by – Danendra Jain <dkjain49709@gmail.com>AllBankingSolutions.com
This refers to Mumbai High court judgement pronounced in a case related to Central Bank of India . The Bombay high court has held that its ( bank’s ) recruitment policy, which allows campus recruitment/interview method for appointment of officers against permanent vacancies on regular basis, was illegal and unconstitutional.
Bank management of almost all public sector banks has resorted to campus hiring, not only in scale I but in scale II and scale III too. During last ten years top ranked officers of almost all banks have functioned in an arbitrary manner, recruited persons of their choice, giving favours to kith and kins of high profile persons and denying the talented unemployed youth. Recruitment of persons for some personal gain or to give favour to sons and daughters of known dignitaries has damaged work culture in banks and adversely affected the asset quality of almost all banks.
Top management in public sector banks picked up persons from campus of their choice and in the name of merit they raped those who have been working in the bank for years and decades. Not only in recruitment have they harmed the future of those existing employees who were waiting for promotion to higher cadre and higher scale. There are instances where bank management recruited officer directly in scale III whereas hundreds and thousands of officers eligible for promotion to scale III are denied their rights.
Further due to their arbitrary and unjustified recruitment of officers from campus in scale III or scale II management of bank had to pay double salary or more for the same work which could be and which hitherto has been performed by junior officers and clerks.
Is there anyone who can punish such top ranked officers whose faulty action caused huge lossto the bank??
Why these responsible and top ranked officers should not be personally punished and taken to task so that in near future no one dares violating the rights of existing employees and denying the opportunity to really talented youths.
I am unable to understand why the courts have simply warned the bank to desist from campus hiring in future and why not court thought it necessary to impose penalty of erring top officials.
In response to court verdict against Central bank and its clear warning to bank not to repeat such campus hiring, Government of India should order CBI inquiry into all recruitment which took place during last ten years in public sector banks through campus hiring and whether those officers are really better than already working officers in banks and whether there was any corrupt dealing in such type of recruitment.
To, 2nd April 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect your RTI Reply No.01/2091/P2014/0054 dated 12 March 2014 DRDO against my RTI request dated 6 Feb 2014. You informed that “it is stated that the cases for grant of RTI Cell, DRDO Hqrs Incentive are received from respective Labs/Estt in which it is certified that the higher qualifications and the institute are approved by the competent authority. On receipt of such confirmation, the cases are submitted to Ministry of Defence who process each and every cases and issue sanction for grant of Lump Sum Incentives after getting concurrence of the Integrated Finance. However, in case of any doubt regarding verification/ reorganization, the same is thoroughly examined before issuing the sanction. It is also stated here that the lump sum incentive is only one time to promote higher qualification among employees.”
Provide me the certified copy of DOP/DHRD file noting or letter in which they provide you above said information.
Name and designation of DRDO official who signed and provide you above said information.
Note : Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1), as you can verify this with letter of Director of Personal vide letter No DOP/01/03500/Lump sum/M01 dated March 2014 to all Director Lab/Estt/ Dte in Hq dated 11 March 2014 in Para – 1, line- 9 states that “Of late it has been notice that in most of the cases are taken up acquiring higher qualification, recognition of various courses and universities/ institutes by Competent Authority is not verified/ authenticated by Labs prior to sanction of permission. This non verification in the some cases results in award of degrees/ diplomas by Universities / Institutes not recognized by the competent recognizing authorities. Grant of incentives for such higher qualification becomes against the Rules”
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
phone 0135 -2787750 Mobile 0911114879
e-mail id – prabhudoon@gmail.com website -www.corruptionindrdo.com
To 31st March 2014
Sh A K Antony,
Defence Minister,
Room -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011
Subject: Alarming Situation in DRDO For HR Management
DRDO has established more than 52 Labs/Establishments across the country with an aim and object to provide reliable & sustainable warfare technologies to the defence forces.
In its pursuit to evade the frontline technology, DRDO encourages its employees and officials to pursue higher qualification and provides all possible incentives as per GOI rules and guidelines.
DRDO Hqrs/ top brasses however, misuses the GOI facilities and encourages the diploma/ degrees from unrecognized universities/institutes for their pet employees (Chamchas), largely the cases are from the universities which are recognized by the UGC/AICTE but the courses offered by these in the mode of distance education, where the study centers / franchises are not properly authorized by UGC/AICTE or Apex body. Most of the cases in DRDO, these Diploma /Degrees are managed fraudulently because it is observed that employee who claimed the diploma / degree not having proper marks sheets, not having proof of proper fee receipts, not having leave records as per exam date sheets, not having admit cards of centers/ and n numbers of ways to verify the degree/ diploma etc.
