Tag Archives: DRDO BHAWAN

Drdo

CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF CHEMICALS AT DMSRDE KANPUR

January 6, 2014 Prabhu 6 Comments

Central Vigilance Commissioner,

Central Vigilance Commission,

SatarktaBhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA

New Delhi-110023

SUBJECT: MULTI-CRORE SCAM CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF CHEMICALS IN DMSRDE KANPUR COMPLAINT AGAINST

MR. AMIT SARAIYA, SCIENTIST ‘D’, HEAD MATERIALS MANAGEMENT GROUP (MMG),
DR. DARSHAN LAL, CHAIRMAN ‘STORES PRUCHASE COMMITTEE’
Dr. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR, DMSRDE, KANPUR

Sir,

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT

Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
Purchase Management 2006 is applicable for procurement of store items in DRDO. Gross irregularities and violation of Purchase Management 2006 was made in procurement of Chemicals in year 2012 when the cases were indented by officers of MMG under threat illegal orders of Head ‘Materials Management Group’ (MMG)& Dr. A K Saxena Director DMSRDE
Dr. A K Saxena Director is an incompetent, arrogant and corrupt administrator who has violated all the rules and regulations of purchase. In the year 2012 while chairing ‘Head of Divisions’ (HOD) meeting, he directed that all HOD’s shall ensure that all demands of chemicals what-so-ever should be immediately forwarded to Head MMG. Head MMG shall consolidate all the requirements and one order shall be placed to get maximum discount from the suppliers
Accordingly Head MMG circulated a memo requesting for the details of chemicals as per the enclosed format. Now here is where criminal conspiracy starts and instead of placing one consolidated demand, Head MMG & Dr. A K Saxena, Director & CFA split the orders of various chemicals to the tune of Rs. 2.2 Crores.
Procurement of CHEMICALS

Chemicals worth total estimated cost of Rs.2,19,19,074/-were procured centrally by a single division i.e. Material Management Group on limited tender basis splitting total demand against requirements received from various divisions of lab

into 30 cases below Rs.10 lakh(to avoid TPC) during 10 months period(from 12 Oct 2011 to 31 July 2012)
these demands were cleared by the same SPC (Store Procurement Committee) Chairman Darshan Lal Joint Director, and
issuing more than 40 supply orders during Apr 2012 to Dec 2012
Point to be noted that only in Month of Oct 2011 22 Demands worth total estimated cost of Rs. 15333034.00 were raised out of which 16 Demands worth total estimated cost of Rs 11471067.00 were cleared in one SPC meeting held on 16^th Nov 2011 by SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases costing less than Rs 10 lakh headedby Chairman Darshan Lal Joint Director. Further it has bypassed the expert higher level SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases costing more than Rs 10 lakh headed by an honest officer Chairman Dr. DK Setua, Addl. Director having expertise with chemical background who might have not permitted splitting of cases in this manner.

These 30 No. Cases for which at least details up to supply order date(which confirms that supply order is prepared) are mentioned in following tables

Table-1

For Sl. 01-03 total estimated cost is Rs. 2832300.00 and total value of 08 Supply orders is Rs. 2635059.00
Point to be noted that

These Demand are raised on Limited Tender basis by same indenter officer, on same date 31-Jul-12 ,
SPC conducted on 22^nd Aug 2012,
CFA approval accorded on 05-Sep-12, Tender Enquiry issued on the same date 05-Sep-12, and
08 No Supply orders worth Rs. 2635059.00 are placed on same date 4-Dec-2012.

Demands of chemicals vide DMSRDE/13MMG042 & DMSRDE/13MMG041 at Sl.No. 01 and 02 reflect same chemical “Ethylene Di Chloride AR Make: Rankem/SD fine /Qualigens /SRL Each Pack of 2.5 ltr”
The requirement of chemicals was split into demands below Rs. 10.0 Lakh to avoid TPC and open tender.
DRDO Chemical Rate Contract exists w.e.f. 17^th Sep 2012 and placement of these supply orders under the RC would have fetched better quality at discounted prices.
Placement of these orders on limited tender to known local vendors ignoring DRDO Chemical RC clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation in prices, quality, pack size etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms.

Table-2

For Sl. 04-08 total estimated cost is Rs. 3422198.00
- These Demand are raised on Limited Tender basis in December 2011 from 02^nd to 31^st Dec2011,
- These Demand are cleared in 05 SPC meetings conducted over a period of 45 days from 21^st Dec 2011 to 02^nd Feb 2012
- CFA approval accorded and Tender Enquiry issued over a period of 45 days from 26^th Dec 2011 to 14^th Feb 2012, and
- Supply orders prepared over a month period from 17th Apr 2012 to 22^nd May 2012.
Point to be noted that
The requirement of chemicals was split into demands below Rs. 10.0 Lakh to avoid TPC and open tender which would have fetched better quality at discounted prices. Further it has bypassed the expert higher level SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases costing more than Rs 10 lakh.

Placement of these orders on limited tender to known local vendors clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation in prices, quality, pack size etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms.

