decision on procurement issues, management issues. This would give boost for high productivity or pace in development program. It is looking like a total failure in the beginning itself.

Instead of all this all new DG are too busy to manage big chunks of funds and showing off the power of their new kingdom.

DRDO labs directors, mostly known as distinguished or outstanding scientists but it is astonishing fact that most them are not known in India because they have never published any outstanding paper, not have any patents, if PhD then from deemed universities where they are suppose to feed project funds. Like their big guru Dr W Selvamurthy Ex C C R&D, who is PhD in Yoga and involved in feeding funds to various deemed universities or private institutions. (Famous SASTRA case everyone knows). Rest are following their footsteps like Sh S S Sundaram, new born DG, Sh RC Agarwal, Director, DEAL (2nd extension age 63+ yrs), Sh R K Agarwal another outstanding scientist now start pursuing PhD from Graphic Era, also new born Deemed University at Dehardun because they fed funds in the name of projects and their agents ex DRDO employees are managing the show.

A constitutional crisis was the appointment of RAC Chairman. Dr PS Goel was appointed for period 3rd December 2008 – 2nd December 2011. As per rule search committee for next RAC chairman was supposed to be constituted in June 2011. However, minutes (DOP/05/50219/M/01 7th Dec 2011 disclose that first meeting of newly constituted committee was scheduled for 19 December 2011, it is astonishing fact that DRDO writes its own constitution and shows disrespect to Honorable Raksha Mantri.

Negligence of then SA to RM, not to initiate search committee in time was a planned action. He wanted to push all his close aides to appropriate place/post, who were handling sub contracts signed with foreign firms with different areas and were responsible omission/commission dues. The period of Dec 2011 to June 2012 was the crucial period of assessment/recommendations/selections/promotions. To cash this opportunity   Dr V K Saraswat as chairman RAC recommended those who were not competent for the post of ‘H’. Had there been an independent RAC Chairman, he would kept the national interest in forefront. The example of the case of Sh R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’ at DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun, who prepared citation for promotion with a false claim (Copy of his claim) attached and got promoted with the blessing of Sh R C Agarwal, Director, DEAL (2nd extension without any achievement) and Dr V K Saraswat.

The letter no 12/7/2012 EO(SM-II) dated 19th March 2012 of DOPT revealed that appointment of

as RAC chairman was approved by Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC). The question is why it was waited up to June 19th, 2012; time was buying to adjust all incompetent senior officials by Dr V K Saraswat.

It is requested to Sh A K Antony, honorable Raksha Mantri order for investigation of assessment year 2012 scientist ‘H’.

DOPT letter no 12/7/2012 EO(SM-II) dated 19th March 2012
DOPT letter no 12/7/2012 EO(SM-II) dated 19th March 2012

 

Office order of additional charge given to Dr V K Saraswat as Chairman, RAC
Office order of additional charge given to Dr V K Saraswat as Chairman, RAC
Note sheet of approval of Raksha Mantri for additional charge of Chairman RAC to Dr V K Saraswat
Note sheet of approval of Raksha Mantri for additional charge of Chairman RAC to Dr V K Saraswat
DRDO News Letter September 2012
DRDO News Letter September 2012

 

 

 

Drdo

RTI-DMSRDE-STAFF CAR

Leave a comment
To,
Central Public Information Officer
DMSRDE,
GT Road
Kanpur-208013                     

Subject: Application/Request under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given in these decisions.

i.    File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.

ii.   CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO) 
iii.   CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
iv    CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

CIC in its above mentioned  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.

In light of the above decisions of CIC, Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. The date from which Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE was availing staff car facility for commuting between office and residence.
  2. Copy of the letter by which Dr. AK Saxena , Director, DMSRDE requested to his superior authority/controlling authority to withdraw the staff car.
  3. The date from which staff car facility was withdrawn from Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE.
  4. The date from which Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE availing Transport Allowance.
  5. Amount of Transport Allowance provided to him after withdrawal of Staff Car.
  6. How many staff car existing in DMSRDE?
  7. Whether staff car facility was offered to other senior officer at No. 2 or No. 3 in rank for commuting between office and residence after withdrawal of staff car facility from Dr. AK Saxena. (Yes/No)
  8. If answer to point (7) is yes then provide the copy of the offer letter as mentioned above and letter of acceptance/denial by such senior most officers.
  9. Details/List of Scientists/Tech. Officers/CMTD/MTD/Other employees & staff below the rank of Scientist ‘D’ to whom Telephone Reimbursement has been sanctioned/allowed by Director, DMSRDE for prepaid mobile/Landline with Broadband/Postpaid with Internet facility. Provide details for each official with following information.
  • Name of the Scientist/officer/official with rank
  • Amount of telephone Reimbursement
  • Justification

10.    Provide the total number of Scientist/Tech. Officer/Other officer & employees           below the rank of Scientist ‘D’ who are availing Telephone Reimbursement.