Surprisingly, you will be shocked to know that these diploma / degree holders have become senior scientists and in DRDO, almost 10 to 15% in total staff / Technical officers / scientists possess such diploma/ degrees etc.
The growing incompetency and failure of projects causes shift towards system engineering. Since 15 years the basic science or fundamental research work has vanished from DRDO objectives, because of improperly qualified workforce.
The person inducted as laborer/peon/security assistant or technician, subsequently via limited departmental competitive examination (LDCE) channel and with the fake/unrecognized diploma / degree become scientist. It is all because of DRDO having their own recruitment and assessment system that is RAC & CEPTAM.
Sir, you already noticed few top scientists of DRDO misused the autonomy given to DRDOyou’re your good office recommended to reexamine the recruitment procedure of scientist in DRDO and asked for CBI intervention vide Ref- Note at 45-55 ante and observations of JS & CVO at note 56 ante.
RTI reveals that DRDO having such employees/ officers who don’t have proper recognized diploma / degree but no action was taken on this issue by DRDO Hqrs till date. (Copy enclosed for ready reference.)
In RTI reply No.01/2091/P2014/0054 dated 12 March 2014 DRDO Hqrs informed that “it is stated that the cases for grant of Lump Sum Incentive are received from respective Labs/Estt in which it is certified that the higher qualifications and the institute are approved by the competent authority. On receipt of such confirmation, the cases are submitted to Ministry of Defence who process each and every cases and issue sanction for grant of Lump Sum Incentives after getting concurrence of the Integrated Finance. However, in case of any doubt regarding verification/ reorganization, the same is thoroughly examined before issuing the sanction. It is also stated here that the lump sum incentive is only one time to promote higher qualification among employees.” (Copy Enclosed for ready reference)
Sir, the astonishing fact of DRDO working is revealed by Director of Personal vide letter No DOP/01/03500/Lump sum/M01 dated March 2014 to all Director Lab/Estt/ Dte in Hq dated 11 March 2014 in Para – 1, line- 9 states that “Of lateit has been notice that in most of the cases are taken up acquiring higher qualification, recognition of various courses and universities/ institutes by CompetentAuthority is not verified/ authenticated by Labs prior to sanction of permission. This non verification in the some cases results in award of degrees/ diplomas by Universities / Institutes not recognized by the competent recognizing authorities. Grant of incentives for such higher qualification becomes against the Rules” (Copy enclosed for your ready reference.)
It is requested that suitable committee should be form under supervision of CVO, MoD to scrutinize the DRDO scientist, officials and staff’s education qualification records thoroughly, so the incompetent and illegally inducted persons can weed out.
DRDO already spends crores of rupees for digitizing HR records so it is not big task to scrutinize the DRDO’s 7000+ scientists, 25000 + officials and staff’s education qualification.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
phone 0135 -2787750 Mobile 0911114879
e-mail id – prabhudoon@gmail.com website -www.corruptionindrdo.com
To
Dr. Syamal Kumar Sarkar
Secretary (Personnel)
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block, New Delhi -110001
To
Sh Avinash Chander,
DG DRDO, SA to RM,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
NEW DELHI -110105
To
Smt. Smita Nagaraj,
Joint Secretary (PlC) & CVO ,Ministry of Defence, 109-B, South Block,New Delhi- 10011FA Reply1
To,Shri Sarvesh KumarCentral Public Information OfficerDMSRDE, GT RoadKanpur-208013
Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005
Sir,
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”.
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
In its various decisions CIC 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.
BRIEF FACTS FOR APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT 2005
With reference to your Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 and modified Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 04 October 2013, signed by Dr. D.N. Tripathi, Addl Director (Admin.) on behalf of Director.
It has been ordered by these Minute Sheets that “wef 01.10.2013 all officers and employees are informed to park their vehicles in the Parking Area constructed near CSD Canteen” and “above Minute Sheet is related to the officers/employees who goes to CSD Canteen for purchasing items by their vehicles”.
Facts narrated above in points (1) and (2) establish that CSD Canteen building exists in DMSRDE and CSD facility is available in DMSRDE
In light of above facts kindly provide following information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
Provide the details of officers and staff with name & rank that are attached and involved in management and operation of DMSRDE CSD Canteen right from Chairman, Officer-In- Charge, Technical Officers and Staff at present.
Total monthly expenditure incurred on incentives/emoluments to official working part time in DMSRDE CSD Canteen for month July 2013.
Provide the amount of miscellaneous expenditure incurred in July 2013 under following heads in DMSRDE CSD Canteen.