Table-3

For Sl. 09-17 total estimated cost is Rs. 6272502.00
- From Sl No.09-15 Demand worth total estimated cost Rs. 51.00 lakh are raised on Limited Tender basis on 31^st Oct 2011 and Sl No 16,17 on 24,25^th Oct 2011
- These Demand are cleared in one SPC meeting conducted on 16^th Nov 2011
- CFA approval accorded and Tender Enquiry issued over a period of 15 days from 8^th Dec 2011 to 21^st Dec 2011, and
- Supply orders prepared over six months period from 14^th Jan 2012 to 22^nd Jun 2012 (i.e. there appears no urgency).
Point to be noted that
The requirement of chemicals was split into demands below Rs. 10.0 Lakh to avoid TPC and open tender which would have fetched better quality at discounted prices. Further it has bypassed the expert higher level SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases costing more than Rs. 10 lakh headed by an honest officer Chairman Dr. DK Setua. Addl. Director having expertise with chemical background who might have not permitted splitting of cases in this manner.
Placement of these orders on limited tender to known local vendors clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation in prices, quality, pack size etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms.

Table-4

For Sl. 18-30 total estimated cost is Rs. 9060532.00
- From Sl No.09-15 Demand are raised on Limited Tender basis over a period of 10 days from12^th Oct 2011 to 21^st Oct 2011
- Out of these Demand most are cleared in one SPC meeting conducted on 16^th Nov 2011 and only four demands were cleared in SPC meetings held on 8^th Dec 2011 (01), 06^th Jan 2012 (02 ) and 02^nd Feb 2012 (01).
- CFA approval accorded and Tender Enquiry issued over a period of 45 days from 29^th Nov 2011 to 14^th Feb 2012, and
- Supply orders prepared over two and half months periodfrom 18^th May 2012 to 30^th July2012.
Point to be noted that
- The requirement of chemicals was split into demands below Rs. 10.0 Lakh to avoid TPC and open tender which would have fetched better quality at discounted prices. Further it has bypassed the expert higher level SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases costing more than Rs 10 lakh headed by an honest officer Chairman Dr. DK Setua, Addl. Director having expertise with chemical background who might have not permitted splitting of cases in this manner.
- Placement of these orders on limited tender to known local vendors clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation in prices, quality, pack size etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms.

From the facts stated above, it is amply crystal clear that prima facie material regarding Abuse of Authority by arrogant and corrupt administrator Dr. A K Saxena, Director DMSRDE exists.

That he entered into criminal conspiracy with Mr. Darshan Lal, Joint Director, Chairman SPC and Head MMG with an intention to cheat DRDO and exchequer’s money.
In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, Dr. A K Saxena, Director and Mr. A K Singh, Technical Staff Officer of Director DMSRDE are tampering with evidence / documents that shall be prejudice to fair trial, investigation, trial or any inquiry.

In view of the above mentioned facts and evidences it is earnestly requested that an order for through investigation of all procurement done by Dr A K Saxena after assuming charge as Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur to stop further corruption and wastage of poor tax payers money.

Date: 07^th January 2014

Prabhu Dandriyal

21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008

0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879

prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com

Annexure -1 – ION DATED 12.12.2012 ISSUED BY MR. AMIT SARAIYA, HEAD MMG

Drdo, Uncategorized

First Appeal – Private Cars Using Commercial Purpose – DMSRDE

December 27, 2013 Prabhu 2 Comments

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

To,

Dr Lokendra Singh,

OS & Sceintist ‘H’

First Appellate Authority, DRDO

RTI Cell, Room No. 314 – A/A,

DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,

New Delhi-110105

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

Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14 Nov 2013 issued by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

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

1. Details of appellant:-

Name Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal

Address 21-Sunderwala, Raipur

Dehradun-248008, Uttarakhand

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

Name & Rank Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘

Address DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013

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

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14^th Nov 2013 received by appellant on 24 November 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Facts & Grounds leading to appeal:

(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 23^rd October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Private cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 using DMSRDE for commercial purpose”. Copy of the RTI Application dated 23^rd 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/R/2013/0029 dated 14^th November 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. However CPIO replied in the highly irresponsible manner which indicates the mismanagement and Corruption in DMSRDE.

(c) It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 23^rd 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. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010”.

(d) In point d (1) of reply dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO provided false argument. As per Purchase Management 2006 it is the responsibility of Director, DMSRDE to hire the transport services from that vendor, the vehicles of which are registered under Taxi at RTO. How can RTO know that a private car vehicle is being used for transport services at DMSRDE?

(e) In point d (2) of reply dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO gave false argument for not providing the information sought. Committee under Chairmanship of Dr. Ashok Ranjan, Scientist ‘F’ and four other members for identification of vendors did not perform their responsibilities properly. As per findings of the Committee 15 vendors were identified for hired transport services and out of which 10 vendors were qualified as per guidelines framed by the Committee. General terms and conditions were also framed on 18 points by Committee as Annexure II of proposal provided to vendors for seeking quotations for hired transport services. In point no. 8 of General terms & conditions framed by the Committee it was clearly mentioned that “The lowest quotation will be accepted. In case of more than one lowest quotation, the firm whose cars/vehicles registered at RTO for taxi will be preferred”. This indicates that it was responsibilities of DMSRDE to check the registration of taxies whether these were registered as taxies at RTO.

(f) The arguments at point d (3) is again to put the responsibilities and accountability to minimize corruption in hiring of transport services , on the soldiers of local audit and test audit teams. In case both local & test audit teams were obliged by Director, DMSRDE on cash & kind then how can they raise the objections on irregularities and corruptions in contract of hired transport. It is well known fact that hired vehicles are being provided to local audit personnel (ACDA officials) on 24×7 and one DMSRDE official is also posted at ACDA office to assist ACDA. These illegal obligations putted on ACDA by Director, DMSRDE establish Corruption in the whole process of contract of hired transport.

