On the direction of Honorable Defence Minister, a high level committee was constituted under chairmanship of Dr. V. Bhujanga Rao, DS & CC R&D (NS&IC), members were Dr. G Malakondaiah, DS & CC R&D (HR & M), Lt Gen Anoop Malhotra, CC R&D (R&M and Implementation), Brig Ajay Gupta, Vigilance Director and Dr. A K Singh, DOP to find out the truth about the allegations of Sh Prakash Singh, Ex Senior Admin Officer, LESTECH, Metcalf House, Delhi. (Copy of CVO MOD enclosed)
What are the allegations?
The recruitment of Ms Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’ was totally manipulated by Dr Arun Kumar, DOP,OS, Scientist ‘H’.(Ex)
The recruitment of Ms Geetha as Scientist ‘C’ was totally manipulated by Dr W Selvamurthy, DS & CC R&D (LS & IC) (now Ex)
The recruitment of Mrs T Chandrabanu as Scientist ‘F’ was totally manipulated by the team led by Dr W Selvamurthy, DS & CC R&D (LS & IC) (now Ex)
Misinterpretation of rules and manipulation to hide the facts by Shri Anil Kumar Maini, Director LESTECH, especially in the case of fire in Project “ Development of Advance Technologies for Power Scale up of COIL”
As per sources the report was submitted by stalwarts of DRDO and they gave clean chit in Ms S Geetha’s case to Dr W Selvamurthy, DS & CC R&D (LS & IC) (now Ex)
It is not understandable that these so called DRDO’s pillars have not seen the forged experience certificate and Dr A K Singh boasted that he very well knows that from whom and from where this forged certificate generated and Ms S Geetha was made eligible for the post. Dr A K Singh has worked as a staff officer with Dr W Selvamurthy, DS & CC R&D (LS & IC) (now Ex)
Sir, any lay man can understand that this 38 days certificate is totally forged and prepared especially for Ms S Geetha, nn Ambedkar college, DU there was/is no funds for research assistant and in the application Ms S Geetha claimed that she was paid @ 5000/month. This is kind of a silly point that was overlooked by these senior DRDO officials because of the heavy weight of Dr W Selvamurthy, DS & CC R&D (LS & IC) (now Ex)
In the recruitment case of Ms Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’ the committee accepting some irregularities in recruitment process.
But why they are not accepting that the base of recruitment of Ms Swati Srivastava was totally wrong the post was advertised for Biotechnology, then how come Environment Science candidate applied and got selected among so many deserving biotechnology candidates. These involved DRDO officials have no hearts, they just cheated the whole nation and all deserving candidates.
In the recruitment case Mrs T Chandrabanu as Scientist ‘F’ the committee accepting some irregularities in recruitment process.
In the investigation of CVO,MOD they already found that she was not having required experience in the field.
Please find the proofs on above mentioned allegations then give marks to DRDO bluff masters, and this is really painful to see in this committee two members are from our great Indian Army.
Proofs/facts
High level committeeMs S Geetha’s ApplicationMs S Geetha’s Application
Above red mark – Experience mentioned -Dr B R Ambedkar Cetre for Biomedical Research, Delhi University, Period 15 Nov 1999 to 23 Jan 2000 as research assistant salary Rs 5000 (there is no funds for such research assistant job) Assisted M Sc Students
1. Experience certificate submitted by Ms Geetha (daughter of Dr. W Selvamurthy)
2. Copy of RTI reply by Delhi University Prof Vani Bharmchari’s statementMrs T Chandra Banu caseMrs T chandra Banu’s case notings
To 2nd May 2013 The Defence Minister Room No -104, South Block New Delhi – 110011
Subject: One of the Strong Reasons of the Exodus in DRDO
Honorable Sir,
As you already very well aware that DRDO is in neck deep nepotism and corruption and we all welcome your latest decisions like suspension of Dr. Arun Kumar, not giving nod for further extension to Dr. V. K. Sarswat, order for special audit to CGDA, etc.