11.     Copy of the Minute Sheet/SOC approved by Director, DMSRDE by which Officer & employees posted at Motor Transport Division was allowed for Telephone Reimbursement.

13.   Copy of the rule under which Telephone Reimbursement for Scientist C’, Scientist ‘B’, Tech. Officers, CMTD, MTD, Admin. Asst. & other employees & staff of DMSRDE have been allowed in DMSRDE, Kanpur.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

This is also for your kind information that the information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not the personal information under RTI Act.

Please Find Enclosed – Postal Order No 17 F 549291

Date: 16th  October , 2013

 (Santosh Joshi)
2-Shanti Vihar
Behind mahindra showroom
Haridwar bypass 
Dehradun – 248001
Drdo

First Appeal -DMSRDE – Immovable Property Return (IPR) of Officials

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/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 September  2013 issued by PIO, 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:-

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

2.   Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-

Name & Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE
GT Road
Kanpur-208013
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 September 2013 received by appellant on 27 September 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)      An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 20 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Immovable Property Return submitted by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)      Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 September 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 20 August 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. 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“.

(d)      In point (3) of reply dated 17 September 2013 , PIO referred the DOPT OM 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14 August 2013 in which  PIO mentioned some decision of CIC for seeking exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. The said OM is having three Para’s but PIO did not read Para (2) and malafidely ignored Para (2) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment was quoted.

(e)      PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 20 August 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 PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

(f)        Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of PIO, 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 20 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 20 August 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(c)        Information was denied by PIO, 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 20 August 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 from getting the information.

(f)         PIO 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)        PIO is unable to understand the RTI Act 2005 and have not gone through the provisions of section 8(1) (j) of Act, definition of personal information, definition of public interest and various CIC decision in this matter. Misinterpretation of law leads to malafide intention and promotion to corruption by PIO. PIO is working under control and direction of Director (Public Authority).

(h)        It appears that PIO does know the meaning of Establishment Matter, personal information and public information, public interest, public authority, public fund thereby he is claiming the information sought as personal information.

(i)          Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of PIO, 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 20 August 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 20 August 2013.
  2. Direction may kindly be issued to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions as PIO is for helping the appellant(Public/Information seeker) not for harassing the appellant as per sprit and provisions of RTI Act 2005.
  3.  Direction may please be issued to PIO to go through provisions of RTI Act 2005 before denial of information.

7.         Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-

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 20 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 & gave verdict 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 “Immovable Property Return submitted by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur“. 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/ 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 20 August 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 PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is alleged that Dr. A. K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE has violated Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 as he did not submitted IPR, Movable property returns and Valuable property returns for several years. This ensures disciplinary action against him under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. This creates doubt on his integrity under Rule 3 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 and he is not suitable/Fit of administrative post like Director(Head of Establishment). Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director is having disproportionate assets by showing undervalued cost of property, which again is serious violation of conducts rules.

5.         Two IPR files (.pdf) are available at DRDO website under the link Immovable Property Return. These two files for DMSRDE shows IPR of year 2010 and IPR 2012. Dr. Saxena disposed of his one house as reflected in IPR 2012  and cost of remaining house is reduced in IPR 2012. How it is possible since rate of property are increasing exponentially with time? Dr. A.K. Saxena did not submit the return of movable & valuable property as per Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. Dr. AK Saxena thus Violated Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. Dr A.K. Saxena did not inform the foreign visit of his family member (wife and two children of 14-15 years. As his wife and two children were on foreign visit to USA for 12-15 days. As per rules of Govt. of India , Dr. A.K. Saxena should intimate the transaction of expenditure incurred in this tour of his family members to DMSRDE under Rules 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. Therefore the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption.