(g) Contract given to M/s Super India Travels, Kanpur has been expired in July 2012 as contract was for only for one year and still now new contract has not been provided to any other vendor by the fresh tendering process as per Purchase Management 2006. One & half year extension to the same vendor smacks vested interest and leads Corruption.

(h) The vendor is not claiming service tax from DMSRDE; the vendor is not having service tax registration and not depositing service tax to Custom & Excise Department, Govt. of India. The issue of service tax registration is clearly mentioned in General terms and conditions framed by the committee so constituted by Director, DMSRDE. In point no. 17 of General terms & conditions framed by the committee it was clearly mentioned that “The rates quoted should be excluding the service tax. The service tax will be paid additionally only after receiving the proof of the service tax registration. No service tax will be paid if the operator fails to provide proof of valid service tax registration”.

(i) Facts mentioned at above establish irregularities in giving contracts to M/s Super India Travels, Kanpur and further illegal extension since one and half year indicates Corruption at DMSRDE, Kanpur in the whole process.

5. Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vides RTI Application dated 23 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 23^rd October 2013.

6. Declaration:-

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

Prabhu Dandriyal

21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008

0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879

prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosure: Two

(1) Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 14^th November 2013

(2) RTI Application dated 23 October 2013

RTI Application dated 23 October 2013

To,

Shri Sarvesh Kumar,

Central Public Information Officer,

DMSRDE, GT Road,

Kanpur-208013

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Hello,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given thereof 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”.
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/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

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

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

INFORMATION SOUGHT

Total No. of transport/vehicles available in MT Division DMSRDE.
Provide following information in respect of all vehicles available in DMSRDE.

Type of vehicle, Brand name, Manufacturer
Date of Purchase, purchase cost and source of fund(Build up/Project etc)
Present depreciated cost as on 31.10.2013
Average distance run /traveled by each vehicle in the year 2012-2013 separately for
each vehicle.
Total expenditure on maintenance of each vehicle separately in the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

3. How many CMTD /MTD are posted in MT Division?
4. Mode of tendering for selection of vendors for hired vehicles (Local Board/Single Tender/Limited Tender/Open Tender/Repeat Order) for the following years.

2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014

5. Total budget of MT Division years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
6. Total expenditure and payment made for hired vehicles/transport for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13 along with name of vendor to whom the payment made.
7. Provide expenditure incurred on various heads for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
8. Provide information about vendor/firm which got contract for hired vehicles and amount paid to these vendors in following format

9. Amount of Service Tax that has been paid by DMSRDE to Vendor as reflected in bills submitted by vendor for depositing in Custom, Excise & Service Tax Department in

following format

Provide copies of CST (Comparative Statement) after opening of quotations duly approved by competent authority for the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 for giving contract to vendors for hired vehicles services in DMSRDE.
Provide copy of supply order placed for hiring private vehicles/transport for the FY 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in DMSRDE.
Copy of contract with terms & condition and rate (usage charges) for the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
Whether any extension of contract for hired vehicle has been given to any vendor for during the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. (Yes/No)
If answer to point (13) is yes then provide copy of rules under PM 2006 by which extension for contract of hired vehicle services (Repeat Order) could be given to vendor without going in fresh bidding.
Details about maintenance of vehicles/transport available in DMSRDE for each vehicle/transport in following format

Status of vehicle (operational/Non operational) available in DMSRDE when services of hired vehicles were utilized.
Whether hired vehicles provided by vendor Super India Travels, Rama Devi, Kanpur with following registration number are registered at RTO, Kanpur under category of Taxi for commercial purposes. Registration & Details of vehicles are

(a) UP78 BS 1144 ( Indica Car White Color with white number plate)

(b) UP78 CP 6510 (Indigo CS White Car with white number plate)

If answer to point (17) is Yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by RTO Kanpur for said vehicles under Taxi for Commercial purpose.
If answer to point (17) is No then provide the grounds on which vendor not having proper registration under Taxi from RTO, Kanpur was allowed to provide services in DMSDRE.
The details of Vendor Registration Committee at DMSRDE with name & designation of Chairman and members.

The color of the number plates used in cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 provided by vendor for hired services are not Yellow. The color of these no. plates are White. It establishes that cars used for hired transport in DMSRDE are not registered under TAXI FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. Also the said vendor is not registered at Custom & Excise Department under Service Tax category and not depositing any Service Tax for hired vehicles services at DMSRDE.

Therefore the Information Sought is pertaining to Allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005.

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

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549289) is annexed as Annexure-1.

(Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal) Date: 23 October, 2013

21-Sunderwala, Raipur

Dehradun-248008

Uttarakhand

Annexure:-

IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 17F 549289 as application Fee.

Drdo

First Appeal – Parking – DMSRDE

November 10, 2013 Prabhu 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:-2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-

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 21^st 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:-

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.
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.

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)

(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

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

(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

MoD letter Dated 5 th July 2013

CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18th July 2013

CPIO, RAC, letter dated 1st August 2013

CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3rd September 2013

Drdo

First Appeal – Sou moto Disclosure on officials tours of Ministers and other officials

September 8, 2013 Prabhu 2 Comments

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: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/45/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

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

1. Details of appellant:-

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

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

Name & Rank	Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address	DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013

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

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/45/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 8 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Tour Programmes and TA/DA Bills of Dr. AK Saxena and Dr. Vineeta Nigam. Copy of the RTI application dated 8 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/45/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 8 August 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

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

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

(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 8 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 8 August 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

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

(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 8 August 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO.