Sir, your commitment for honesty and stride for eradication of corruption and nepotism specially in defence sector, we salute your honest efforts and we are trying to contribute some authentic information related to nepotism and corruptions prevailing in DRDO from time to time to strengthen your mission.
In this series I would like to submit some documentary evidences of nepotism of Sh. R. C. Aggarwal, Director, DEAL, DRDO.
Sh. R. C. Aggarwal after taking charge as Director, DEAL put all scientists/staff of his community in important positions. You can verify with Departmental Part orders.
He supported Sh. R K Agarwal for his false claim of work in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).
Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14 (Copy enclosed)
Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.
The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to Sh Surendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.
The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism. (Copy enclosed)
Sh R.K.Agarwal already created an embarrassing situation for you due to his personal bias towards Schedule Cast when he deliberately cut the APAR numbers of a Technical Officer ‘C’. The victim has already represented this to Director, DEAL on 11th April 2013. But the best part is that DEAL management threatened and focused all their lethal weapons to fix him. And soon you will get this matter from SC/ST committee.
Sir, this nepotism and corruption is in the peak and this is also a right time for you to select a dynamic personality who can first tackle this neck deep nepotism and corruption of DRDO.
Sir, you are giving answering regarding exodus of DRDO scientists to our honorable parliamentarian since last 7-8 years and quoting that the senior scientists E, F, G are not quitting. But you are not aware that by seeing this honoring of incompetent scientists due to nepotism the junior scientists imagine their future and quit for better future.
Second major point is the senior scientists who were/are super seeded by these incompetent scientists are suffering from, blood pressure, heart problems and depressions. Ask health report of senior scientists.
Sir, can we expect any miracle research from these bunch of halfhearted and blood pressure, heart problems and depressions patients? Not at all.
Sir, you can find some scientist ‘G’ age of 38/40/42 etc. but they achieved this due nepotism if it is not true than how many get international recognition of their research work.
Once again it is requested to see this personally in the interest of DRDO as well as in the interest of nation.
Always strongly standing to fight against corruption, nepotism, castism and favoritism prevailing in DRDO
DRDO News Letter September 2012
To 25th February 2013The CPIO RTI/DESIDOC/RKA/25/2/2013Defence Scientific Information & Documentation Centre (DESIDOC) Metcalfe House New Delhi – 110054
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO. Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL “ his main contribution has been the development of NARAD, the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”
The certified copy of his claim for working or association with Project NARAD.
Number of temporary duty if done by Sh R K. Agarwal in connection with Project Narad including deputation to SRI LANKA or any place in India during operation PAWAN.
Provide the copy of DO Part –I published reflecting that Sh R K Agarwal was deputed or associated with Project NARAD, in DEAL, Dehradun
Copy of appreciation letter regarding providing communication during Operation Pawan to IPKF by GOC, IPKF and then S O –in- C.
Number of technical papers published as first author on design aspects of SATCOM systems by Sh R K Agarwal in various publications? Provide the name of Journals /year/page no of publications and issues/ volume numbers.
On “Throughput Acceleration Satellite Adaptation Unit (SAU)” and the role and contribution of Sh R K Agarwal in its patent filing. –
Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II
“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty”
Express news service : New Delhi, Sat Dec 01 2012, 04:02 hrs
The DRDO Friday suspended a senior scientist, Dr Arun Kumar, just three hours prior to his superannuation for alleged irregularities in recruitment.
The Central Vigilance Commission had passed strictures against Kumar in August as well as asked the Defence Ministry to reconsider his daughter’s appointment as scientist ‘C’ by the DRDO. Another senior official, Dr Neelam Bhalla, had accused Kumar of favouritism.
However, an internal panel had given Kumar a clean chit in June 2012, stating that “no favour or undue advantage was given to his daughter”.
The DRDO spokesperson refused to comment but Dr W Selvamurthy, Chief Controller R&D for Life Sciences confirmed Kumar’s suspension.
