Tag Archives: Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO

Drdo

RTI- DoPT- Dr AK Singh ke hath kanoon se bhi lambe hain

1 Comment
To
Sh R.K.Girdhar,                                                                                     16th April 2014
Under Secretary (RTI), PIO,
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 (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of my RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 filed online portal on 31/03/214 addressed to Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO, DRDO under department of Defence.  My RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 was returned online on 15th March 2014 with this remark which one unprecedented act of portal manager/ in-charge against the guideline.  Remark – Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.

As per Guideline – An applicant who desires to obtain any information under the RTI Act 2005 can make a request through this RTI Online Portal to only the Central Public Authorities of main Ministries/Departments located at New Delhi initially. In the first phase, this facility is available to Ministries/Departments/Apex Bodies mentioned in the list available in ‘GUIDELINES’

It is astonishing fact that DoPt official mentioning   that DRDO placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 but they forget they are not exempted for corruption and human right matters; it seems that the officials involved in are biased and supporter of corrupt official of DRDO.

  1. Provide me certified copy of concerned note of DoPT on the basis of my RTI application MODEF/ R/ 2014/ 60617 dated 31/03/214 was returned by above remark.
  2. Provide me the names and designations of the DoPT officials who initiated proposal and processed the given approval in concern file for returning online RTI application  unprecedentedly
  3. Provide the DoPT provision/guideline on the basis of my RTI application MODEF/ R/ 2014/ 60617 dated 31/03/214 was returned by above remark.
  4. Copy of proposal received from DRDO for not accepting in online RTI application in the name department of defence.
  5. Please provide that any ceiling to file RTI application by citizen of India.
 Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com
Registration Number       DOP&T/R/2014/61539

Final Status of   MODEF/R/2014/60617

Top of Form

Applicant Name Prabhu Dandriyal
Date of receipt 31/03/2014
Request Filed With Department of Defence
Text of Application To,                                                                                             31st March 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist G is presently holding the charge of DOP, DRDO at DRDO HQ. He is holding following post in DRDO since January 2007. Details are given as under:
SN Post Duration   Directorate
1.Staff Officer to CC(R&D) (HR) -Oct 2004- Dec 2006DRDO HQ, DRDO,
2.DirectorJan 2007 Sep 2010CEPTAM, DRDO,
3.DirectorOct 2010 27th Feb 2013Dte. of HRD, DRDO HQ,
4.Director28 Feb 2013 till date DOP, DRDO HQ
Note: He was holding the charge of two Directorates as Director, DHRD & Director, DOP from 01 Dec 2012 to 27 Feb 2013
In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
1.Procedure/Guidelines/Rules for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM, DRDO duly approved by DOPT, Government of India.
2.Criteria for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM (Seniority/Administrative & Management skill, qualification & experience etc.)
3.Charter of Duties & Nature of work carried out by Scientist appointed as:
I.Staff Officer to Chief Controller R&D(HR)
II.Director, CEPTAM
III.Director, DHRD
IV.Director, DOP
4.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Staff Officer to CCR&D (HR) & copy of appointment order
5.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, CEPTAM & copy of his appointment order
6.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD, DRDO HQ & copy of his appointment order
7.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DOP & copy of his appointment order
8.List of Scientist consider in the appointment of following post by DRDO Hqrs.
a.Director, CEPTAM Jan 2007- Sept 2010
b.Director, DHRD Oct 2010- Feb 2013
c.Director, DOP March 2013- Jan 2014
9.Administrative & Managerial Experience and Educational Qualification of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist F as on Jan 2007 when he was appointed as Director, CEPTAM, DRDO.
NOTE – Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) because Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD was part & parcel of implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO   (Violation of Article 309). He was also one of the candidates for scientist F to scientist G promotion in year 2011 assessment.
a.Please refer CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO)-
b.Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
Request document (if any) document not provided
Status RTI REQUEST APPLICATION RETURNED TO APPLICANT
Date of Action 15/04/2014
Remarks Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.
Drdo

RTI- DRDO- Dr AK Singh is not only Kingh actually he is Super King

1 Comment
To,                                                                                                                         16th April 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011 

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect  of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist  G  is presently holding the charge of DOP, DRDO  at DRDO HQ. He is holding following post in DRDO since January 2007. Details are given as under:

SN    Post                                                  Duration                           Directorate