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

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

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

6. Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vide RTI Application dated 8 August 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 8 August 2013.

7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1. CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

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

Information sought is related to official tour programmes and TA/DA Bills of Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’, DMSRDE, Kanpur. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

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

4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 8 August 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is alleged that Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE misused his official position for sanctioning of tour programs and tour expenses of Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’.

5. Information sought is related to tour programme and tour details of Dr. A.K. Saxena , Director, DMSRDE and Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters. The information related to tour programme & TA/DA etc are allowed under RTI Act as pronounced in various decisions of CIC. For ready reference of FAA, appellant would like to mention some decisions of CIC regarding tour programme, travel expenses etc of a public servant.

Case No. 07/IC (A)/CIC/2006 dated 6.3.2006, Dinesh Berry Vs BPCL. Decision pronounced as “The information sought by the appellant relate to the tour programme and travel expenses of a public servant, which can not be treated as personal information“
Case No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000952 dated 13 April 2010, Shri Janardhana Rao Vs UCO Bank. Decision pronounced as “Copy of the tour programme and copy of TA bills are not personal information“.
Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000996/SS dated 13.3.2012, U.P. Kamal Vs Coal Mine PF. Decision pronounced as “Official tours undertaken under the budgetary resources of the public authority can not be considered personal information“
In CIC decision in case No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000386 dated 29 June 2011, Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal Vs DRDO, CIC has allowed the tour related information. Therefore denial of information under shadow of section 24(1) is illegal.
Despite being a notified organisation, DRDO is following section 4 of RTI Act and proactively disclosed IPR, various service rules, procurement & recruitment rules etc on DRDO website. As per DOPT Notification F.No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11 Sept 2012 and 3rd April 2013 official tours of Ministers & Officials should be disclosed proactively on website by all organisations. Tour Programme & tour expenses related information is not exempted for organisation notified under Schedule II as per CIC decisions as this is information related to Estt. Matter and general nature. Despite the information sought comes under section 4 of RTI Act, PIO denied information with ulterior motive & malafide.

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/DMSRDE/2013/06

Date: 07^th September, 2013

Enclosure: two

(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013

(2) RTI Application dated 8 August 2013.

To Date: 08^thAugust, 2013

Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’

CPIO,DMSRDE, GT Road

Kanpur-208013

Sir,

This is with reference to DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11^thSeptember 2012 and DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3^rd April, 2013 on Subject “Suo motu disclosure on official tours of Ministers and other officials“. It has been observed that information regarding official tours of Director, DMSRDE and other Scientist ‘G’ & above posted in DMSRDE are not available on DRDO/ DMSRDE website in compliance of above mentioned DOPT Office Memorandum.

Kindly provide the following information under section 2(f), 2(j) and 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

Provide soft copy of data / data in electronic form stored in database kept on server/computer used for storing data of tour programs using software for preparing TA/DA advance bills, final claim settlement of tours and Movement Orders in Finance & Accounts Division DMSRDE for tour program/Temporary Duty move data from 01^st January, 2011 to 31^st July 2013 in respect of all Scientists and officials of DMSRDE in Compact Disc (CD).
Provide following information and records regarding official tours of Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur from 01 January 2011 to 31 July 2013.
1. III. Copies of final claim along with all enclosure for claiming TA/DA like rail/air tickets, bills for Lodging And Boarding, taxi bills etc.
Provide following information and records regarding official tours of Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ from 01.01.2011 to 31.07.2013
1. III. Copies of all Movement Orders
2. IV. Copies of final claim along with all enclosure for claiming TA/DA like rail/air tickets, bills for Lodging and Boarding, taxi bills etc.
Provide temporary duty completion report submitted by Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ duly verified from the concerned official at place of temporary duty.
Amount that has been paid to Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE for TA and DA separately for his all official tours/temporary duty moves from 01.01.2011 to 31.07.2013.
Reasons for not uploading official tour data of Director , DMSRDE, Kanpur and all Scientist ‘G’ & above on website of DRDO/DMSRDE as per orders of Government of India vide OM F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11^th September 2012 and OM F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3^rd April, 2013.

Copies of all official tour programs
Copies of movement orders for all tours

Copies of all Minute Sheets/Justifications approved by Director for Temporary Duty /Official Tour.
Copies of all official tour programs

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 16 F 964388) is enclosed

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal

21-Sunderwala, Raipur,Dehradun-248008

Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

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

Enclosures

IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 16 F 964388 as application Fee.
DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11^th September 2012
DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3^rd April,

Drdo

First Appeal – Procurement of Scientific & Technical Books in Technical Library of DMSRDE

September 8, 2013 Prabhu 1 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: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

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

1. Details of appellant:-

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

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

Name &Rank	Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address	DMSRDE,GT Road,Kanpur-208013

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

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 25 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Book Procurement at Technical Library, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Copy of the RTI application dated 25 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 25 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

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

(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 25 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 25 July 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 25 July 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.

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

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

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

6. Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vide RTI Application dated 25 July 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 25 July 2013.

7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1. CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

(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“.

Subject/nature of information sought is related to procurement of books in Library. This information is pertaining to Estt. Matter and it has been decided by PIO, DMSRDE that the information sought is not exempted then PIO should provide complete information as sought in application dated 25 July 2013 but PIO did not provided complete information rather it appears that he concealed the information so that corruption in procurement of books could not be exposed.

3. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter & procurement of books. Information related to purchase of books & periodicals has been allowed by CIC in various cases like case No. CIC/LS/A/2012/001219 dated 9.8.2012 Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”.

4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 25 July 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is quite evident from the reply of PIO that corruption was made in procurement of books by misusing the DRDO Rules for Purchase.

In reply dated 26 Aug 2013 at point (4), PIO informed “Protected Govt. Documents” for Supply orders of books. Purchase related any document from indent to supply order & bills etc are not protected documents as claimed by PIO. As per various CIC decisions the purchase related files were allowed for inspection of records and all information related to purchase were allowed as purchase have angle of corruption. These were denied so that the corruption in procurement of books could not come out as it will discloses the discount percentage provided by suppliers in two different financial years. In fact in the FY 2010-2011 the maximum discount offered was 35% while in 2012-2013 the discount offered was 10%. This establish that 25% of total purchase i.e. Rs. 366952.00 was taken as commission by the concerned officers & authorities responsible for purchase of books on low discount.

COMPARISON OF PROCUREMENT OF BOOKS IN DMSRDE

SN	Year	Fund Exp.	Mode of procurement	Rules applied	Director
1.	2009-10	NIL	–	–	Dr KUB Rao
2.	2010-11	Rs. 94833	Limited	PM-2006	“
3.	2011-12	NIL	–	–	Dr AK Saxena
4.	2012-13	Rs. 1467810	No tendering, directly issue supply order	DRDO Lib. Manual,1999	Dr AK Saxena

By comparison of data provided by PIO in point(1) of his reply dated 26 August 2013 regarding fund expenditure in various financial years it is crystal clear that corruption took place in FY 2012-2013 where all of sudden books of Rs. 1467810.00 has been procured while in previous years it was “NIL” or very less Rs. 94833.00 only in 2010-11.
Data in above table indicates that demand of books which was NIL (Zero) in 2009-10 and 2011-12 has increased all of sudden near about to the Rupees 15 Lakh. As compared to purchase of books in FY 2010-11 the hike in 2012-13 is about 15.5 times. This indicates that books were purchased without any need and requirement in 2012-2013 and this amount huge loss to public money. Where the 25% discount on Rs. 1467810.00 i.e. Rs. 366952.00 has gone?
DRDO is having very old manual issued on 11 January 1999 regarding Management of Library/TIC of DRDO. This manual is called as “DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres“. After issuance of Purchase Manual -2006 of DRDO this old Manual became ineffective & obsolete. Most of the DRDO Labs/Estt. are using Purchase Manual for procurement of books, Print Journal and Online E-Journals. DMSRDE is also using PM-2006 from last six years for procurement of books, Print Journal and Online E-Journals as can be verified from records of Technical Library of DMSRDE, Kanpur. All of sudden making purchase of books on the basis of old manual smacks malafide intentions and leads corruption in purchase of books in FY 2012-2013. In fact in year 2012-2013 provisions of DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres has not been fully followed. Purchase procedure of DRDO Manual are for small & urgent procurement not for big procurements in tune of lakh or crores.
1. 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/DMSRDE/2013/05

Date: 07^th September, 2013

Enclosure: two

(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013

(2) RTI Application dated 25 July 2013.

To, 25^th July 2013

Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’

CPIO, DMSRDE

GT Road, Kanpur-208013

Hello,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

Fund expenditure for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year
2009-2010 ii. 2010-2011 iii. 2012-2013
2009-2010 ii. 2010-2011 iii. 2012-2013
Mode of tendering for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year viz (Single Tender, Limited Tender/Open Tender)
If mode of tendering in any Financial Year from years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 was limited tender then provide the copies of CST(Comparative Statement of prices of books with discount % offered by suppliers) approved by Library Committee and Director for that particular year.
Copies of supply orders placed for supply of Scientific and Technical books in Technical Library in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
Discount offered by various suppliers on procurement of Indian and Foreign books with name of suppliers and discount offered by them, when mode of tendering was Single Tender or Limited Tender.
Copies of bills submitted by suppliers for getting payment against supply of books in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.

This is relevant to mentioned here that the information sought is related to establishment matters (Purchase) and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act.

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.

However the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.

Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order 12F 470729

Regards,

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal

21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008

Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

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

Drdo

First Appeal – Development of Bullet Proof Jacket under GSQR-1293 by DMSRDE

September 8, 2013 Prabhu 1 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: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/44/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

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

1. Details of appellant:-

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

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

Name &Rank	Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address	DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013

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

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/44/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 25 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) – 1293. Copy of the RTI application dated 25 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/44/Letter_2013 dated 20 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 25 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

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

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

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

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

6. Prayer /relief sought for:-

7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-

1. CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II (DRDO etc.), 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)

2. Subject/nature of information sought is already in public domain and not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

Various GSQRs, their detail specifications, cost of BPJ, requirement of Army for BPJ, Tenders for procurements of BPJ & their purchase details are already in public domain by means of Parliamentary Reports, Parliamentary Questions, Print & Electronic media, various reports from MOD etc. Hence information sought is not confidential / secret.