6.         Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return submitted by Director , DMSRDE , Kanpur“. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters. The information related to IPR  and it is Public Information as it is held by Public Authority under Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964. The details of IPR, Movable Property Return and Valuable property return etc all the Public Information. Thereby the information sought is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j).

7.         The information related to Immovable Property Return, Movable Property Return and Valuable property return  is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j) as this information has been allowed by Hon’ble CIC in decision No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 & CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008 by Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner.

        Information related to IPR is disclosable as per CIC decision in Case No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001990/5042 dated 06 October 2009 and CIC/SG/A/2011/003719/17410 dated  16 February 2012.

        IPR related information have been uploaded on website of DRDO therefore the information sought is public information and the personal information.

8.         Information Sought is neither  personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005

  1. In reply dated 17 September 2013, PIO DMSRDE quoted in Para(3) – DOPT OM No. 11/2/2013-IR dated 14 August 2013.
  2. The said OM is having three (03) Para with one enclosure (CIC Decision in F No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 Manoj Arya Vs. Cabinet Secretariat).
  3. In Para (1) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, it has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission in one of its decisions (copy enclosed) has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005′.
  4. In Para(2) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, It has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) no. 27734/2012) in which it was held as under:- “The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual.” The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.
  5. The information sought in RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 is neither related to any complaint made against any Government servant nor related to the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation, as demanded in DOPT OM dated 14 August 2013.
  6. Thereby PIO is seeking illegal and malafide shelter of the said OM of DOPT because information sought is not personal information, rather this type of information has already been allowed in CIC decision F No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 and CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008.
  7. Hence the information sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.

9.         The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1964- Rule 18

Every Government servant shall submit a return of his Immovable Property Return, Movable property return and Valuable Property Return under the provisions of Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 under sub rule 18(1), 18(2), 18(3, 18(4) and  18(5). Therefore IPR, Movable Property Return and details of Valuable Property Return are public documents held by public authority. To submit the information under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules in prescribed format under Rule 18 are binding on each & every Government servant, therefore these are public information not the personal information. Government servants are seeking House Building Advance (HBA) of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs for purchasing of Immovable Property, Car Advance, Computer advance, two wheeler advance and other various advances (loans) from Government for purchase of Movable Property. Therefore procurement of Immovable property, movable property and valuable property involves the public money therefore these information and documents are public information. These public documents are disclosable as per DOPT orders and CIC decisions in various cases.

10.     DOPT Orders on disclosure of IPR and Movable Property

  1. Please refer DOPT, Govt. of India Office Memorandum No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 on the Subject “Submission of Immovable Property Returns by officers of Group A Central Services for the year 2010(as on 01.01.2011) – Placing of the public domain regarding“.
  2. Under the provisions of Para (2) of the said OM “It has been decided that the immovable property returns submitted by members of all Group ‘A’ Services of the Central Government for the year 2010 i.e. as on 01.01.2011 will be placed in public domain by respective cadre controlling authorities by 31.05.2011“. Copy of the DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 is enclosed as Enclosure -3.
  3. 11.     Partial information of IPR is in Public domain on  DRDO  website
  4. As per DOPT OM dated 11th April 2011, it was binding on all Public Authorities to disclose IPR of all its Group’A’ Officers in public domain by uploading IPR on website.
  5. All organisations/departments uploaded IPR submitted by all Group ‘A’ officers on their website as it is in the format prescribed under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. These IPR of all Central Government departments are as available on Internet.
  6. DRDO is more clever than DOPT and other organisatins/departments thereby DRDO compiled the partial information in tabular form of All Group ‘A’ Officers working under DRDO.
  7. These IPR was first time uploaded on DRDO website under the link Immovable Property Return on home page of DRDO website in year 2011. Therefore DRDO accepted that information related to IPR is public information not the personal information. Despite disclosure of partial information related IPR on DRDO website, PIO, DMSRDE denied the information on the basis of personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. This act of PIO is malafide with ulterior motives to protect the corrupt officers of his own cast based on basis of casteism.
  8. PIO denied the information on illegal grounds to protect Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE who is having disproportionate assets and is involved in corruption.
  9. Appellant filed RTI Application on 20 August 2013 and this was received by PIO on 23 August 2013 as he claimed in his letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 September2013. Director managed to publish information regarding IPR of his own on DRDO Website under file name Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf with  just few days prior to issue of RTI Application.
  10. This can be verified from DRDO website under the link of DMSRDE that two pdf files are existing with the names IPR_DMSRDE.pdf (uploaded in year 2011) and Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf(Uploaded on 16 August 2013). In earlier file there was no information about disposal of property by Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE that was available in IPR of 2010. It means property return of disposal of property under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules was not submitted by Dr. A.K. Saxena. This grossly violates provisions of  Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964.
  11. Therefore information related to IPR is public information not personal information. Thereby Information sought should be disclosed by PIO, DMSRDE.

