To 27th March 2013
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011
Happy Holi, Holi Mubark to honorable Raksha Mantri Ji,
Happy Holi, Holi Mubark to each and every true Indian who thinks for the country and dreams of self-reliance, secure, healthy and honest India including our defence sector.
In the Holika Dhahan occasion we congratulate and support our honest Defence Minister Sh A.K. Antony for starting swaha of corrupt officials in our defence sector. We are also thankful to him for taking such exemplary action (suspension just half an hour before his retirement after enjoying extension in service for two years) against Dr. Arun Kumar, Ex-DOP, DRDO.
Sir, there are so many other corrupt DRDO senior officials who deserve the same action from your side. These officers exploit DRDO by inducting incompetent family members in different levels, involving procurement businesses as the name of ex- air chief name is accused. If DRDO is investigated, you will find that SPIC, ASL, DRDL, HEMRL, GTRE, TBRL and lots of other DRDO labs are busy in the same manner. We have already shared some information with IB, CBI and other agencies. The family members, relatives and friends of these corrupt DRDO officials are enjoying shares of DRDO funds.
There are many more secrets of incompetent DRDO officers mishandling constitutional valid rules for their wasted interest.
RAC of DRDO established to accelerate the recruitment process of potential scientists. However, unfortunately RAC is losing its utility and working as it is now a tool for corrupt senior DRDO officials to encourage corrupt and incompetent stuff in DRDO and it is also being used for demoralizing the honest and real R&D scientists. The increasing representations and court cases are the live examples of these acts. We think that by now, you are also fed up by answering a lot of honorable parliament members, who are regularly asking the exodus of DRDO scientists.
Recently, as per sources, in one court case, a scientist accused that the thenRACChairman Dr. P.S. Goel unconstitutionally cleared screening committee’s list. The claim is that the list was not signed by the members. It is not surprising because Dr. P.S. Goel has already violated Article 309 by issuing a letter for modifying the SRO on his own without approval of cabinet vide letter no.RAC/01/Assessment/PSG dated 27, March 2011. This was blindly done to give benefits to some incompetent DRDO officials out of way; in return, Dr. P.S. Goel got DRDO chair which costs nearly Rs. 83 lakhs per year on the poor tax payer.
Dr. R.C. Aggarwal, Director DEAL, DRDO gave unceremonious favor to another Agarwal, a scientist of his lab for the post, outstanding scientist. This outstanding scientist had been claimed that“his main contribution has been the development of NARAD, the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.” We are waiting for RTI reply on this subject from DRDO, but we know personally this claim is totally false and used to make him an outstanding scientist.
Another great job was done by DRDO when DRDO ignored your power delegation orders No 36(3)/ 2009-D(O&M), Govt. of India, Min of Def, dated 1 June 2009 and No 36(3)/2012-D(O&M), Govt. of India, Min of Def, dated 5 Nov 2012. . DRDO took approval to suspension/dismissal of honest officials from RRM and in this respect they also filed affidavit in the honorable courts that they got approval from RRM on the subject matter.
Sir this is the tip of the iceberg and the main reason of the exodus, court cases and unproductiveness of DRDO.
Sir, in the DRDO scenario a lot of evil things are waiting for your Holika Dhahan like
Arun Kumar’s daughter’s illegal appointment.
Selwamurthy’s daughter’s illegal appointment.
T.Chandrabanu’s illegal appointment
Prof S K Salwan’s , illegally given DRDO chair (ignored the age limit)
Vasudev’s illegal stay and involvement in SPIC (the IB already reported his daughter’s involvement)
Dr Prahlada ’s VC, DIAT appointment (ignored his all corrupt activities including remark for SC candidate)
DLRL security surveillance procurement which was submitted with evidences to you only an eyewash inquiry was done by DRDO officials)
Appointment of Sh Dharmendra Kumar, Scientist ‘B’ helped by Dr Arun Kumar, He was MSc,(2001) at the time of joining in DRDO as STA (2003)
List is too long and the paper will fall short but we are assured that you will surely swaha some corrupt officials in this holy holi festival.
By Yatish Yadav and Nardeep Singh Dahiya 02nd September 2012 12:00 AM
CGDA secret audit blows the lid off several other projects
Nirbhay missile
Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE BANGALORE): In December 2010, a project for ‘additional development flight trials of Nirbhay’ was sanctioned costing Rs 18.1 crore . This was overlapping with an ongoing project codenamed Nirbhay sanctioned in 2004 at a cost of Rs 48 Crore.
“Old projects PDC has not been extended nor has it been successfully closed. The sanction of Rs 18.1 crore as a new project was inappropriate,” the audit said.
In one of its observation on the same project, the audit said “The case also raises questions on the way project proposals are put up for sanction. How original proposal to develop NIRBHAY exclude its trial? No research and development project can be sanctioned without inclusion of trial of the developed products.” Arjun tank
Integrated Arjun tank program was sanctioned to CVRDE in November 2010 at a cost of Rs 69.90 crore. However, several small projects have been sanctioned under ‘buildup’. Audit reports reveal that it was done to avoid going through competent financial authority, which is contrary to financial regulations. NAG missile
DRDO sanctioned another project at a cost of Rs 28.35 crore while cabinet committee on security approved programme to develop NAG missile is still going on. UAV Aerostat project
It was sanctioned by DRDO at a cost of Rs 49.82 crore by reducing the cost proposed by the lab (Rs 70 crore) so as to bring it just under Rs 50 crore, which is its sanctioning power.
Facet
Facility for Electro-Optical System Testing (FACET) was sanctioned at a cost of Rs 35 crore by DG DRDO to create a facility, which is essentially required to meet the objectives of an already sanctioned project. However, the old project’s cost was not revised with the approval of appropriate CFA. Flop show Akash, NAG & Trishul missiles
The troika of integrated Guided Missile Development Plan (IGDMP) failed to fire after burning thousands of crore taxpayer’s money for almost 30 years. Akash which started in 1983 failed to meet requirements of army but after some hard bargaining Air force inducted it in its arsenal.
NAG, failed the 53rd test in August 2012. The project was started at an original cost of Rs 388.83 Crore in 1983, which was later revised to Rs 1,771.43 Crore. Indian army was forced to buy costly Javelin missile from USA in 2009 after DRDO failed to develop the project even after 29 years. After successive failures, Trishul was officially shelved in 2008. It is now reduced as a technology demonstrator by the DRDO. AGNI
The AGNI project was launched in 1983. The DRDO borrowed ISRO’s PSLV rocket to enhance firepower after it failed the initial tests before 1994. AGNI series of Missiles AGNI I and AGNI II with a range of 700 km and 2,500 km were inducted in the armed forces after successful tests. AGNI III with a range of 3,500 km is expected to be inducted in the army soon.
