Tag Archives: Dr. Sangeeta Khare

Drdo

RTI is only weapon to correct the mind of so called Dictators of DRDO

July 10, 2014 Prabhu 2 Comments

Dear friends of DRDO,

Following inputs being published for awareness of all DRDO officials. All of them are experiencing the arbitrariness of entire DRDO‘s Lab directors. Every year you all are silent spectators of this arbitrary conduct of the respective lab directors when DRDS or DRTC promotion’s results are declared.

Few days’ frustration looks are seen on the faces of few but again they indulge in the same cycle. If you seriously observe the health condition of DRDO scientists, this time every year a bitter sip of humiliation distorted the life and health conditions of each one.

It is not because of their failure in assessment. It is because of the success of those incompetent / working on non-scientific assignments.

Earlier in days of beginning of 90’s this kind of push pull was not done openly or in a big way. One or two cases were seen in entire DRDO, but nowadays Directors, New born DG’s, DRDO Hqrs beloved boys are fully creating dadagiri and clearing/helping incompetent and ignoring all those who are seriously involved in scientific research and development.

Although the exodus ratio dropout because of two reasons. One, the world economic recession and two, the VIth pay commission hike in pay package of scientists, but this frustration directly affected their output and as well as their daily life. The enthusiasm of young scientists is lost in DRDO and now they are involved to mint money in all means. An example would be like the LTC 80 scam of Metcalf house is a clear signal of the mindset of the new generation of DRDO team.

The following papers are the example of dadagiri of DRDO lab directors. Sh. M R Gupta, TO ‘C’ was joined DRDO in 9 Nov 1979 as JSA – II, subsequently transferred IRDE in 1981 and in 1987 in DEAL, he is IETE graduate (1987), presently he is working as TO ‘C’ in DEAL since 2008. As per normal conditions he is supposed to get a promotion in 2001.

Sh. M R Gupta rested his ACR/APAR through RTI in 2013 from 1987 to 2013 after a long battle CIC ordered to supply all ACR to DRDO on 4^th March 2014 vide File No.CIC/LS/A/2013/001815/RM dated 2014 “DECISION – The Commission directed the CPIO to provide copies of ACRs for the period 1987-2007 as sought by the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, free of cost”

Now see in followin enclosed document, Sh M R Gupta shocked to see that his two year ACR/ APAR of 1995 and 96 was blank and in 2004 ACR/APAR was reviewed by Sh Y P Sehgal, Ex Sc ‘G’ illegally as Sh M R Gupta was never worked with him and put adverse remark “ One disciplinary case is with DRDO Hqrs” and remark was duly approved by the Director, Sh Ashok Sen and best part of this RTI revealed that it was not even communicated to Sh M R Gupta.

This illegal unethical act done by Sh. Ashok Sen, then Director, DEAL was perfect example of DRDO work atmosphere, which proves that the absolute power made DRDO Lab’s director became autocratic/dictator/tyrant, etc.

This is not the only case you will find this kind of act in the entire DRDO. RTI’s also revealed that in several cases white fluid applied in ACR/APAR, tempering of marks in any stage even after in final stage at DRDO Hqrs.

It is requested to all suffering DRDO officials to please file RTIs with reference to supreme court order of Justice Markandey Katju, in Devi dutt Vs Union of India (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7631 OF 2002) to confirm your ACR/APAR marks and comments.

One more important observation is that these DRDO Lab’s director also authenticating false claim of work to their beloved incompetent scientists.

Hope with the following example you all will review your promotion profile and analyze the possible flaw in the process of DRDO’s promotion mechanism.

Regards

To, 5^th May 2014

Dr. Sangeeta Khare, CPIO

DEAL, DRDO

Raipur Road, DEHRADUN-248001

Madam,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to my ACR/APAR of year 2004. Recently on 11^th April 2014 CPIO, CEPTAM send me ACR/APAR from 1987 -2007. In 2014 ACR/APAR assessing officer was Sh K Siva Kumar, Sc ‘F’ and reviewing officer Sh Y P Sehgal, Sc ‘G’(copy enclosed). Sh Y P Sehgal, Sc ‘G’ reviewing officer put adverse remark in para 5 –“one disciplinary case is with DRDO Hqrs”.

Provide the certified copy of disciplinary case which was pending in DRDO Hqrs against me as mentioned by RO, Sh Y P Sehgal, Sc ‘G’.
Present status of disciplinary case which was mentioned by RO Sh Y P Sehgal, Sc ‘G’.
Provide the certified copy of communication letter of above adverse remark.
Provide the DO part order/ION on the basis RO mentioned in APAR/ACR para 2 that I have served under him form 1^st June 2004 to 31^st December 2004.

Note. The information sought for concerns related to my life and health condition. I am in mental agony, my health is deteriorating day by day, and necessary medical certificates from Fortis & Max Hospital are enclosed for your ready reference. It is requested the information should be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request, so that my health will improve sharply.