Balance sheet of DMSRDE CSD Canteen for the month July 2013.
Provide details of funds available with DMSRDE CSD Canteen in its Current A/C at SBI DMSRDE Branch Kanpur and all Fixed Deposits pledged with this Current account at SBI DMSRDE Branch.
The competent authority responsible for attachment of officials at CSD Canteen.
Whether rotation of officials working in CSD Canteen took place vide CVC Circular No.03/09/13 letter No.004/VGL/090/225753 dated 11.9.2013. (Yes/No).
If answer to point (7) is yes then provide the maximum period for which an official could remain attached with CSD Canteen?
Mr. DP Shukla, Lab. Attd. (Now Technical Officer) is attached/posted in DMSRDE CSD Canteen since long time. Provide his attachment/posting detail in DMSRDE CSD Canteen from 01.01.2000 to 30 September 2013.
DMSRDE CSD Canteen is a profitable unit which earning good amount of money by getting commission/profit in sale of store items at canteen. In which account this money is being deposited and the name of officers who are authorize/responsible to withdraw the money.
Provide type /nature of purpose for which the fund of CSD can be utilized.
Can CSD fund be utilized for purchase of item/store/services that are not used by CSD Canteen instead used by DMSRDE officials like furniture, construction of aluminum, partitions, distribution of gifts etc.?
Provide sales statement of DMSRDE Canteen for month of July 2013.
Cheque No. 871271 dated 22.7.2013 issued by DMSRDE Canteen. Provide information in following format.
Cheque No. 871267 with payable amount of Rs. 214312.00 was issued by DMSRDE Canteen (CSD) in July 2013. Provide following information in this regard-
Name of the firm/vendor in favor of which cheque No. 871267 with payable amount of Rs. 214312.00 was issued.
Purpose of issue of the cheque No. 871267 of DMSRDE Canteen (CSD) with amount of Rs. 214312.00 in July 2013.
List of items purchased through cheque No. 871267 issue by DMSRDE Canteen (CSD) for amount Rs. 214312.00 in July 2013.
User of the items purchased vide cheque No. 871267 issued for Rs. 214312/-.
The items purchased vide cheque No. 871267 has been kept in which place.
Copy of bill of vendor/firm for supply of items against cheque No. 871267 issued by DMSRDE Canteen (CSD) with amount of Rs. 214312.00 in July 2013.
Whether any fund was withdrawn from account of DMSRDE Canteen for purpose of aluminum door and grill partition in Security Division Building at reception counter.(Yes/No)
If answer to point (16) is yes then provide the expenditure details for the said work at reception of Security Office.
If answer to point(16) is No, then provide the following details
The agency (DMSRDE/MES) which issue supply order to accomplish the task for aluminum partition at reception of Security Office.
The name of vendor who make aluminum partition at reception of Security Office.
The copy of supply order issued for making the aluminum partition at reception of Security Office.
Total expenditure involved in construction of aluminum partition at reception of Security Office.
Provide copy of statement of expenditure for Rs. 255248.00 from 01.07.2013 to 31.07.2013 under Miscellaneous Head for month of July 2013 in DMSRDE Canteen (CSD).
Whether audit of CSD Canteen accounts took place by Local Audit Officer (LAO)/ACDA on annual basis. Yes/No
If answer to point 20 is yes then provide the copy of audit report of DMSRDE CSD Canteen for FY 2012-2013.
Percentage of average profit in sale of items/store at DMSRDE CSD Canteen.
Average profit of DMSRDE CSD Canteen in rupees per month in FY 2012-13.
How much funds/money has been expenditure in welfare activities from CSD fund in FY 2012-2013?
The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.
Besides Information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005.
An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549286) is annexed as Annexure-1.
Bangalore, May 21, 2013, DHNS: – Deccan Herald
The Ministry of Labour & Employment, after a recent inspection, has found that contract labourers being employed at Centre for Air Borne Systems (CABS), an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), are not being paid wages in accordance with Minimum Wages Act.
Sources in the Centre for Air Borne Systems said recruitment and maintenance of the contract labourers has been outsourced to a local private company––Mahalakshmi Enterprises.
Less wages
In a report post inspection, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), has said: “It is found that the contractor is paying wages less than the minimum rates fixed for sweeping and cleaning workers.”
Asserting that the contractor has violated the norms of employment by paying employees less that the fixed rate, the report pointed out that the firm owes Rs 2,79,496 to about 60 employees, as difference amount for months of October and November 2012, information about which the contractor could provide the department.