Kudos to the Defense Minister for at last getting rid of the black-sheep of DRDO before he could escape.
Lots of thanks to Sh A K Antony for taking such a great decision of suspending Dr. Arun Kumar, Out Standing Scientist for his corrupt activities. This is clear cut message to the corrupt DRDO officials that no one can escape from justice and it will also be a booster message to all honest DRDO officials who are protesting and exposing the corruption prevailing in this great organisation.
By GAUTAM DATT PUBLISHED: 20:51 GMT, 2 November 2012 Mail Today
The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on Thursday took the unprecedented action of sacking an officer who claimed to be a whistleblower.
Senior administrative officer Prakash Singh, posted at the Defence Science Centre at Metcalfe House in North Delhi, was served with compulsory retirement order.
Singh was due to retire on December 31, 2023. But a DRDO team visited his house at Timarpur and pasted the retirement notice on the wall. Sources said Singh, who had taken leave from work on medical grounds, was not at home at that time. Singh plans to challenge the move in court.
Building of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) office in New Delhi, India
He claimed the action against him was taken by officiating DRDO head H. Selvamurthy in the absence of scientific advisor to the defence minister, V.K. Saraswat, who is on leave.
Serving compulsory retirement notice is the harshest punishment that can be given to a government servant. DRDO sources said the action was taken strictly in adherence to the government rules.
The administrative officer is responsible for the functioning of a laboratory, but Singh had remained absent from work for two years in his previous assignments, they alleged.
The sources said Singh had a history of non-performance and trouble making.
He had made complaints against his seniors in the past which were found to be false, they added.
However, reliable sources said Singh was ‘punished’ for highlighting widespread corruption in DRDO.
The officer had filed a complaint with the CBI against three senior functionaries: Manas Kumar Mandal (director, institute of psychological research), Dr Anil Kumar Maini (director, Laster Science and Technology Centre) and Dr Arun Kumar (director, personnel, at the headquarters).
The CBI referred his complaint to the vigilance department of DRDO. One of these officers – Arun Kumar – was indicted in a recruitment scam by the Central Vigilance Commission that recommended penalty against him in August.
But the DRDO inquiry dismissed the charges of irregularities levelled against the three officials and recommended disciplinary action against Singh for making false complaints.
By Yatish Yadav / ENS – NEW DELHI 21st September 2012 10:59 AM
In a fresh blow to Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has advised initiation of major penalty against two of its scientists.
Acting on a complaint alleging irregularities in appointment and promotion of scientists and based on subsequent investigation by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Defence Ministry, the CVC found Arun Kumar and A K Bansal blameworthy.
“The case has been examined by the commission. On the facts of the case, the commission is in agreement with Ministry of Defence and advises initiation of major penalty proceedings against Dr Arun Kumar, senior scientist, DRDO, and A K Bansal, additional director, Recruitment Assessment Centre,” the CVC office memorandum dated August 23 said.
Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC) of the DRDO was set up in July 1985 for the recruitment and promotion of scientists. The RAC is exempted from the purview of Union Public Service Commission.
Sources said the complaint was lodged by a DRDO employee alleging nepotism and lapses in the policy of recruitment and promotion.
It is learnt that the matter was taken up by the defence vigilance based on Defence Minister A K Antony’s directions.
Arun Kumar is currently serving as Director, Personnel – a DRDO department that coordinates recruitment of scientists and appointment of consultants. Kumar was promoted to the grade of an outstanding scientist in 2010. It was alleged that he misused power to induct his daughter in a laboratory functioning under the DRDO, in violation of laid down norms. After examining the probe report, the CVC has also advised the ministry to reconsider the appointment of his daughter.
The DRDO’s image took a beating recently after a secret audit report ordered by Antony unravelled the rot within. Citing various cases, the report claimed that the DRDO’s functioning was not transparent.
Also, no comprehensive database with details of projects sanctioned by the DRDO and how many were declared successful was in place.
