Tag Archives: DRDO

Drdo

DRDO Sceintist’s – Ph D Mechnism

1 Comment
To                                                                                                        Date 17th October 2013
The CPIO, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, RajajiMarg
New Delhi – 110105

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of  Graphic Era University, Deemed University, Dehradun U/S 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 vide Notification F.9-48/2007-U.3(A) dated August 14, 2008 and DRDO collaboration.

  1. Please provide total amount of funds granted to Graphic Era University, Deemed University, Dehradun by DRDO Labs since April 2009 to March 2013 for various purposes.
  2. Name of scientists of DRDO who enroll for PhD since April 2009 to March 2013.

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

File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.

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

Regards

PrabhuDayalDandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com
Drdo

Constitutional crises in DRDO

Leave a comment

DRDO comes under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India and all central government rules are applicable.

However, beginning with 1980 (prior to this DRDO was running under defence secretary) when D G (R&D) post was created and approved by cabinet with status of secretary as independent charge of R&D, foundation were laid for an autonomous & central govt. body both.

Special status was given for program director of IGMDP with permission sign 10 cr papers while directors/lab heads limitation was 2.5 Lakhs.

In the name of science & technology development, recruitments were made to develop defence specific weapons/equipments/infrastructures. A separate recruitment and assessment centre (RAC) was created with consent of UPSC and with approval of government.

The absolute empowerment of secretary DRDO gave the individual to implement his decision and with passage of time the interest of nation was over shadowed. The secretary DRDO made the entire lab directors independent and unaccountable.

Today the scenario is no system exists in DRDO, every director following their own rules, whether it is case of procurements/ recruitments / assessments / maximum time busy with construction/renovations etc.

They don’t bother new born D.Gs, DOP, RTI cell and even Secretary, DRDO. Why? Because they know after few days, Dr Avinash Chandra will be working in contract basis. No one is listening his order as well as his advice. For example, Director, Dr CP Ramanarayanan, GTRE not honoring the order of Dr Avinash Chandra, the new DG Electronics Communication System Sh. S S Sundaram also supporting the acts and deed of Director, Dr CP Ramanarayanan, GTRE (because of regionalism). Transfer case of Mr Sachin GTRE to DEAL is a clear cut example of environment of DRDO; the words uttered by Dr. CP Ramanarayanan are resonating in the ears of all top DRDO Hqrs officials.

Dr Avinash Chandra told a scientist that your request is genuine but I am helpless. The scientist got transfer order one and half year back but the because of the dictatorship of Director, LRDE, Sh S Ravind the transfer is still pending and our  Dr Avinash Chandra, SA, Dr G Malakondaiah, DS & CC R&D (HR & M), and DOP, Dr A K Singh all are helpless. Although Dr G Malakondaiah talked in front of the individual scientist with Sh S S Sundaram (conversation was in Telegu) but it did not turn positive.

Surprisingly, the aim and objective of Rama Rao committee was that the power is decentralized for fast decision on procurement issues, management issues. This would give boost for high productivity or pace in development program. It is looking like a total failure in the beginning itself.

Instead of all this all new DG are too busy to manage big chunks of funds and showing off the power of their new kingdom.

DRDO labs directors, mostly known as distinguished or outstanding scientists but it is astonishing fact that most them are not known in India because they have never published any outstanding paper, not have any patents, if PhD then from deemed universities where they are suppose to feed project funds. Like their big guru Dr W Selvamurthy Ex C C R&D, who is PhD in Yoga and involved in feeding funds to various deemed universities or private institutions. (Famous SASTRA case everyone knows). Rest are following their footsteps like Sh S S Sundaram, new born DG, Sh RC Agarwal, Director, DEAL (2nd extension age 63+ yrs), Sh R K Agarwal another outstanding scientist now start pursuing PhD from Graphic Era, also new born Deemed University at Dehardun because they fed funds in the name of projects and their agents ex DRDO employees are managing the show.