“But this has been a problem not only now, the contractor has not been paying in accordance to the Act for a long time now, we hope that the inspection and susequent action will get us our money,” one of the representatives of the workers said.
However, sources said a meeting held as recently as two weeks ago discussed the same issue and that the contractor had not yet paid the difference amount, or complied with the Act.
I would like to inform you about the ,DRDO Employees ,chandipur ,These are job in central govt. sector ,But they do not work properly are also job in private sector likely ,some are insurance agent ,Travel agent ,you know also very well and curruption is not limit in their.,some person who is involve and I want to give the name one is Mr. N.C.Mahapatra and another is Mr. Anjay Singh , both are DRDO Employees ,chandipur ,Balasore ,ODISHA (PXE),pls veryfication all these employees .
Therefore ,I want to request to you take the necssary action of these employees.
The High Energy Materials Research Lab (HEMRL), Pune, has outsourced the production of TATB, an explosive, to a private firm, Viswaat, with which an ex-director of HEMRL is associated
The firm does not have a licence to manufacture explosives
Worse, the workforce—which does not have intelligence clearance—enters the HEMRL facility to carry out the work
Local auditors have questioned payments, attendance records etc
Based on anonymous complaints and these audits, the CBI is investigating all work undertaken by Viswaat Chemicals
What Is TATB
TATB (or triamino trinitro benzene) is an explosive yellow powder
Being extremely stable, it’s called for in high-risk situations
One use of TATB is as a primer in nuclear warheads
Mixed with fuel oil or other binders, it can be used for bomb-making by terrorists When the CBI begins to investigate a premier defence research institute, the findings can be explosive. Quite literally so, in this case. Imagine the production of a restricted explosive substance being outsourced by a specialised government lab—that too to an unlicensed private firm. It’s just such a flagrant security lapse that was involved when the High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune, run by the venerable Defence Research & Development Organisation, parcelled out a production contract for the explosive triamino trinitro benzene (TATB) to Viswaat Chemicals. The storyline is by now familiar from other scams: a former director of HEMRL, Dr Haridwar Singh, is associated with Viswaat. The CBI probe began on anonymous complaints and local audits citing the conflict of interest. But especially worrisome is the security angle. One, Viswaat allegedly does not yet have a licence for producing explosives; and two, the workforce it provides does not have intelligence clearance.TATB may be a relatively lesser known one in the roster of explosive acronyms, but it packs quite a punch: it weighs in under rdx on the impact scale, but above TNT. Maj Gen G.D. Bakshi (retd), an explosives expert, says, “In the current scenario—take Monday’s terror attack in a high-security zone in Delhi—substances used to make explosives must always be guarded. If anyone manages to smuggle TATB out of the factory, it can be used for any purpose. The purpose of intelligence checks is to prevent free accessibility. Also, untrained personnel may, without knowing the implications, sell the stuff, leading to disastrous consequences.”Viswaat is said to have applied for the relevant manufacturing licence to the Union industries ministry’s chief controller of explosives, headquartered in Nagpur. (It issues licences under laws governing the manufacture, use and transport of explosives, petroleum products and flammable substances.) The non-issuance of a licence may well be attributed to procedural delay. But it’s the fact of the workforce supplied by the firm not having intelligence clearance that experts cite as a serious internal security threat. In such circumstances, uncleared employees—or anyone claiming connections to Viswaat, for that matter—could gain access to the high-security HEMRL facility.VidyaKrishnan, an SP with the Pune branch of CBI, which is in charge of the probe, confirmed the firm and the lab were being investigated but said “revealing anything beyond this wouldn’t be possible at this stage”. However, sources said Viswaat has been working with DRDO since 2000 on what are known as government-owned, company-operated (GOCO) projects, taking on assignments outsourced by the Advanced Centre for Energetic Materials (ACEM), Nasik, and the Advanced Systems Laboratory, Jagdalpur. Those close to the investigation said all contracts obtained by the firm are now under the scanner. The amount isn’t comparable, say, to the Devas–Antrix deal—it’s no more than Rs 15 crore—but the security angle, given that explosives are involved, helps it take on immense gravity.Before the CBI took on the case, local-level government auditors had in 2009-10 raised serious objections to the contracts, pointing to discrepancies in allocation of work and the bill claims made for the workforce. One report, for example, says: “Please intimate the costing formula adopted for fixing the price of TATB at Rs 11,000 per kg and whether any concurrence has been obtained from audit authorities”. They had also sought inspection of documentary proof of raw material being brought into HEMRL by the contractor for producing TATB and the roster of employees deployed for production schedules, saying there was no uniform system for maintaining attendance records. That is a security gap even accounts auditors homed in on, though they were looking at it only from the payments angle: records say Viswaat had provided less manpower in Jan-Feb 2010, but payments made to it weren’t calculated accordingly. Similarly, there were no records of the entry and exits of vehicles the contractor was supposed to provide; again, the auditors looked at it from the payments angle, but the security angle looms large.