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence in its report in March 2012 observed that the maximum range of the missiles that have been handed over to the army is 25 km only. Government in its reply to the committee had stated that the Indian army is currently in the process of procurement of advanced long range missile system and upgradation of certain existing weapon platform. LCA
The LCA project, launched in 1983,is still waiting for final flight. The DRDO failed to develop promised indigenous engine even after spending over Rs 17,000 crore. It is expected to achieve the lasted deadline by December 2013.
Consider the three biggest projects: developing a Main Battle Tank (MBT), a nuclear-powered submarine, and an advanced Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). The MBT project was launched in 1974. But the tank has failed to meet service-requirement tests. It is reportedly too heavy and undependable to be used in combat. The Indian Army prefers Russian tanks and says it will use MBTs for training, not operations. The nuclear submarine project, launched 31 years ago, is not yet finished despite an estimated Rs 3,000 crore spent on it. The reactor is apparently ready, but not tested with the vessel’s hull. Kaveri Engine
The CAG in its annual report 2010-11 noted that government had already spent Rs 1,892 crore on Kaveri Engine development programme launched in 1986 to power the Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas. In 2005, the GTRE had indicated that it would not be able to develop the Kaveri engine on its own. Defence Minister AK Antony has told Parliament that the DRDO still has no time-frame to fully develop its Kaveri engine. He also said that the engine will be used in UAVs and marine applications.
India became a nuclear state with underground explosion on 18th May 1974, known as Pokhran-I (Smiling Buddha). The economic condition then did not permit this misadventure as the fallout was international sanction.
Sh. Atal Bihari Bajpai, then opposition leader expressed his view in the parliament “A hunter went for hunting the lion in the deep & dense forest on a bullock cart, when the lion appeared and roared the hunter in hurry asked his subordinate to load the gun, the helping hand said sorry sir, in a hurry we forgot to bring the gun but license is with us. The hunter requested the lion please give me some time to bring the loaded gun and then I assure you a decisive fight”
What Sh Bajpai said then was proved during KARGIL WAR 1999, the active defence asked for latest arsenal from DRDO and in return DRDO showed them the license.
DRDO bosses show the licenses instead the loaded gun (Product) and when the user demand they always seek more time. This mockery will continue until a firm accountability is implemented and user active participation in project/ program is made mandatory.
User requirements if not met in time then concerned officers who participated in developmental process should be made accountable.
Until these steps are taken, DRDO will only show the licenses of doing research even if country faces next KARGIL like scenario.
DRDO needs similar determination in development projects/programs like the US & Russia. When Americans developed the mother of bomb GBP-43/B with blast yield 11 Ton in 2003, then in 2007 Russia produced Father of Bomb (ATBIP) with blast yield 44 Ton. And now US produced MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator) which penetrate 60 feet thick concrete wall bunker and will reach the target with satellite guidance.
SA to RM is not only to enjoy the personal gym which was constructed and procured at Development enclave under project funds but he is also supposed to accelerate the developmental efforts in frontline technologies having 20 years life.
The constitutional limitation of SA to RM is such that he is not able to take timely decision/action to save the image of DRDO like Sh T Mohan Rao, Director, GTRE’s massage parlour episode; he has overlooked GTRE lab which is running without suitable and committed head since May 11, 2011. Similarly like Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, lots of cases/complaints pending against him with documentary evidences right from Defence Minister, CVC, Women Cell, Court etc but SA to RM does not bother about the image of DRDO.
This type of corrupt team of DRDO are becoming role model for the young scientists and in the process sincere scientists leaving DRDO.
The decision made for extension of service is without any analysis. The incompetency is growing, the deserving are the sufferers, the team lead by aspiring seniors stop working and result no output is poor tax payer of the country is ultimate looser.
The PMO, the Finance Minister is not able to find the hole in their GDP. In last 20 years technology import by DRDO has bypass all the procurement policy. For DRDO Directors “money is flowing”. The government has show leniency and the technology being imported is on its peak. 90% of the sanction budget for DRDO is being spent on 15 years old abandon technology of developed nations.
The experts from DRDO justify the procurement as the supplier agents offers them massage parlour to hefty commissions, good food, spa and stay in a 5 stars for a brief period.
The obsolete technology are imported as custom built item and 5 to 10 times higher cost and paid in Indian currency. The global tenders placed two to three times until the desired supplier decides the percentage of commission with journey to country from where technology is being imported. Further in the name of AMC signed MOU to ensure their periodical personal inputs and this periodical revenue is the sole cause of extension in service.
With this attitude of DRDO top brasses and MoD’s inability to handle the situation can we imagine to ever see the Vision – 2020? It is a big question?
Ramshastri Justice Foundation, PuneThrough its SecretaryDr. Rohidas G. Taware : Petitioner
V/s
Union of India & others : Respondents
I N D E X
SR. NO.
EXH. NO.
PARTICULARS
PAGE NOS.
1.
–
Synopsis
A – D
2.
–
Memo of Writ Petition
01 – 12
3.
A
O. M. issued by DoPT for grant of extension to Central Govt. servants beyond the age of superannuation. Dated: 09.12.200223.02.200509.02.201116.05.2011
13 – 22
4.
B
Attrition of scientists from the DRDO.Reply by Defence Minister in Lok Sabha.DRDO losses one scientist every second day. During recession, fewer scientists left DRDO.Scientists Leaving DRDO- why called Attrition
Top Defence scientists Leave DRDO En Masse
23 – 30
5.
C
Extension Applications alongwith Integrity Certificates issued by Dr. Arun Kumar, DoP, for Shri. Agarwal R.C. Dated: 18.05.2011Shri. Ikbal Singh Dated: 18.05.2011
31 – 36
6.
D
Frustration letters by scientists of DRDO to Shri A K Antony.Letter by K. Meera, Sc.’G’, GTRE, BangaloreLetter by S K Jindal, Sc.’G’, SPIC, New DelhiLetter by Dr. Rajesh Rampal, Sc.’G’, Jodhpur
37 – 42
7.
E
Letters by Petitioner toMr. A K Antony, Dated: 13.05.2011The Secretary, DoPT, Dated: 01.06.2011The Secretary, DoPT, Dated: 14.06.2011
Ramshastri Justice Foundation, PuneThrough its SecretaryDr. Rohidas G. Taware : Petitioner
V/s
Union of India : Respondents
SYNOPSIS
SR. NO.