12.     Information sought is related to larger public interest and public activity

  1. As per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
  2. As per the evidences available with appellant, Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is having disproportionate assets. The source of money, by which he purchased the disproportionate assets, came to him by means of corruption. The exact details and proofs will be disclosed before appropriate competent authority.
  3. Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE did not declare his asset which he disposed of as per provisions of Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964, thereby he violated CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964. He is liable for disciplinary action for concealing the facts and not providing return of their assets.
  4. As public money, public servants, integrity of public servants, integrity of Public Authority and Public offices are involved in the matter, therefore larger public interest and public activity is involved in the disclosure of information.
  5. Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is involved in acquiring disproportionate assets by means of corruption and manipulation. This fraudulent nature establishes that their integrity is doubtful and he is not suitable for Government Service. The existence of such kind of official having fraudulent nature & doubtful integrity is not suitable for DRDO as they can harm the reputation of DRDO when he is sitting on the chair of Director (Head of the Establishment). This involves public activity as public money and public office are involved.
  6. As a principle , public interest includes “Disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability in working of a public authority“. Thereby public interest is involved in seeking information as it will brought transparency in DMSRDE and contain the corruption as per preamble of RTI Act 2005.

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

  1. PIO, DMSRDE 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. PIO has not given any reasons as to how he arrived to the conclusion that information sought is personal information u/s 8(1)(j). PIO 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 PIO for rejection of RTI application is  illegal , prejudice and malafide.

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

  1. PIO is reluctant to perform his duties as per provisions of RTI Act 2005. It appears that he has not under gone any training programme on RTI, sponsored by DOPT. Even though he is not taking pain for mere reading of RTI Act. PIO, DMSRDE either has not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) or he is unable to understand the meaning of provisions of section 8(1)(j).
  2. Appellant would 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 can not be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person“.
  3. The information sought by appellant regarding “Details of Immovable Property Return submitted by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur” has to be provided to Parliament and can not be denied by DMSRDE/DRDO in case Parliament seek such information as sought in RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 of appellant, thereby the information sought   should be provided to appellant under the said provisions of section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought is not personal information.

15.     Denial of Information to promote Casteismin DMSRDE

  1. Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Mr. Anoop Kumar Nigam, APIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. AK, Dr. Vineeta Nigam and some other official of DMSRDE are working as a gang based on casteism in DMSRDE. Integrity of these officers is doubtful and it can be established if proper enquiry will be conducted at DMSRDE by CVC/CBI. Promotion to casteism is violation of Constitution of India and CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964.
  2. Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Mr. Anoop Kumar Nigam, APIO , Dr. Anurag Srivastava,  Mr. AKall are belongs to the cast known as Kayastha.
  3. Dr. A.K. Saxena , Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO and  Mr. Anoop Kumar Nigam, APIO are protecting the corrupt officials belonging to his cast on the basis of false ground and malafidely misusing the provisions of RTI Act. Some other official also belonging to cast Kayastha have also been protected by them by illegal denial of information.

8.         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
                                                                                                                                                                                           (Uttrakhand)
 

Appeal No.:FA/JPS/DMSRDE/2013/01

Date: 10th  October, 2013                                        

 Enclosure: Three 

(1)        Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 17 September 2013
(2)        RTI Application dated 20 August 2013.
(3)        DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011
 
rti rep[ly dmsrde to vakil
 
To,                                                                                                                              20 August 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Scientist ‘F’
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-20801

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

This is with reference to Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964 and information about Immovable Property Return (IPR) available on DRDO website (drdo.gov.in). Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

1.         Details of movable, immovable and valuable property as submitted by Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE under the rule 18(1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.

2.         Provide copy of return of assets and liabilities of Dr. A.K. Saxena as submitted by him under rule 18(1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.