Dr Singh put on a brave face when asked to comment. “I am aware of the CBI inquiry against Viswaat—these days an inquiry can be initiated against anyone,” he said. “But I know I’ll come out clean.” And although investigators believe he heads Viswaat, Dr Singh maintains his role is that of independent director, and hence “very limited”, which is why he doesn’t know much about the contracts obtained by the company. About the explosives licence, he says, “I think the company was not into explosives earlier, and then started working in the field, so it had to apply for one. I’m not involved with the company directly, so I wouldn’t be part of the process. They requested me after retirement to join them, so I did, as an independent director.”
As for the DRDO, its public interface director, Ravi Gupta, was circumspect: “The contract related to production of TATB was awarded after following duly laid down procedures. It won’t be appropriate to make any further comments as the matter pertains to sensitive defence projects.” That really seems to be the whole point. Should a sensitive issue like this be handled in such a fancy-free manner?
NEW DELHI: After public bickering among Cabinet ministers, here comes the sharp divide in the defence establishment.
With PM Manmohan Singh, defence minister A K Antony and others watching, the faultlines that underlie the embittered DRDO-armed forces relationship erupted into plain view on Wednesday.
Defence Research and Development Organisation chief V K Saraswat, speaking at the National Technology Day awards function, tore into the armed forces for failing to overcome their “temptation” to induct the latest weapon systems from abroad.
This did not go down well with the forces, represented as they were by Air Chief Marshal P V Naik, Admiral Nirmal Verma and General V K Singh as well as other officers in the audience. Some officers told TOI that DRDO “promises too much” but delivers “too little, too late” and the forces are “forced” to push for import of weapon systems to maintain operational readiness.
“Some awards given today, for instance, are for Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, Nag anti-tank guided missile and Astra air-to-air missile. These are still not operational despite years, if not decades, of trials,” said an officer.
The spat comes just two days after the Navy chief held “a long meeting” with Antony to stress that it was high time DRDO got its act together, said sources.
Wednesday’s award ceremony began normally enough, with Saraswat listing out achievements ranging from launch of India’s first nuclear submarine INS Arihant to the planned test of the 5,000-km range Agni-V ballistic missile in 2011. But then, Saraswat let loose a couple of heat-seeking missiles. It’s grossly unfair to hold only DRDO responsible for the poor level of self-reliance in defence systems, he said.
“The responsibility should be shared by all stake-holders of defence ministry and cannot be placed on DRDO alone, which neither has the power to impose its products on its customer (forces), nor the mandate or capacity to produce
the developed systems all by themselves,” he said.
“Services also must understand that while the temptation may be overwhelming to field proven, state-of-the-art imported systems, they too have a role to play in the country’s economic and industrial growth. No foreign system can be customised to completely address our long-term requirements,” he added.
There is, of course, a lot in what Saraswat said. The armed forces certainly need to fully support DRDO to ensure self-reliance in critical weapon systems, the supply of which from abroad can easily be choked in times of crisis.
But it’s equally true DRDO projects cannot continue to be bedevilled with huge time and cost overruns.
The PM, on his part, said, “We should be able to acknowledge and learn from our setbacks. It’s a fact some projects have been delayed and others have faced difficulties during operational induction.”
Readers’ opinions
a.ravi. (chennai)
20 Jul, 2010 02:56 PM
defence ministry and the govt should wake up from sleep. all the defence projects should be with foreign tie ups. regards .a.ravi.
John (India)
27 May, 2010 08:59 PM
Its very essential to develop weapons indigenous. But instead of spending money and valuable time on conventional weapons which was already in use by other countries, our DRDO has to research on new kind of weapons which will give us upper hand in a war. Or our weapons should be next generation. All our weapons should be fully automated, computer controlled and should have some kind of artificial intelligence. We should prove ourselves and show to the world that we have capabilities in destroying enemy satellites and have the capability to protect our own satellite in case of a war which may give a upper hand in a war. We should have Predator UAV’s which should be more capable than other countries.