DATE/ EXHIBITS
PARTICULARS
1.
2002 – 11
Exh. – A
DoPT by its O.M. dated 09.12.2002 issued instructions regarding grant of extension to Central Govt. servants beyond the age of superannuation. It laid down procedure for consideration of cases for extension in scientific fields. Extensions in service to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. The overriding consideration for the grant of extension is that it must be in the public interest. Instructions in this regard were timely issued by DoPT by its O.M. dated 23.02.2005, 09.02.2011 and 16.05.2011.
2.
2003 – 11
Exh. – B
Defence Minister, Shri. A K Antony replied in Lok Sabha to Shri. Siddeshwara regarding attrition of scientists from DRDO. According to the Ministry, 1107 young scientists resigned from DRDO between 2003 and 2007. DRDO has miserably failed to arrest the exodus of young scientists from DRDO. 20 top scientists of DRDO quit their jobs in second half of year 2010.
3.
18.05.2011
Exh. – C
Applications of Shri. Agarwal R C, Sc. ‘H’ and Shri. Ikbal Singh, Sc.’G’ for extensions along with Integrity Certificates issued by Dr. Arun Kumar.
4.
2011
Exh. – D
Letters of frustrations by K. Meera, Sc.’G’ , GTRE, Bangalore, S.K. Jindal, Sc.’G’, SPIC, New Delhi and Dr. Rajesh Rampal, Sc.’G’, D. L., Jodhpur addressed to Shri. A K Antony, found the vent for their suppressed resentment regarding malpractices in DRDO.
5.
2011
Exh. – E
Ramshastri Justice Foundation, Pune, the Petitioner wrote to Shri. A K Antony on 13.05 2011 regarding lawlessness in the administration of DRDO. The Petitioner by its letter dated 01.06.2011 wrote to Secretary, DoPT regarding illegal extension in service and promotion of Dr. A Subhananda Rao. The Petitioner vide its letter dated 14.06.2011 wrote to Secretary, DoPT regarding growing Criminal activities of top scientists in DRDO.
6.
2011
Exh. – F
Dr. R G Taware filed Criminal Complaint against Dr. Arun Kumar and his five sub-ordinates under sections 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Hon’ble JMFC Court No.9 issued process against all the six Accused under the same sections of I.P.C. Six top officers of the Directorate of Personnel, DRDO are the Accused before the Criminal Court of Pune.
POINTS TO BE URGED;
The age of retirement by superannuation of the Central Government employees is 60 years. As per the provisions in F.R. 56(d), the Estt. Division of DoPT has laid down the procedure for grant of extension to the scientists through its D.O. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO(SM-II) dated 10th July, 2000.
DRDO, by flouting the instructions of DoPT, has given unjustifiable extensions to many of its scientists. Not only the next men who have missed their promotions but several people have missed consequential promotions all along the hierarchy in DRDO. This has caused frustration in senior scientists whose promotions have been blocked and has affected the morale of upcoming young scientists. A total of 1107 young entrants have resigned from DRDO between 2003 and 2007. In a severe blow to the already shrinking numbers of Researchers in DRDO, 20 top scientists have quit their jobs in the second half of the year 2010. All the efforts of DRDO to arrest the attrition rate, have miserably failed.
This is only because of the superannuating scientists who are clinging to their posts. The extended services of so-called distinguished scientists are required to be extinguished to arrest the exodus of dynamic young scientists from DRDO. Some of the top scientists are enjoying extensions up to the age of 64-65 years. This is not only bad for DRDO; but it is the wastage of the national money on their salaries and other benefits. These malpractices are required to be stopped immediately in the national interest.
Hence, this Petition.
ACTS REFERRED TO & RELIED UPON:
Constitution of India
Fundamental Rules and Office Memoranda issued by DoPT, Union of India.
CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964
CCS (CCA) Rules 1965
AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO & RELIED UPON: Nil.
Mumbai (Mr. B. R. Barge)Date: 27/09/2011 Advocate for the PetitionerSanad No. MAH/1348/1992Email: bargebhagwan@gmail.comCell No. 9881750682Office: 16, Mata Chambers,Anandnagar, Old Sangvi,Pune – 411 027.Phone: 020-27282647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE CIVIL WRIT JURIDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.142 /2011
DIST: PUNE
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
In the matter of extension and promotion in extension in the service of scientists in DRDO, Ministry of Defence, beyond the age of superannuation.
In the matter of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
And
In the Fundamental Rules and Office Memoranda issued by DoPT, Union of India.
And
In the matter of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964;
And
In the matter of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965;
Ramshastri Justice Foundation,Email: justicefoundationpune@gmail.comThrough its Secretary,Dr. Rohidas Gopinath TawareEmail: rohidas.taware@yahoo.comCell No. 9423015022Regd. Office:16, Mata Chambers, Anandnagar,Old Sangvi, Pune – 411 027. Phone No. 020-27282647 — Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India
Through
The Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri andDirector General, Research & Development,DOP, DRDO, Ministry of Defence,Govt. of India,DRDO Bhavan,New Delhi- 110 105.
Union of India
Through
Secretary,Ministry of Defence,Govt. of India,South Block,New Delhi- 110 105.
Union of India
Through
Secretary,Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and PensionsDepartment of Personnel and Training (DoPT),Govt. of India,North Block,New Delhi- 110 011. — Defendants
(No.1 to 3)
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
The petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits as under:
1. The Petitioner is a NGO registered under Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is based in Pune, Maharashtra and is fighting against social evils and injustice. It has developed enormous concern over the corruption in DRDO, Ministry of Defence.
2. The petitioner is invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India in public interest against the corrupt practices and irregularities in the working of DRDO.
3. The cause of action for the filing of this Public Interest Litigation is the concern of the Petitioner which got accentuated over the grant of extension of service of scientists beyond the age of superannuation.
4. The age of retirement by superannuation of the Central Government employees is 60 years. The procedure for grant of extension to the scientists is laid down in Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) D.O. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO (SM-II) dated 10th July 2000. Such extensions in service to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. As per DoPT O.M. No.26012/6/2002-Estt.(A) dated 9.12.2002, whenever any specialist is considered for grant of extension, his character roll and personal file should be carefully scrutinized. He must have a good reputation for integrity and honesty. A certificate of integrity is required to be furnished by the appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry.