Besides these the information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

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/DMSRDE/2013/03

Date: 07^th September, 2013

Enclosure: two

(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013

(2) RTI Application dated 25 July 2013

To, 25^th July 2013

Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’

CPIO, DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013

Hello,

This is with reference to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence Report 2009-10 & 2010-11 and News published in print/electronic media regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (GSQR-1293) by DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

The date on which GSQR-1293 for BPJ was issued by AHQ to DRDO.
Provide the copy of the letter from AHQ to DRDO for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
Provide copy of DRDO HQ letter by which DMSRDE was instructed to develop BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
The date on which DMSRDE started to work on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293 and the date on which BPJ-1293 developed successfully.
PDC given by AHQ for development of BPJ-1293.
Whether any team was constituted for development of BPJ-1293? If yes then provide name of the team members (Scientists, Technical Officers and Scientific Assistants etc) who worked on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
Whether any project has been sanctioned from the DRDO HQ for development of BPJ-1293?
If yes then how much funds has been sanctioned for this Project?
Provide the copy of sanction letter of the Project for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
If no Project was sanctioned from DRDO HQ for BPJ as per GSQR-1293 then from which head (Build-up etc) funds were arranged for Development and Fabrication of BPJ-1293?
Provide total expenditure incurred in procurement of items(matrials) for development of BPJ-1293 including expenditure incurred on TA/DA to Officers & Employees, Government Transport and hired transport separately.
Provide copies of DRDO.MM.06 (demand) and copies of supply orders for purchase of items/materials and services hired for development of BPJ-1293.
Purchase of materials, items and services hired for fabrication of BPJ-1293 were made under which type of tendering process (Single Tender /Limited Tender/Open Tender/Global Tender)?
Provide details of procurement of materials(items)/services hired/fabrication for BPJ-1293 in the

following format :-

Total expenditure incurred in creating facility in DMSRDE, Kanpur for R&D of BPJ-1293.
Total expenditure incurred from public fund for TA/DA in Temp. Duty of officers and staff involved in development of BPJ-1293 for visiting site of vendor involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1293 or to other places for work related to BPJ-1293.
Total expenditure incurred from public fund on Govt. Transport and hired transport for transporting the materials up to the site of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd at New Delhi/Palwal.
Names of private vendors/firms involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1293.
Whether SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd is registered with DMSRDE. If yes then provide copy of Registration Certificate issued by DMSRDE to S. M. Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd.
Whether any award was given to BPJ-1293 team/group or Scientist for successful development of BPJ-1293 under Laboratory Level Award under DRDO Award Scheme for 2010-2011. If so then provide the

Name of Scientists/Individual Scientist getting this award.
Amout of award in Rupees for Laboratory Scientist of the year award.
Copy of the minute sheet sanctioned by Director for this award.
- Copy of the letter forwarded by Head of the Division with name(s) of Scientists to Technical Coordination.
- Copy of the recommendation/proceeding of Award Committee constituted by Director for 2010-2011.

21. Whether facilities for fabrication of BPJ are available in Kanpur (Yes/No).

22. M/s M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd , Kanpur is also working on development/fabrication of BPJ at Kanpur. Provide the reasons on the ground of which DMSRDE did not utilized services of M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd, Kanpur for development of BPJ-1293 using Limited Tendering Process in order to save expenditure on TA/DA of Officials and hired Transport?

23. Copy of certificate issued by TBRL, Chandigarh for successful testing of BPJ developed by DMSRDE under GSQR-1293

24. Whether these BPJ-1293 was under gone Quality Control/Assurance test by QAG, DMSRDE. If so then how many BPJ-1293 were tested by QAG, DMSRDE.

25. Whether this BPJ-1293 was tested by another agency like CFSL Chandigarh etc? (Yes/No) If yes then provide the name of agency.

26. How many BPJ-1293 was fabricated by SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd and total amount paid to SM Pulp Packaging Pvt. Ltd for the fabrication of said BPJ-1293?

27. Copy of the supply order placed for fabrication of mould/procurement of mould for BPJ-1293.

28. Whether user trials were conducted by Army for BPJ-1293. (Yes/No) If yes then how many BPJ-1293 were submitted to AHQ for unit/field testing?

29. AHQ (Army) accepted BPJ-1293 (Yes/No)

Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order 12F 470728

Regards,

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal

21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008, Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

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

Drdo

First Appeal – Development of Bullet Proof Jacket under GSQR-1318 in DMSRDE

September 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: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/40/Letter_2013 dated 20 August 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

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

1. Details of appellant:-

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

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

Name & Rank	Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address	DMSRDE GT Road Kanpur-208013

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

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/40/Letter_2013 dated 20 August 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 18 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) – 1318. Copy of the RTI application dated 18 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/40/Letter_2013 dated 20 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 18 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

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

(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 18 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 18 July 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 18 July 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.

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

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

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

6. Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vide RTI Application dated 18 July 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 18 July 2013.

7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1. CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of

RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

(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)

2. Subject/nature of information sought is already in public domain and not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

Besides these the information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

3. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Purchase & procurement/Routine correspondence and permissible/allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.
4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 18 July 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption.

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/DMSRDE/2013/02

Date: 07^th September, 2013

Enclosure: two

(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 20 Aug 2013

(2) RTI Application dated 18 July 2013.

