Tag Archives: First Appeal

PMO

FIRST APPEAL U/S 19 OF Right to Information Act, 2005 to IAF Regarding Rs 7900 Cr Scam in IACCS Project News Publish in First Post

Leave a comment

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

Date: 20.06 2019

To,             

Air Marshal PP Bapat VSM

Air Officer-in-charge Administration

Air Headquarters (Vayu Bhawan)

Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110106

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19 of RTI Act 2005.

Reference:  i)    My RTI application dated 03rd May 19, received to CPIO Air HQ   on  17th  May 19 CPIO Air HQ

ii)   CPIO Air HQ Reply vide No Air HQ/23401/204/4/17049/E/PS dated 12th  June 2019

          

Sir, I’m disappointed with the reply of CPIO Air HQ. I hereby submit first appeal under Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005.

  1. Details of appellant: Name: Prabhu Dandriyal,

Address: 21 – Sunderwala, Raipur Dehradun, Uttarakhand, Pin – 248001   

  1. Details of CPIO:  Name  Wg Cdr Suman Adhikari

Address Room No. 160, Dte of PS, Air HQ (VB), Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110106

  1. Facts leading to appeal:

An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 3 May 2019 was submitted to CPIO Air Hq sought information on IACCS project executed by costing approx 7900 Cr as new series posted in various media regarding scam in IACCS project. Being a senior citizen and tax payer I have request for some facts which are not in nature of any strategic information. It is hard to believe that CPIO not denial nor gave requested information judiciously, send reply without application of mind. Copy of RTI application is attached as Enclosure-1.

2. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-

Request information in Para 3 is not provide by CPIO Air Hq and mentioned – not held with this Public Authority, the IACCS directorate in same building and as per RTI act CPIO has to transfer under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 to concern  CPIO of Air Hq  who is responsible for  IACCS Directorate.

Request information in Para 4 is not provide by CPIO Air Hq quoted that “not held with this Public Authority”, But CPIO has to transfer under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 to concern  CPIO of Air Hq  who is responsible for  IACCS Directorate

Request information in Para 7 the CPIO, Air Hq not even denied or mention that information is not available with him, just ignored. Here a big question arise that the vision of RTI Act 2005 is to restrict the corrupt practices prevailing in the system should be checked by citizen of India. The CPIO act clearly shows that he want protect these corrupt practices running in Air force, because  in Para  8 also CPIO even not mention any word just ignored the request of information.

The act of CPIO to ignore the request of Para 7 & 8 shows that CPIO, Air Hq does not believe the constitutional provision of India. The request of information from common citizen is nothing to CPIO, but CPIO want to save culprits..

3. Facts & Grounds leading to appeal:-

the information requested are purely related to corruption and for to take corrective measures to restrict prevailing corruption in defence sector which is very highly dangerous to our national security. Compromising with quality and quantity and encouraging the false documents in procurement and execution in such important project is not anyway appreciable by common country man.

Information not providing vide Para 7 & 8 itself prove that official sitting on seat are not thinking of our future Air Force officials who will going to work their duties in IAACS project centers, basically they are playing with the life of children may be some   present Air Force official’s sons or daughters who wishes to join Air Force like their father.

The CVO reports shows that Air force deputed in these palaces not allowed the senior vigilance officer to visit site and other way they allowed to any tom dick harry of L&T subletting contractor to roam around. Secondly in IACCS Directorate are co-operting BEL corrupt offices in big way.

4, Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vides RTI Application dated 03.05. 2019 by appellant has been not provided properly it is incomplete information given by CPIO, Air Hq. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, Air Hq to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, Air HQ  to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 03 05 2019. Hope FAA will prove that FAA  with “Nabha Sprsham Deeptam” not with corrupt officials who are busy with minting money and compromising with national security and also playing with life of our future Air Force aspirants. 

5. Declaration:-

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

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

 Enclosure: Five

  1. Copy of My RTI Application dated 03 May 2019 to CPIO Air Hq
  2. Copy of Reply of  CPIO, Air Hq, Delhi dated 12 June 2019
  3. Copy of BEL, CVO recommendation regarding irregularities in IACCS Project
  4. Copy of email sent by site engineer which is clear evidence of BEL official corruption with support with Air Force officials.
  5. Copy of one Earth Profile related to IACCS Project
Drdo

Army officers are in predicament or compelled position in DRDO

1 Comment

To                                                                                              7th February 2018
Hon’ble Smt Nirmala Sitharaman,
Defence Minister,
104- South Block
New Delhi-110011

Subject:  Army officers are in predicament or compelled position in DRDO

Madam,

In the name of Services Interaction, DRDO has service officers from all three wings of the armed forces. The officers are posted on a tenure basis.