A constitutional crisis was the appointment of RAC Chairman. Dr PS Goel was appointed for period 3rd December 2008 – 2nd December 2011. As per rule search committee for next RAC chairman was supposed to be constituted in June 2011. However, minutes (DOP/05/50219/M/01 7th Dec 2011 disclose that first meeting of newly constituted committee was scheduled for 19 December 2011, it is astonishing fact that DRDO writes its own constitution and shows disrespect to Honorable Raksha Mantri.

Negligence of then SA to RM, not to initiate search committee in time was a planned action. He wanted to push all his close aides to appropriate place/post, who were handling sub contracts signed with foreign firms with different areas and were responsible omission/commission dues. The period of Dec 2011 to June 2012 was the crucial period of assessment/recommendations/selections/promotions. To cash this opportunity   Dr V K Saraswat as chairman RAC recommended those who were not competent for the post of ‘H’. Had there been an independent RAC Chairman, he would kept the national interest in forefront. The example of the case of Sh R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’ at DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun, who prepared citation for promotion with a false claim (Copy of his claim) attached and got promoted with the blessing of Sh R C Agarwal, Director, DEAL (2nd extension without any achievement) and Dr V K Saraswat.

The letter no 12/7/2012 EO(SM-II) dated 19th March 2012 of DOPT revealed that appointment of

as RAC chairman was approved by Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC). The question is why it was waited up to June 19th, 2012; time was buying to adjust all incompetent senior officials by Dr V K Saraswat.

It is requested to Sh A K Antony, honorable Raksha Mantri order for investigation of assessment year 2012 scientist ‘H’.

DOPT letter no 12/7/2012 EO(SM-II) dated 19th March 2012
DOPT letter no 12/7/2012 EO(SM-II) dated 19th March 2012

 

Office order of additional charge given to Dr V K Saraswat as Chairman, RAC
Office order of additional charge given to Dr V K Saraswat as Chairman, RAC
Note sheet of approval of Raksha Mantri for additional charge of Chairman RAC to Dr V K Saraswat
Note sheet of approval of Raksha Mantri for additional charge of Chairman RAC to Dr V K Saraswat
DRDO News Letter September 2012
DRDO News Letter September 2012

 

 

 

Drdo

RTI-DMSRDE-STAFF CAR

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

Subject: Application/Request under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

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

i.    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”.

ii.   CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO) 
iii.   CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
iv    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

  1. The date from which Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE was availing staff car facility for commuting between office and residence.
  2. Copy of the letter by which Dr. AK Saxena , Director, DMSRDE requested to his superior authority/controlling authority to withdraw the staff car.
  3. The date from which staff car facility was withdrawn from Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE.
  4. The date from which Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE availing Transport Allowance.
  5. Amount of Transport Allowance provided to him after withdrawal of Staff Car.
  6. How many staff car existing in DMSRDE?
  7. Whether staff car facility was offered to other senior officer at No. 2 or No. 3 in rank for commuting between office and residence after withdrawal of staff car facility from Dr. AK Saxena. (Yes/No)
  8. If answer to point (7) is yes then provide the copy of the offer letter as mentioned above and letter of acceptance/denial by such senior most officers.
  9. Details/List of Scientists/Tech. Officers/CMTD/MTD/Other employees & staff below the rank of Scientist ‘D’ to whom Telephone Reimbursement has been sanctioned/allowed by Director, DMSRDE for prepaid mobile/Landline with Broadband/Postpaid with Internet facility. Provide details for each official with following information.
  • Name of the Scientist/officer/official with rank
  • Amount of telephone Reimbursement
  • Justification

10.    Provide the total number of Scientist/Tech. Officer/Other officer & employees           below the rank of Scientist ‘D’ who are availing Telephone Reimbursement.

11.     Copy of the Minute Sheet/SOC approved by Director, DMSRDE by which Officer & employees posted at Motor Transport Division was allowed for Telephone Reimbursement.

13.   Copy of the rule under which Telephone Reimbursement for Scientist C’, Scientist ‘B’, Tech. Officers, CMTD, MTD, Admin. Asst. & other employees & staff of DMSRDE have been allowed in DMSRDE, Kanpur.