3.         Provide copies of Annual Immovable Property Return (IPR) submitted by Dr A.K.Saxena under rule 18(1) (ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 for the years

2010

2011

2012

2013

  1. Details of all the immovable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 under rule 18 of    CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 by Dr. A. K. Saxena,Director, DMSRDE with following  information
  1. Full details about location viz. Municipal No. Street/Village, Taluk, District and State in which situated
  2. Purchase value of property
  3. Sources from which financed

5.         Details of all the movable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 under rule 18 of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 by Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE with following information.

 

  1.                   i.        Description of the property i.e. Car / Scooter / Motor Cycle / Refrigerator/ Computer/ Laptop/Bank account /shares /investments /Jewellery/loans/Insurance policies etc
  2.                 ii.        Make, Model and also registration No. in case of vehicles, where necessary
  3.                iii.        Purchase price of the property (Market value in the case of gifts

6.         Provide copies of final intimation in form under rule 18(2) after purchase of the all immovable properties and in form under rule 18(3) after purchase of all the movable properties under Rule 18 of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 in respect of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

7.         Provide details of family members/dependent for CGHS, LTC etc purpose under rule 2(c) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.

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. F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/

00054/LS dated 29.01.2010.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No.16 F 966251) is enclosed as Annexure-1.

Date:20 August , 2013

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

 

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 16 F 966251 as application Fee
Drdo

RTI-DMSRDE – Parking

1 Comment
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’
Central Public Information Officer
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013           

Subject: Application u/s 6(1) of Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

This is with reference to your 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.

DRDO rules & procedures for construction work (minor/major) did not allow & authorize Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur to construct any building/shade/parking area or erection of any structure with in the premises of Technical and Residential area, DMSRDE.

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

It is also 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.

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given in these decisions.

  1. File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.
    1. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
    2. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
    3. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

CIC in their above mentioned 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.

In light of the decisions of CIC and facts mentioned above, kindly provide the following information under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. The name of authorized agency for construction of parking area/shade in Technical and Residential area of DMSRDE, Kanpur as per Guidelines/Procedures/Rules .of DRDO.
  2. The name of the agency viz MES/CCE(R&D)/Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur which constructed the said two shade for parking area near CSD Canteen, DMSRDE.
  3. Provide the copy of letter sent to GE (R&D), MES, Kanpur or CCE (R&D), New Delhi for construction of these two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen, DMSRDE.
  4. Provide copy of the sanctioning letter by Director, DMSRDE or by DRDO HQ to sanction minor/major work to carry out the construction of two shades for parking area.
  5. Total expenditure incurred in construction of two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen.
  6. Whether these two shades for parking area has been developed by Director, DMSRDE. (Yes/No).
  7. If answer to point (6) is yes then provide the following information

i.      Name of vendor to whom the supply order was placed for construction of two shades in parking area near CSD canteen.
ii.     Copy of supply order placed for construction of two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.
iii.    The total expenditure incurred in construction of two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.

8.      Whether any material like Cement Sheets, iron pipes, iron angles and hooks etc were purchased by MMG/Estate & Works Division/other Division under Director, DMSRDE.(Yes/No) for construction of two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen.

9.      If answer to point (8) is yes then provide the copy of supply order issued by Head MMG/Director, DMSRDE to the said vendor who supplied the material for construction of two shades in parking area.

10.     Name of vendor who supplied the material used for construction of two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen, DMSRDE.

11.      The name of vendor who carried out construction work to erect two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.

12.      Whether said vendor is registered at DMSRDE for construction work/supply of store & items etc. Yes/No.

13.      If answer to point (12) is yes then provide the copy of registration certificate issued by Director, DMSRDE to that vendor.

14.       Mode of tendering for procurement of materials used to erect/ construction of two shades in parking area.

15.        Provide copy of form DRDO.MM.06 duly filled for procurement of materials required for constructions of two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen.

16.         Provide copy of CST in case mode of tendering was Limited Tender/Open Tender.

17.         How many parking shades/areas were existing in DMSRDE premises for parking the vehicles, prior to construction of these two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen?

18.         Prior to issue of order dated 26 September 2013, in which place the vehicles of officers & employees were parked in DMSRDE.

19.         How many four wheelers and two wheelers are daily coming in DMSRDE premises along with officers & employees of DMSRDE.

