To, 18th March 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to your 5 RTI same replies RTI/01/2091/P/2014/0055,56,57,63 & 64 dated 5 & 6 March 2014 regarding on acquiring higher qualification by DRDO officials at their own. As per details provide by DRDO RTI cell the following DRDO official acquired their qualification.
Refer to DOP&T O.M. No. 1/2/89 – Estt. (Pay-I) dated 9-4-1999 para -3
“The qualifications meriting grant of incentive should be recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education, Department of Electronics, Deemed University, University or recognised by the Government”
As per above DOP&T OM it is mandatory to verify the submitted documents.
As common RTI replies it is mentioned that “It is stated the cases for grant of Lump Sum Incentive are received from respective Labs/ Estt in which it is certified that the higher qualification and the institute are approved by competent authority. On receipt of such confirmation, the cases are submitted to Ministry of Defence”
As per above it is requested provide the following information
Copy of above mentioned certified letter of each case submitted by respective Lab/Estt in requested cases in my RTI’s as mentioned above.
Copy of letter submitted to Integrated Finance by DRDO Hqrs in requested cases in my RTI’s as mentioned above.
Note : Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) , Please refer to your RTI reply No RTI/ 02/2091/F/2013/0116 dated 20 August 2013.
Your RTI replyNo RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0387 dated 27 the December 2013 in enclosed list no 162 Sh Amit Chawla, STA’B’ LASTEC granted incentive of Rs 8000 by Min of Def. But it is matter of fact that till date the DO is not published and money is not given to individual as the degree was not verified till date. So question arises on RTI reply statement without corruption it not possible, that Min of Def granted incentive only after receiving verified documents.
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):-
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14th 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 23rd 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 23rd 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 14th 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 23rd 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 23rd October 2013.
6. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(1) Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 14th 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.
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 21st April 1977 and running continuously. The other information asked has no relevance with the allegations of Corruption. It is a social welfare activity and run in authorized manner with manually agreed terms & conditions of DMSRDE and MES office of, DMSRDE, Kanpur”.
(f) CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 04 October 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder 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.
7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1. CIC decisions on notified organizations under Schedule II of
RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) Information sought in RTI Application dated 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.
Status of Complaint No: 569/11/9 against your one great scientist Dr Anil Kumar Tyagi, Sc ‘G’ CPIO, DRDO Hqrs
Date: 8/10/2013
Sent to CVO for Investigation/Action Taken Report on date : 16/3/2011
CVO Report Received on date: 18/7/2013
Prima facie material has been found against the officials involved. Regular Disciplinary action is recommended on: 9/9/2013
Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs finally charge sheeted on 8th October 2013 F/N. Charge Sheet signed by Honorable Defence Minister, Sh A K Antony.
On 26th April 2011 I have posted a letter to Defence Minister regarding “DRDO Prefers to Give RTI Cell Responsibilities to Tainted Officers “
DRDO RTI Cell
1. Dr.Arun Kumar, D.O.P. – First Appellate Authority-Vigilance case is pending
2. Dr A.K Tyagi Scientist ‘F’ – CPIO – Case Registered in CVC No.569/11/9
3. Dr Prahlada, CC R&D – Ex F.A.A.- Case is pending with SC/ST commission
4. Sh S Ravi, Scientist ‘G` – Ex CPIO – Case of embezzlement(ITM Mussoorie)
Two were fixed
Dr.Arun Kumar, Ex – D.O.P. Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist was suspended and Charge sheeted – proceeding initiated Dr A.K Tyagi , Scientist ‘G’ CPIO, DRDO Hqrs – Charge sheeted –
Next two are under lens of honest employees and both will be fixed
Dr A.K Singh present DOP is supporting Dr A.K Tyagi in all means – it shows his approaches, Dr A.K Singh leave protecting the corrupts and give attentions towards genuine transfer cases of Sh.Sachin, Scientist ‘C’ GTRE and Sh Naval Gupta, Scientist ‘B’ PM-2 Site.
Dr A.K Singh was bothering for image of DRDO but not able to handle Dr CP Ramanarayanan, who was made worst comment in DRDO history.
Some of senior DRDO’s officials are thinking they are GOD and they have power to ruin any one future, now it is not possible because thousands/ lakhs of eyes are watching your every moment.
Wait for GOD’s justice.
[M.O.F. No. F.15(8)-E IV/57, dated 28th March, 1959].
Circumstances under which a Government servant may be placed under suspension –
Cases where continuance in office of the Government servant will prejudice the investigation, trial or any inquiry (e.g. apprehended tampering with witnesses or documents);
Where the continuance in office of the Government servant is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office in which the public servant is working.
Where allegations have been made against the Government servant and preliminary inquiry has revealed that a prima facie case is made out which would justify his prosecution or is being proceeded against in departmental proceedings, and where the proceedings are likely to end in his conviction and/or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service. Suspension
(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension-
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECSFirst Appellate Authority, DRDORTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji MargNew Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: No.DEAL/RTI/0010/2013 dated 3rd 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 3rd 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 1st 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 15th 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 10th July 2013
Subsequently CPIO,RAC, DRDO informed me vide letter no RAC/03/RTI/95/2013 Dated 1st August 2013 that my application sent back to RTI Cell, DRDO for further action. (Copy enclosed)
Unexpectedly I have received 6th September 2013 a letter from CPIO,DEAL, Dehardun stated that they received a letter from CPIO,RAC, DRDO on 20th 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 obtainingadvantagethroughmeanswhich are illegitimate, immoral, and/or inconsistent with one’sdutyor therightsof others. Corruption oftenresultsfrom 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 28th 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 28th May 2013 (Copy Enclosed)
7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1. CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(v) In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only“. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act”.
2. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.
3. Misuse & wrong interpretation of section 8(1) (j) by CPIO, DRDO HQ: – It appears that either CPIO did not apply his mind on content of information sought or he is supporting corrupt practices of Director, DEAL, Dehradun
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(1) My RTI Application to CPIO,DoPT, New Delhi dated 28th May 2013(2) DoPT reply Dated 15th july 2013(3) MoD letter Dated 5 th July 2013(4) CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18th July 2013(5) CPIO, RAC, letter dated 1st August 2013(6) CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3rd September 2013My 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)
Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.
The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to Sh Surendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.
The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism and castism. (Copy enclosed)
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 Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com , website- www.corruptionindrdo.comDoPT reply Dated 15th july 2013MoD letter Dated 5 th July 2013CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18th July 2013 CPIO, RAC, letter dated 1st August 2013CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3rd September 2013
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/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE , Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
1. Details of appellant:-
Name
Rajiv Chauhan
Address
1053/3, Shastri Nagar
Meerut(U.P.)- 250005
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/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 received by appellant on 20 September 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 03 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 03 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/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of corruption and not come under Schedule-II.
(c) It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 03 August 2013 that “Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010“.
(d) In point (3) of reply dated 09 September 2013 , PIO referred the DOPT OM 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14 August 2013 in which PIO mentioned some decision of CIC for seeking exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. The said OM is having three Para’s but PIO did not read Para (2) and malafidely ignored Para (2) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment was quoted.
(e) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 03 August 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.
(f) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.
(a) Under the provisions of section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.
(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 03 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 03 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 03 August 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO as information sought is related to Establishment Matter and allegations of Corruption.
(e) Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.
(f) PIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO(notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.
(g) PIO is unable to understand the RTI Act 2005 and have not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of Act, definition of personal information, definition of public interest and various CIC decision in this matter. Misinterpretation of law leads to malafide intention and promotion to corruption by PIO. PIO is working under control and direction of Director (Public Authority).
(h) It appears that PIO does know the meaning of Establishment Matter and public information, thereby he is claiming the information sought as personal information.
(i) Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.
6. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vides RTI Application dated 03 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 03 August 2013.
Direction may kindly be issued to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions as PIO is for helping the appellant(Public/Information seeker) not for harassing the appellant as per sprit and provisions of RTI Act 2005.
Direction may please be issued to PIO to go through provisions of RTI Act 2005 before denial of information.
7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1. CIC decisions on notified organizations under Schedule II of
RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) Information sought in RTI Application dated 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 “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. 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 03 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. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F and Mr. Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ have violated Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 as both did not submitted IPR , Movable property returns and valuable property returns for several years. This ensures disciplinary action against them under CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. These officers are having disproportionate assets by showing undervalued cost of property. Both officers used black money to purchase property at high cost but declared on low cost by paying excess amount in black money for purchase of property. The black money involved in purchase of property came to them by means of corruption. Therefore the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption. Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is promoting this immoral act (corruption) based on casteism as Mr. Amit Kumar, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Dr. AK Saxena belongs to same cast Kayastha.
5. Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters. The information related to IPR is Public Information as it is held by Public Authority under Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964. The details of IPR, Movable Property Return, Form 16 and Salary Slip are public documents. Thereby the information sought is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j).
6. The information related toImmovable Property Return, Movable Property Return and Form 16 giving details of salary, house rent paid and rebate in income tax is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j) as this information has been allowed by Hon’ble CIC in decision No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 & CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008 by Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner.
Information related to IPR is disclosable as per CIC decision in Case No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001990/5042 dated 06 October 2009 and CIC/SG/A/2011/003719/17410 dated 16 February 2012.
7. Information Sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
In reply dated 09 September 2013, PIO DMSRDE quoted in Para(3) – DOPT OM No. 11/2/2013-IR dated 14 August 2013.
The said OM is having three(03) Para with one enclosure (CIC Decision in F No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 Manoj Arya Vs. Cabinet Secretariat).
In Para (1) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, it has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission in one of its decisions (copy enclosed) has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005′.
In Para(2) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, It has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) no. 27734/2012) in which it was held as under:- “The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual.” The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.
The information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 is neither related to any complaint made against any Government servant nor related to the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation, as demanded in DOPT OM dated 14 August 2013.
Thereby PIO is seeking illegal and malafide shelter of the said OM of DOPT because information sought is not personal information, rather this type of information has already been allowed in CIC decision F No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 and CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008.
Hence the information sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
8. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1964- Rule 18
Every Government servant shall submit a return of his immovable property, movable and valuable property under the provisions of Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 under sub rule 18(1), 18(2), 18(3, 18(4) and 18(5). Therefore IPR, Movable property return and details of valuable property are public documents held by public authority. To submit the information under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules in prescribed format under Rule 18 are binding on each & every Government servant, therefore these are public information not the personal information. Government servants are seeking House Building Advance (HBA) of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs for purchasing of Immovable property, Car Advance, Computer advance, two wheeler advance and other various advances (loans) from Government. Therefore procurement of Immovable property, movable property and valuable property involves the public money therefore these information and documents are public information. These public documents are disclosable as per DOPT orders and CIC decisions in various cases.
9. DOPT Orders on disclosure of IPR and Movable Property
Please refer DOPT, Govt. of India Office Memorandum No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 on the Subject “Submission of Immovable Property Returns by officers of Group A Central Services for the year 2010(as on 01.01.2011) – Placing of the public domain regarding”.
Under the provisions of Para (2) of the said OM “It has been decided that the immovable property returns submitted by members of all Group ‘A’ Services of the Central Government for the year 2010 i.e. as on 01.01.2011 will be placed in public domain by respective cadre controlling authorities by 31.05.2011“. Copy of the DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 is enclosed as Enclosure -3.
10. Partial information of IPR is in Public domain in DRDO
As per DOPT OM dated 11th April 2011, it was binding on all Public Authorities to disclose IPR of all its Group’A’ Officers in public domain by uploading IPR on website.
All organisations/departments uploaded IPR submitted by all Group A officers on their website as it is in the format prescribed under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. These IPR of all Central Government departments are as available on Internet.
DRDO is more clever than DOPT and other organisatins/departments thereby DRDO compiled the partial information in tabular form of All Group ‘A’ Officers working under DRDO.
These IPR was first time uploaded on DRDO website under the link Immovable Property Return on home page of DRDO website in year 2011. Therefore DRDO accepted that information related to IPR is public information not the personal information. Despite disclosure of partial information related IPR on DRDO website , PIO, DMSRDE denied the information on the basis of personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. This act of PIO is malafide with ulterior motives to protect the corrupt officers of his own cast based on basis of casteism.
PIO denied the information on illegal grounds to protect Dr. AK Saxena, Director, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar who are having disproportionate assets and are involved in corruption.
Appellant filed RTI Application on 03 August 2013 and this was received by PIO on 13 August 2013 as he claimed in his letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September2013. It is false to say that RTI was received after 10 days of dispatch. At the time when RTI dated 03 August 2013 was filed to DMSRDE, then on IPR of DMSRDE loaded on DRDO website was not having any property details of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Mr. Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ but after receiving RTI on 13th August, Public Authority (Director, DMSRDE) awaken and left his all the horses to manipulate the IPR data of Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar and manage to put in record of DMSRDE by tempering and creating new data. Director managed to publish information regarding IPR of Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar on DRDO website under file name Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf.
This can be verified from DRDO website under the link of DMSRDE that two pdf files are existing with the names IPR_DMSRDE.pdf (uploaded in year 2011) and Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf(Uploaded on 16 August 2013). In earlier file there was no information about IPR of Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar, but as soon as RTI was filed on 03 Aug 2013 and received by PIO on 13 Aug 2013, whole manipulation took place with in three days only and data was published by creating new file. This indicates how DRDO/DMSRDE is protecting its corrupt officials.
viii. Therefore information related to IPR is public information not personal information. Thereby Information sought should be disclosed by PIO, DMSRDE.
11. Information sought is related to larger public interest and public activity
As per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
As per the evidences available with appellant, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar are having disproportionate assets. The money, by which they purchase the disproportionate assets, came to them by means of corruption. The exact details will be disclosed before appropriate competent authority.
Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar purchased the property in undervalued rates by making cost of property very lower than original cost on which other property were sale in that area on that particular month. There by it create loss to Government in terms of low registry fee and stamps duty used for registry of the property.
These officers did not declare their assets as per provisions of Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964, thereby they violated CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964. They are liable for disciplinary action for concealing the facts and not providing return of their assets.
Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar is involved in corruption in DMSRDE and earned black money which they invested in purchase of Immovable Property and Movable Property. Activity pertains to corruption by these officers created pecuniary loss of public money and interest of Government as their integrity is doubtful in light of disproportionate assets with them.
As public money, public servants, integrity of public servants, integrity of Public Authority and Public offices are involved in the matter, therefore larger public interest and public activity is involved in the disclosure of information.
These officials are involved in acquiring disproportionate assets by means of corruption and manipulation. This fraudulent nature establishes that their integrity is doubtful and these are not suitable for Government Service. The existence of such kind of officials having fraudulent nature & activity, is not suitable for DRDO as they can harm the reputation of DRDO. This involves public activity as public money and public office are involved.
viii. As a principle , public interest includes “Disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability in working of a public authority“. Thereby public interest is involved in seeking information as it will brought transparency in DMSRDE and contain the corruption as per preamble of RTI Act 2005.
12. To provide reasons when information denied u/s 8(1)(j)
PIO, DMSRDE is not aware of CIC decision in case No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 07.07.2006 . Decision pronounced is “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act“.
PIO has not given any reasons as to how he arrived to the conclusion that information sought is personal information u/s 8(1)(j). PIO also not mentioned the grounds on which he rejected the RTI application under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Thereby he violated the CIC decisions and provisions of RTI Act. To use the shadow of section 8(1)(j) by PIO for rejection of RTI application is illegal , prejudice and malafide.
13. Provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
PIO is reluctant to perform his duties as per provisions of RTI Act 2005. It appears that he has not under gone any training programme on RTI, sponsored by DOPT. Even though he is not taking pain for mere reading of RTI Act. PIO, DMSRDE either has not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) or he is unable to understand the meaning of provisions of section 8(1)(j).
Appellant would like to draw kind attention of FAA, DRDO on the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 “Provided that the information which can not be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person“.
The information sought by appellant regarding “Immovable Property Return (IPR) of officers” has to be provided to Parliament and can not be denied by DMSRDE/DRDO in case Parliament seek such information as sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 of appellant, thereby the information sought should be provided to appellant under the said provisions of section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought is not personal information.
14. Denial of Information to promote Casteismin DMSRDE
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar and some other official of DMSRDE are working as a gang based on casteism in DMSRDE. Integrity of these officers is doubtful and it can be established if proper enquiry will be conducted at DMSRDE by CVC/CBI. Promotion to casteism is violation of Constitution of India and CCS (conducts) Rules.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar all are belongs to the cast known as Kayastha.
Dr. A.K. Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar are protecting the corrupt officials belonging to his cast on the basis of false ground and malafidely misusing the provisions of RTI Act. Some other official also belonging to cast Kayastha have also been protected by them by illegal denial of information.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 09 September 2013
(2) RTI Application dated 03 August 2013.
(3) DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011
RTI Reply by DMSRDE
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’
CPIO, DMSRDE,
GT Road, Kanpur-208013
Subject: Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005
Sir,
PARTICULARS OF INFORMATION
This is with reference to Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964 and information about Immovable Property Return (IPR) available on DRDO website (drdo.gov.in) and DOPT Notification for publishing IPR of each officer working in Establishment on organization website.Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
Information/Question
. S No.
Information Sought
Required Reply
1.
Details of all the immovable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ with following information.
Full details about location viz. Municipal No. Street/Village, Taluk, District and State in which situated.
Purchase value of property
Sources from which financed
Pl. provide details.
2.
Provide copies of the form submitted for giving prior intimation or seeking previous sanction under rule 18(2) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 for transaction in respect of all immovable properties acquired till 31 July , 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’
Pl. provide details.
3.
Details of all the movable properties acquired till 31 July,2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ with following information.
Description of the property i.e. Car / Scooter / Motor Cycle / Refrigerator/ Computer/ Laptop/Bank account/shares/investments/Jewellery/loans/Insurance policies etc.
Make, Model and also registration No. in case of vehicles, where necessary
Purchase price of the property (Market value in the case of gifts)
Pl. provide details.
4.
Provide copies of the form for giving intimation or seeking previous sanction under rule 18(3) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 for transaction in respect of all movable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
Pl. provide details.
5.
Provide copies of final intimation in form 18(2) after purchase of the all immovable properties and in form 18(3) after purchase of all the movable properties under Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rule 1964 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘D’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D’
Pl. provide details.
6
Provide copies of the letters duly noted from DOP, DRDO HQ in respect of all immovable properties acquired by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D.
Pl. provide details.
7.
Reasons on the basis of which details of immovable properties acquired by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D are not reflected in Immovable Property Return (IPR) of DMSRDE, Kanpur on DRDO Website.
Pl. provide details.
8-
Provide copies of Form 16 for the Financial Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D.Provide copies of salary slips for month June, 2013 & July, 2013 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D.
Pl. provide details.
9-
Copy of loan papers issued by private agency like Bank, LIC HFL etc on the basis of which rebate on HBA interest was claimed/allowed to Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
Pl. provide details.
.
This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisionsconsistently 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.Examples of 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.
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 is enclosed
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 motiveunder 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
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(v) In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.
2. 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.
Enclosure: two (1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013(2) RTI Application dated 8 August 2013.To Date:08thAugust, 2013Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’CPIO,DMSRDE, GT RoadKanpur-208013
Sir,
This is with reference to DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11thSeptember 2012 and DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3rd 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 01st January, 2011 to 31st 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.
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
III. Copies of all Movement Orders
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 11th September 2012 and OM F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3rd 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
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 motiveunder 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 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.
(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 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
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(v) In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.
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.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
To, 25thJuly 2013Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’CPIO, DMSRDEGT 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.
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To, Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECSFirst Appellate Authority, DRDORTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji MargNew 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 motiveunder 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 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.
(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 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
(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 (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)
(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. 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.
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 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 not 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.
(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013(2) RTI Application dated 25 July 2013To, 25thJuly 2013Shri 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?