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

This is also for your kind information that the information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not the personal information under RTI Act.

Please Find Enclosed – Postal Order No 17 F 549291

Date: 16th  October , 2013

 (Santosh Joshi)
2-Shanti Vihar
Behind mahindra showroom
Haridwar bypass 
Dehradun – 248001
Drdo

RTI Act -2005 – Effective Tool to Tackle Corruption and Very Potent Weapon against Corruption and Nepotism

2 Comments

The main objectives of the RTI Act are – To promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and

To set up a practical regime for giving citizens access to information that is under the control of public authorities.

RTI Act 2005 was introduced to make the government machinery transparent and enhanced the accountability for good governance.

Right to Information and has been given the status of a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Article 19 (1) under which every citizen has freedom of speech and expression and have the right to know how the government works, what role does it play, what are its functions and so on.

The Act confers right to the citizens to know as to how the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the Government.

Right to Information Act empowers every citizen to seek any information, take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records, and take certified samples of material.

DRDO although governed by Indian constitution and draw salary from central government funds.

But decisions are autonomous without accountability. They all are self style generals, they have own rules and rule implantations in own terms & conditions, but when succumbed to injury look for RM for protection and ask protection in the name of secrecy.

Like when an RTI revealed that induction of Grade Pay – Rs 4800 without approval of finance ministry now question of recovery of Rs 24 Cr is big crisis for DRDO, several court cases are facing by DRDO, almost 665 technical officers are busy to tackle the recovery issue.

DRDO management to hide their irresponsible act, making arrangements for reassessment for these technical officers. Please imagine the money involvement and man hour wastage.

The present Honorable Defence Minister has tried his level best and convinced DRDO officers/ employees to fall in the line and follow the constitutional provisions.

Honorable Defence Minister has take prompt action as per rule:-

  1. Not granted extension to Dr V K Sarswat
  2. Suspended Dr Arun Kumar, DOP two hours before his retirement day.
  3. Charge sheeted to Dr. S M Veerabhadrappa just after retirement.
  4. Node to enquiry for Dr W Selvamurthy, Ex CC R&D, Ph D in Yoga, Ms S Geetha, Ms Swati Srivastva, Mrs T Chandra banu, Scientist ‘F’
  5. Charge Sheeted Dr A K Tyagi, ex CPIO, DRDO Hqr
  6. Protected whistle blower Sh Prakash Singh, Senior Admin Officer-I

These well known decisions are in the right direction and has encourage the common people to identify incompetent, corrupt official , non performers etc of DRDO Labs across the India. So this cancer of corruption, nepotism, casteism can be treated in first stage.

DRDO has made it mockery of RTI Act – 2005. There are several examples in CIC decision; “ The Commission has taken a consistent view that notwithstanding the fact that DRDO is an exempted organization, this exemption applies only in respect of scientific/technical matters and not in respect of establishment matters.”

And best part is this that after CIC stands, DRDO went Honorable High Court for wasting precious poor tax payer’s money. Common man cannot digest who give power to these corrupt officers for saving their own skin they are using public money.

In case of DMSRDE, DRDO Lab Kanpur, some RTI were placed to expose the corrupt practices following in the Lab. As usual practice of RTI cell DRDO all were denied and after thoroughly and specifically made first appeal force to think first appellate authority for provide requested informations.

RTI cell DRDO intends to disclose informations. However, the RTI cell at Lab level put the sundry things under schedule-II exemptions. DRDO has protected its corrupt officials under exemption clause in the name of secrecy.

Please find enclosed copy of FAX addressed to Director, DMSRDE, KANPUR  Letter No RTI/02/2091 /F /2013/0139.0140,0141,0142,0144 dated 27th September 2013 signed by Sh Bishan Singh, Astt. Director, RTI Cell, For First Appellate Authority.

For your ready reference.