Enclosed:-

Photocopy of APAR/ACR of 2004
Medical Certificate of Fortis Hospital, Chandigarh
Medical Certificate of Max Hospital, Dehradun

Thanking You

(M. R. Gupta)

T O ‘C’

21- Bank Colony, Adhoiwala

Raipur Road, DEHRADUN – 2248001

Rs 10 fee is deposited cash

Drdo

First Appeal – Sh R K Agarwal’s False Claim

October 7, 2013 Prabhu Leave a comment

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

To,

Shri Surjan 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: No.DEAL/RTI/0010/2013 dated 3^rd September 2013

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.

I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1. Details of appellant:-

Name	Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address	21-Sunderwala, Raipur Dehradun-248008
Mobile	09411114879
email ID	prabhudoon@gmail.com

2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-

Name & Rank	Dr. Sangeeta Khare , Scientist ‘G ‘
Address	DEAL,Raipur Road, Dehradun-248001

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

Decision vide letter No. DEAL/RTI/0010/2013 dated 3^rd September 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun was promoted wef 1^st July 2012.

In 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.”

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed 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 ShSurendra 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 and castism. (Copy enclosed)

5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

RTI request sent to DoPT and DoPT furnished partly information which is also mark as confidential, but after result it was a open document.(Copy Enclosed)
DoPT transferred my RTI request to Ministry of Defence for rest information vide their letter no F.No/29/38/2013-EOSM-II Dated 15^th July 2013.
Subsequently MOD transferred to RTI Cell, DRDO vide Mof D ID No 21/(3)/2013(1083)/ D/(RTI) Dt 5/7/2013
Subsequently RTI Cell, DRDO transferred to CPIO,RAC, DRDO vide RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0178 dated 10^th July 2013
Subsequently CPIO,RAC, DRDO informed me vide letter no RAC/03/RTI/95/2013 Dated 1^st August 2013 that my application sent back to RTI Cell, DRDO for further action. (Copy enclosed)
Unexpectedly I have received 6^th September 2013 a letter from CPIO,DEAL, Dehardun stated that they received a letter from CPIO,RAC, DRDO on 20^th August 2013 (no letter no reference) stated that the information (Biodata) of Sh R K Agarwal marked as confidential, hence it cannot be disclosed (copy enclosed)
As Sh R K Agarwal worked in DEAL in various projects and “only those project are classified as secret/confidential which have been sanction under staff project (ARMY/Air force/Navy/ Services Branch, the rest of the project sanctioned to DRDO comes under R&D Projects.

Sh R K Agarwal himself quote in DRDO News Letter (September 2012) that he was associated with Project “NARAD” his claim was totally false and supported by Sh R C Agarwal, Director, DEAL for his promotion to Scientist ‘H’ and this act come under corruption. (“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”)

Corruption – Giving or obtaining advantage through means which are illegitimate, immoral, and/or inconsistent with one’s duty or the rights of others. Corruption often results from patronage)

viii. DRDO is protecting Sh R K Agarwal for his false claim and to stop this corrupt practice in DRDO, it is very well require exposing false claims especially in R&D atmosphere because these practices demoralize young scientists. As CPIO, DEAL already committed in one RTI reply no information and document evidence is available in DEAL regarding Sh R K Agarwal’s claim.

6. Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vide RTI Application dated 28^th May 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DEAL,Dehradun. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO,DEAL, Dehradun to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 28^th May 2013 (Copy Enclosed)

7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-

1. CIC decisions on notified organisations 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) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.

CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
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)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)

(v) 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. 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.

3. Misuse & wrong interpretation of section 8(1) (j) by CPIO, DRDO HQ: – It appears that either CPIO did not apply his mind on content of information sought or he is supporting corrupt practices of Director, DEAL, Dehradun

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

Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879

Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/RKA/DRDO HQ/2013/03

Date: 3^rd October, 2013

Enclosure:

(1) My RTI Application to CPIO,DoPT, New Delhi dated 28^th May 2013

(2) DoPT reply Dated 15^th july 2013

(3) MoD letter Dated 5 th July 2013

(4) CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18^th July 2013

(5) CPIO, RAC, letter dated 1^st August 2013

(6) CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3^rd September 2013

My RTI Application to CPIO,DoPT, New Delhi dated 28th May 2013

To 28th May 2013

The Under Secretary (RR- II )

Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)

Department of Personnel and Training

Room No. 268 – B , North Block

New Delhi- 110011

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun

As per SRO- 36 dated 9t May 2011 ( FileNo. DHRDn6205IDRDSlRRlClP/10/1022/D(R&D))

Para 2

“(iv) The Peer Committee as specified in Schedule ID shall assess suitability for appointment of Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist in Defence Research and Development Service”.

In 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.”

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed 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)

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.

Kindly provide the following informations under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005

The certified copy of Sh R K Agarwal’s credentials submitted to then Peer Committee by DRDO for consideration for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist).
The certified copy Peer Committee recommendation for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist) in respect of Sh R K Agarwal

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”

Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order 98E 528553

Regards,

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal

21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008

Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com , website- www.corruptionindrdo.com

DoPT reply Dated 15th july 2013