5. While making proposals for extension of service in higher posts, it is all the more necessary to apply higher standards of efficiency to persons whose appointments to the higher posts are recommended for approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. The number of top posts is bound to be very limited and a few persons should not have them for too long. No Government servant who is on extension of service after the prescribed date of retirement should be promoted to another post during the period of extension of service.
6. As per O.M. No. 26012/8/2011-Esst.(A) dated 16.05.2011, the criteria are laid down for considering cases of extension of service of scientists in terms of proviso to FR 56(d) and the guidelines for extension of service of eminent scientists of international stature beyond 62 years have been further reviewed as a need has been felt for a rigorous peer group screening by an inter disciplinary committee of experts.
7. Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRCs) headed by the Secretary of the Scientific Departments are constituted by the DOP&T with the approval of Prime Minister for a term of 2 years to consider the cases of extension of service of scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years.
8. It has now been decided with the approval of Prime Minister that the existing/reconstituted Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) shall also do the first stage screening of scientists for their extension beyond 62 years of age and thereafter the DPRCs’ recommendations will be placed before the committee under the Cabinet Secretary provided that the DPRCs have at least two outside experts apart from Secretary (Personnel & Training). The DPRCs must give detailed justification for such extension based on merits of the case; the international stature of the person recommended and shall also indicate whether this will block promotion opportunities of others in the Department. Such recommendations of the DPRCs for extension of service of scientists beyond 62 years will be sent to the Establishment Division of the DoPT for placing the cases before the committee under Cabinet Secretary. Only such cases recommended by the committee under Cabinet Secretary will be processed further for approval of Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) through the office of the Establishment Officer. Cases of extension of service of scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years recommended by DPRC will continue to be sent directly to the office of establishment officer in DOP&T as at present.
9. All proposals for extension of service of scientists beyond 62 years in terms of the 3rd proviso to FR 56(d) may, therefore, be processed keeping in view the above guidelines in addition to the criteria stipulated in the OM dated 09.12.2002 (Exh. – A)
10. But the Fundamental Rules (FR) and the timely instructions issued by DoPT through various Office Memoranda (O M) are not properly followed by DRDO. The present DGR&D, 11 CCR&Ds (Chief Controller, Research and Development), 52 Directors of various Laboratories / Organizations and hundreds of Scientists of ‘G’ and ‘H’ cadre have been given extension in their service. Most of these posts are having ‘Engineering’ as their basic qualification but they call themselves scientists and do the administrative duty. They are not performing any scientific duty. They are not at all engaged in any Research work. They are doing the administrative work only.
Engineering is not a Science. It is the application of Science. It is a Technical qualification. A scientist is basically a Researcher. But in DRDO persons having technical qualifications are recruited as scientists.
11. Thus, these so-called scientists who are basically engineers are performing administrative duty. And for administrative duty they are given extension in service. As if this is not enough, some of them are given promotions during the period of extension which is blatantly against the instructions of DoPT. At present more than 95% of scientists from DRDO are basically engineers. They don’t have any basic Science background. There is no research orientation. They are not doing any Scientific /Research work. Still, they get extension in service which is to be given exclusively to the scientists for completing the Research work in hand and such extensions are maximum for 2 years after superannuation.
12. But, the present picture in DRDO is horrifying.
a. Dr. A Sivathanu Pillai, CCR&D, born on 15th July 1947 has completed 64 years of his age. He is basically an Electrical Engineer and performing his Administrative duty as CCR&D since 13th Sep. 1999. For about 11 years he is enjoying the same post by blocking the promotions of many others in hierarchy.
b. Dr. Prahlada, CCR&D, born on 5th Feb. 1947 is basically a Mechanical Engineer. He was given extension in service for doing his administrative duty as CCR&D. Up to his age 64 he enjoyed the extension. Now he is appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (DIAT), Pune which is a Deemed University.
c. Dr. Vasudeva SK, CCR&D, born on 26th Jan. 1947, took over the charge of his post on 1st July 2001. For more than 10 years he is on the same post. Though he has completed 64 years and 8 months of his age and is still enjoying the extensions. His services are extended for 5 years after superannuation just to look after the administrative post. His extension in service is not at all justifiable. This is definitely going to block the promotion opportunities of others in DRDO.
d. Dr. Arun Kumar, the DoP, born on 4th Nov. 1950 has been given extension for looking after the Personnel matters. Director of Personnel is not a scientific post. He is not doing any Research work. He is doing only the Administrative work of Personnel. Still, he has been given extension.
He has committed offence under sections 167, 170 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. He is an Accused in Criminal Complaint No. 1198/2011 in the Court of Hon’ble J.M.F.C., Court No.9, Pune (Exh. – F). The Sessions Court of Pune has confirmed the Criminal process issued against him. During the pendency of Criminal Complaint against him, his service was extended after superannuation. Actually, his service was required to be suspended as per Rule 10 (1) (b) of CCS (CCA) Rules.
To crown it all, he has issued ‘Integrity Certificates’ to Mr. Agarwal R C, Mr. Ikbal Singh and many others for their extensions in service after their superannuation and has forwarded their applications to DoPT (Exh. – C). Actually, as per DoPT instructions a Certificate of Integrity is to be issued by the appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry.
A person who is undergoing a Criminal trial cannot be the appropriate authority. He has skillfully extended his own service and is extending services of others by issuing Integrity Certificates. The DGR&D is quite aware of this. The indifferent behavior of present DGR&D and his attitude of neutrality have generated many such odd and illegal things in DRDO. He is wholly responsible for this lawless situation in DRDO.
e. Dr. A Subhananda Rao, Director, HEMRL, Pune and Director, GTRE, Bangalore, born on 1st June 1950 has been given extension after superannuation. During this extension he is promoted to CCR&D.
He has committed offence under section 500 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. He is an Accused in Criminal Complaint STC No. 0437286/2009 in the Court of Hon’ble J.M.F.C., Pune. As per Rule 10 (1) (b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, he was required to be suspended immediately in August 2009 (Exh. – E). In spite of his Criminal status, the DGR&D has maintained him as Director, HEMRL, Pune. Recently, he has been given the additional charge of Director, GTRE, Bangalore. This additional charge of GTRE and promotion of CCR&D are given to the Accused person after his superannuation. Thus, one person is enjoying three posts at a time as if there are no other eligible candidates in the hierarchy of DRDO. It is obvious that three deserving candidates have been discouraged and kept away from their promotions.