 

Regards                                                                                             Date – 14th October 2013

Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
E-mail – prabhudoon@gmail.com, website- www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
  1. Enclosed – Photocopy of FAX addressed to Director, DMSRDE, KANPUR  Letter No RTI/02/2091 /F /2013/0139.0140,0141,0142,0144 dated 27th September 2013
 rtidmsrdefaxcopy0001
To                                                                                                                                                  
The Defence Minister                                                                                                        
Room No -104, South Block                                                                                               
New Delhi – 110011
Drdo

First Appeal -DMSRDE – Immovable Property Return (IPR) of Officials

1 Comment

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

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

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

Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 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
J.P. Sharma, Advocate
Address
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite  Bar Council Office
Court Compound
Dehradun-248001(Uttrakhand

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/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 September 2013 received by appellant on 27 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 20 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Immovable Property Return submitted by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 20 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/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 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 20 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 17 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 20 August 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

(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 20 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 20 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 20 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, personal information and public information, public interest, public authority, public fund 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:-

  1. Information sought vides RTI Application dated 20 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 20 August 2013.
  2. 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.
  3.  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 20 August 2013 was pertaining to Establishment Matter

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

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

(vi)       In these decisions CIC decided & gave verdict 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 submitted by Director, 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 20 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. A. K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE has violated Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 as he did not submitted IPR, Movable property returns and Valuable property returns for several years. This ensures disciplinary action against him under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. This creates doubt on his integrity under Rule 3 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 and he is not suitable/Fit of administrative post like Director(Head of Establishment). Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director is having disproportionate assets by showing undervalued cost of property, which again is serious violation of conducts rules.

5.         Two IPR files (.pdf) are available at DRDO website under the link Immovable Property Return. These two files for DMSRDE shows IPR of year 2010 and IPR 2012. Dr. Saxena disposed of his one house as reflected in IPR 2012  and cost of remaining house is reduced in IPR 2012. How it is possible since rate of property are increasing exponentially with time? Dr. A.K. Saxena did not submit the return of movable & valuable property as per Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. Dr. AK Saxena thus Violated Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. Dr A.K. Saxena did not inform the foreign visit of his family member (wife and two children of 14-15 years. As his wife and two children were on foreign visit to USA for 12-15 days. As per rules of Govt. of India , Dr. A.K. Saxena should intimate the transaction of expenditure incurred in this tour of his family members to DMSRDE under Rules 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. Therefore the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption.

6.         Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return submitted by Director , DMSRDE , Kanpur“. 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  and it 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 and Valuable property return etc all the Public Information. Thereby the information sought is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j).

7.         The information related to Immovable Property Return, Movable Property Return and Valuable property return  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.

        IPR related information have been uploaded on website of DRDO therefore the information sought is public information and the personal information.

8.         Information Sought is neither  personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005

  1. In reply dated 17 September 2013, PIO DMSRDE quoted in Para(3) – DOPT OM No. 11/2/2013-IR dated 14 August 2013.
  2. 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).
  3. 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′.
  4. 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.
  5. The information sought in RTI Application dated 20 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Hence the information sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.

9.         The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1964- Rule 18

Every Government servant shall submit a return of his Immovable Property Return, Movable property return and Valuable Property Return 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 Return 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 for purchase of Movable Property. 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.

10.     DOPT Orders on disclosure of IPR and Movable Property

  1. 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“.
  2. 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.
  3. 11.     Partial information of IPR is in Public domain on  DRDO  website
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. PIO denied the information on illegal grounds to protect Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE who is having disproportionate assets and is involved in corruption.
  9. Appellant filed RTI Application on 20 August 2013 and this was received by PIO on 23 August 2013 as he claimed in his letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 September2013. Director managed to publish information regarding IPR of his own on DRDO Website under file name Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf with  just few days prior to issue of RTI Application.
  10. 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 disposal of property by Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE that was available in IPR of 2010. It means property return of disposal of property under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules was not submitted by Dr. A.K. Saxena. This grossly violates provisions of  Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964.
  11. Therefore information related to IPR is public information not personal information. Thereby Information sought should be disclosed by PIO, DMSRDE.

