Time has now come to seek judicial intervention for investigation in the acts of omission and commission of DRDO chief as GoI (MoD) does not seem to be acting against culprits. This person , when in trouble, tries to divert attention by firing couple of toys in the sky. He is so blatant in his acts of favoritism and nepotism that despite the orders of constitutional bodies , he tries is his best to dilute the action. As I set the ball in motion for seeking intervention of Delhi High Court ( and of SC if necessary) , I would like to appeal to , through your blog, all like minded countrymen to join me in making DRDO a better place to work in. These rouge elements have destroyed DRDO and they must be brought to book and punished suitably.I was proud of DRDO once but have been deeply saddened by what is happening in this wonderful organisation. A bunch of looters , thugs and rouges have destroyed it . Kindly communicate to all concerned that they may contact me to start the judicial campaign to clean up DRDO.As you may also be aware that despite all the pressure/ request of Solicitor General to the SC bench to dispose off my present petition (on the plea that PMO itself is taking action in NTRO scam case,) the SC bench rebuffed the Govt by saying that ‘ this court have reasons to believe that Govt is taking action only after the intervention of this court and hence monitoring of investigation ( in NTRO scam) by this court will contine.’In so far as my second PIL on the issue of accountability of Indian Intelligence Agencies is concerned, my junior advocate on record in SC Rohit Singh (who prepared the petitions for filing ) was down with slip disc for last 3 months and hence the delay in filing second PIL. We hope to file two more PILs shortly directly in SC .The evidence and constitutional position is documentary and irrefutable. .The whole exercise/aim is to ensure that executive arrogance be questioned and agencies work as per Indian Constitution and ‘Thughs and Robbers ‘ are brought to book.
I must tell you that I did nothing big in exposing corruption in NTRO , merely used my right as the citizen of India and sought judicial intervention after Govt failed to act. I know that all out attempts are still being made to delay the action against the big wigs in NTRO ( quite a few middle level and junior level officials have been dismissed or have resigned – in all about 90+ ; but the politically well connected are still being protected by delaying action) . Usual stuff and predictable action by Govt. My case and other cases prove the point that ‘how so ever big you may be , you are non-entity in front of the law’. Hence if you want some concrete action to be taken in DRDO case , seek judicial intervention; do not expect one looter/thug to act against another looter/thug. I have seen well known individuals shaking when it comes to questioning by courts .
Remember if I can do it, others can do it as well . So it is high time that all right thinking people join hands and work together to save DRDO .
Best wishes,
V K Mittal
605, Satpura Apartment
Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad-201010
(m)- 9811333195
(LL)-0120-2776171
The CGDA has pointed out several infirmities in the grants sanctioned by V.K. Saraswat.
ABHINANDAN MISHRA NEW DELHI | 6th Oct 2012 – The Sunday Gaurdian
he Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) has raised questions about certain research grants and aids given by the Defence Minister’s Scientific Adviser, V.K. Saraswat, to undeserving societies headed by scientists. These questions have been raised during an audit of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO), ordered by the Ministry of Defence. The projects are all part of the DRDO.
According to the report, Saraswat, the scientific adviser, sanctioned a grant of Rs 288 lakh to Professor V.U. Reddy of C.R. Rao Advanced Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science (AIMSCS), Hyderabad for a project on a futuristic radar.
The CGDA has pointed out several infirmities in this sanction. Since Saraswat is the president of the society’s governing body, it was wrong on his part to sanction any grants to the society. More importantly, the society is known for its achievements in mathematics, statistics and computer science and “is not even generally connected with research relating to futuristic radars”. The society also does not have the necessary equipment to carry out such research and did not have the expert manpower when it was given the grant.
The DRDO sanctioned another grant-in-aid project costing Rs 298.17 lakh to another scientist from the same society, S.B. Ra, who is a co-principal investigator for the above project. The CGDA has questioned the sanctioning of large grants-in-aid to institutes that do not have the required number of researchers or even basic facilities like computers.
The audit has also questioned the way various DRDO chairs are being given to ex-DRDO employees. S.K. Salwan, an ex-laboratory director, was appointed to the Dr B.D. Nag Chaudhari DRDO chair for three years at a cost of Rs 83.064 lakh. Kota Harinarayana, former director of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a DRDO sponsored society, was awarded the Dr D.S. Kothari-DRDO chair for three years at a cost of Rs 83.064 lakh.
As per the audit, no public notice was issued seeking applications for these highly paid positions. The appointment was made by DG, DRDO in a discretionary manner on the basis of nomination. Further, instead of paying a monthly remuneration, the DRDO released a sum of Rs 27.688 lakh each to both of them without deducting tax at source.