13. The above five examples (a to e) is the sample survey of the whole system of DRDO. It is just the tip of an iceberg. It is prevailing since long. It is not that the other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the job. It is not at all that they don’t have any other alternatives. In addition to the Fundamental Rules (FR), the DoPT has issued the timely Office Memoranda, but it lacks effective supervisory power as well as the willpower. Under the favour of DoPT, the DRDO is proceeding fast towards rampant extensions and promotions in extensions. The top officers in DRDO are not ready to go home even after retirement. Like leeches they are clinging to the DRDO. Their extensions after superannuation are absolutely unjustifiable but nobody bothers about the side-effects and after effects of such illegal extensions. Unjustifiably extended scientists are the clots in the blood stream of DRDO. They are required to be removed instantly or else, one day, they will paralyze the whole system of DRDO. The DoPT very aptly formulates the provisions and makes rules in this regard but skillfully ignores the application of the same. Under the favour of DoPT, the top scientists of DRDO are enjoying extensions blatantly against the public interest and national interest.
14. Such unjustifiable extensions after superannuation have resulted in discouraging the young scientists joining the DRDO. In the year 2006, about 322 junior scientists resigned from the DRDO and in 2007 the figure was 273. However, in 2008 the number came down to 150 and in 2009 only 61 scientists have put in their papers. According to the Defence Ministry a total of 1107 scientists, mostly young entrants have resigned from the DRDO between 2003 and 2007, implying that on an average one person leaves every two days. The attrition rate in DRDO, which has 7000 scientists, has been about 6.3 percent. And what was making the situation worse was that the organization was able to fill up only 60 -70 percent of its vacancies (Exh. – B).
In a severe blow to the already shrinking number of Researchers in Defence Laboratories across the Nation, 20 top scientists of the DRDO have quit their jobs in second half of year 2010.
15. The rampant extensions in service after superannuation have discouraged the new generation of scientists as well as the old one. The old generation is fed up as their promotion opportunities have been blocked. K Meera, Sc. ’G’, GTRE, Bangalore, S.K. Jindal, Sc. ’G’, SPIC, New Delhi and Dr. Rajesh Rampal, Sc. ’G’, Defence Lab., Jodhpur have bitterly reacted and conveyed their strong protest to Mr. A K Antony (Exh. – D). It is not only the next man who misses promotion but often several people miss consequential promotions all along the hierarchy. Thus, too many cases of extension in service have caused frustration and affected the morale of the upcoming scientists who have exposure to latest technological developments in connecting fields. Extension in service to the superannuating scientists must be resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. Such extensions must be in the public interest. Then only the health and the esteem of DRDO will be maintained.
16. The Petitioner has not filed any other Petition in respect of the subject matter of this Petition in any other Court in India.
17. It is therefore prayed that:-
For the specific reasons cited in the foregoing, the Petitioner prays for the issuance of appropriate Writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as under:
a. The Respondents be directed to review and confirm the justifiability of all the extensions and the promotions in extensions in service in DRDO scientists beyond their age of superannuation.
b. The Respondents be directed to cancel all the unjustifiable extensions and promotions in extensions in service of DRDO scientists beyond their age of superannuation.
c. Any other suitable relief to which the Petitioner is deemed entitled to, be kindly granted in favour of the Petitioner.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY
Mumbai (Mr. B R Barge)Date: 27/09/2011 Advocate for Petitioner
VERIFICATION
I, Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware, Age: 55 yrs., Secretary, Ramshastri Justice Foundation, Regd. Office: 16, Mata Chambers, Anandnagar, Old Sangvi, Pune – 411 027, the Petitioner, do, hereby, verify that the contents of the Petition from Para No. 1 to 17 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I have not suppressed any material fact.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai ) (Dr. R G Taware)Dated 27th day of Sep. 2011 ) Petitioner
The facts with regard to perceived cost and time overruns and performance shortfalls in perspective
There have been several articles in the press critical of projects of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in general, and specifically the programme relating to the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), now named Tejas, and the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme. Indeed, whenever a significant event that involves indigenous R&D, particularly defence-related, occurs, or a crucial decision is set to be taken, articles originating from within the defence “system,” or from vendors who see their business prospects threatened, appear. The real facts relating to the programme need to be put in context.
Performance shortfalls
The two issues on which the LCA project is criticised are cost and time overruns, and performance shortfalls. As regards the so-called time overruns, when the zero/go date for the project is taken as 1983, the critics fail to mention that what was sanctioned in 1983 was an ad hoc Rs.560 crore, pending full preparation of the Project Definition Document (PDD) — which is a fundamental step even to start the design and development process. The costs were to be finalised based on the PDD. This required the setting up of infrastructure in a hundred academic institutions and R&D laboratories and building up expertise to undertake the fundamental and application-oriented R&D required, and harnessing the design and engineering effort available largely in the public sector units for such a complex, state-of-the-art aircraft. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) discussed with Air Headquarters the Air Staff Requirement (ASR). Air Headquarters had requirements added to what was originally to be a replacement for the MiG-21. As a result, the ASR that was finalised was practically that for a Mirage 2000. But in the public perception the LCA remained as a replacement for MiG 21.
It look seven years, till 1990, to formulate the PDD. Based on this the ADA, in a report to the Ministry of Defence in 1990, gave a time-frame of seven years to develop the LCA and projected a financial requirement of Rs.4,000 crore. This included the building of four prototypes also. There had been a 25-year gap since the only fighter aircraft ever indigenously designed, developed and manufactured, namely the HF-24 Marut, had entered squadron service. So the period of seven years to set up a more advanced R&D infrastructure and build up even the core personnel needed to develop the technologies that the LCA’s ASR and PDD called for, was modest.
“Go-ahead”
After consideration, including by special committees, the Indian Air Force and the government gave the real operational go-ahead only in late-1993. Even that “go-ahead” covered the development of only two Technology Demonstrator Aircraft (TDA) without weaponisation. The funding approved was only of Rs.2,000 crore — half the amount requested for full-scale development. The first TDA flew in 2001, eight years from the real operational ‘go’ date, despite much additional R&D work that had to be undertaken due to the U.S. sanctions imposed in 1998.
Comments appeared in the media in 2001 quoting IAF sources to the effect that what the ADA had achieved was just a flying machine that was yet to be weaponised. Considering the nature and scope of the approval accorded in 1993, what else was to be expected? Using the money sanctioned for two TDAs, the ADA built four. Full-scale development, for which another Rs.2,000-plus crore was finally sanctioned, thus started only in late-2001. Some 1,200 hours of flight testing was to be undertaken to secure Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) from the IAF.