20.         How many four wheelers could be parked in the two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen?

21.         Reasons for taking decision to park all the vehicles by all the officers & employees of DMSRDE in two shades in newly constructed parking area near CSD Canteen.

22.         Whether all the vehicles (four wheelers & two wheelers) of officers & employees of DMSRDE could be parked in two shades recently constructed for parking area near CSD Canteen. (Yes/No)

23.          If answer to point (22) is No then provide the numbers of four wheelers that could be parked in two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.

24.          From which head of budget of DMSRDE, the funds were sanctioned for construction of these two shades in parking area by private vendor or purchase of material required for construction of two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.

25.       M/s Gupta Constructions, Gandhi Gram, Krishna Nagar, Kanpur is registered in DMSRDE as a vendor for supply of which kinds of store items and to provide which kind of services to DMSRDE.

26.          Provide copy of registration certificate issued to M/s Gupta Constructions, Gandhi Gram, Krishna Nagar, Kanpur by Director, DMSRDE.

27.          The date on which the said two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen were ready after construction and work completion and clearance certificate was issued to vendor for payment.

28.          Since how long (the exact date) the CSD Canteen is operational/ existing/running in DMSRDE, Kanpur.

29.         In which building of DMSRDE the CSD Canteen is running/existing. Provide the building number and exact nomenclature of that building.

30.         Few months back, electrical power of CSD Canteen was cut down by GE (R&D), MES, Kanpur for about 15 days. Provide the copies of correspondence between MES and DMSRDE on the issue of disconnecting the electrical power in CSD Canteen building.

31.           Whether the said building in which CSD Canteen is running presently, was specially built for CSD Canteen purpose or earmarked for CSD Canteen. (Yes/No)

32.           If answer to point (31) is yes, then provide the letter/order by which CSD Canteen building was constructed by MES in DMSRDE.

33.           If answer to point (31) is No, then provide the exact nomenclature/name of building in which CSD Canteen is running presently in DMSRDE.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act.

The information sought in this RTI Application is pertaining to allegations of corruption  and as such not exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No.17F549290) is annexed as Annexure-1.

  Date: 04 October, 2013      

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

Annexure:-

IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.17F549290

Drdo

RTI- DMSRDE – R&D House

1 Comment
To,                                                                                                                   Date: 24th September, 2013 
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,
Scientist ‘F’, CPIO
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013                 

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 200

Sir,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. The date on which Ex-Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur Dr. KU Bhasker Rao vacated/handed over the R&D House (Director’s Residence) to   DMSRDE/MES, Kanpur.
  2. Provide copy of vacation report of R&D House submitted by MES to Estate & Works Division, DMSRDE after vacation of accommodation by Dr. KU Bhasker Rao.
  3. Provide copies of the original internal map/Engg. Drawing of R&D House
  1. On the date when Dr. KU Bhasker Rao vacated the R&D House.
  2. On the date when Dr. A.K. Saxena take over the possession of R&D House.
  1. Whether any structural alterations/changes have been made in R&D House after vacation of R&D House by Ex-Director Dr. KU Bhasker Rao. (Yes/No)
  2. If Yes, then provide the details of structural alterations/changes that have been made in R&D House after vacation by Dr. KUB Rao.
  3. Total expenditure incurred in making structural alterations/changes and non-structural alterations/changes in building of R&D House by MES/DMSRDE after vacation of R&D House by Dr. KUB  Rao in following format.

 

S.N.
Actual work carried out
Expenditure Amount
Nature of work (Major/Minor)
Structural/ Non-Structural
Sanctioning Authority
 
 
 
 
 
 
  1. Provide inspection of
  1. work carried out at R&D House (Director’s Residence), DMSRDE, Kanpur for making structural and non-structural alterations.
  2. documents and records related to work carried out for making structural/non-structural changes and major & minor work carried out at R&D House, DMSRDE, Kanpur after vacation of R&D House by Ex-Director Dr. KU Bhasker Rao.

under section 2(j) & 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 by informing suitable time & date prior to 15 days to applicant.