The grant to S.K. Salwan was released even before he joined the Dr B.D. Nag Chaudhari DRDO chair. The audit has recommended appropriate recoveries. It has further questioned the rationale behind leaving the ownership of intellectual property rights generated by research performed under this grant with the experts and not with the government.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001207 Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan Public Authority DRDO Date of hearing 09.08.2012 Date of decision 09.08.2012
Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.
2. It is noticed that in the RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras about the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava. The CPIO had refused todisclose any information vide letter dated 2.11.2011 on the ground that the DRDO is an exempted organisation.
3. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the DRDO had advertised posts of Scientists ‘B’ in 2004 for which qualification was M.Sc. Bio Technology. Ms. Srivastava was M.Sc. in Environmental Biology. Thus, she was not qualified for the job. Yet due to the influence of his father Dr. Arun Kumar, who was then Deputy Director in DRDO, she was fraudulently selected as Scientist ‘B’
4. Shri Mishra submits that there is no one single file relating to this selection. In fact, there were about ten thousand candidates and to cull out Ms. Swati Srivastava’s record would be a herculean task. Further, the record is ten year old.
5. No doubt, DRDO is an exempted organisation, yet in my opinion, there is no harm if the appellant or his representative is given inspection of the entire records relating to the selection of Ms. Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’. As regards the difficulty expressed by Shri Mishra in tracing out the relevant record, I appreciate the same and yet I expect him to cull out the record for appellant’s inspection.
6. This order may be complied with in 05 weeks time.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.
( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001209
Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan Public Authority DRDO Date of hearing 09.08.2012 Date of decision 09.08.2012
Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.
2. It is the appellant’s contention that Ms. Geeta, daughter of Dr. W. Silvamurthy, former Director, DIPAS, DRDO, New Delhi, was selected as Scientist ‘c’ in 2004. It is his allegation that said Ms. Geeta was not qualified to be selected as Scientist ‘E’ as she did not hold the Ph.D degree at that time. He also alleges that she obtained the Ph.D. Degree from Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, in an irregular manner. In this connection, vide RTI application dated 7.10.2011, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras. This was responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated 2.11.2011 wherein he refused to disclose any information on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organisation.
3. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Shri Mishra submits that he has not received a copy of the appeal memo and, therefore, it is not possible for him to respond to it off-hand. Besides, he also submits that Chairman, RAC, had conducted an inquiry into the matter and in report dated 24.12.2010 had held that the process of recruitment was in order. The Commission cannot comment on the validity of allegations made by the appellant. Even so, in my opinion, the requested information cannot be denied to the appellant only for the reason that DRDO is an exempted organisation. In fact, transparency demands that the records relating to the inquiry conducted by Chairman, RAC, are allowed to be inspected by the appellant or his representative. I order accordingly.
5. This order may be complied with in 04 weeks time.
Sd/- ( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.
( K.L. Das ) Deputy Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell, 314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi-110105.
The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is in the news. First, the good news. It successfully test-fired nuclear-capable Agni III long range missile with a strike range of 3,000 km from the Wheeler Islands off the coast of Odisha, recently. This is a major achievement both for the DRDO and the country’s defence capability.
Now, for the bad news. DRDO’s financial and administrative powers have been whittled down or taken away. This is a blow for science and technology efforts in India.
SUDDEN ABOUT-TURN
Only two years ago, in 2010 to be precise, the delegation of powers to the DRDO was considerably liberalised. It seemed as though the government was, for once, serious about freeing scientific establishment from the proverbial red tape.
It allowed DRDO the discretion to spend up to Rs 50 crore with the concurrence of its financial advisor. It appears that a recent action of the DRDO, of approving a design and development project of Rs 49.82 crore for optical sensors to be used in unmanned aerial vehicles and airborne platforms without involving the Ministry, irked the authorities. So, the MOD has “clipped the wings” of the DRDO by re-imposing old controls.
This is a retrograde step engineered by the combined heavy hands of the entrenched babus in administration and accounts, blessed by an unenlightened and short-sighted political leadership. This flies in the face of various pronouncements of the Prime Minister during his various addresses to the scientific community.
In February 2012, Manmohan Singh in an interview to the Science magazine stated that “we need to do much more to change the face of science in India”.
I do not know if this is the change he wanted — imposing more rigorous accounting controls and stifling administrative procedures, so that DRDO becomes yet another run-of-the-mill government organisation.
Recently, the Prime Minister wanted Indian scientists “to seek newer frontiers of research, match capabilities of peers around the world and help India leapfrog”, even as one of his Cabinet ministers was busy belittling the scientific community under his watch.