1.      Staff Officer to CC(R&D) (HR) –    Oct 2004- Dec 2006                DRDO HQ, DRDO,
2.      Director                                                   Jan  2007 – Sep 2010              CEPTAM, DRDO,  
3.      Director                                                   Oct 2010 – 27 Feb 2013         Dte. of  HRD, DRDO HQ,
4.     Director                                                   28 Feb 2013 – till date           DOP, DRDO HQ    

Note:     He was holding the charge of two Directorates as Director, DHRD & Director, DOP from 01 Dec 2012 to 27 Feb 2013

In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  1. Procedure/Guidelines/Rules for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM, DRDO duly approved by DOPT, Government of India.
  2. Criteria for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM (Seniority/Administrative & Management skill, qualification & experience etc.)
  3. Charter of Duties & Nature of work  carried out by Scientist appointed as:
          I.            Staff Officer to Chief Controller R&D(HR)
        II.            Director, CEPTAM
      III.            Director, DHRD
      IV.            Director, DOP
  1. File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Staff Officer to CCR&D (HR) & copy of appointment order
  2. File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, CEPTAM & copy of his appointment order
  3. File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD, DRDO HQ & copy of his appointment order
  4. File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DOP & copy of his appointment order
  5. List of Scientist considered in the appointment of following post by DRDO Hqrs.
  6. Administrative & Managerial Experience and Educational Qualification of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist F as on Jan 2007 when he was appointed as Director, CEPTAM, DRDO.
1.      Director, CEPTAM  Jan 2007- Sept 2010
2.      Director, DHRD  Oct 2010- Feb 2013
3.      Director, DOP  March 2013- Jan 2014

NOTE – Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) because  Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD was part & parcel of implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO ( Violation of Article 309).  He was also one of the candidates for scientist F to scientist G promotion in year 2011 assessment.

  1. Please refer CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO)-  
  2. Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC.
  3. File No. CIC/SM/C/2011/001564
  4. CWP No. 12904 of 2009

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh                    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE  MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

under Section 24(4) of the Act which envisaged that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organizations A combined reading of these provisions would reveal, only that information is exempted, which is directly effecting and co-related to the “Intelligence” and “Security” of that organization of the State and not otherwise.

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

Enclosed- Postal Order No 27F 941938 Rs 10 only

Drdo

RTI- Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh – Singh is Kingh

6 Comments
To,                                                                                      31st March 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011                             

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect  of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist  G  is presently holding the charge of DOP, DRDO  at DRDO HQ. He is holding following post in DRDO since January 2007. Details are given as under:

SN    Post                                                 Duration                           Directorate
1.      Staff Officer to CC(R&D) (HR) – Oct 2004- Dec 2006            DRDO HQ, DRDO,
2.      Director                                            Jan  2007 – Sep 2010        CEPTAM, DRDO,  
3.      Director                                            Oct 2010 – 27 Feb 2013   Dte. of  HRD, DRDO HQ,
4.     Director                                           28 Feb 2013 – till date      DOP, DRDO HQ    
Note:     He was holding the charge of two Directorates as Director, DHRD & Director, DOP from 01 Dec 2012 to 27 Feb 2013

In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  1. Procedure/Guidelines/Rules for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM, DRDO duly approved by DOPT, Government of India.
  2. Criteria for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM (Seniority/Administrative & Management skill, qualification & experience etc.)
  3. Charter of Duties & Nature of work  carried out by Scientist appointed as:
          I.            Staff Officer to Chief Controller R&D(HR)
        II.            Director, CEPTAM
      III.            Director, DHRD
      IV.            Director, DOP
  1. File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Staff Officer to CCR&D (HR) & copy of appointment order
  2. File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, CEPTAM & copy of his appointment order
  3. File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD, DRDO HQ & copy of his appointment order
  4. File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DOP & copy of his appointment order
  5. List of Scientist considered in the appointment of following post by DRDO Hqrs.
  6. Administrative & Managerial Experience and Educational Qualification of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist F as on Jan 2007 when he was appointed as Director, CEPTAM, DRDO.
  1. Director, CEPTAM  Jan 2007- Sept 2010
  2. Director, DHRD  Oct 2010- Feb 2013
  3. Director, DOP  March 2013- Jan 2014

NOTE – Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) because  Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD was part & parcel of implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO ( Violation of Article 309).  He was also one of the candidates for scientist F to scientist G promotion in year 2011 assessment.

  1. Please refer CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO)-  
  2. Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC.

Regards

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

 

Registration Number    MODEF/R/2014/60617       

Drdo

RTI – TBRL

1 Comment
To,
Central Public Information Officer
Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL), DRDO
Min of Defence
Sector 30
Chandigarh – 160003

Hello,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given thereof 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”.
  2. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO), CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO) and CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

In its various decisions CIC 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 Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005. 