  1. Provide the rules of DRDO or MES or any other Government rules under the provisions of which structural alteration/changes was made in R&D House (Director’s Residence), DMSRDE, Kanpur during the period between the date of vacation of R&D House by Dr. KUB Rao and the date of taking over R&D House by Dr. A.K. Saxena.
  2. The name of Head, Estate & Works Division, DMSRDE during the period when structural alterations/changes were made in R&D House, DMSRDE, Kanpur in the year 2011-2012.
  3. Whether any request was made by Dr. A. K. Saxena , Director to Head, Estate & Works Division or GE(R&D), MES for making structural alterations /changes in R& D House (Director’s Residence), DMSRDE.
  4. Details of sanctioning authority  who sanctioned  major works and minor works for making structural alterations/changes in R&D House, DMSRDE, Kanpur with name, designation and authority by which sanctioned.
  5. Provide the details of non-structural changes made in R&D House after the said accommodation was vacated by ex-Director Dr. KU Bhasker Rao and take over by Dr. A.K. Saxena.
  6. Total expenditure incurred in making structural alterations/changes in R&D House in 2011-2012
  7. Total expenditure incurred in making non-structural alterations/changes in R&D House in 2011-2012.
  8. Whether non-structural changes were made on request of occupant of R&D House Dr. A.K. Saxena. (Yes/No)
  9. If yes then provide the copy of letter of request by Dr. A.K. Saxena for making non-structural changes in R&D House.
  10. Whether 10% of total expenditure on non-structural changes was taken from Dr. A.K. Saxena. (Yes/No)
  11. If yes then how much amount was deposited by Dr. A.K. Saxena to DMSRDE/MES for the said work?
  12. Whether any letter regarding offer of allotment for R&D House was issued to present Director Dr. A. K. Saxena as per Allotment of Government Residences (R&D Common Pool) Rules, 2003 as amended immediately after vacation of R&D House by Dr. KU Bhasker Rao. (Yes/No)
  13. If yes then provide the copy of offer of Allotment issued to Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE by Estate & Works Division, DMSRDE.
  14. If no then provide the reasons/grounds on the basis of which Offer of Allotment was not issued to Dr. A.K. Saxena as per rules.
  15. How long the R&D House was kept vacated under maintenance?
  16. When did offer of Allotment was issued to Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE in the year 2012.
  17. Provide copy of Offer of Allotment of R&D House issued to Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE in the year 2012.
  18. When Dr. AK Saxena did accepted the offer of allotment of R&D House?
  19. Provide copy of acceptance letter given by Dr. A. K. Saxena to Estate & Works Division.
  20. Provide copy of allotment letter issued by Estate & Works Division to Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE for R&D House.
  21. The revenue received per month by Government from allotment of R&D House including HRA, License Fee, Electrical Charges, Water Charges etc.
  22. How long the R&D House was kept vacated/un-allotted? Provide exact dates & duration in months for which the said accommodation was not allotted to Dr. AK Saxena?
  23. Amount of revenue loss to Government by keeping R&D House vacated.

This is to inform that information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549292) is enclosed as Annexure-1 

Regards

PrabhuDayalDandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mailid prabhudoon@gmail.com
Website-www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

 

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 17F 549292  as application Fee.     
Drdo

RTI – DMSRDE – National Conference on Advanced Polymers, Fibers and Fabrics

1 Comment
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Scientist ‘F’
Public Information Officer
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013                   

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

DMSRDE Kanpur organized National Conference on Advanced Polymers, Fibers and Fabrics (APF2 -2011), December 26-28, 2011 at DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Bank account details opened for APF2-2011 with following information
  • Date of opening account
  • Account Number
  • Bank name and  branch name
  • Present status of account Running/closed. If running then balance in the account as on 15 Aug 2013.
  1. Total amount collected from all sources to organize the conference on APF2-2011.
  2. Provide details of total funds (amount) collected from all sources for  organizing APF2-2011 in following format.

S.N.

Source

Amount in Rs.

1.

 Vendors/Firms/Industry/Suppliers

2.

 DRDO HQ

3.

 Director, DMSRDE (Misc. Head/other sources)

4.

 Advertisements from Industry/vendors for sponsorship in SOUVENIR, APF2-2011

5.

 Registration Charges from delegates

6.

 Lodging & boarding charges from delegates

7.

 Fund Received from CSD Canteen , DMSRDE

8.