To, Date 18^th July 2013

Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’

Public Information Officer (PIO)

DMSRDE, GT Road

Kanpur-208013

Hello,

This is with reference to News published in print/electronic media in May 2012 and DRDO Newsletter Issue of April 2012 regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (GSQR-1318) by DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

The date on which GSQR-1318 for BPJ was issued by AHQ to DRDO.
Provide the copy of the letter from AHQ to DRDO for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
Provide copy of DRDO HQ letter by which DMSRDE was instructed to develop BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
The date on which DMSRDE started to work on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318 and the date on which BPJ-1318 developed successfully.
PDC given by AHQ for development of BPJ-1318.
Whether any team was constituted for development of BPJ-1318? If yes then provide name of the team members (Scientists, Technical Officers and Scientific Assistants etc) who worked on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
Whether any project has been sanctioned from the DRDO HQ for development of BPJ-1318?
If yes then how much funds has been sanctioned for this Project?
Provide the copy of sanction letter of the Project for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
If no Project was sanctioned from DRDO HQ for BPJ as per GSQR-1318 then from which head (Build-up etc) funds were arranged for Development and Fabrication of BPJ-1318?
Provide total expenditure incurred in procurement of items for development of BPJ-1318 including expenditure incurred on TA/DA to Officers & Employees, Government Transport and hired transport separately.
Provide copies of DRDO.MM.06 (demand) and copies of supply orders for purchase/services hired for development of BPJ-1318.
Purchase of materials, items and services hired for fabrication of BPJ-1318 were made under which type of tendering process (Single Tender /Limited Tender/Open Tender/Global Tender)?\
Provide details of procurement of materials(items)/services hired/fabrication for BPJ-1318 in following format
Total expenditure incurred in creating facility in DMSRDE, Kanpur for R&D of BPJ-1318.
Total expenditure incurred from public fund for TA/DA in Temp. Duty of officers and staff involved in development of BPJ-1318.
Total expenditure incurred from public fund on Govt. Transport and hired transport for transporting the materials up to the site of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd at New Delhi/Palwal.
Names of private vendors/firms involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1318.
Whether SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd is registered with DMSRDE. If yes then provide copy of Registration Certificate issued by DMSRDE to S. M. Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd.
Whether any patent has been filed for development of BPJ-1318? if yes then provide the copy of patent filed including the name of inventors.
Whether facilities for fabrication of BPJ are available in Kanpur (Yes/No).
M/s M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd, Kanpur is also working on development/fabrication of BPJ at Kanpur. Provide the reasons on the ground of which DMSRDE did not utilized services of M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd, Kanpur for development of BPJ-1318 using Limited Tendering Process?
Copy of certificate issued by TBRL, Chandigarh for successful testing of BPJ developed by DMSRDE under GSQR-1318.
Whether these BPJ-1318 were tested by another agency like CFSL Chandigarh etc? (Yes/No) If yes then provide the name of agency.
How many BPJ-1318 was fabricated by SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd and total amount paid to SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd for the fabrication of said BPJ-1318?
Whether user trials were conducted by Army for BPJ-1318. (Yes/No)
AHQ (Army) accepted BPJ-1318 (Yes/No).

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

It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II. This RTI request is directly related with corruption. Find the application fee for the request attached with this application

I do hereby declare that I am the citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.
Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No 12F 470723

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal

21-Sunderwala RaipurDehradun-248008

Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

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

Drdo

First Appeal – Development of Bullet Proof Jacket in DMSRDE

September 7, 2013 Prabhu 1 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: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/39/Letter_2013 dated 20 August 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Hello,

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.

Details of appellant:-

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

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

Name & Rank	Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address	DMSRDE GT Road Kanpur-208013

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

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/39/Letter_2013 dated 20 August 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 17 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding GSQRs of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ). Copy of the RTI application dated 17 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/39/Letter_2013 dated 20 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 17 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

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

(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 17 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 17 July 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 17 July 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.

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

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

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

6. Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vide RTI Application dated 17 July 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 17 July 2013.

7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-

1. CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of

RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

(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)

2. Subject/nature of information sought is already in public domain and not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 17 July 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption.

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/DMSRDE/2013/01

Date: 07^th September, 2013 Enclosure: two

(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 20 Aug 2013

(2) RTI Application dated 17 July 2013.

To, 17^th July 2013

Shri Sarvesh Kumar

Scientist ‘F’ & Public Information Officer (PIO)

DMSRDE, GT Road

Kanpur-208013

Hello,

This is with reference to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence Report 2009-10 and 2010-11, News published in print/electronic media in May 2012 and DRDO Newsletter Issue of April 2012 regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (GSQR-1318) by DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

How many GSQRs (General Staff Qualitative Requirement) for development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) have been issued to DMSRDE, Kanpur (DRDO) by AHQ (Army) till date?
Provide all GSQR numbers given by AHQ for development of BPJ to DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Provide the copies of sanctioning letter issued from AHQ to DRDO for these GSQRs for development of BPJ by DMSRDE.
Provide total expenditure incurred in development of Bullet Proof Jacket in DMSRDE right from sanctioning of first GSQR for BPJ up to present(current) GSQR for BPJ in following format:

(i) GSQR No.

(ii) Date of sanction

(iii) Date of closure/completion

(iv) Expenditure incurred

How much amount has been expenditure in DMSRDE in creation & setup of the facilities and infrastructure development for R&D of BPJ under these GSQRs given by AHQ to DMSRDE till date?

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

It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II. This RTI request is directly related with corruption. I do hereby declare that I am the citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No 98E 528555

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal

21-Sunderwala, Raipur,Dehradun-248008

Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

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

Drdo

DRDO RTI Cell not providing correct informations – I

November 4, 2011 Prabhu 3 Comments

Dear Friends,

Please see the following RTI Reply from DRDO RTI Cell, in which DRDO RTI cell provide wrong and false informations.