At that point, apart from the weaponisation requirements the project had to undergo extensive redesign to accommodate an air-to-air missile chosen by the IAF, which was considerably heavier and longer than what had been specified till 2000. The IAF had again changed its mind. This necessitated the complete redesign of the wing structure, using only composite materials in order to keep the weight within limits. The period of this redesign was also utilised to upgrade the avionics, to a completely open architecture.
Consequently, in “generational terms” the LCA is a fourth generation-plus aircraft with full networking capabilities. This made it more than comparable to anything the IAF had, and possibly would have, even after it acquires the 126 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) now on tender, with first deliveries due eight years hence.
On the engine
It is true that the Kaveri engine for the LCA that the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) of the DRDO has been developing for 12 years has not yet met its technical performance targets and requires redevelopment. So far the GE 404 engine from the U.S., which powers the F-16 fighter-bomber, has been used to power the LCA. The problems the GTRE has with the Kaveri are not unusual in a complex fighter aircraft engine project being undertaken for the first time. Moreover, the financial sanction of about Rs.320 crore given for engine development was possibly only to cover the Project Definition Phase and some high-risk technology development effort. We do not know of a first-of-type high-technology fighter aircraft engine being developed anywhere in less than a multi-billion dollar programme and a 20-year-plus development cycle. Even Snecma, the sole fighter aircraft engine manufacturer in France, despite decades of experience in developing and manufacturing engines for Mirage III, V and F-1, took about a decade and $2.2 billion to develop the M-88 engine for the Mirage 2000. The development of the Kaveri is unlikely to cross $1 billion.
The LCA with a GE 404 engine has done 800-plus hours of flight-testing. Even with that engine the performance has been not only vastly superior to that of even the recently upgraded MiG 21 BIS (the IAF is operating almost 400 of the series), but it has shown itself to be comparable in many critical parameters to the Mirage 2000. Modifications to the aircraft structure are under way to reduce weight and improve engine performance. When the GTRE’s joint venture with a leading foreign engine manufacturer for further development is completed in the next four years, the Kaveri will be brought up to a performance level, superior to the GE 404. Fitted with it, the LCA will be truly comparable to the Mirage 2000 and in many respects even superior. And all this in an aircraft much lighter than the Mirage 2000.
Superior
As for network-centric capability, which intrinsically needs indigenous systems for secrecy, security and inter-operability, it is superior in the LCA compared to any aircraft in the IAF’s inventory.
So it is a fallacy to think that we can continue the importing spree and still have such network-centric capability.
As recently as in 2005, the IAF’s requirement for 126 new aircraft was only for an upgraded Mirage 2000. At Rs.120 crore to Rs.140 crore a plane, compared to at least double that amount for any of the aircraft types now bidding for the 126 MRCA, is not the LCA a highly cost-effective fighter for volume induction into the IAF?
As for development costs, the LCA has remained well within the sanctioned $1.2 billion — which is about the lowest anywhere. Time overrun in the strict sense is only by a year or two, despite the sanctions. A first-of-type aircraft of this degree of complexity has not been developed anywhere in the West or in Russia in less than two to three decades.
The F16 series that was inducted into the U.S. Air Force in 1975 is today at Mark 60. That is how aircraft of this level of complexity are improved after induction. That this imperative applies even more to the LCA has to be recognised.
It is for the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister to ensure that this effort is not belittled or scuttled, and that the LCA programme is given all-out support — as successive Prime Ministers have ensured for our atomic energy and space programmes.
(Ashok Parthasarathi was Science Adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Vice- Admiral (retired) Raman Puri was Chief of Integrated Defence Staff to the Chairman, Committee of Service Chiefs, remaining closely involved with the inter-service weapons acquisition process from October 2003 to February 2006).
Following is the contribution of honest, hardworking, sincere and sensitive government servants’ of DRDO, Ministry of Defence concern to national defence.
I acknowledge their sincerely and commitment towards uprooting the corruption, nepotism, favoritism prevailing in DRDO.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal
Aap ki Adalat
Sh PDD (DRDO Anna) and all non corrupt colleagues of DRDO
A group of part time artists (from DRTC, DRDS, Admin) from headquarters and Delhi labs are starting a old and well known method of STREET PLAY to highlight Corruption, Bhai chara, carelessness in management of our DRDO for last 2 years by Retired team of Chief controllers, Corrupt Directors and MOST CORRUPT SA to RM. WE are using street as Website of Sh PDD. All are affected; scientists are also affected by mis-rule of DR VKS. First 6-8 episodes will be on DrVKS, honorable (?????) SA to RM. This will be followed by -WILLIAM SELVAMURTHY, PS GOEL and all “Distinguished”. Outstanding” and “Dictators (Directors)” . The frequency of episodes will be flexible, keep seeing our Anna’s website and give your comments for any particular topic and person to be called in Aap ki Adalat.
Viewers, This is Dr VKS Episode-II
RS: We welcome again Dr Saraswat in our show…
VKS: Thank you, Rajat, I will tell you first episode was very hit
RS: Yes Prabhu informed me
VKS: Oh!! GOD also saw this program
RS: No No. this time you got confused, Prabhu Dandriyail!!!
VKS: (sighs) You have upset my mood in beginning itself……has Gupta (PI) not contacted you?
RS: Ok OK, Sir tell us nowadays William’s news are more than you in newspapers, what is the secret.
VKS: Yes, we are observing, Saiwanjee, Darshan, Vasu also observed, very serious matter, we will discuss next week in missile complex and find out reasons and motive. I will fire Gupta, he is irritating me lot. He has not settled with you and sending more stories of William.
RS: Last episode you praised William?
VKS: Keep guessing
RS: People are saying in last 2 years you have done more strategic mistakes than strategic missile launches. Any comments.
VKS: This Pillai is propagating these false news; nobody can beat me in this business, Pillai,Avinash, Prahlada, no one.
RS: Sir, all your lab Directors are ineffective in delivery, they are expert in Procurement, corruption. Nepotism…this is general impression in DRDO fraternity…
VKS: Why lab directors. I don’t agree, you see Tandon, Arun, Shukla, AK, all great Headquarter directors, they are true gems of ORDO
RS: How to reduce Corruption…
VKS: There is no corruption in DRDO, this is just myth of more than 90 percent of DRUG people that we are corrupt. Antony ji is supporting me, PM is supporting me, so where is corruption. All nonsense.