 Other sources – source wise

TOTAL
  1. Whether sources of funds & expenditure details (Account Documents/Balance Sheets) were audited by independent audit agency like ACDA, AO(R&D),DMSRDE. (Yes/No)
  2. If answer to point (4) above is Yes then provide the copy of Audit Report.
  3. Name & designation of Treasurer/Cashier for  APF2-2011.
  4. Details of officers with name & designation who were authorized to sign the cheque to withdraw the money/fund from APF2-2011 account.
  5. Provide the information about the funds/money donated in APF2-2011 by vendors/suppliers/Industry/Firms/etc  in following format
S.N. Name of vendor/ supplier/ firm/ Industry/etc with address Fund (Amount) donated (Rs.) Cheque No. & date
  1. Reasons for which vendors/Industry/suppliers donated fund to DMSRDE for organizing APF2-2011.
  2. Whether any request/appeal/demand was made from Director, DMSRDE or Convener, APF2-2011 to vendors/suppliers/Industry to donate funds to DMSRDE for organizing APF2-2011, either  written or verbal. (Yes/No)
  3. If request/demand was made in writing then provide  copy of the letter issued to vendors/suppliers/Industry for demanding the funds from DMSRDE.
  4. Provide bank account statement of APF2-2011 and copy of balance sheet of expenditures incurred in APF2-2011.

The information sought in this RTI Application is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No.966244) is annexed as Annexure-1.

Date: 05 September, 2013                                                  
 
 
(Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal)
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand                    

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.966244 as application Fee.
Drdo

RTI- DMSRDE – 7

Leave a comment
To,                                                                                                           20th  August 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Scientist ‘F’
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-20801           

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

This is with reference to Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964 and information about Immovable Property Return (IPR) available on DRDO website (drdo.gov.in). Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Details of movable, immovable and valuable property as submitted by Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE under the rule 18(1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
  2. Provide copy of return of assets and liabilities of Dr. A.K. Saxena as submitted by him under rule 18(1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
  3. Provide copies of Annual Immovable Property Return (IPR) submitted by Dr. A.K. Saxena under  rule 18(1)(ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 for the years
  • 2010
  • 2011
  • 2012
  • 2013

4.   Details of all the immovable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 under rule 18 of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 by    Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE  with  following information

  • Full details about location viz. Municipal No. Street/Village, Taluk, District and State in which situated
  • Purchase value of property
  •  Sources from which financed

5.    Details of all the movable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 under rule 18 of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 by Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE with following information.

  • Description of the property i.e. Car / Scooter / Motor Cycle / Refrigerator/ Computer/ Laptop/Bank account /shares /investments /Jewellery/loans/Insurance policies etc
  • Make, Model and also registration No. in case of vehicles, where necessary
  • Purchase price of the property (Market value in the case of gifts
  1. Provide copies of final intimation in form under rule 18(2) after purchase of the all immovable properties and in form under rule 18(3) after purchase of all the movable properties under Rule 18 of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 in respect of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
  2. Provide details of family members/dependent for CGHS, LTC etc purpose under rule 2(c) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.

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. F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No.16 F 966251) is enclosed as Annexure-1.

Date:20th August, 2013                                                                              

( J P. Sharma)
Advocate
Chamber No.64, First floor
Opposite Bar Council Office, Court Compound
Dehradun-248001
Uttarakhand                    
Annexure:-
  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 16 F 966251 as application Fee.     
Drdo

RTI-RAC-SASE

3 Comments
To                                                                            13th August 2013
The CPIO
 Recruitment & Assessment Centre
Lucknow Road, Timarpur
Delhi- 110054 

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.   In respect of Sh Snehmani, Scientist ‘E’ , SASE, DRDO.

  1. Sh Snehmani joined DRDO in 1998 direct Scientist ‘C’ please provide the highest education degree and professional experience details submitted by him as per his application.
  2. Copy of Sh Snehmani’s application /intimation in which he stated that he is doing P hD from IIT Roorkee.
  3. At the time of promotion of Sc ‘C’ to Sc’D’ copy of  Sh Snehmani’s  Education Qualifications submitted by Director, SASE.
  4. At the time of promotion of Sc ‘D’ to Sc’E’’ copy of  Sh Snehmani’s  Education Qualifications submitted by Director, SASE.
  5. Copy of application and copy of permission of  Sh Snehmani’s  for doing PhD from Budelkand University.
  6. If Sh Snehmani submitted his PhD then please provide date of submission.

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

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

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

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No 16F 966250

Regards

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