RTI request

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest houses at DELHI.
How many DRDO officials are availing DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station i.e. Delhi from 1^st Jan 2007 to 31^st May 2010
Total number of days Sh. S.Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO Hqrs has been availing the DRDO guest house facilities since his posting to DRDO Hqrs till date.
Total number of days Dr. Prahalda , CCR&D,(Ae &SI),DS, DRDO HQRs has been availing the DRDO guest house facilities since his posting to DRDO Hqrs till date.

Please intimate me date time for inspection of guest house records under Right to Information Act 2005 section 2 (j) (i) & (ii

DRDO Reply _ File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000412

Para wise reply pertaining to years 2009 and 2010 is as under:

(a) Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest House at Delhi —105

(b) DRDO officials availing DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station — 17

(c) Sh. S Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 10 Jul 2009 to 10 Sep 2010.

(d) Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 26 Mar 2010 to 20 Mar 2011. (False Information by RTI Cell, DRDO)

1. Facts : Dr. Prahalda , CCR&D,(Ae &SI),DS, DRDO HQRs availed the DRDO guest house facilities since his posting to DRDO Hqrs to 20 Mar 2011.
2. The Date of transfer of Sh S Ravi not provided

Brief facts of the case

The DRDO Appellate Authority Dr. Prahlada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS have not given his residence address and contact details in any documents or website or any other public domain. I think he is staying in DRDO Bhawan itself. The CPIO and FAA of DRDO Hqrs both are on their posting at DRDO Hqrs, staying in DRDO Guest House and drawing the HRA. So how can Indian citizen expect any right information from these corrupt officials?

There more 9-10 CC R&D and Directors who are belongs to Hyderabad and Bangalore and their families are staying Hyderabad and Bangalore respectively and they all are staying in DRDO guest houses they are giving their residence address in telephone directory at DRDO guest houses and enjoying HRA also. They are frequent fliers, they all are already break the Milkha Singh ‘s (Flying Sikh of India) records and relishing without fear with TD with poor tax payers money.

Following DRDO senior official are staying in guest house since their positing to DRDO Hqrs and drawing the 30% HRA . it is big money and two major points i.e. one -these guest house not meant for permanent residence and second when the official come from various station to attend the meeting these guest house are not available for them and they have to spent precious poor tax payers money in luxury hotels.

There are more than 15 room is permanently occupied by DRDO senior officials in C-7, DRDO Guest House, Qutab Enclave, &6 official also unauthorized /occupied the DRDO Guest Development Enclave Rao, Tularam Marg, because as per sanction both places are as DRDO guest house facility in Govt .of India’s records. This is the purely dadagiri of DRDO.

Following DRDO senior official are staying in guest house as DRDO telephone Directory

Name of Official Office Ph No. Residence Ph No Residence Address

Dr.Prahlada 23016802 – C-7, DRDO Guest House Chief Controller (R&D)    23013853                                                                         Qutab Enclave

Sh S.Sundaresh 23013220 26852008 C-7, DRDO Guest House Chief Controller (R&D)   23010720 26867670 Qutab Enclave

Dr.K.Sekhar 23010910 26144933 E-5 Development Enclave Chief Controller (R&D)   23010720                                                                          Rao Tularam Marg

Dr.R.Sreehari Rao 23014372 26563623 C-7, DRDO Guest House Chief Controller (R&D) 23793037 Qutab Enclave

Dr K D Nayak 23012505 26152040 E-5 Development Enclave Chief Controller (R&D) 23016284 26152043 Rao Tularam Marg

Sh S.Ravi, Scientist ‘G’ 23007449 26852008 C-7, DRDO Guest House CPIO 26867670 Qutab Enclave

Sh S Sankaran 23017661 26852008 C-7, DRDO Guest House Director, ER&IPR 23007348 26867670 Qutab Enclave

Sh H V Srinivasa Rao 23812639 26510515 C-7, DRDO Guest House Director, ISSA Qutab Enclave

Sh Ajay Singh 23011644 26144930 E-2 Development Enclave Chief Executive 23007002 Rao Tularam Marg

Sh S Shanker 23017683 26520383 C-7, DRDO Guest House Director, DCV&E 23007417 Qutab Enclave

Sh R.C Katoch 26141319 26153513 E-1 Development Enclave Chief Tech Examiner Rao Tularam Marg

Sh B Choubey 2153031 26155659 E-3 Development Enclave CCE Rao Tularam Marg

Sh Abhay Kumar 26149015 26155659 E-6 Development Enclave CCE Rao Tularam Marg

Corruption In DRDO

Tag Archives: DRDO BHAWAN

CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF CHEMICALS AT DMSRDE KANPUR

First Appeal – Private Cars Using Commercial Purpose – DMSRDE

First Appeal – Parking – DMSRDE

First Appeal – Sh R K Agarwal’s False Claim

First Appeal – Sou moto Disclosure on officials tours of Ministers and other officials

First Appeal – Procurement of Scientific & Technical Books in Technical Library of DMSRDE

First Appeal – Development of Bullet Proof Jacket under GSQR-1293 by DMSRDE

First Appeal – Development of Bullet Proof Jacket under GSQR-1318 in DMSRDE

First Appeal – Development of Bullet Proof Jacket in DMSRDE

DRDO RTI Cell not providing correct informations – I

Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials