Tag Archives: DRDO

LTC Scam in DRDO Labs

To                                                                                                          
Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023

SUBJECT: LTC Scam in DRDO Labs

The scientists from DRDO are involved in LTC scam

According to DoPT guidelines issued time to time, DRDO officials can avail LTC80 scheme for self and their wards.

Taking the privilege some of the scientists / officials have found out the method to temper normal e-tickets of Air India to LTC80 tickets.

This way the government is paying more and Air India is getting less, the balance amount goes to the pocket of individuals.

Sh G S Malik, Director, DTRL, DRDO received written complaints on 31st December 2013 and 1st January 2014 of this racket which was run by a scientist of DRTL, DRDO, Ministry of Defence.

An inquiry committee was setup and the finding reveals that LTC claim was settled with doctored / tempered Air India E- tickets.

Sh G S Malik, Director, DTRL, DRDO reported immediately  this matter to Director Vigilance, DRDO Hqrs vide letter No DTRL/Dir/Vig_LTC/2014 dated 3rd January 2014 along with evidences. Copy enclosed for ready reference.

The interesting facts is that top DRDO official a CC R&D instructed to Director, Vigilance & Security to rafa/dafa/ buried this case.

DRDO lab loosed their credentials, the morals, the values, ethics and highly place officials of DRDO has gone down to such an extent that the youngsters of DRDO are at the loss.

Honourable Defence Minister has taken strong action against some top officials, who played with constitutional authorities based on the recommendation of CVC & CVO, MoD.

This LTC scam is not only pertain to DRTL but if examined thoroughly more than 100 cases from  will found from Delhi based DRDO Labs.

For your ready reference the sample e- ticket which was booked by one Sc’D’, DTRL using his credit card for Sh Sanjeev Kumar, Sc ‘D’, LASTEC, DRDO. It clearly indicates that scam is not limited to DTRL.

It is requested that the competent authority may please be directed for through investigation in DTRL, LASTEC, DIPAS, INMAS, CEPTAM, SAG, ISSA, SSPL, DIPR, CFEES etc. and CC R&D should not be allowed to jeopardize the investigation.

Regards

24th January 2014

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                            
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                             
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                
prabhudoon@gmail.com,  www.corruptionindrdo.com

Recent News on LTC scam in various News papers.

The CBI filed an FIR against him. Nine MPs have been accused of inflating travel bills to claim expenses they never paid.

CBI is still probing if officials of Shipping Corporation of India, Air India and Ordinance Factory Board (OFB), Jabalpur committed fraud. The agency had registered a preliminary enquiry into the matter in August.

CBI has alleged that senior and mid-level officers in government organisations colluded with private tour operators to take personal trips with families to far-off destinations and then claim the amount spent as official visits.

Enclosed

  1. Letter No DTRL/Dir/Vig_LTC/2014 dated 3rd January 2014
  2. Air India E- Ticket of Sh Sanjeev Kumar, Sc ‘E’, LASTEC, DRDOdtrl ltc scam 2

air ticket 1air ticket2

 

4th DRDO Directors Conclave 23rd & 24th January 2014- Devoted Topic “Change Management”

Vide D.O. No 85101/CCR/Conclave dated 06th December 2013 Lt Gen Anoop Malthora asked Lab & Estt. Directors come with important issues which suppose to address by Corporate Hqrs.

“Change Management” means now last over the period of 20 years maximum incompetent scientists are on the top position in DRDO.

Distinguished / Outstanding Scientists, who are capable to manage service extensions, manage promotions and superseding the honest and devoted scientist with false claims. Sh R C Agarwal, Sh R K Agarwal and  2, 3,………

Distinguished / Outstanding Scientists, who are capable to procure systems / sub-systems in exorbitant price, from Israel, Via Singapore or through their favorite vendor – Dr A K Saxena and 2,3 ………..

Distinguished / Outstanding Scientists, who are capable to manipulate interpret government orders for instant problem solution, who are not bothered later consequences. Dr W. Selvamurthy in Rs 4600 – Rs 4800 and his so many chelas 2,3,

Distinguished / OutstandingScientists, who are the best in fooling DRDO Purchase Management – 2006, again the no 1 is Dr A K Saxena and 2,3 ………..

Distinguished / Outstanding Scientists, who are best in manipulation in recruitment procedure for kiths & kin of senior scientists or their own wards. Dr W . Selvamurthy and his chelas, Sh Rajesh Goyal and 2,3,………

Distinguished / Outstanding Scientists, who are capable to mislead the real queries of Honorable Parliament or MoD Vigilance, PI & 2,3

Distinguished / Outstanding Scientists, who are experts in plagiarism. Dr. M.P Kaushik and 2,3………

Distinguished / Outstanding Scientists, who are best in nurture Corruption, Favoritism, Casteism, harassing the  weaker community – Sh R C Agarwal and Dr M.P Kaushik,2,3, (Sh Jagdish Kumar & Sh B P Shakya case are current example)

Distinguished / Outstanding Scientists, who are manage to get Honorary Doctorates or PhD’s by donating heft funds in name of Grant / CARS project / project development etc from poor tax payer’s money and gets PhD’s in age of 60+ from private deemed universities. numbers increasing day by day and queue is starting from newly born DG’s

Scientist like Dr Parhalda who claimed HRA illegally and whole DRDO machinery is saving him and whoever helped him got return gift.

Change Management”: definitely helps all those incompetent & selfish scientist of DRDO that DRDO is riding the constitutional provisions since there is no accountability.

Cheers !

With Best wishes

www.corruptionindrdo.com

Complaint to CVC – DMSRDE FUME HOOD PROCUREMENT CASE

To                                                                                                          
Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023
 

SUBJECT: Corruption in procurement of Fume Hoods in DMSRDE Kanpur Officers involved in Procurement

  1. Sh. A.S. Parihar, Scientist ‘D’ – Indenter
  2. Sh. Shielendra Kumar, Scientist ‘E’ Head Estate & Work Division and also MMG division both.
  3. Dr. AK Saxena, Director & CFA
  1. Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  2. DRDO’s Director Material Management distributed to all Labs & Establishments a manual named “DRDO Purchase Management -2006” which was duly approved by President of India and with the concurrence of Ministry of Defence (Fin/R&D) vide their ID No 752/IF (R&D) dated 20 March 2006.
  3. “DRDO Purchase Management -2006”  page no 12,  para 4.5.2 stated     Directors of Labs/Estts will observe adequate caution while working out detailed specifications of an intended procurement that these are not tailor made to suit a particular brand of product. Broad coverage of the functional performance and environmental parameters will be spelled out in the specifications to allow competition. For this purpose a computer-based data bank of similar products, along with broad specifications will be maintained and updated frequently so as to facilitate fair competition in purchases.
  4. The following case of procurement of Fume Hoods is totally violated procurement rules laid down by DRDO.
    • Tailor made specification was made and brand name as well as model number mentioned in tender inquiry.
    • Make cannot be mentioned in demand only item can be purchased whichever is having lowest prise. So he can purchase a branded item of particular firm unless it is propitiatory item. Bio base is Chinese Company so how they decided to purchase that brand when several manufactures and brands of Fume Hood were available in the Market
    • Item was purchased by Estate & Works Division, This division cannot indent & purchase Fume hood as this division is only for maintenance of Buildings & Govt accommodation.
    • Purchased qty 14 because the total price comes under fifty lakh which was within the limit of Director’s purchase power. Purchase Rules was violated as case was so designed that cost remain below 50 Lakhs (the Financial Power of Director)
    • Purchased exorbitant price because the same item is available in open market @ 1350 $ and dollar rate of date of supply order (19 November 2013) was Rs 62.26.
    • Open Market cost of  Fume Hood Chamber (Make- Biobase, Shandong Model- FH-1200 C) $1350 X 62.26 ( Dollar Rate on 19 Nov 2013 ) = Rs 84051.00
    • Fume Hood Chamber (Make- Biobase, Shandong Model- FH-1200 C) was purchased @ 290540.00 and Quantity 14 was purchased total amount Rs. 45,76,005.00. (With Tax)
    •  Actual cost of 14 no of Fume Hood Chamber (Make- Biobase, Shandong Model- FH-1200 C) Rs 84051.00 X 14 = Rs. 1176714.00
    •  Purchased exorbitant price by DMSRDE – Rs 290540.00 x 14 = Rs 4067560.00
    •  Total loss of poor tax payers Rs 4067560.00 – Rs. 1176714 = Rs 2890846.00 

FUME HOOD PROCUREMENT CASE

DMSRDE Fume Hood Demands Detailsfume demand   Demand Under worksfume demand under works DMSRDE, Kanpur Tender Details fume tender  DMSRDE, Kanpur placed Supply Order to KAN-THT (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi to procure the item  details of which given below.fume supply order 5.   The facts stated above, it is amply crystal clear that prima facie material regarding Abuse of Authority by arrogant and corrupt administrator Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director DMSRDE exists.

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

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                   22 January 2014
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                              
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879
Email-prabhudoon@gmail.com,  www.corruptionindrdo.com
 

 

Annexure  – 1. Quotation  of  Fume Hood Chamber (Make- Biobase, Shandong Model- FH-1200 C)fume quotation
 

Plagiarism in “CARBON NANOTUBES AND RELATED STRUCTURES”

To                                                                                                           Date 17th January 2014
Sh Avinash Chander
DG, DRDO, Secretary, R&D,
Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110105

Sir,

I have found the paper “CARBON NANOTUBES AND RELATED STRUCTURES” Kingsuk Mukhopadhyay, Kanik Ram, K.U. Bhasker Rao published in Defence Science Journal, Vol. 58, No. 4, July 2008, pp. 437-450 but unfortunately, it has been found  the second and third para of page 437 & 438 of this paper has been ditto copied from the paper published in Topics in Applied Physics, USA, Volume 80, 2001, pp 391-425 entitled “Applications of Carbon Nanotubes” by Pulickel M. Ajayan, Otto Z. Zhou.

It is shocking that the Kingsuk Mukhopadhyay author from DMSRDE has even failed to acknowledge the paper ““Applications of Carbon Nanotubes” by Pulickel M. Ajayan, Otto Z. Zhou.

This is the height of the plagiarism. Dr A K Saxena, DMSRDE and Sh Avinash Chander, SA to RM requested to do needful appropriate action to uphold the moral and dignity of DRDO.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal
21- Sunderwala, Raipur,
DEHRADUN- 248008, UTTARAKHAND
www.corruptionindrdo.com, prabhu@gmail.com

 

Enclosed –

  1. Copy of paper “CARBON NANOTUBES AND RELATED STRUCTURES” Kingsuk Mukhopadhyay, Kanik Ram, K.U. Bhasker Rao
  2. Copy of paper  “Applications of Carbon Nanotubes” by Pulickel M. Ajayan, Otto Z. Zhoucarbon nano tubes & related structures _kingkush Mukho1carbon nano tubes & related structures _kingkush Mukho2

Copy of paper  “Applications of Carbon Nanotubes” by Pulickel M. Ajayan, Otto Z. Zhouapplication of cnt 1application of cnt 2

Request for Nobel Prize Recommendation for Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur

To                                                                                           Date 15th January 2014
Sh Avinash Chander,
DG, DRDO, Secretary, R&D,
Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi – 110105

Congratulations, as reported in today’s Hindustan “Daily Hindi News Paper” Director, DMSRDE, Dr. A K Saxena claimed that they developed a chemical compound which can withstand 2000 °C & more. In fact the claim of the said compound has surpassed the limit of the compound used for heat shielding of space shuttle.

The Space Shuttle thermal protection system (TPS) is the barrier that protected the Space Shuttle Orbiter during the searing 1,650 °C (3,000 °F) heat of atmospheric reentry. A secondary goal was to protect from the heat and cold of space while on orbit.

So, this website request you to become member secretary of the committee headed by top Indian chemist Bharat Ratna Professor CNR Rao with members of Honorable Prime Minister and Honorable Defence Minister and recommend the innovation of Dr A K Saxena for Nobel Prize 2014 in Chemistry.

With Good Wishes

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21- Sunderwala, Raipur,
DEHRADUN- 248008, UTTARAKHAND
www.corruptionindrdo.com, prabhu@gmail.com

HAPPY BIRTHADAY

15th January
Hope your birthday is totally cool, really fantastic, wonderful, exciting, majorly awesome, rocking and HAPPY.
Happy Birthday wishes.
Free from Corruption, Free from Nepotism, Free from Favoritism
Shri GHATE JV, AFMC,
Shri RAO K RAGHUNATH, ASL,
Shri VINOD KUMAR, ASL,
Shri PRAVEEN MISHRA, CAIR,
Shri ALOK MALL, CEPTAM,
Dr. BALAKRISHNAN R,CME,
Ms. AKILANDESWARI P, CVRDE,
Shri JOTHI S, CVRDE,
Dr. BHATTACHARYYA CHINMOY, DIAT,
Shri MADHUSUDAN BISWAS,DIC,
Shri RAO VENKATESWARA N, DMRL
Dr. ASHISH DUBEY, DMSRDE,
Shri SHRIVASTAVA RK, DRDE,
Shri KAROTHIA BHAGWAN S, DRDE,
Dr. SANJAY KUMAR, DRDE,
Shri SHRAVAN KUMAR P, DRDL,
Shri PALANIVEL G,DRDL,
Shri BANOTH MURALI, DRDL,
Shri SAMBHAV KUMAR JAIN,DRDL
Shri MUKKAMALA RAVI KIRAN,DRDL,
Dr. PRONOBESH CHATTOPADHYAY, DRLT,
Dr. MEHILAL, HEMRL,
Ms. PRAGATI SINGH, DRDO,HQRS,
Shri SINGH BB, IRDE,
Shri KAMAL KISHOR PANT, IRDE,
Shri PRABHAT KUMAR, IRDE
Dr. SAIRAM R, LRDE
Shri CHANDRA PRAKASH MEENA,LRDE,
Shri KHAGESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY, NSTL,
Shri SOURAV MAJUMDAR, NSTL,
Shri CHAND KAMALA KANTA,PXE,
Ms. PRATIKSHA NATANI,R&D E
Shri VISHAL KUMAR, RCI,
Shri ANAND NARAYANA BABLESHWAR, RCMA
Shri KANSAL JIMMY, SASE,
Shri GURUBUX SINGH JABBAL,SPIC,
Dr. SUDIPTA BHATTACHARYA,TBRL
D/Ms. DEBARATI BHATTACHARJEE,TBRL

DRDO makes own rules on pay scales

Jatinder Kaur Tur,TNN | Jan 14, 2014, 02.34 AM IST

HYDERABAD: Sixteen months after it was pulled up for sanctioning projects without the approval of the government, the Hyderabad-based Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has done it again. This time, the premier defence research establishment has amended the pay scales of its employees on its own in violation of the rules and without the approval of the Union finance ministry.

Documents in possession of TOI show that DRDO amended or upgraded the Grade Pay of Technical Officer ‘A’ from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800. The defence organization effected the hike in 2009 with retrospective effect from 2006 and it came to the knowledge of the Union finance ministry in April 2012 through a query raised under the Right To Information (RTI) Act. A furious finance ministry then held that the order was ‘irregular’ and sought a strong-worded explanation from DRDO. The defence organization was also directed to withdraw the higher pay scale already granted to its Technical Officers.

But what followed was hilarious! In response to the reprimand from the Centre, DRDO reportedly sought retrospective permission for amending the Grade Pay scales. At this, an even furious finance ministry turned down the request in a strongly worded letter saying that the “arrangement was irregular, contrary to the accepted recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and in violation of allocation and transaction of business rules since it had been undertaken suo motu without reference, much less concurrence.”

The finance ministry also rubbished the claims of DRDO that this was done to maintain ‘relative hierarchy of Senior Technical Assistants (STA ‘C’) vis-a-vis Technical Officers ‘A’. DRDO was reminded that 6th CPC’s recommendations were aimed at de-layering the government and that ensuring the same ‘relative hierarchies’ as existed before the CPC awards defied the very purpose of rationalisation/standardization of pay scales attempted by successive Pay Commissions. At the end, DRDO was once again asked to withdraw the orders.

And now, DRDO in an attempt to cover up its administrative blunder, has distressed its more than 1,100 such technical officers across its 52 laboratories of which almost 124 promotees have already retired. In December 2013, DRDO not only downgraded these officers of DRDO Research and Technical Cadre, but also asked these officials to appear for special review and assessment and interview schedule in addition to the recovery of money so paid to them.

Meanwhile, the aggrieved officials maintain that it took them five years residential period and rigorous assessment tests to earn technical officers promotions from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800 grade. The DRTC Officers Association has reportedly urged defence minister A K Antony to bring the erring officers to book. These officials have been asked to return money to the tune of Rs 1,000 to Rs 5,000 earned monthly all these years as a result of this increased grade pay.

This was the second instance that DRDO has been found indulging in arbitrary functioning. About 16 months ago, a clandestine audit conducted by the Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) on the instructions of defence minister Antony, found major anomalies in DRDO’s arbitrary functioning. The defence organization was found guilty of sanctioning projects without government approval etc.

When asked about the developments, DRDO director general Avinash Chander said “while following the orders, the defence organization is trying to find a solution to the problem and issues raised by the technical officers issue.” Dr G Malakondaiah, chief controller, R&D (HR) at DRDO, while refusing to comment upon the orders in the past, said attempts are on to find a way out of the situation stemming out of the technical officers’ pay scale issue.

Curious case of pay hikes

In violation of rules and without the approval of the Union finance ministry, DRDO has amended the pay scales of its employees in 2009

The premier defence research establishment upgraded the Grade Pay of Technical Officer ‘A’ from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800 with a retrospective effect from 2006

After coming to know about it in April 2012, the Union finance ministry reprimanded the DRDO and directed it to withdraw the ‘hikes.’ In response, DRDO sought a retrospective permission from the finance ministry instead

A furious finance ministry then held that the order was ‘irregular’ and sought a strong-worded explanation from DRDO

DRDO in an attempt to cover up its administrative blunder, has distressed more than 1,100 technical officers across its 52 laboratories of which almost 124 promotees have already retired.

Desi defence showpieces powered by videshi parts

Rajat Pandit, TNN Jan 13, 2014, 01.39AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Tejas light combat aircraft, 30 years in the making, is just 60% indigenous as of now. The story of the indigenous Arjun main battle tank is even worse. First sanctioned in May 1974, 55% of the tank is still made of imported parts. This is the recurring theme across India’s fledgling defence industrial base (DIB), with the government failing to whip DRDO and its sprawling empire of over 50 laboratories as well as the five defence PSUs, four shipyards and 50 ordnance factories into shape.
The defence ministry, with its constant flip-flops, has also failed to spur the domestic private sector into entering the defence production sector in a big way. Neither has it managed to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), notching up a measly $5 million in the last 14 years.toi1

AK Antony may often tom-tom “indigenisation” as one of his guiding mantras, which he feels can curb corruption, but the ground reality has hardly changed in the over seven years he has been at the helm in MoD. India continues to wallow as the world’s largest arms importer, with the armed forces still getting around 65% of their military hardware and software from abroad.
In sharp contrast, China has emerged as the fastest growing arms exporter around the globe after assiduously building a strong DIB. It’s now hawking fighter jets, warships, missiles and smaller arms to countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bolivia and Zambia.

But a “proper ecosystem” has simply not been erected in India. As if the “high import content” in the so-called indigenous projects was not enough, insiders say even the much-touted transfer of technology (ToT) provision build into large defence contracts with foreign manufacturers is a bit of a sham.

“Indian PSUs focus more on just assembling knocked-down kits from foreign vendors instead of properly absorbing technologies,” said a senior official, pointing to the ongoing “licensed production” of the Russian-origin Sukhoi-30MKI fighters by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL).

India has inducted almost 200 of the 272 Sukhois contracted for well over $12 billion from Russia, with HAL producing most of the fighters. “As per plans, HAL should have begun making Sukhois completely from raw material two-three years ago. But there has been a big delay,” he said.

“Moreover, the cost of each HAL-manufactured Sukhoi is almost Rs 100 crore more than if the same fighter was directly imported from Russia (the last 42 Sukhois ordered cost over Rs 450 crore each),” he added.

DRDO does have a point that funds allocated for defence R&D are not adequate. “We just get slightly over 5% of the total defence budget. The US defence R&D budget is around 12%, while China has 20%,” said a scientist.

But not many are impressed, pointing to huge time and cost overruns in almost all DRDO projects. While the indigenous development of Tejas, Arjun and other weapon systems is certainly to be cheered, the high import content in them remains another source of worry.

Take Tejas, which finally achieved its initial operational clearance last month. It has an American engine, British ejection seat, Canadian canopy sheath and Israeli radar. “A major chunk of its avionics and weapons are also imported. The series production of the Tejas Mark-II version, which is what IAF actually wants, is unlikely to begin before 2022,” said an officer.
The Army, in turn, has inducted 124 Arjun Mark-I tanks, while trials are currently in progress for the Mark-II version with 89 “upgrades or improvements”. The tank is just about 45% indigenous as of now, with its main laser guided missile being the Israeli LAHAT. “Arjun’s missile firing control system, laser target designator, engine transmission, suspension unit and running gear (track) are all foreign,” said an Army officer.

India has fared relatively better on the naval front, with all the 45 warships currently on order being constructed in Indian shipyards. Officials say India has achieved 80-90% indigenisation in the “float” (warship’s structure, hull etc), 50-60% on the “move” (propulsion) and 30% on the “fight” (weapons and sensors) components.

DRDO takes finance ministry for a ride again

Jatinder Kaur Tur,TNN | Jan 13, 2014, 01.04 PM IST
HYDERABAD: Sixteen months after it was pulled up for sanctioning projects without the approval of the government, Hyderabad-based Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has done it again.

This time, the premier defence research establishment has amended the payscales of its employees on its own in violation of the rules and without the approval of the Union finance ministry.

Documents in possession of TOI show that DRDO amended or upgraded the grade pay of technical officer ‘A’ from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800. The violation that happened in 2006 came to the knowledge of the union finance ministry in April 2012, through a query raised under the Right to Information Act. A furious finance ministry then held that the order was irregular and sought an explanation from DRDO. The defence organization was also directed to withdraw the higher payscale already granted to its technical officers.

What followed was hilarious. In response to the reprimand from the Centre, DRDO reportedly sought retrospective permission for amending the grade payscales. At this, an even more furious finance ministry turned down the request in a strongly-worded letter saying that the “arrangement was irregular, contrary to the accepted recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and in violation of Allocation and Transaction of Business Rules since it had been undertaken suo motu without reference, much less concurrence.”

The finance ministry also rubbished the claims of DRDO that this was done to maintain ‘relative hierarchy of senior technical assistants (STA ‘C’) vis-a-vis technical officers ‘A’. DRDO was reminded that 6th CPC’s recommendations were aimed at de-layering the government and that ensuring the same ‘relative hierarchies’ as existed before the CPC awards defied the very purpose of rationalization/standardization of pay scales attempted by successive Pay Commissions. At the end, DRDO was once again asked to withdraw the orders.

And now, DRDO in an attempt to cover up its administrative blunder has distressed its more than 1,100 such technical officers across its 52 laboratories of which almost 124 promotees have already retired. In December 2013, DRDO not only downgraded these officers of DRDO research and technical cadre, but also asked these officials to appear for special review and assessment and interview schedule in addition to the recovery of money so paid to them.

Meanwhile, the aggrieved officials maintain that it took them five years residential period and rigorous assessment tests to earn technical officers promotions from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4, 800 grade. The DRTC Officers Association has reportedly urged defence minister AK Antony to bring the erring officers to book. These officials have been asked to return money to the tune of Rs 1000 to Rs 5,000 earned monthly all these years as a result of this increased grade pay.

This is the second instance where DRDO has been found indulging in arbitrary functioning. About 16 months ago, a clandestine audit conducted by the Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) on the instructions of defence minister Antony, found major anomalies in DRDO’s arbitrary functioning. The defence organization was found guilty of sanctioning projects without government approval, etc.

When asked about the developments, DRDO director general Avinash Chander said “while following the orders, the defence organization is trying to find a solution to the problem and issues raised by the technical officers’ issue.” Dr G Malakondaiah, chief controller R&D (HR) at DRDO, while refusing to comment upon the orders in the past, said attempts are on to find a way out of the situation stemming out of the technical officers’ payscale issue.

CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF ANALYTICAL WEIGHING BALANCE AT DMSRDE KANPUR

           

To
Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023

SUBJECT: SCAM TAINTED PROCUREMENT OF ANALYTICAL WEIGHING BALANCE IN DMSRDE, KANPUR 

 COMPLAINT AGAINST

  1. MR. AMIT SARAIYA, SCIENTIST ‘D’, HEAD MATERIALS MANAGEMENT GROUP (2011-2013),
  2. MR. SHIELANDRA KUMAR  SCIENTIST ‘E’, HEAD MATERIALS MANAGEMENT GROUP (2013),
  3. MR.R K JAIN, SCIENTIST ‘E’ CHAIRMAN, ‘VENDOR REGISTRATION COMMITTEE’
  4. DR. D. N. TRIPATHI, CHAIRMAN, ‘TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE’(TEC)
  5. DR. T. C. SHAMI, CHAIRMAN, ‘STORES PRUCHASE COMMITTEE’(SPC)
  6. DR. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR & CFA, DMSRDE, KANPUR

Sir,

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT 

  1. Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  1. Purchase Management 2006 is applicable for procurement of store items in DRDO. Gross irregularities and violation of Purchase Management 2006 was made in procurement of Analytical Weighing Balance in year 2012-2013 when the cases were indented by officers of Material Management Group under illegal orders of Head MMG & Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE.
  1. Dr. A K Saxena Director is an incompetent, arrogant and corrupt administrator who has not only violated but also subverted all rules and regulations of purchase.  In earlier complaints pending with Central Vigilance Commissioner at New Delhi and now in the present case, it becomes amply clear that he is the not only the ‘CENTRE OF GRAVITY’ but also ‘PATRON-IN-CHIEF’ of corruption menace in DMSRDE.  Relevant rules and regulation of DRDO PURCHASE MANUAL-2006 for the execution of procurement are a mentioned below:
  • Para 4.6.2 of DRDO purchase manual 2006 Corrigendum 03 clearly  states: 4.6.2 For demands for stores above Rs 5 lakh, the level for initiation for putting up to SPC/DRDO HQrs/ various committees with delegated powers under various programmes and projects will be as under: (a) Above Rs 5 lakh to Rs 25 lakh: initiation by Scientist ‘C’/ TO ‘C’ and above, countersigned by project or group head. (b) Above Rs 25 lakh to Rs 50 lakh: initiation by Scientist ‘D’/ TO ‘D’ and above, countersigned by project or group head. (c) Above Rs 100 lakh and above: initiation by Scientist ‘E’ and above, countersigned by project or group head.
  • Para 5.1.1 of DRDO PURCHASE MANUAL 2006 clearly states that  following cautions shall be observed for purchasing stores:
  • Bulk purchases will normally fetch quantity discount. This should, however, not lead to over-stocking resulting in expiry of shelf life or redundancy due to obsolescence.
  • Purchase orders will not be split-up to avoid the necessity for obtaining sanction of the higher authorities.
  • Open tendering should be adopted to ensure fair competition, unless it is considered expedient to follow other modes of tendering due to urgency. Purchases will be made from the lowest acceptable tenderer. Adequate care would be exercised to ensure that delivery from the vendor is within the specified time schedule.
  • Para  7.6 Corrigendum 02 of DRDO PURCHASE MANUAL 2006 clearly states: LIMITED TENDERS: This mode of tendering may be chosen when estimated value of goods to be procured is up to Rs. 25 lakh (Rupees Twenty five lakh).  Purchase through Limited Tender Enquiry may also be adopted even where the estimated value of the procurement is more than Rs 25 lakh, in the following circumstances as per the delegated financial powers in vogue.

(a)  When the sources of supply are definitely known and are limited.

(b)  When it is not in the public interest to call for open tenders due to reasons of security or when superior authorities have issued specific instructions in this regard.

(c)  When Government policies designate specific agencies.

(d)  When open tender system adopted during previous one year has established sufficient and assured sources of supply at competitive rates.

(e)  When the requirement of stores is urgent and the desired delivery schedule cannot be met if open tenders are invited, the indenting officer must place on record, the nature of the urgency and why the demand could not be anticipated earlier. Urgency of such cases will be specifically monitored till the placement of order.

(f)   EPC approval issued by DMM in all cases shall include the names of the vendors to whom the Tender enquiries must necessarily be sent in addition to others.

  • Para 7.6.3 of DRDO purchase manual 2006 clearly  states:The limited tender enquiries will be floated to all registered firms with a minimum of seven such firms for the concerned item(s). In a case where the number of registered firms is less than seven, these enquiries will be issued to all known firms dealing with the stores and efforts made in this regard will be recorded on the file”. Corrigendum 03 clearly  states: “Add: at the end of the para 7.6.3Vendor selection for the purpose of Limited Tender enquiries must be done with utmost diligence so as to give fair opportunity to all known vendors who are willing and eligible for consideration. The enlistment and delisting of registered vendors should be based on clearly laid down criteria and the existing provision for buildup followed rigorously  by periodically referring to vendors registered with R&D Labs/ Estt., DGS&D, NSIC, other Government  Departments and to the firms of national repute who will be registered before their bid is considered.”
  • Para 7.13.3 of DRDO purchase manual 2006 clearly  states: Scrapping of tenders will be resorted to in the following cases with the approval of the Director:
    • Change in basic specifications governing supplies after opening of tenders.
    • Non-receipt of offers as per specifications laid down.
    • Sudden downward market trend.
    • Prices quoted being very high/unreasonable.
    • Large/manifold variation in tendered prices.
    • Para 3.2 of DRDO purchase manual 2006 clearly  states: REGISTRATION OF VENDORS: The vendors will be registered by Labs/Estts for different categories of stores, e.g., raw materials, chemicals, machine tools, instruments, electronics and electrical items, timber, fabrication jobs and other general stores etc. The credentials of firms seeking registration will be verified to ascertain their credibility with regard to financial standing i.e. annual accounts, capacity, reliability, bonafides (income-tax returns sales tax No. etc.) and past performance, etc. For this purpose, specialists from the respective fields will be included in the Vendor Registration Committee while examining the applications of vendors seeking registration. The registration committee will be appointed for one financial year. The constitution of the vendor registration committee will be as follows:

1. Scientist- F Chairman

2. Scientist- D/E Member

3. Head MMG or Rep Member Secy.

The Chairman can co-opt specialist members if considered necessary.

4.    Mr. Aneesh  Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘C’,  Mr. Amit Sarriya,  Head Material Management Group, Mr. R.K. Jain, Scientist ‘E’ Chairman Vendor Registration Committee Dr. D. N. Tripathi, Scientist ‘F’ Chairman TEC, and Dr. T. C. Shami, Scientist ‘F’, Chairman SPC(above Rs 10 lakh) for    possibly under heavy pressure entered into a criminal conspiracy with Dr. A K Saxena, Director  & CFA of splitting requirement of the same items to fabricate store demands violating  DRDO purchase manual 2006, details of which are mentioned below:

5.    PROCUREMENT IRREGULARITIES OF Analytical Weighing Balance

Central Procurement of Analytical Weighing Balances worth total estimated cost Rs. 52.8 lakh on limited tender basis by splitting requirement into

  • 02 demands raised by Mr. Aneesh Kumar Singh, Scientist C of Material Management Group along with Mr. Amit Sarriya Head MMG, on same date 20th Feb 2013 with exactly same list of pet vendors of Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director , DMSRDE.
  • the 02 demands were cleared by the SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases above Rs. 10.0 lakh, headed by  Dr.  T C Shami, Scientist ‘F’,  as Chairman of SPC 2012,
  • Technical evaluation of Techno Commercial Bid  in case of Analytical Weighing Balance was done by a TEC comprising of  Dr. D. N. Tripathi, Scientist ‘F’ Chairman TEC, Mr. A. K. Dixit Scientist ‘E’ (Expert Member),  Mr. Aneesh Kumar Singh, Scientist C(User Member) and Mr. A. K. Mishra Technical Officer ‘C’(Member Secretary). Queries were asked from Vendors vide letter dated 19 June 2013 Kawach Instruments & Chem Tex Noida & Abhigyan Traders, Kanpur was  technically disqualified in TEC report for case at Sl. No.01.
  • Respective   supply orders placed during Sep 2013 to Oct 2013.
  • Point to be noted that
    • requirement of “Analytical Weighing Balance” received from various user divisions in response to MMG ION (Annexure-I) was  deliberately split into two demands below Rs. 50.0 Lakh to keep it within the lab director CFA power so as to avoid DRDO HQrs  concurrence. These demands were cleared in same SPC meeting held on 07-Mar-2013 and limited tender enquiries were issued on same date 03-Apr-2013 to exactly similar vendors as shown in Table-I below.
    • Only 06 pet vendors are given tender enquiry whereas  as per para 7.6.3 DRDO purchase manual 2006 the limited tender enquiries will be floated to all registered firms with a minimum of seven such firms for the concerned item(s). Further vendors should be selected in accordance to Para 7.6.3-Corrigendum 03 to DRDO purchase manual 2006.
    • Further vendors selection  for the two demands  at Sl.No.01& 02 is improper as:
      • M/s Nav Jyoti Scientific Sales Corporation Lucknow (Reg. No. DMSRDE_013/01C/19_10L for Chemicals, Instruments) and M/s Kawach Instruments & Chem Tex Noida (Reg. No. DMSRDE_012/03C/073_10L for Chemicals, Instruments, Textiles,) were registered in 2013  for supply orders limited up to Rs 10.lakh then how these vendors were selected for tender inquiry for cases costing above  Rs. 10 Lakh
      • M/s Abhigyan Traders, Kanpur (Reg. No. DMSRDE_07/03C/044 for Chemicals) and M/s National Industrial Corporation (NIC) Kanpur (Reg. No. DMSRDE_11/03C/61 for Chemicals) are registered in DMSRDE only for Chemicals supply then how they were selected for tender inquiry for Scientific Equipment.
      • Demand for such specialized equipment is raised by Material Management Group centrally based on requirements submitted  by user divisions under pressure of Dr. A K Saxena, the Director,  in response to the ION issued by Material Management Group(Annexure-I)  despite no demand was raised from user divisions.
      • there is no requirement for this store in such a huge quantity in DMSRDE as it may be  sufficient to provided such costly and specialized equipment in Central Analytical Facility which is equipped with various special purpose sophisticated costly equipment. This is an attempt to create redundant facilities leading to underutilization of the equipment and this can be treated as wastage of poor tax payers money.

 6.    Point to be noted that

Dr. A. K. Saxena, the Director, has got registered more than fifty of his pet vendors in year 2013 through formulation of an illegal Vendor Registration committee with his pet man Mr. R.K. Jain Scientist ‘E’ as Chairman despite the fact that there are more competent and honest Scientist’s ‘F’ available in DMSRDE who are not only underutilized but not even acknowledged.. This  is a clear cut violation of para3.2 of DRDO purchase manual 2006 by Dr AK Saxena, for placement of the supply  order on limited tender to known vendors clearly exhibit his vested interest through manipulation  in prices, quality etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms.

  • Details are as show in Table-1
  • Table-Itable2

Point to be noted

  • For Analytical weighing balance at Sl.no.01
    • As per Para 4.6.2 DRDO purchase manual 2006 Corrigendum 03 Scientist ‘C’ can raise demand up to Rs.  25.0 lakh.
    • This limited tender above Rs 25 lakh violates Para 7.6 DRDO purchase manual 2006 Corrigendum 02.
    • Placement of supply order worth Rs. 30.92 (costing  close to  estimated cost Rs 33.6 lakh) on limited tender basis  to known local/pet vendor M/s Nav Jyoti Scientific Sales Corporation Lucknow, clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation  in prices, quality etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms
  • For Analytical weighing balance at Sl.no.02
    • The Demand for Dual Range High Precision Semi Micro Balance with Density Determination Kit is exorbitantly estimated at the rate of Rs 6.4 Lakh (i.e. Total cost for 03 No. Rs 19.2 Lakh ) as:
  • Similar Semi Micro Dual Range High Precision Analytical Balance with Density Determination Kit was procured by a user division vide demand dated in 08-Aug-11 and supply order dated 19-Dec-2011 at the rate of Rs 1.6 lakh from M/s P.D. Scientific Industries, Kanpur.
  • For a demand estimated Rs.19.2 lakh the supply order costing Rs 9.7 lakh at the rate Rs 3.3 lakh only was placed to lowest bidder M/s Kawach Instruments & Chem Tex Noida.
  • Point to be noted that M/s Kawach Instruments & Chem Tex Noida could not be technically disqualified in this case by the TEC otherwise this supply order also might be costing close to estimated cost Rs 19 lakh as in first case above.  It appears that the first case is exorbitantly estimated too.
    • Item nomenclature is slight changed by changing the location of “Semi Microat Sl. No. 02 & 03 with a view to create a differentiation.  
    • M/s P.D. Scientific Industries Kanpur was not considered for the said tender enquiry otherwise prices might have lowered further in order of case at Sl. No. 03.
    • Scrapping of tenders should be considered in case of sudden downward market trend or Large/manifold variation in tendered prices as per DRDO purchase manual 2006 Para 7.13.3 .

9.      Despite all above placement of the supply  order on limited tender to known vendors clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation  in prices, quality etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms

10.       From the facts stated above, it is amply crystal clear that prima facie material regarding ‘ABUSE OF AUTHORITY’, ‘DICTATORIAL TRAITS ’, ‘PATRONIZATION OF CORRUPTION’ as regards to arrogant and corrupt Dr. Arvind Kumar  Saxena, Director DMSRDE exists.

That he has created a robust cobweb of corruption system’ killed proven departments / institutions in DMSRDE to hold system to ransom. This is evident from the fact that sequentially right from the indenter, head of the Division, whole Stores Purchase Committee including its CHAIRMAN and lastly HEAD MMG have fallen under tremendous pressure into criminal conspiracy to cheat DRDO and exchequer’s money.

In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy,  Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, present Head MMG, and Mr. A. K. Singh, Technical Staff Officer of Director, DMSRDE are tampering with evidence / documents that shall be prejudice to fair trial, investigation, trial or any inquiry.

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

Date: 12th January 2014

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                          
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                              
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                 
prabhudoon@gmail.comwww.corruptionindrdo.com

Annexure- ION Bulk Purchasing of Items – File No TPO/Gen/09/N-8Dated 7/9/2012  table3