N.Shekar (Bangalore)
27 May, 2010 08:38 PM
DRDO is a white elephant eating away the Tax payer’s money. DRDO should be used only for research and Development and not for bulk manufacture as they simply cannot do it. For most of the employees of DRDO, it is just a past time job and none except a few work seriously. There is no team work and the employees and the management is just busy playing politics. There has been no headway made in the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Nag anti-tank guided missile and Astra air-to-air missile. These are still not operational despite having spent countless amount of money. Every time the Defence minister visits the DRDO offices he sanctions crores of rupees and there is no accountability. Until and unless the so called DRDO is made accountable, nothing will be achieved and there is no use in cribbing that the armed forces are encouraging foreign Arms and ammunition.
raju (surat)
27 May, 2010 06:46 PM
Best thing is to privatise DRDO, we all know how government offices work. Most of the time goes in chatting, sipping tea, smoking, preparing tambacu etc. How will they produce cutting edge tech and time bound deliveries. With the best brains in the world we should put them to use in the right way and Private sector can only do that.
Narendra (Hyderabad)
27 May, 2010 06:36 PM
Ok wise guys,
harpreet (chandigrah) replies to a.ravi.
13 Aug, 2010 02:52 PM
there are many Indian companies which have better research and development capabilities, and they can produce much better arms and ammunition.ex-mhaindras and the tatas, all they need is a chance and we need to give them a fair chance. pinika multi barrel rockets are good example of this.
Milan Dutta (Kolkata)
27 May, 2010 06:12 PM
Armed forces must accept that this missile was right on target
A.P.MISRA. (Hyderabad)
27 May, 2010 05:47 PM
Blaming is very easy.No doubt DRDO moves at snails speed because they dont have a time bound programme to delver the goods.There are also lot of personnel politics involved in assigning the projects.There are very good scientists in the organisation who are dedicated to their work.The output of DRDO has to be translated by the Defence Production Units who owe equal responsibility for it.Corruption is one of the major factors which some how creeps in and ensures that the quality desired dosnt come out.vested interest of beneficiaries cannot be ruled out.
Hussain (Hyderabad)
27 May, 2010 04:57 PM
DRDO is a Burden on our country. we pay thousands of crores of Rs for our scientist who has promised this country that they will stop all weapons import.I must admit Mr.Gopal has rightly said DRDO is an elephant. DRDO is nothing but a same old Govt office where files are fed to termites and buried.
Keviv (Bangalore)
27 May, 2010 04:47 PM
Right name of DRDO should be Delayed Research and Defective Organization. To top that they act high and might like there developing something very great. To see that a person need to come to Bangalore and see wastage of Tax Payers Money.
After receiving of the denial of RTI request by CPIO, DRDO, I appealed the matter to Appellate Authority as expected by us the denial of Appellate Authority, DRDO received by me.
As you already know about Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO, he is the one of the most corrupt official of DRDO and he is the total responsible for downfall of the DRDO. He is the man behind the all manipulations to uplift the incompetent and corrupt officials of DRDO, their promotions, their posting, their extensions, their illegal financial benefits all matters are taken care by Dr Arun Kumar but question is up to which date because everyone very well know if somebody doing illegal activities it is limit and one has pay for that.
Since the website completed 17 months and in this period I have come across only one good act of Dr Arun Kumar, DOP that is the transfer of two blinds Sh Laxman, Admin Assistant, ACEM, Nasik & Sh Ravindra Gauda, HEMRL, Pune to their hometowns lab, but it was after the pressure of Sh Rajiv Varshnay, SA’s staff officer only. I want to thanks both of them for this noble cause.
I am requested Dr Arun Kumar please act for some good cause in last step of your service, so people will forget wrong doings.
After few months when you will retire no one can even like to say hello to you.
Dear SFcians pleas find below their denial of DRDO, but we will take up this matter to CIC soon and will get proper and legal solutions for issues.
Some important question
The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011
Whether Above info is nature of strategic?
Since they have already “One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.
I really don’t our honorable SA put these inhuman persons in such important posts.
I.D. No_________ Date: _________ [For office use]To Dr Arun Kumar OS & Director, Directorate of PersonalRoom No.-217, DRDO Bhawan , Rajaji Marg New Delhi – 110105
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.
The information asked about SF Complex Jagdalpur is not come any norms of secrecy. I am not asking about any work or project information of SF Jagdalpur Unit.
1. Details of appellant
1.1 Full Name: Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
1.2. Full Address: 21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
1.3 Phone/Cell No. 0135-2787750 / 919411114879
1.4 Email ID: prabhu@dandriyal.com 2. Details of CPIO:
2.1 Name/Designation: Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, Head RTI Cell, Scientist ‘F’
2.2 Full Address : Room No 314 A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India
3. Details of RTI application to CPIO:
Date of Application : 19th July 2011
Mailed on: 19th July 2011
by speed post
4. Particulars of payment of filing fee:
Paid Rs.10/- by Postal Order No. 90E 611227
5. Details of information sought:
1) The official address of SF Complex (one of the labs/Establishment of DRDO), JAGDALPUR?