12.     Information sought is related to larger public interest and public activity

  1. As per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
  2. As per the evidences available with appellant, Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is having disproportionate assets. The source of money, by which he purchased the disproportionate assets, came to him by means of corruption. The exact details and proofs will be disclosed before appropriate competent authority.
  3. Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE did not declare his asset which he disposed of as per provisions of Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964, thereby he violated CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964. He is liable for disciplinary action for concealing the facts and not providing return of their assets.
  4. 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.
  5. Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is involved in acquiring disproportionate assets by means of corruption and manipulation. This fraudulent nature establishes that their integrity is doubtful and he is not suitable for Government Service. The existence of such kind of official having fraudulent nature & doubtful integrity is not suitable for DRDO as they can harm the reputation of DRDO when he is sitting on the chair of Director (Head of the Establishment). This involves public activity as public money and public office are involved.
  6. 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.

13.     To provide reasons when information denied u/s 8(1)(j)

  1. 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“.
  2. 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.

14.     Provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005

  1. 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).
  2. 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“.
  3. The information sought by appellant regarding “Details of Immovable Property Return submitted by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur” 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 20 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.

15.     Denial of Information to promote Casteismin DMSRDE

  1. Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Mr. Anoop Kumar Nigam, APIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. AK, Dr. Vineeta Nigam 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 1964.
  2. Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Mr. Anoop Kumar Nigam, APIO , Dr. Anurag Srivastava,  Mr. AKall are belongs to the cast known as Kayastha.
  3. Dr. A.K. Saxena , Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO and  Mr. Anoop Kumar Nigam, APIO 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.

 
                                                                                                                                                                                           J.P. Sharma
 Advocate
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office, Court Compound
                                                                                                                                                                                   Dehradun-248001
                                                                                                                                                                                           (Uttrakhand)
 

Appeal No.:FA/JPS/DMSRDE/2013/01

Date: 10th  October, 2013                                        

 Enclosure: Three 

(1)        Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 17 September 2013
(2)        RTI Application dated 20 August 2013.
(3)        DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011
 
rti rep[ly dmsrde to vakil
 
To,                                                                                                                              20 August 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Scientist ‘F’
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-20801

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

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). Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

1.         Details of movable, immovable and valuable property as submitted by Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE under the rule 18(1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.

2.         Provide copy of return of assets and liabilities of Dr. A.K. Saxena as submitted by him under rule 18(1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.

3.         Provide copies of Annual Immovable Property Return (IPR) submitted by Dr A.K.Saxena under rule 18(1) (ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 for the years

2010

2011

2012

2013

  1. Details of all the immovable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 under rule 18 of    CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 by Dr. A. K. Saxena,Director, DMSRDE with following  information
  1. Full details about location viz. Municipal No. Street/Village, Taluk, District and State in which situated
  2. Purchase value of property
  3. Sources from which financed

5.         Details of all the movable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 under rule 18 of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 by Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE with following information.

 

  1.                   i.        Description of the property i.e. Car / Scooter / Motor Cycle / Refrigerator/ Computer/ Laptop/Bank account /shares /investments /Jewellery/loans/Insurance policies etc
  2.                 ii.        Make, Model and also registration No. in case of vehicles, where necessary
  3.                iii.        Purchase price of the property (Market value in the case of gifts

6.         Provide copies of final intimation in form under rule 18(2) after purchase of the all immovable properties and in form under rule 18(3) after purchase of all the movable properties under Rule 18 of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 in respect of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

7.         Provide details of family members/dependent for CGHS, LTC etc purpose under rule 2(c) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.

This is to inform 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. F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and 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 (IPO No.16 F 966251) is enclosed as Annexure-1.