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Whether Mr. Suresh Chand, Chief Admin Officer (CAO) was an employee of TBRL, Chandigarh. (Yes/No)
  2. If answer to point (1) is yes then provide the following information.

      i.            The date on which Mr. Suresh Chand was retired from TBRL.

    ii.            Whether a lady other than his wife claimed on his retirement pensionery benefits on the day of  his retirement.(Yes/No)

  iii.            Whether pension of Mr. Suresh Chand was withhold.(Yes/No)

  iv.            If answer to point (iii) is yes then provide the reasons for withholding of his pension.

    v.            Was the case of withholding of his pension and reasons thereof was referred to DRDO HQ/Vigilance for inquiry?(Yes/No)

  vi.            If answer to point (v) is yes then what is the status of his pension and retirement benefits?

vii.             Whether his pension & retirement benefits has been restored partially after inquiry/ non enquiry. (Yes/No)

viii             Whether Director, TBRL refer the case of Mr. Suresh Chand to CVC besides DGR&D, DRDO for information under new  Transparency Law of Govt of India.(Yes/No)

3.              Please refer to Rule 21 of The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964: RESTRICTION REGARDING MARRIAGE and GOI MHA OM No. 219/51-Ests. Dated 16.02.1955: Procedure for dealing with requests from Government servants for permission to remarry while first wife is still living, provide following information.
 i.            Whether TBRL/DRDO received any request from Mr. Suresh Chand, CAO regarding permission to remarry while first wife is still living. (Yes/No)

ii.             If answer to point (i) above is yes then due procedure as per Rule 21 has been followed by Competent Authority in the matter. (Yes/No)

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

Regards,

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

Registration Number – MODEF/R/2013/61087

Drdo

RTI- Hindustan University – DRDO

1 Comment

To                                                                                                          Date 5th December 2013    The CPIO, DRDO HQ                                                                                                                      Room No. 314A                                                                                                                          DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg                                                                                                        New Delhi – 110105


Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Hindustan University, P.O.Box No.1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR),Padur, (Via) Kelambakkam, Chennai – 603 103, India

1.Please provide total amount of funds granted to  Hindustan University, P.O.Box No.1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR),Padur, (Via) Kelambakkam, Chennai – 603 103, India since April 2008 to March 2013 for various purposes.

2.Name of scientists of DRDO who enroll for PhD since April 2008 to March 2013.

3. Name of scientists of DRDO who joined Hindustan University

4. Copy of NOC, Copy of No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment has   been obtained from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired. Copy of vigilance clearance from the competent authority of Dr. Ilavazhagan Govindasamy, Director (Research) at Hindustan University, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, India

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

Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule II. As you aware the recruitment case of Mrs T Chandra banu, Scientist ‘F’, DRDO Hqrs (wife of Dr. Ilavazhagan Govindasamy) has been recommended for CBI inquiry by honorable Sh A K Antony, Defence Minister on 29th October 2013.

Regards

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

 Registration Number – MODEF/R/2013/61035

Drdo

DRDO Hqrs Not Having Capabilities to Manage Fake/ Unrecognized Diploma /Degree Business

Leave a comment

To                                                                                               Date 24th November 2013

The CPIO, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to Financial incentive on acquiring higher qualification at their own.

  1. Please provide the amount to be paid to individual for acquiring higher qualification on their own for Diploma, Degree, Post graduation and PhD.
  2. Please provide the number of DRDO official who acquired Diploma and were paid financial incentive since 1st April 2003 to  31st  Mar 2013
  3. Please provide the names of DRDO officials, names of Institutes and modes of  acquiring Diploma since 1st April 2003 to  31st Mar 2013
  4. Please provide the names of DRDO officials, names of Institutes and modes of  acquiring Degree since 1st April 2003 to  31st  Mar 2013

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given in these decisions. 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 not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far.

Note: – Above required information is directly related to corruption and does not come under schedule II.  Kindly refer to your first appeal reply appeal No 0116 letter No RTI/ 02/ 2091 /F /2013/0116 in which you provided the names of 7(seven) officials from DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun that their acquired Diploma via distance education that is not recognized from apex bodies like DCE/ACTIE etc.. Please refer your RTI reply No RTI/01/2091/P/2010/0166 dated 14th September 2012 signed by Sh Deepak Mishra, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs. So it is now established that these individuals were inducted corruptly.