2) Copy of D O part order or any other order regarding the place of reporting duty at Plant Girola Village which is 40 Kms away from Jagdalpur.
3) Copy of D O part order any other order in which the employees posted at SF complex first they report to duty at SF Complex then report for duty at Girola Plant Site.
4) The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011
5) The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and human right not come under schedule -II – why because it is noticed that without proper movement orders and without proper maintained vehicles the employees of SF complex are going daily at Girola plant. Earlier in one accident case it is heard that the movement order was made by SF Complex administration in back date to give financial benefits to the deceased family.
6. Particulars of Decision of CPIO:
Date of CPIO’s Decision:9th August 2011
Date of receipt of decision by the appellant:12th August 2011
7. Brief facts of the case:
The official address of SF Complex is “SF COMPLEX, AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING, JAGDALPUR-494001”. SFC Employees are given appointment letters with above address as reporting place. But, all are forced to report at the above address as well as at its work centre located at Girola village, Bakawand block, Bastar district. This location is completely out of 40 Kms away from municipality (Jagdalpur) of the official address.
As per rule they should report at the place of posting as per the appointment letter. But it is not so. Is it (forcing to report at other place) not violation of an employee’s right to report at the posting place? The management says that reporting place is at Girola and same time management says Airport terminal building, Jagdalpur. It is clear cut case of harassment of employees of SF Complex.
One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.
If the travelling from Jagdalpur to Girola and back is official and as per the rule and the rule position should be clear for all for management, employees and the general public. After this accident all the staff of SF Complex Jagdalpur took a decision and reported at posting place only. This happened for two days and later management has interfered and threatened to them for report at Girola and told them if they will not report at Girola, will get termination letter. Employees were forced to report at Girola. It is a violation of Human Right? Reporting at posting place is not correct? Then why appointment letters were given like that? DRDO has to duty to provide them proper necessary papers as per rule position of Central Government.
The requested information is not come under 8(1) (a) and 24 (1) of the RTI Act at all because the information asked not in the nature of secrecy like The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority. This the major concern of family and friends of employees of SF complex for their safety and well beings. For mere few thousand Rupees from contractors as bribe the Top DRDO officials playing with the life of SF Complex Employees.
The required information is fall under corruption and as well as violation human right and therefore in any means it is not come under schedule –II exemption of RTI Act 2005.
“RTI is a key instrument for imposing democratic values, accountability and transparency in our public administration,” Dr.Shah Faisal (IAS topper 2010 & RTI activist of J&K RTI Movement NGO) told Sakàl Times
8. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:
i) To know the sensitiveness and work environment of DRDO
ii) To expose the corrupt practices prevailing in DRDO
9. Any other information in support of appeal:
10. Prayer/relief sought for:
It is requested that please provide me correct information as per request of my RTI dated 19th July 2011 in larger public interest, because it is directly related to corruption and violation of Human rights.
11. Enclosures:
i) My RTI request dated 19th July 2011
ii) Denial of CPIO, DRDO Hqrs dated 09 August 2011
12. Declaration:I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with any information commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com website www.corruptionindrdo.comDenial of Appellate Authority page 1Denial of Appellate Authority page 2
SFCIANS, SF COMPLEX, DRDO, JAGDALPUR – DOP, DRDO IS DEAF & DUMB
The reply of my RTI related to SFCian issue was denied by DRDO Hqrs under the shelter of Schedule- II of RTI Act 2005.
As per section 19 of RTI Act 2005 I have appealed to DRDO Hqrs appellate authority and as you very well know that he is deaf & dumb for humanity issues and only act fast on personal issues in which he has some personal interest. So reply is known but we will take this issue up to supreme authorities.
Hope for best……………………
My RTI Request –
To 19 September 2011 CPIO & Addl Director, DRDO HQ Room No. 314A DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg New Delhi – 110105
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect SF Complex, JAGDALPUR
1) The official address of SF Complex (one of the labs/Establishment of DRDO), JAGDALPUR?
2) Copy of D O part order or any other order regarding the place of reporting duty at Plant Girola Village which is 40 Kms away from Jagdalpur.
3) Copy of D O part order any other order in which the employees posted at SF complex first they report to duty at SF Complex then report for duty at Girola Plant Site.