Date:20 August , 2013

( J P. Sharma)
Advocate
Chamber No.64, First floor
Opposite Bar Council Office, Court Compound
Dehradun-248001
Uttarakhand

 

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 16 F 966251 as application Fee
Drdo

Finally Dr AK Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Charge Sheeted yesterday F/N

5 Comments

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

Drdo

Tuglaki Farman/Talibani Fatwa by Tuglaki/Talibani Director Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, DMSRDE, Kanpur

1 Comment
To
Shri Avinash Chander
Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri
Director General Research & Development
Secretary, Defence R&D
DRDO, Ministry of Defence
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011
 

Subject: Effect of RTI Act 2005

Withdrawn of Tuglaki Farman/Talibani Fatwa by Tuglaki/Talibani Director Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, DMSRDE, Kanpur 

Sir,

       You will be surprised to know that under your regime in 21st Century in which India is going from developing to developed country with all efforts of honest and hardworking Indians. However there are some ineligible and corrupt officers managed to get the chair of Director. One of them in this category is Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. He is stigma on DRDO as he dragged the DMSRDE in condition which is un repairable. He is very poor administrator, manager & Scientist.

There are more than 15 parking shades in DMSRDE,Kanpur made of bricks & concrete roofs in all over DMSRDE as DMSRDE premises is spread over 45 Acres area. Everything was running as such but all of sudden Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE gets impulse which changed his state of mind and he issued an Order dated AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 regarding Parking of Vehicles by Officers & Employees of DMSRDE. He issued order “All officers & employees of establishments are ordered to park their vehicles in parking area/shade near CSD Canteen Building“.

This create panic (hurry-skurry) among officers & employees as these two shades were insufficient to park all vehicles of DMSRDE. Handicapped officers & employees face too much difficulty by Tuglaki Farman of Dr. Saxena. In these two shades only 20 cars could be parked, while there are 60 cars, 200 two wheeler & 100 bicycles with officers & employees of DMSRDE.

This Talibani Order & Tuglaki Farman forces me to file an application under RTI Act 2005 dated 04 October 2013 to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. The immediate effect of this RTI took place on Dr. A.K. Saxena. He called Group/Division Head meeting on 07 October 2013 at 11:30 to 13:00 hrs.

Dr. A.K. Saxena told to officers present that an RTI has been filed on issue of Parking of vehicles in two newly constructed shades as ordered by order dated 01 October 2013. Thereby I have decided to withdraw my orders dated 01 October 2013 and now status quo will be maintained. All officers & employees can park their vehicles as such before issue of this order.

He also decided in meeting that he will dismantle these two shades as designs of these are not proper. Sir you can see how my RTI forces your Director to change decision with in one day. It means his order was illegal, improper and against welfare of official of DMSRDE. Similarly Dr. Saxena is issuing Tuglaki Farman daily and changing them very frequently.

Dr. A.K. Saxena having some vested interest in Gupta Construction, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur. It is matter of investigation to find out connection between Gupta Construction & Dr. A.K. Saxena. Please direct your vigilance director to explore the facts or wait for further expose of Dr. A.K. Saxena’s act and deeds. These two shades should be constructed either by MES or CCE (R&D) but due to vested interest Dr. Saxena issued orders to M/s Gupta Constructions to erect this shade by purchasing raw material to erect the shade by issuing supply order to M/s Gupta Constructions. This whole construction was illegal and smacks corruption in the matter. Thereby Dr. Saxena is feeing disconcertment due to expose of his corruption and illegal construction with in DMSRDE by misusing his powers.

Now Dr. A.K. Saxena decided in Group Head meeting that he will dismantle these shades, it establish & indicates Dr. Saxena wants to destroy the evidences & tempering with files & documents related to purchase of materials for these shades by Estate & Works Division, DMSRDE. I am submitting you the photographs of these two shades recently constructed illegally by Director, DMSRDE as for this work he was not authorize and empowered. Depute an enquiry team to DMSRDE, Kanpur for inspection of this illegal construction carried out by Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. So that his corrupt practices would be exposed and he should be penalized as per Rules.

Bye the way Dr. A.K. Saxena is not doing something strange, this practice is already exercised or exercising in various labs. Like Director, DEAL busy with replacing the good perfect tiles in all campus, RTI is there but no worries in face of Sh R C Agarwal. Same in CEPTAM when MES handover the building and very next day all tiles were removed and wood paneling started and all alteration were made without proper sanctions and literally wasted the poor tax payers money.