It is observed that in DRDO more than 90% services officers are assigned logistic/ administrative jobs like Security Officer, Motor Transport Officer, Estate Manager, Material Management and managing scientists officers mess/canteen requirements, etc.

Since more than 30 years I have witnessed that scientists use these services to satisfy their ego issues and services officers for better APAR keep mum for the sake of their career.

Some smart services officers who are involved in DRDO’s scientists’ bluffer game are able to get permanent absorption in the organization and enjoy services as well as the scientist sticker.

But sincere services officers face a lot of embarrassment from the corrupt scientist herd. They faced unprecedented transfers in their short tenure, negative remarks on their service records only because they performed honestly the job assigned. For all these unfair means DRDO took help of senior services officers who are permanently absorbed and are enjoying all kinds of benefits along with the corrupt scientists.

Since the last 30 years, DRDO has not been able to quote a single services officer who contributed to any remarkable technical contribution to the nation through DRDO(except the services doctors).

The important part of these absorbed services officers is that they are promoted unduly fast without contribution to the nation or services. Only thing that they protect are the bluffers.

Only one example to prove the aforementioned is Maj. Gen. Ajay Gupta, present Director, VRDE, DRDO, Ahmednagar. If anyone sees his journey in DRDO, he will know how blessed the Maj. Gen. is because of saving culprit scientist as long as serving tenure, Director Vigilance, DRDO, HQ. Of the hundreds of complaints filed, he stopped or delayed himself. This itself reveals the truth about how corruption flourishes in DRDO with the help of service officers.

In DIPR, DRDO Group Capt. served continuous 8 years and again he got the posting in DIPR. This implies that he is very useful in research and contributing national or internationally or some linguistic connection is working.

It is not understandable that one side our honorable minister of state for defence Dr. Subhash Bhamre said in the Rajya Sabha that there is a shortage of over 9,000 officers in Indian Army & Navy and on the other hand DRDO is utilizing services officers in sundry jobs.

Please refer to enclosed DRDO, DOP letter no DOP/04/48013/01/Policy dated 30 September 2004 subjected “ Utilization of Services Officers Posted on Tenure Basis to DRDO”. Nothing has changed till date.

Please refer to enclosed RTI, RTI Reply, First Appeal, First Appeal reply of DRDO, which reveals the pathetic situation of service officers who want interview with DG, DRDO and are not able to know the interview request letter status.

It is not understandable how DRDO has become so powerful, which was created to strengthen the services instead of crushing their moral.

 

Jai Ho.

 

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,

21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008

Phone 0135-2787750, Mobile 9411114879

Email prabhudoon@gmail.com website-www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed

  1. Photo Copy of DRDO, DOP letter no DOP/04/48013/01/Policy dated 30 September 2004
  2. Copy of RTI request, RTI Reply and reply of First appeal

    Copy of DRDO, DOP letter no DOP/04/48013/01/Policy dated 30 September 2004

Drdo

FAA Cabinet regarding Sh Avinash Chander Contractual Appiontment

2 Comments
To,
Dr. Amarpreet Duggal
FirstAppellateAuthority
ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110011
 

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

Reference: F. No. CABST/R/2014/60302-RTI dated 29 August 2014

Sir,

Aggrieved by decision of Shri Rajesh Nagpal, Under Secretary & CPIO, under the provisions of Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005, First Appeal is submitted herewith foryourkind consideration and speaking orders.

  1. Details ofappellant:-
Name Prabhu Dandriyal
Address 21, Sunderwala,Raipur, Dehradun-248001,Uttarakhand

 Details of Central Public Information Officer(CPIO):-

Name & Design. Shri Rajesh Nagpal, Under Secretary & CPIO
Address ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat ,Rashtrapati Bhavan,New Delhi-110011

3.Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:- Letter F. No. CABST/R/2014/60302-RTI dated 29 August 2014 from CPIO, ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat.