RS: Then why we are finding so many cases on Prabhu’s web site.
VKS: We hacked he site, but it reappeared, we will do something permanent about this.
RS: For removing corruption…
VKS: No No, permanently hacking this Site. Corruption, No there is no corruption, because I said so, it cannot be wrong, Stop this point here. Gupta will meet you and will explain. Tell me we have no commercial break in this programme?
RS: Sir, our marketing team tried, but failed
VKS: This is very bad, I will tell Vasuji, Ajay, Shukla…my bright boy I made him Scientist G in 4 years, great work done by him GOD BLESS YOU, these all people will get you many many commercials from our well trusted vendors. Gupta I will bang you.
RS: Ok, can we discuss Rama Rao implementation?
VKS: Antony ji telling me to do some cosmetic changes. I will make CCs, but essential qualification will be they should be more than 62 years.
RS: Why Sir, more experienced?
VKS: No NOT they will be busy in their extension case, I will have all powers!! Ha Ha!.
RS: So Rama Rao implemented?
VKS: See last year I am empowered my dear Directors with enhanced financial powers, they are happy, so Rarna Rao is implemented. All are happy CCs, new DOs, Myself, my dear Directors..all are happy
RS: But what was main aim behind Rama Rao committee?
VKS: I am frank actually I have to refer back to his report to be specific. But we have to live in realities, so what I am doing is the best for DRDO and my missile complex people. Again I am thankful to Saiwanjee, Vasu ji, Darshan.,,.
RS: Sir you have forgotten Williams?
VKS: He is badmash, I will handle him now. Thanks for highlighting his game to me. Gupta, I will bang you..
RS:Mohan Rao case, Bhoopathy case, Agarwal case, all are glaring example..
VKS: They are great scientists, small small mistakes they do and all of you give fire to these small mistakes.
RS: Parlour visit in office time….is it small case
VKS: What is so big about this, please ignore all these small small incidents, bachen hai…Ok I have to go, you know this time I have to meet Antony ji, he is pressing me to take some cosmetic changes and cosmetic actions on Mohan, Boopathy, Arun,. . .nothing to worry I will handle him. Thank you again Salwanjee, Vasu ji, Darshan,,…THANK YOU VIEWERS GOD BLESS YOU……GOD and not that Prabhu Dandriyal, keep him away.
RS – Rajat Sharma (the famous anchor of Aap Ki Adalat TV show)
VKS– Dr V K Saraswat, Scientific Adviser to RM, D G, Secretary, DRDO
Gupta– Sh Ravi Gupta, Director Public Interface, DRDO, Ph No. 011-23011073 Mobile 9868276099. Man behind all DRDO paid news @ Rs 50000/- budget 1 Crores annually.
William – Dr W Selvamurthy, CC R&D (LS)
Salwan jee– Prof. S K Salwan, Ex- Director, ITR, ARDE and Project In-charge – ‘NAGARATANAM’ , Chairman – Armaments Research Board, Chairman –enquiry committee which one investigating the corruption/ nepotism charges against Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO -70+ Hqrs -age
Vasu ji- Dr SK Vasudeva, Ex-Director, SPIC money making machine for Scientific Advisers to RM, serving in 3rd consequent extension and handling all mysterious projects of DRDO and involved her daughter also.
Darshan: A retired DRDO employee Dr Saraswat’s pet man.
Tandon : Mr. Sanjay Tandon, Director Material Management, DRDO Hqrs got promotion (rewarded) in 4 years Scientist ‘F’ to ‘G’ expertise in manipulations in procurement and helped Dr V K Sirvastava, SA’s son-in law companies to establish in DRDO.
Ajay: Brig. Ajay Gupta, Director Vigilance, DRDO Hqrs helping SA to handle all corruption / nepotism complaints/ issues according to his wish.
Shukla : Capt P K Shukla, Director Management Services, Ex- Navy Officer who is the trained gang man of most corrupt king of DRDO Dr A S Bains, – Ex Director DEAL and presently Director Management services DRDO Hqrs and got promotion(rewarded) in 4 years, he will be retire in October 2011 but planning him adjust this bright boy in ADA or other pocket DRDO establishment of DRDO.
Rama Rao Committee: The Defence Ministry had set up a committee on February 8th 2007, chaired by Former Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Dr. P Rama Rao to review and suggest measures to improve the functioning of DRDO. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Review Committee constituted by the Government to suggest measure for improving the functioning of DRDO inter alia Ministry of Defence, and Services has submitted its report to the Government on 05th March 2008. It is under study of the Government.
Mohan Rao- Sh T Mohan Rao – Ex Director, GTRE caught red handed by Bangalore police in Jay Mahal Massage Parlour on 11th Maay 2011 with a supplier’s agent Sh V N Narayan and spend one night in police custody. He was removed as director, GTRE and attached with CEMILAC, but he is enjoying his service extension.
Boopathy: Sh G Bhoopathy, Director, DLRL, Hyderabad joined as Charge man and rise up to Director, in Feb 2011 he did great job, the contractor supplied two …… using project hired vehicles in his house and all drama was seen by guards, enquiry set up but nothing is done byDr VK Sarswat. Like old time when king was busy with ayashi then opportunist start looting and same thing happened in DLRL, misuses of power started in every corner of DLRL.
Arun: Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO Hqrs is the top manipulator of DRDO, whether it is question in manipulation of recruitment, or manipulation of promotion, or manipulation of service extension he is the best. Lot of complaints are pending against him, Civil Cases, Criminal Cases, Complaint in Women Cell, Complaint in CVC. SA blindly saving him for unforeseen reason may be SA is blackmailing by Dr Arun Kumar.
SA to RM is so helpless that even after Bangalore Police arrested GTRE, Director Sh T Mohan Rao under Immoral Traffic Act from a massage parlour and interrogated him with supplier ILN Technology’s agent Sh V N Narayan. But SA to RM is helpless and simply shifts him to anther Lab CEMILAC and from where Sh T Mohan Rao remotely managing GTRE show. After passing five months the GTRE is running without proper leadership the more than two thousand DRDO officials working without head of establishment. Why? Because of SA to RM is helpless in front of DRDO’s richest Director Sh T Mohan Rao. According the sources honorable Minister of State for Defence Sh M M Pallam Raju who is directly looking after DRDO activities & defence production protecting the interest of Sh T Mohan Rao. The system is helpless because of the prevailing corruption, nepotism; favoritism in DRDO is in its peak.