The DRDO has a network of 52 laboratories and establishments spread across the country with an annual budget of over Rs 10, 500 crore. Currently, it has over 5,000 scientists and around 25,000 support staff working in several areas of defence technology.
As you very well are aware about the complaint lodge against the website by Dr Arun Kumar, DOP who is working in DRDO in service extension which is only meant for those who are real scientists and involved in international level research work. As per Government of India order it is clearly stated that this extension provisions are not for those who are working in administrative jobs.
Despite various complaints/ court cases pending against him, it is really surprising that how DRDO top management is co-operating his unlawful acts.
Sir, in my 8th August 2011 letter to you I have informed you about DOP’s undue support to Sh Dharmendra Kumar, Scientist ‘B’, SPIC for unknown reasons.
DRDO RTI cell refuse to give me RTI reply related to Sh Dharmendra Kumar, Scientist ‘B’, SPIC, DRDO funny quote that we will not give you information because you will publish that on your website.
Sir, DRDO’s RTI cell forgot that they are public servant and govern by Indian constitutional law but unfortunately some scientist are thinking that they are from the MARS and nobody from common public can raise any voice against their illegal acts.
Recently I have received my RTI reply from Delhi University regarding the qualification information of Sh Dharmendra Kumar, Scientist ‘B’, SPIC, DRDO.
Please see that Sh Dharmendra Kumar, Scientist ‘B’, SPIC had hide is post-graduation degree that is MSc (Operational Research) which he obtained from Delhi University in 2001, when he joined as STA ‘A’ in 20th October 2003.
Please see the following gazette notification of SRO 147 dated 28th June 2oo2 where it is clearly mentioned that “Candidates possessing the higher qualifications viz M Sc, Ph D, B.Tech, B E degree etc. shall not be considered for the recruitment”
Hope you will finally take appropriate action in time so the employees of DRDO start thinking that now there is a no need to send inputs to www.corruptionindrdo.com and their grievances and undue harassment will be properly taken care. It can only be possible to put honest, god-fearing, who believe in justice will post on key posts like CC (R&D), HR, DOP, RAC, CEPTEM etc. These posts are the origin of injustice, corruption, favouritism and nepotism.
Hope you will listen to my prayer and will do needful to clean the DRDO from evil of injustice, corruption, favouritism and nepotism.
Please see the following complaint of Dr Arun Kumar, I will like to know your advice/ suggestions. Website’s sole aim is to eradicate corruption/ nepotism / favoritism from DRDO. Website is running with the supports of all DRDO well-wishers.
All the articles in which Dr Arun Kumar has said that they are false allegations, but the facts were not submitted by him along with the complaints. The other side of DRDO knows the whole truth. The RTI documents are available with website which were obtained from RTI cell DRDO by citizen of India.
Some are also uploaded on the website from time to time to time and rest will be uploaded soon.
The CPIO
Under Secretary (Estt.A-IV)
R.No.202, North Block, D/o. Personnel & Training, North Block
New Delhi
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL, Sutarwadi, Pune- 411021 granted extension/re-employment as per rule laid down wide OM DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt.(B) dated the 18th May, 1977 for Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.
Extension: F.R. 56(d) states that no Government servant shall be granted extension of service beyond the age of 60 years. However, provisions exist in the rules to grant extension of service to certain category of Government servants only. Therefore, it must be ensured that no Ministry/Department should propose to grant extension in service unless the case is covered by the Rules
Please Provide me the copy of proposal of extension in respect of Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL with copy of certificate of Integrity along with the DoPT prescribed Annexure-I (Enclosed)
In the recommendation for extension of his service beyond 60 years whether any confirmation/ information regarding pendency of any criminal/ civil case against Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL is mentioned or Not.
Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after
No. 26012/6/2002-Estt. (A)Government of IndiaMinistry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions(Department of Personnel & Training )
New Delhi, dated 9th December, 2002
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject : Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation – issue of instructions regarding.