COMPETENT AUTHORITY
From whatever can be gleaned from news reports, it appears that the recent decisions are based on a special audit conducted by the Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) as ordered by the Minister. It is not clear as to how the CGDA can be considered competent to evaluate R&D activities. There are any number of forums to evaluate programmes and priorities, including peer group assessments, the Standing Committees and Consultative Committees of Parliament on defence.
Only a few years ago, we had the Rama Rao committee going into aspects of revamping defence research and development. So far, no one knows what the recommendations are, and how far these have been implemented.
Time and again, the government, particularly the MOD, tends to shoot itself in the foot by demoralising and insulting both military and civilian organisations under its fold.
ABHINANDAN MISHRA Sunday Guardians NEW DELHI | 30th Sep 2012
The officer has been found guilty of appointing his senior’s daughter without following the due process.
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has advised the initiation of major penalty proceedings against an additional director rank officer and his superior, a director, with the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO). The officer has been found guilty of appointing his senior’s daughter without following the due process. The proceedings have been advised after a complaint filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was probed by the CVC.
The CVC has recommended the penalty against A.K. Bansal, who was at that time additional director (Recruitment and Assessment Centre) (Scientist F) and Arun Kumar, director, (RAC) (outstanding scientist). Bansal illegally facilitated Kumar’s daughter’s appointment.
The Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC) of DRDO looks after the recruitment and promotion of scientists in the organisation.
The CVC in its memorandum dated 23.08.2012 has stated, “The case has been examined by the commission. On facts of the case, the commission in agreement with MoD, advises initiation of major penalty proceedings against Dr. Arun Kumar, Senior Scientist, DRDO, and Shri A.K. Bansal, Additional Director, RAC.”
The CVC has also asked the ministry to reconsider the appointment of Swati Shrivastava, daughter of Arun Kumar, who is working as Scientist C in DRDO. “Further, the commission advises the ministry to reconsider the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava, daughter of Dr. Arun Kumar.”
“This is a clear case of corruption and misuse of position to appoint close relatives,” an employee of DRDO stated on the condition of anonymity.
Arun Kumar is serving as Director (Personnel) in the DRDO headquarters at present. A.K. Bansal, who retired in 2009, was till last month working with the Institute of Defence Scientists and Technologists (IDST), a registered body of retired DRDO professionals, which claims to provide consultancy, expertise and assistance to DRDO.
The DRDO had earlier tried its best to stonewall an RTI (Right to Information) query filed by an employee of the organisation, seeking to inspect the records related to the employment of Dolly Bansal, daughter of A.K. Bansal. DRDO, while refusing to allow the inspection of records, had said that it was an exempted organisation under the RTI Act.
However, the Central Information Commission rejected the DRDO’s contention and said that since it was related to alleged irregularities in the selection of Dolly Bansal as a scientist and there was no harm in the inspection of the available records.
When contacted, DRDO spokesperson Ravi Kumar Gupta said that the organisation follows a transparent and fair policy of recruitment: “It may be a matter of difference of perception (the findings of CVC). Decisions by RAC related to recruitment are taken by a chairman who is independent of the scientific advisor. However, whatever action is required to be taken, will be taken.”
Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne with DRDO officials during a function in Bangalore earlier this month. PTI
NEW DELHI: The government has taken an unprecedented decision to impose severe restrictions on the financial powers of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) chief Dr VK Saraswat after an internal audit report and an ongoing CAG scrutiny raised red flags over many of his decisions.
The move is unprecedented in many ways since DRDO chiefs enjoy exalted position —one of them Dr A P J Abdul Kalam even went on to become the President. DRDO also enjoys a huge amount of autonomy because of the strategic nature of its work and is rarely questioned on its financial decisions.
The government has taken an unprecedented decision to impose severe restrictions on the financial powers of DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat after an internal audit report and an ongoing CAG scrutiny raised red flags over many of his decisions.
However, all this has changed. Sources said the ministry of defence (MoD) has issued an order saying that the DRDO chief would have to take all financial decisions in consultation with the finance division of the ministry. Until now, DRDO chief could grant financial approvals of upto Rs 50 crore on his own, without having to consult with MoD finance.
The financial powers of DRDO chief were upped in mid-2010 through an order, which now the government believes was against the norms. The enhancement of his powers, especially as DG (DRDO) of upto Rs 50 crore where he only needed the concurrence of the financial advisor within DRDO, has now raised hackles in the government. The DRDO financial advisor reports to the DRDO chief.