4) The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011
5) The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
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 human right not come under schedule -II – why because it is noticed that without proper movement orders and without proper maintained vehicles the employees of SF complex are going daily at Girola plant. Earlier in one accident case it is heard that the movement order was made by SF Complex administration in back date to give financial benefits to the deceased family.
First Appeal to Appellate Authority of DRDO 12th September 2011
The Right to Information Act, 2005
First Appeal for Central Govt.
I.D. No_________ Date: _________ [For office use]
To
Dr Arun Kumar OS & Director, Directorate of PersonalRoom No.-217, DRDO Bhawan , Rajaji Marg New Delhi – 110105
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.
The information asked about SF Complex Jagdalpur is not come any norms of secrecy. I am not asking about any work or project information of SF Jagdalpur Unit. 1. Details of appellant
1.1 Full Name: Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
1.2. Full Address: 21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
1.3 Phone/Cell No. 0135-2787750 / 919411114879
1.4 Email ID: prabhu@dandriyal.com
2. Details of CPIO:
2.1 Name/Designation: Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, Head RTI Cell, Scientist ‘F’
2.2 Full Address : Room No 314 A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India
3. Details of RTI application to CPIO:
Date of Application : 19th July 2011
Mailed on: 19th July 2011
by speed post
4. Particulars of payment of filing fee:
Paid Rs.10/- by Postal Order No. 90E 611227
5. Details of information sought:
1) The official address of SF Complex (one of the labs/Establishment of DRDO), JAGDALPUR?
2) Copy of D O part order or any other order regarding the place of reporting duty at Plant Girola Village which is 40 Kms away from Jagdalpur.
3) Copy of D O part order any other order in which the employees posted at SF complex
first they report to duty at SF Complex then report for duty at Girola Plant Site.
4) The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011
5) The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and human right not come under schedule -II – why because it is noticed that without proper movement orders and without proper maintained vehicles the employees of SF complex are going daily at Girola plant. Earlier in one accident case it is heard that the movement order was made by SF Complex administration in back date to give financial benefits to the deceased family.
6. Particulars of Decision of CPIO:
Date of CPIO’s Decision:9th August 2011
Date of receipt of decision by the appellant:12th August 2011
7. Brief facts of the case:
The official address of SF Complex is “SF COMPLEX, AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING, JAGDALPUR-494001”. SFC Employees are given appointment letters with above address as reporting place. But, all are forced to report at the above address as well as at its work centre located at Girola village, Bakawand block, Bastar district. This location is completely out of 40 Kms away from municipality (Jagdalpur) of the official address.
As per rule they should report at the place of posting as per the appointment letter. But it is not so. Is it (forcing to report at other place) not violation of an employee’s right to report at the posting place? The management says that reporting place is at Girola and same time management says Airport terminal building, Jagdalpur. It is clear cut case of harassment of employees of SF Complex.
One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.
If the travelling from Jagdalpur to Girola and back is official and as per the rule and the rule position should be clear for all for management, employees and the general public. After this accident all the staff of SF Complex Jagdalpur took a decision and reported at posting place only. This happened for two days and later management has interfered and threatened to them for report at Girola and told them if they will not report at Girola, will get termination letter. Employees were forced to report at Girola. It is a violation of Human Right? Reporting at posting place is not correct? Then why appointment letters were given like that? DRDO has to duty to provide them proper necessary papers as per rule position of Central Government.
The requested information is not come under 8(1) (a) and 24 (1) of the RTI Act at all because the information asked not in the nature of secrecy like The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority. This the major concern of family and friends of employees of SF complex for their safety and well beings. For mere few thousand Rupees from contractors as bribe the Top DRDO officials playing with the life of SF Complex Employees.
The required information is fall under corruption and as well as violation human right and therefore in any means it is not come under schedule –II exemption of RTI Act 2005.
“RTI is a key instrument for imposing democratic values, accountability and transparency in our public administration,” Dr.Shah Faisal (IAS topper 2010 & RTI activist of J&K RTI Movement NGO) told Sakàl Times
8. Reasons/grounds for this appeal: i) To know the sensitiveness and work environment of DRDO ii) To expose the corrupt practices prevailing in DRDO
9. Any other information in support of appeal: 10. Prayer/relief sought for:
It is requested that please provide me correct information as per request of my RTI dated 19th July 2011 in larger public interest, because it is directly related to corruption and violation of Human rights. 11. Enclosures:
i) My RTI request dated 19th July 2011 ii) Denial of CPIO, DRDO Hqrs dated 09 August 201112. Declaration:
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with any information commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
by – Danendra Jain <dkjain49709@gmail.com>AllBankingSolutions.com