The undersigned is directed to say that the criteria for grant of extension/re employment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation are laid down in the DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt.(B) dated the 18th May, 1977. After May, 1998 and when the age of retirement of the Central Government employees increased from 58 to 60 years, some of the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 18th May, 1977 referred to above have lost their relevance. Accordingly, it has been decided to revise the instructions relating to extension/re-employment to Central Government employees.
2. In the absence of specific orders to the contrary by the competent authority, a Government servant must retire on the due date. The date of superannuation of a Government servant is known in advance and ordinarily there should not be a question of failure to make arrangements for his release sufficiently in advance. It is the responsibility of the administrative authority concerned to ensure that the Government servants under their control retire on the due date.
3. Extension: F.R. 56(d) states that no Government servant shall be granted extension of service beyond the age of 60 years. However, provisions exist in the rules to grant extension of service to certain category of Government servants only. Therefore, it must be ensured that no Ministry/Department should propose to grant extension in service unless the case is covered by the Rules.
4. The proposal for grant of extension in service to the categories of personnel referred to in the first, second and third proviso to F.R. 56(d) -2- shall be referred to the Estt. Division of Department of Personnel and Training two months prior to the date on which the individual concerned is due for superannuation. The procedure for grant of extension to the Scientists is laid down in DoPT d.o. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO(SM-II) dated the 10th July, 2000.
5. Procedure for consideration of cases for extension of specialists in the medical and scientific fields:- It should be appreciated that even in the case of extension to specialist in the medical or scientific fields, it is not only the next man who misses promotion but often several people miss consequential promotions all along the hierarchy. Thus, too many cases of extension in service or reemployment are likely to cause frustration and affect the morale of the upcoming scientists who have exposure to latest technological developments in connecting fields. Keeping in view these circumstances, the following criteria and procedure has been evolved with a view to ensure that extensions in service to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. The overriding consideration for the grant of extension is that it must be in the public interest and in addition satisfy one of the following two conditions:-
i) that the retiring specialist is not just one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest; or
ii) that other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the job.
Test (ii) would be satisfied only if there is shortage in particular specialization, or if it is not possible to find a suitable successor or if the specialist is engaged on a work or project of vital importance, which is likely to produce results in a year or two. If specialists in the next lower post are not eligible for promotion on the ground that they have not put in the minimum service in the lower grade prescribed under the rules, no promotions can be made to the higher grade, unless such specialists put in the requisite length of service. But specialists who are eligible for promotion to the post against which extension is recommended, should not be rejected solely on the ground that they do not have as much experience as the retiring specialist. They should be considered for promotion according to the -3- recruitment rules and if they are found suitable they should be promoted to the posts being vacated by the retiring specialists.
6. Whenever any specialist is considered for grant of extension, his character roll and personal file should be carefully scrutinized and all other relevant information that may be available should be taken into account to judge whether the specialist had good reputation for integrity and honesty. In cases where the specialist is not considered to have good reputation for integrity and honesty, he should not be considered for grant of extension in service. The appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry should furnish a certificate of Integrity along with the Annexure-I as follows where it proposes to grant extension of service.
“Having scrutinized in character roll and personal file of
Shri/Smt./Kum._____________________ and having taken into account all other relevant available information, I certify that he/she has a good reputation for integrity and honesty.”
7. While making proposals for extension of service in higher posts, it is all the more necessary to apply higher standards of efficiency to persons whose appointments to the higher posts are recommended for approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. The number of top posts is bound to be very limited and a few persons should not have them for too long. No Government servant who is on extension of service after the prescribed date of retirement should be promoted to another post during the period of extension of service.
8. No extension of service should be considered on the ground that a suitable successor is not available unless it is established that action to select a successor had been taken well in advance but the selection could not be finalized in time for justifiable reasons. A proposal for the grant of extension of service based merely on the consideration that the specialist’s predecessor had been given extension should obviously not be accepted. -4-
9. Re-employment: No proposal for employing a government servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years shall be considered. It is also clarified that no person can be appointed/ reappointed to Central Government service after the age of superannuation of 60 years through contract.