 4. Brief facts leading to appeal:

(a)       An application under Section 6 of RTI Act 2005 was submitted online to Shri Rajesh Nagpal, Under Secretary & CPIO on 01 August 2014.  Copy of the RTI application dated 01 August 2014 is enclosed

(b)       CPIO ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat denied/refused for information sought vide his decision letter F. No. CABST/R/2014/60302-RTI dated 29 August 2014.

(c)       CPIO denied for information under the provisions of Section 24 of RTI Act 2005.

(d)       Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi has not been placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 by Government of India.

(e)       Appellant is deeply aggrieved by this decision of CPIO, ACC Cell and this leads to appellant to file first appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

  1. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal and Prayer/Relief:-

(a)     Information sought was related to Business & Charter of Appointment Committee of Cabinet, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. The information sought was regarding appointment of Secretary, Deptt. of Defence R&D(DRD), MOD by Appointment Committee of Cabinet, GOI.

(b)     Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi has not been placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 by Government of India.

(c)     The information sought or any part of it was not at all concerned with details of DRDO projects and therefore Section 24 does not apply on the information sought.

(d)     The custodian of information sought is ACC Cell, hence denial of information is illegal under RTI Act 2005.

(e)     The information was denied to conceal the facts related to irregularities & illegality in contractual appointment of Shri Avinash Chander, CC (R&D) as Secretary, DRD, MOD by ACC.

(f)      Under the provisions of Section 7 subsection(8) [Disposal of Request], reproduced for your ready reference:

Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the request,—

(i) the reasons for such rejection;

(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred;   and

(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.

The CPIO should provide the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred and particulars of the appellate authority but such information was not provided in his letter dated 29 August 2014. Thereby CPIO fails to perform his duties properly and violated the provisions of Section 7(8)(ii) &(iii) so that appellant could not file first appeal.

(g)     As a matter of fact, an another application under RTI Act 2005 was filed on 29th January 2014 to CPIO, DOPT by appellant regarding contractual appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, DRD, MOD. (Annexure FA3)

(h)     The same application under RTI Act 2005(Annexure FA3) was transferred by DOPT vide letter No. 39/3/2014-EO(SM-I) dated 16-04-2014 to CPIO, ACC Cabinet Secretariat. The information sought in the said application under RTI Act forwarded by DOPT to ACC, Cabinet Secretariat was provided to the appellant by Shri K.A. Avinash, US & Link CPIO, ACC vide letter No. F 12015/277/2014 dated 19 May 2014.(Annexure FA4)

(i)       It is very surprising that same nature of information was provided by one CPIO of ACC, Cabinet Secretariat vide letter dated 19 May 2014 but now the same nature of information was denied by another CPIO, ACC on false & illegal grounds.

(j)       The information sought is neither related to DRDO nor DRDO is custodian of the information sought, information sought is not at all related to charter & activities of DRDO, ACC is sole custodian of the information sought and information sought is pertaining to activities, charter & business of ACC under Allocation of Business Rules 1961.

(k)     The denial of information by misusing section 24 of RTI Act 2005 by CPIO, ACC is motivated to protect the interest of particular officer and to conceal irregularities committed by ACC in appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, DRD, MOD.

(l)       CPIO denied information on illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant.

  1. Prayer /relief sought for:-

Appellant sought information vide his application dated 01 August 2014 under RTI Act to CPIO, ACC, Cabinet Secretariat and the information sought was denied by CPIO, ACC. Therefore, it is kindly prayed to FAA, ACC, Cabinet Secretariat that the orders may kindly be issued to CPIO, ACC, Cabinet Secretariat to provide the information sought by appellant in RTI Application dated 01 August 2014 based on the grounds/reasons mentioned above in Para(5).