Regards

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

Registration Number:  MODEF/R/2013/60952

FA request 1
FA request 1
FA Request 2
FA Request 2
FA Reply1
FA Reply1

fareplypage2

List from DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun
List from DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun

 

 

Drdo

RTI for exposing Corruption of Dr Prahalada, Vice Chancellor, DIAT, Pune

Leave a comment
To                                                                                                     Date 23rd November 2013  
The CPIO, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A     
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg      
New Delhi – 110105

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to Dr Prahalada, Vice Chancellor, DIAT, Pune. As per CPIO DRDO reply RTI/02/2091/C/2011 dated 27th Sep 2011 File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000412  para (d) Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae& SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi from 26 Mar 2010 to 20 Mar 2011. But the fact is Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae& SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility since 2005 after his posting from DRDL, Hyderabad. As per DRDO Hqrs telephone Directory from 2005 to 2010 Dr. Prahiada’s residence showed C-7, DRDO Guest House Qutab Enclave, New Delhi.

  1. Please provide the copy the document/ noting / any written paper received by CPIO, DRDO Hqrs from establishment in respect to Dr. Prahiada’s stay in DRDO guest house since 26th  Mar 2010 to 20th  Mar 2011
  2. Please provide total amount that was recovered from Dr. Prahiada.
  3. Copy of disciplinary action taken against Dr. Prahiada for illegally claimed HRA, if any.
  4. Residence proof of Dr. Prahiada which he produced to JCDA for availing HRA since his posting to DRDO Hqrs in 2005.

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

Note: – Above required information is directly related to corruption and does not come under schedule II. As you are aware recently Defence Minister issued charge sheet to Dr A K Tyagi in connection to his involvement in DIAT library procurement. Dr Prahalada, Vice Chancellor, DIAT, Pune extended all help to Dr A K Tyagi for manipulation of documents, like when I sought information regarding the DIAT library the very next day Dr A K Tyagi visited DIAT on temporary duty in the name of RTI awareness program etc. It is only due to as CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Dr A K Tyagi provided false information of Dr. Prahiada’s stay in DRDO guest house and Dr. Prahlada was able to digest poor tax payer’s money (4 years HRA).

Regards

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

Registration Number: MODEF/R/2013/60938

 

Drdo

51 Scientist ‘B’ recently recruited through campus selection – RTI

Leave a comment

To                                                                                         Date 22th November 2013

The CPIO, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to 51 scientist ‘B’ recently recruited through campus selection from various institutions.

1. Please provide the list of Institutes where these campus selections were conducted.

2. Name of DRDO officials who were in the committee of above campus selections.

3. Provide the names from the list of 51 scientists ‘B’ recently recruited whose father/mother is working in DRDO and their post in the organization.

4. Provide the names from the list of 51 scientists ‘B’ recently recruited who are having immediate relatives working in DRDO, name of relative, the relation with newly recruited scientist and their post in the organization. If it is not available then please collect the same from the individual.

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

Note: – Above required information is directly related to corruption and does not come under schedule II. As you  are aware recently Defence Minister recommended CBI inquiry to probe recruitment done by RAC.

Regards

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

Registration Number: MODEF/R/2013/60932

List of new recruited Scientist ‘B’ through campus selection

Appeal to DRDO honest officials please provide information to clean the nepotism and corruption from DRDO. As you all are aware that Sh AK Antony is also giving his support by taking action against corrupt officials of DRDO.

51 scientist ‘B’ recently recruited through campus selection
51 scientist ‘B’ recently recruited through campus selection

 

Drdo

First Appeal – Parking – DMSRDE

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

Sir,

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

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

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

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

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.   Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.   Prayer /relief sought for:-

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

     RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.   Declaration:-

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

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

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

Date: 08 November, 2013                                          

 Enclosure: Two 

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

(2)  RTI Application dated 04 October 2013.

 

Drdo

RTI – CSD – DMSRDE

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

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

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”.
  2. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

In its various decisions CIC 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. 

BRIEF FACTS FOR APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT 2005

With reference to your Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 and modified Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 04 October 2013, signed by Dr. D.N. Tripathi, Addl Director (Admin.) on behalf of Director.