Date: 07 October 2013

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21, Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun- 248008 ,(Uttrakhand)

 

Drdo

First Appeal – Sh R K Agarwal’s False Claim

Leave a comment

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

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

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

Reference:  No.DEAL/RTI/0010/2013 dated 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:-

  1. 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)
  2. 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.
  3. Subsequently  MOD transferred to RTI Cell, DRDO vide Mof D ID No 21/(3)/2013(1083)/ D/(RTI) Dt 5/7/2013
  4. Subsequently  RTI Cell, DRDO transferred to CPIO,RAC, DRDO vide  RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0178 dated 10th July 2013
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. As Sh R K Agarwal worked in DEAL in various projects and “only those project are classified as secret/confidential which have been sanction under staff project (ARMY/Air force/Navy/ Services   Branch, the rest of the project sanctioned to DRDO comes under R&D Projects.

Sh R K Agarwal himself quote in DRDO News Letter (September 2012) that he was associated with Project “NARAD” his claim was totally false and supported by Sh R C Agarwal, Director, DEAL for his promotion to Scientist ‘H’ and this act come under corruption. (“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty”) 

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

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

6.    Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vide RTI Application dated 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.

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

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

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

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

8.    Declaration:-

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

 
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                                
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879
Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com  

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

Date: 3rd October, 2013                                           

 Enclosure: 

(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 2013
 
My RTI Application to CPIO,DoPT, New Delhi dated 28th May 2013
To                                                                                                                28th May 2013
The Under Secretary (RR- II  )
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
Department of Personnel and Training
Room No. 268 – B , North Block
New Delhi- 110011
 

Hello,

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

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

Para 2

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

In DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO. Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL   “ his main contribution has been the development of NARAD, the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14 (Copy enclosed)

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

  1. 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).
  2. The certified copy Peer Committee recommendation for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist) in respect of Sh R K Agarwal

Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.

I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

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

“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty” 

Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order  98E 528553

Regards,
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id  prabhudoon@gmail.com ,  website- www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
DoPT reply Dated 15th july 2013
dopt reply0001
dopt reply0002
dopt reply0003
 
MoD letter Dated  5 th July 2013
MOD replyrk0002
 
 
CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18th July 2013
reply drdohq
 
 CPIO, RAC, letter  dated 1st August 2013
rac reply
 
CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3rd September 2013
deal reply
Drdo

Austerity a setback for DRDO projects

1 Comment

THE HINDU – October 5 – 2013

MADHUMATHI D. S.

A Rs. 1,000-crore or 10 per cent budget cut under the government’s austerity clamp for the second year running has kept the DRDO poorer by about 700 entry-level scientists in the last two years.

This may push back some of its prestigious missile and aircraft development programmes, according to a top DRDO official.

The DRDO’s hiring arm, the Delhi-based Recruitment and Assessment Centre, planned to induct 350 young engineers each year in 2012-13 and 2013-14, mainly for its missile and aeronautics labs.

Admitting a shortage of young scientists, RAC Chairman D.N. Reddy told The Hindu, “We have many new and important projects which will now be delayed for want of manpower.”

Frontline hits of this could be the long-range Agni-VI targeted for 2016, the Light Combat Aircraft set for completion in 2015 and the Futuristic Main Battle Tank.

The 35,000-strong DRDO, with 8,000 scientists, gets 6.5 per cent of the defence budget or about Rs. 10,000 crore; this year, the belt-tightening measures have kept back 1 per cent of the funds.

The hiring proposals were cleared by the Prime Minister’s Office. However, the Finance Ministry’s all-round slash on spending has halted the RAC’s drive until the middle of 2014, Dr. Reddy said.

Instead, it has to be content with about 70 recruits only to fill the vacancies created by retiring staff; half of them go directly into the priority areas of missiles and aircraft.

Only short-term

“The financial implications are only of short duration. After June 2014, we are confident that our needs will be met,” he reasoned on the sidelines of a conference on condition monitoring here on Friday.

Every December, RAC picks the cream of graduates from 16 IITs, the Indian Institute of Science and the Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, Pune. Now the entry-level staff are just a few hundred in number.

drdo news