Sources said the enhancement of DRDO chief’s financial powers went against the recommendations of an MoD panel headed by present Chief Vigilance Commissioner Pradeep Kumar when he was the defence secretary. They even allege that defence minister A K Antony may have been misled into approving the enhanced financial powers for DRDO chief in 2010.
Dr Saraswat holds three positions concurrently—scientific advisor to the raksha mantri, DG (DRDO), and secretary defence (R&D). Under the enhanced provisions, as DG (DRDO) Dr Saraswat can approve contracts upto Rs 50 crore without referring it to MoD. While, as secretary defence (R&D) Dr Saraswat has financial powers upto Rs 75 crore but would MOD finance approval. Over the last two years, Dr Saraswat had been approving most contracts in his role as DG (DRDO) without referring them to MoD finance.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) is believed to have sent a draft para of its ongoing audit, raising questions over the way many financial decisions within the Rs 50 crore limit was approved by DRDO chief, without enough oversight.
According to the new order issued a few days ago by the M0D with the approval of Antony, Dr Saraswat has been asked to exercise his financial powers, ranging between Rs 25 crore and Rs 75 crors, “with consent” of MoD (finance).
Chief Comptrollers (CCs) of DRDO have financial powers upto Rs 25 crore. They would continue to exercise their authority in consultation with the financial advisor of DRDO, sources said.
A special audit of the DRDO on the orders of Antony has also found that the powers to sanction projects delegated to DG (DRDO), CC (R&D)s and lab directors was granted on the condition that the projects should be cleared by the Defence Research Council. “There is no government letter constituting the DRC, its functions and powers. The DRC meetings are not formal. There does not seem to be any system of circulating Agenda Briefs to members,” the audit said.
The report pointed out that in many cases the expenditure incurred on scientists and other manpower deployed on a project is not included in the project cost estimates to keep the total budget under the financial powers available to Dr Saraswat and his other officers.
A project titled “product support and product improvement of Nag weapon system” at a cost of Rs 28.35 crore was sanctioned by Dr Saraswat “even though the CCS (cabinet committee on security) approved Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme is still not closed in so far as NAG missile is concerned,” the report says.
Dr Saraswat approved a project worth Rs 49.82 crore for design and development of elctro-optical sensors for air-borne platforms such as UAVs and Aerostats. This was done “by reducing the cost proposed by the Lab (Rs 70 crore) so as to bring it just under Rs 50 crore, which is his sanctioning power,” the audit said.
DRDO chief sanctioned a facility for electro-optical system testing at a cost of Rs 35 crore by “DG DRDO to create a facility, which is essentially required to meet the objectives of an already sanctioned project. However, the old project’s cost was not revised with the approval of appropriate CFA,” it added.
By Yatish Yadav / ENS – NEW DELHI 21st September 2012 10:59 AM
In a fresh blow to Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has advised initiation of major penalty against two of its scientists.
Acting on a complaint alleging irregularities in appointment and promotion of scientists and based on subsequent investigation by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Defence Ministry, the CVC found Arun Kumar and A K Bansal blameworthy.
“The case has been examined by the commission. On the facts of the case, the commission is in agreement with Ministry of Defence and advises initiation of major penalty proceedings against Dr Arun Kumar, senior scientist, DRDO, and A K Bansal, additional director, Recruitment Assessment Centre,” the CVC office memorandum dated August 23 said.
Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC) of the DRDO was set up in July 1985 for the recruitment and promotion of scientists. The RAC is exempted from the purview of Union Public Service Commission.
Sources said the complaint was lodged by a DRDO employee alleging nepotism and lapses in the policy of recruitment and promotion.
It is learnt that the matter was taken up by the defence vigilance based on Defence Minister A K Antony’s directions.
Arun Kumar is currently serving as Director, Personnel – a DRDO department that coordinates recruitment of scientists and appointment of consultants. Kumar was promoted to the grade of an outstanding scientist in 2010. It was alleged that he misused power to induct his daughter in a laboratory functioning under the DRDO, in violation of laid down norms. After examining the probe report, the CVC has also advised the ministry to reconsider the appointment of his daughter.
The DRDO’s image took a beating recently after a secret audit report ordered by Antony unravelled the rot within. Citing various cases, the report claimed that the DRDO’s functioning was not transparent.
Also, no comprehensive database with details of projects sanctioned by the DRDO and how many were declared successful was in place.
The DRDO has a network of 52 laboratories and establishments spread across the country with an annual budget of over Rs 10, 500 crore. Currently, it has over 5,000 scientists and around 25,000 support staff working in several areas of defence technology.
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