10. Re-employment of military pensioners who have not reached the age of superannuation for Central Government employees will not be governed by these instructions.
11. Appointment of Consultant:-
Detailed instructions have been issued for appointment of consultant vide DoP&T’s Office Memorandum No. 16012/7/97-Estt.(Allowance) dated 13th February, 1998. Hindi version will follow.
Sd/-
Mrs. Pratibha Mohan
Director (E-II)
To
All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.
(As per standard list)
Annexure-I
Performa for sending proposals for approval of Department of Personnel & Training for grant of extension to Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.
1. Designation of the post
2. Duration of the post :
3. Scale and terms of the post and perquisite attached, if any:
4. Whether financial sanction for the creation of the post/continuance of post for the duration shown at (2) has been obtained:
5. Method of recruitment:
6. Name and the terminal date of appointment of the outgoing incumbent of the post:
7. Name of the specialist proposed for appointment and the service to which he belongs:
8. Full service particulars of the Officer with date of birth and pay drawn:
9. Names of other Officers considered:
10.If promotion post, whether copies of proceedings of a D.P.C. are being enclosed? If not, why not?
11. Whether character roll of the specialist proposed and those considered are being sent. If not, why not?
12. Please indicate:
(i) (a) Whether the post is scientific or medical specialist.
(b) Periods of extension granted earlier to the officer, if any
(c) Date from which extension is to be granted.
(d) Period of extension of service.
(ii) Justification for grant of extension:
(a) The date from which it was known that vacancy would occur.
(b) Action taken to select a successor with chronological details.
(c) If selection is being made, reasons why this could not be finalized in good time.
(d) Can some officiating or ad-hoc arrangements be made, pending fresh appointment by proper selection? If not, why not?
(iii) Whether orders of the Minister-in charge have been obtained?
13. Whether the prescribed Integrity Certificate, from the appropriate authority, is enclosed.
DOPT covering letterintegrity ceritificate - see the date?Dr Arun Kupar's play 1Dr Arun Kumar's play 2Dr Arun Kumar's play 3Dr Arun Kumar's paly 4
After receiving of the denial of RTI request by CPIO, DRDO, I appealed the matter to Appellate Authority as expected by us the denial of Appellate Authority, DRDO received by me.
As you already know about Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO, he is the one of the most corrupt official of DRDO and he is the total responsible for downfall of the DRDO. He is the man behind the all manipulations to uplift the incompetent and corrupt officials of DRDO, their promotions, their posting, their extensions, their illegal financial benefits all matters are taken care by Dr Arun Kumar but question is up to which date because everyone very well know if somebody doing illegal activities it is limit and one has pay for that.
Since the website completed 17 months and in this period I have come across only one good act of Dr Arun Kumar, DOP that is the transfer of two blinds Sh Laxman, Admin Assistant, ACEM, Nasik & Sh Ravindra Gauda, HEMRL, Pune to their hometowns lab, but it was after the pressure of Sh Rajiv Varshnay, SA’s staff officer only. I want to thanks both of them for this noble cause.
I am requested Dr Arun Kumar please act for some good cause in last step of your service, so people will forget wrong doings.
After few months when you will retire no one can even like to say hello to you.
Dear SFcians pleas find below their denial of DRDO, but we will take up this matter to CIC soon and will get proper and legal solutions for issues.
Some important question
The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011
Whether Above info is nature of strategic?
Since they have already “One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.
I really don’t our honorable SA put these inhuman persons in such important posts.
I.D. No_________ Date: _________ [For office use]To Dr Arun Kumar OS & Director, Directorate of PersonalRoom No.-217, DRDO Bhawan , Rajaji Marg New Delhi – 110105
Sir,
As I am aggrieved by decision/no decision of Central Public Information Officer, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
The reply of CPIO, DRDO, is completely confusing, misleading, incorrect, unjustified and willful not give any information, does not following the spirit of RTI Act 2005.
The information asked about SF Complex Jagdalpur is not come any norms of secrecy. I am not asking about any work or project information of SF Jagdalpur Unit.
1. Details of appellant
1.1 Full Name: Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
1.2. Full Address: 21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
1.3 Phone/Cell No. 0135-2787750 / 919411114879
1.4 Email ID: prabhu@dandriyal.com 2. Details of CPIO:
2.1 Name/Designation: Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, Head RTI Cell, Scientist ‘F’
2.2 Full Address : Room No 314 A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India
3. Details of RTI application to CPIO:
Date of Application : 19th July 2011
Mailed on: 19th July 2011
by speed post
4. Particulars of payment of filing fee:
Paid Rs.10/- by Postal Order No. 90E 611227
5. Details of information sought:
1) The official address of SF Complex (one of the labs/Establishment of DRDO), JAGDALPUR?
2) Copy of D O part order or any other order regarding the place of reporting duty at Plant Girola Village which is 40 Kms away from Jagdalpur.
3) Copy of D O part order any other order in which the employees posted at SF complex first they report to duty at SF Complex then report for duty at Girola Plant Site.
4) The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011
5) The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and human right not come under schedule -II – why because it is noticed that without proper movement orders and without proper maintained vehicles the employees of SF complex are going daily at Girola plant. Earlier in one accident case it is heard that the movement order was made by SF Complex administration in back date to give financial benefits to the deceased family.
6. Particulars of Decision of CPIO:
Date of CPIO’s Decision:9th August 2011
Date of receipt of decision by the appellant:12th August 2011
7. Brief facts of the case:
The official address of SF Complex is “SF COMPLEX, AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING, JAGDALPUR-494001”. SFC Employees are given appointment letters with above address as reporting place. But, all are forced to report at the above address as well as at its work centre located at Girola village, Bakawand block, Bastar district. This location is completely out of 40 Kms away from municipality (Jagdalpur) of the official address.
As per rule they should report at the place of posting as per the appointment letter. But it is not so. Is it (forcing to report at other place) not violation of an employee’s right to report at the posting place? The management says that reporting place is at Girola and same time management says Airport terminal building, Jagdalpur. It is clear cut case of harassment of employees of SF Complex.
One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.
If the travelling from Jagdalpur to Girola and back is official and as per the rule and the rule position should be clear for all for management, employees and the general public. After this accident all the staff of SF Complex Jagdalpur took a decision and reported at posting place only. This happened for two days and later management has interfered and threatened to them for report at Girola and told them if they will not report at Girola, will get termination letter. Employees were forced to report at Girola. It is a violation of Human Right? Reporting at posting place is not correct? Then why appointment letters were given like that? DRDO has to duty to provide them proper necessary papers as per rule position of Central Government.
The requested information is not come under 8(1) (a) and 24 (1) of the RTI Act at all because the information asked not in the nature of secrecy like The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority. This the major concern of family and friends of employees of SF complex for their safety and well beings. For mere few thousand Rupees from contractors as bribe the Top DRDO officials playing with the life of SF Complex Employees.
The required information is fall under corruption and as well as violation human right and therefore in any means it is not come under schedule –II exemption of RTI Act 2005.
“RTI is a key instrument for imposing democratic values, accountability and transparency in our public administration,” Dr.Shah Faisal (IAS topper 2010 & RTI activist of J&K RTI Movement NGO) told Sakàl Times
8. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:
i) To know the sensitiveness and work environment of DRDO
ii) To expose the corrupt practices prevailing in DRDO
9. Any other information in support of appeal:
10. Prayer/relief sought for:
It is requested that please provide me correct information as per request of my RTI dated 19th July 2011 in larger public interest, because it is directly related to corruption and violation of Human rights.
11. Enclosures:
i) My RTI request dated 19th July 2011
ii) Denial of CPIO, DRDO Hqrs dated 09 August 2011
12. Declaration:I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with any information commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com website www.corruptionindrdo.comDenial of Appellate Authority page 1Denial of Appellate Authority page 2
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