  1. It has been ordered by these Minute Sheets that “wef 01.10.2013 all officers and employees are informed to park their vehicles in the Parking Area constructed near CSD Canteen” and “above Minute Sheet is related to the officers/employees who goes to CSD Canteen for purchasing items by their vehicles”.
  2. Facts narrated above in points (1) and (2) establish that CSD Canteen building exists in DMSRDE and CSD facility is available in DMSRDE

In light of above facts kindly provide following information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide the details of officers and staff with name & rank that are attached and involved in management and operation of DMSRDE CSD Canteen right from Chairman, Officer-In- Charge, Technical Officers and Staff at present.dmsrde csd table1
  2.  Total monthly expenditure incurred on incentives/emoluments to official working part time in DMSRDE CSD Canteen for month July 2013.
  3. Provide the amount of miscellaneous expenditure incurred in July 2013 under following heads in DMSRDE CSD Canteen.
  4. dmsrde csd table2Balance sheet of DMSRDE CSD Canteen for the month July 2013.
  5. Provide details of funds available with DMSRDE CSD Canteen in its Current A/C at SBI DMSRDE Branch Kanpur and all Fixed Deposits pledged with this Current account at SBI DMSRDE Branch.
  6. The competent authority responsible for attachment of officials at CSD Canteen.
  7. Whether rotation of officials working in CSD Canteen took place vide CVC Circular No.03/09/13 letter No.004/VGL/090/225753 dated 11.9.2013. (Yes/No).
  8. If answer to point (7) is yes then provide the maximum period for which an official could remain attached with CSD Canteen?
  9. Mr. DP Shukla, Lab. Attd. (Now Technical Officer) is attached/posted in DMSRDE CSD Canteen since long time. Provide his attachment/posting detail in DMSRDE CSD Canteen from 01.01.2000 to 30 September 2013.
  10. DMSRDE CSD Canteen is a profitable unit which earning good amount of money by getting commission/profit in sale of store items at canteen. In which account this money is being deposited and the name of officers who are authorize/responsible to withdraw the money.
  11. Provide type /nature of purpose for which the fund of CSD can be utilized.
  12. Can CSD fund be utilized for purchase of item/store/services that are not used by CSD Canteen instead used by DMSRDE officials like furniture, construction of aluminum, partitions, distribution of gifts etc.?
  13. Provide sales statement of DMSRDE Canteen for month of July 2013.
  14. Cheque No. 871271 dated 22.7.2013 issued by DMSRDE Canteen. Provide information in following format.
  15. dmsrde csd table3Cheque No. 871267 with payable amount of Rs. 214312.00 was issued by DMSRDE Canteen (CSD) in July 2013. Provide following information in this regard-
    1. Name of the firm/vendor in favor of which cheque No. 871267 with payable amount of Rs. 214312.00 was issued.
    2. Purpose of issue of the cheque No. 871267 of DMSRDE Canteen (CSD) with amount of Rs. 214312.00 in July 2013.
    3. List of items purchased through cheque No. 871267 issue by DMSRDE Canteen (CSD) for amount Rs. 214312.00 in July 2013.
    4. User of the items purchased vide cheque No. 871267 issued for Rs. 214312/-.
    5. The items purchased vide cheque No. 871267 has been kept in which place.
    6. Copy of bill of vendor/firm for supply of items against cheque No. 871267 issued by DMSRDE Canteen (CSD) with amount of Rs. 214312.00 in July 2013.
  16. Whether any fund was withdrawn from account of DMSRDE Canteen for purpose of aluminum door and grill partition in Security Division Building at reception counter.(Yes/No)
  17. If answer to point (16) is yes then provide the expenditure details for the said work at reception of Security Office.
  18. If answer to point(16) is No, then provide the following details
    1. The agency (DMSRDE/MES) which issue supply order to accomplish the task for aluminum partition at reception of Security Office.
    2. The name of vendor who make aluminum partition at reception of Security Office.
    3. The copy of supply order issued for making the aluminum partition at reception of Security Office.
    4. Total expenditure involved in construction of aluminum partition at reception of Security Office.
  19. Provide copy of statement of expenditure for Rs. 255248.00 from 01.07.2013 to 31.07.2013 under Miscellaneous Head for month of July 2013 in DMSRDE Canteen (CSD).
  20. Whether audit of CSD Canteen accounts took place by Local Audit Officer (LAO)/ACDA on annual basis. Yes/No
  21. If answer to point 20 is yes then provide the copy of audit report of DMSRDE CSD Canteen for FY 2012-2013.
  22. Percentage of average profit in sale of items/store at DMSRDE CSD Canteen.
  23. Average profit of DMSRDE CSD Canteen in rupees  per month in FY 2012-13.
  24. How much funds/money has been expenditure in welfare activities from CSD fund in FY 2012-2013?

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

Besides Information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549286) is annexed as Annexure-1.

 (Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal)
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand           
prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com        

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.  17F 549286  as application Fee.