  1. Declaration:-

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

Regards
Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008 
0135- 2787750,   9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com    www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number            CABST/A/2014/60037

To                                                                                                                            1st August 2014
Shri Rajesh Nagpal,
Under Secretary & CPIO,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 004

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Para (2) of appointment letter No. I2/9/2013-EO (SM.I) dated 31st May 2013 regarding appointment of Shri Avinash Chander, Distinguished Scientist & Chief Controller Research & Development (Missiles &Strategic Systems), DRDO as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri for a period of three years. The appointment of Shri Avinash Chander beyond his date of retirement i.e. 30.1 1.2014, would be on contract basis with the same terms and conditions as he would be entitled to Secretary (DRD) before the date of retirement.(Copy Annexed)

1.Provide copy of Contract Agreement between Government of India and Shri Avinash Chander for the reemployment on contract basis during the period 01 Dec 2014 to 31 May 2016.
2. Provide provisions and rules of Government of India under which Shri Avinash Chander was appointed on contract basis as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri after his normal retirement and completion of two extensions up to the age of 64 Years.
3. Whether an official appointed on contract after retirement can function as Head of Office for all administrative & financial matters in the department.(Yes/No)
4.File noting for appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri.
5. Whether appointment after age of 64 years violates provisions of FR 56(d). (Yes/No)

Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun
Ph 0135 2787750, Mobile 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.comcabinet RTI reply

SA appointment order0001 (1)avanash chander recuirtment details

Drdo

RTI- DMSRDE – M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur

Leave a comment
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Scientist ‘F’
Central Public Information Officer
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013

                    Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly provide the following information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide the following information in respect of Tender Reference No. DMSRDE/13552064 published on website of DRDO.(Copy Enclosed)
    1. Comparative Statement of Tender duly approved by SPC and Director.
    2. Name of vendor/firm/trader (L1) to which Supply Order was issued.
    3. Provide copy of supply order issued against this tender enquiry.

    Cost of the material purchased against supply order under above mentioned tender reference

  2. Provide following information in respect of business carried out by M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur in DMSRDE, Kanpur.
    1. Registration Certificate issued to M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur by DMSRDE, Kanpur.
    2. As per provisions of Rule 3.2 of Purchase Management 2006 of DRDO in which  categories of stores, e.g., raw materials, chemicals, machine tools, instruments, electronics and electrical items, timber, fabrication jobs and other general stores etc., the M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur is registered in DMSRDE, Kanpur.
    3. Total cost of supply orders placed in the year 2009 and 2010.
    4. Total cost of supply orders placed from 1st January 2011 to 31st October 2013.
    5. Copies of supply orders placed to Manglam Traders from 01.01.2011 to 31.10.2013.
    6. Number of repeat order placed to Manglam Traders and copies of  supply orders issued for repeat order
  3. Provide the copy of supply order placed against DMSRDE Case No. 13PDD014 dated 25.04.2012 initiated by Production Division.
  4. Provide amount in Kg of Polydimethylsilane(PDMS) purchased in the period.
    1. 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2010
    2. 01.01.2011 to 31.10.2013
    3. Likely to be purchased(Supply Order placed)
  5. Copies of bills submitted by M/s Manglam Traders to DMSRDE, Kanpur against supply orders and repeat orders placed to M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur.

The information related to purchase, supply orders, bills etc. has already been allowed by FAA, DRDO vide his decision No. RTI/02/2091/F/2013/0142 dated 14 October 2013 in First Appeal No. 142 on First Appeal of applicant.

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.

Besides purchase and establishment matter the information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F548630 ) is enclosed as Annexure-1.

Date: 10 November, 2013                                                

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

Annexure:-

  1. 1.    IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 17F548630 as application Fee.                
Drdo

First Appeal – Parking – DMSRDE

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/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 issued by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1.   Details of appellant:-applicant2.   Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-cpio kanpur

3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 received by appellant on 04 November 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)          An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 04 October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Parking“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 04 October 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)          Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of Corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c)          It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 04 October 2013 that “Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure”.

(d)          In point (c) (1) of reply dated 29 October, 2013 CPIO informed that “Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur has not ordered for construction of any vehicle parking stand inside DMSRDE not being constructed”. It was also mentioned “Other information related to vehicle stand are also irrelevant and not applicable”.

(e)          In point (d)(2) of reply dated 29 October, 2013 CPIO informed that “Regarding CSD Canteen, its functioning has started from 21st April 1977 and running continuously. The other information asked has no relevance with the allegations of Corruption. It is a social welfare activity and run in authorized manner with manually agreed terms & conditions of DMSRDE and MES office of, DMSRDE, Kanpur”.

(f)           CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 04 October 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on CPIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

(g)          Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

5.   Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.

(a)       Under the provisions of Section 24(1)  of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.

(b)       Appellant submitted an application dated 04 October 2013 under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 04 October 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(c)        Information was denied by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.

(d)       The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 04 October 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO as information sought is related to Establishment Matter and allegations of Corruption.

(e)       Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant for getting the information.

(f)         CPIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused Section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.

(g)       Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.

6.   Prayer /relief sought for:-

  1. Information sought vides RTI Application dated 04 October 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 04 October 2013.
  2. Direction may kindly be issued to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions.
    1. 7.   Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
    2. 1.     CIC decisions on notified organizations under Schedule II of

     RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

(i)       CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

(ii)      CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.

(iii)     These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.

(iv)     Information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 was pertaining to Establishment Matter

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

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

2.     Nature of information sought is not  related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

Information sought is related to “Parking”. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

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

4.     Information sought is also related to allegations of Corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 04 October 2013. Information sought is having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of Corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on CPIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. In case the prima facie evidences of Corruption are available the appellant will approach to CVC/CBI not file RTI to get information pertaining to allegations of Corruption?

                  i.        It is alleged that Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE misused his powers to construct/erect the parking shade near CSD Canteen. It has been accepted by Director, DMSRDE vide Minute Sheet No.  AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 issued by Dr. D.N. Tripathi, Addl. Director (Admin).  Vide this order “all officers & employees of DMSRDE were ordered to park their vehicles in parking area/shades near CSD Canteen with effect from 01 October 2013”. Again Chief Security Officer issued ION dated 03.10.2013 on behalf of Director regarding Car-Parking near Admin. Building. Again an ION was issued by Dr. DN Tripathi, Addl. Director(Admin) regarding parking area near CSD Canteen.

                ii.        This parking shade/vehicle stand was not constructed by MES or CCE (R&D) North. It was constructed by Director, DMSRDE using private contractor of his favor M/s Gupta Constructions, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur. Thereby CPIO provided false information vides his letter dated 29 October 2013.

              iii.        MES(Military Engineering Services) and CCE(R&D) are the only agencies authorize for any construction of buildings , to execute minor & major work in buildings, construction /erect of shades/parking area etc. in Technical & Residential area of DMSRDE.

               iv.        The source of fund used to erect two shades was from one project fund and not from build-up fund. Project fund cannot be used for construction work. Hence Dr. AK Saxena, Director misused his powers to illegal and unauthorized construction of two parking shades near CSD Canteen inside the Technical Area of DMSRDE, to give undue advantage to M/s Gupta Construction, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur with vested interest.

                 v.        All supply orders for purchase of material used to erect the parking shades were issued to M/s Gupta Constructions who is neighbor to Dr. AK Saxena residence at Gandhi Gram, Kanpur.

               vi.        Misuse of powers for personal gains, unauthorized construction and misuse of funds is clear case of Corruption. Documents are available in records with DMSRDE which can be verified by FAA.

             vii.        It is quite evident from Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 that there exists building of CSD Canteen in DMSRDE near newly constructed parking area/shade.

            viii.        The nomenclature of building in which CSD canteen is running is CHEM STORE, as per MES record. Director, DMSRDE is using this building in unauthorized manner to run CSD Canteen in this building. CSD Canteen is a profitable URC under CSD hence it should pay rent as well as electrical charges to MES. In this connection MES also issued notice to CSD Canteen for payment of electrical charges and recently cut down the power of CSD  for fifteen days, thereby CSD was closed for about fifteen days.

               ix.        Information sought is related to “Parking”. This information is not related to any scientific/technical/strategic matter. Therefore information related to contract, supply order, purchase, construction and manufacturing etc. is disclosable under RTI Act, CIC decisions mentioned above and even by FAA, DRDO.

8.   Declaration:-

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

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21- Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DMSRDE/2013/Parking

Date: 08 November, 2013                                          

 Enclosure: Two 

(1)  Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 29 October 2013.

(2)  RTI Application dated 04 October 2013.

 

Drdo

SFCIANS, SF COMPLEX, DRDO, JAGDALPUR – DOP, DRDO IS DEAF & DUMB

2 Comments

13th September 2011

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.

Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order  90E611227

Regards,

 

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com, prabhudoon@gmail.com

CPIO, DRDO’s Denial

CPIO, DRDO’s Denial

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 Personal
Room 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 Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com website www.corruptionindrdo.com