In DRDO like Sh T Mohan Rao a few cases have further surfaces, where Sh G Bhoopthy, Director, DLRL was found having illicit relation in absences of his wife with call girls at his official residence. He is famous to use contractors for this kind of activities, for project hired transport AP 11 TV0937 the contractor supplied the call girls in month of February 2011, the inquiry was conducted by Brig Ajay Gupta but no action is take why? SA to RM is helpless.
Sh G Bhoopthy freely enjoying the government funds, the misappropriation of funds like in the case of procurement of Access Control System is tip of ice berg. The two-two inquiry committee was constituted committee members enjoyed their temporary duties and put the biased report like they justified that purchase of double quantity power fencing ( DLRL boundary periphery is approx 3000 meters and DLRL purchased 6ooo meters at more than double price Rs 1185 instead of DRDL purchase Rs 585), that quantity is purchased as backup. So again SA to RM is still helpless.
Sh R C Aggarwal, Director, DEAL, Dehradun spent nearly Rs 10 Lakh /annually on temporary duties from 2008 onwards, all his movements to Hyderabad & Bangalore was planned to get project SDR (Software Define Radio) for Rs 100 Crores sanctioned . He got extension of two years without having requisite international stature, subject matter expertise and barely after three months of extension is he planning to flee out of SDR. He has understood that with the present scenario and capability, DEAL cannot developed or integrate SDR, DEAL can only resubmit a feasibility report for SDR development as phase-II. He has all ready spent crores of rupees for procuring obsolete items (SDR Kits) which were declared obsolete by Europe & US firms. Like SDR 3000 which is lying in corridor of SIDEC building in DEAL.
Says Sh RC Aggarwal Government has enough money and we can play without being committed to develop or demonstrate technology of SDR, from each case of software/hardware procurement he has getting some kickback that’s the reason he is the only person who is contributing Rs 1.25 Lakh/month in his GPF account.
Sh R C Aggarwal with help of works division of DEAL spends crores of Rupees in the name of renovation of corridors/conference halls/toilets and each and every corner of DEAL. The earlier in 2007 the whole works were done by Sh Ashok Sen and now the strong and well built infrastructure demolished by Sh R C Aggarwal and whole DEAL scientist and staff seen this disaster as silent spectator. All keep their mouth shut on wasting of government fund s the only reason is their carrier.
Sh Hemant Gupta, HMM (Head Material Management) a highest corrupt scientist of DEAL has now managed his transfer in DECS (Directorate of Electronics & Computer Science) , DRDO Hqrs, New Delhi with the help of his relative sitting in higher post at DRDO Hqrs. When Sh Hemant Gupta involved in Scientific activity of DEAL never got proper ACR and promotion call in normal course in his tenure in DEAL but when Sh R C Aggarwal took charge as a Director, DEAL and he put him as HMM then he got outstanding report, so the nepotism of Sh R C Aggarwal is shows everywhere in DEAL weather it is in giving outstanding reports to his bania community or giving all creamy post to same bania community and same thing in allotment of tenders there are also domination in bania community.
It is not surprising thing because the guru & boss of Sh R C Aggarwal, Dr R Sree Hari Rao, CC (R&D) earlier when he was director, DLRL did same thing in DLRL, his close relative Sh N Sriniwasa Rao is one of the most youngest scientist ‘G’, who never did any project independently, Dr R Sree Hari Rao, CC (R&D) not only favored his relative but he did it for all his community and lot of real hard working scientist suffered and retired without getting due recognitions/ promotions like Shri K Manjunath, retired as Scientist ‘F’ only.
Due same practice adopted by Sh R C Aggarwal, unrest is developing in senior scientist of DEAL and SA is receiving representations, but what will happen – SA to RM is helpless.
This is not the case is only in DEAL whole DRDO labs are working in same spirit. If somebody dare to talk this means he should be ready for punishment first transfer to farthest lab and second is unwritten redline on his future service carrier.
In such environment how our defence forces can believe on these insensitive so called scientist/ technocrats who are wasting money and resources on their personal use/ on call girls / on massage parlours/ or ingathering properties .
But above all SA to RM is helpless.
I request to Honorable Prime Minister that as the ministers are already declared their assets on website, please instruct to DRDO top brasses to declare their assets on website specially up to Director level scientists. The whole country will be surprised to see the assets of these scientists before taking charge as director and after charge the difference of acquiring asset will tell the whole story.
The big Names are – Dr A Sivathanu Pillia, CC R&D, CEO, Brahmos Aerospace Private Limited
Prof S K Salwan, Retire Director, doing project with DOP, DRDO
To 22th August 2011The Honorable Prime MinisterPMO, South BlockNew Delhi -110011
Subject: Grant of Extension of service of Scientists beyond the age of superannuation
Honorable Sir, Department of Personnel and Training O M No.26012/8/2011-Estt. (A) Dated the 16th May, 2011 stats that the laid down criteria for extension of service to the scientist should be in term of proviso to
i) FR 56 (d)
ii) Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRCs) headed by the Secretary of the Scientific Departments are constituted by the DOP&T with the approval of Prime Minister for a term of 2 years to consider the cases of extension of service of scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years.
iii) Extension of service of eminent scientists of international stature
iv) Indicate whether this will block promotion opportunities of others in the Department
v) Will be processed further for approval of ACC through the office of the Establishment Officer
Sir, the above guidelines thoroughly overruled by DRDO establishment. When Dr APJ Kalam was granted extension of service he had the expertise and international recognition in his field (Missile Technology). Dr M Natrajan was granted extension on the basis of his work in MBT (Arjun Tank). Dr U R Rao, ISRO got extension because of his contribution in space technology.
DRDO, once Dr V K Atre became, SA to RM overruled the guidelines of DoPT provisions for extension. A new culture was established that is those scientists who were close to Dr Atre they were recommended for extension without justifying their contributions to science & technology. Afterwards the secretary of DRDO used this tool for those who are expert in misappropriation and manipulation of Government funds and misinterpretation of Government rules to their personal benefits.
These scientists nowhere stand as per guidelines of FR 56 (d) and you will find most of cases the scientists are involved totally in administrative job for years. Interestingly Secretary DRDO removed the required paras of Annexure FR 56 (d) where it states the justification why his service is needed and the details of contributions are thoroughly overruled.
Surprisingly, no one pointed these corrupt practices in the process of granting extension. Some applications which I have received by RTI from DoPT are enclosed for your ready reference. Which are the self explanatory, under the name of Defence research and under the shadow of official Secret Act 1923 and the bonafide possession of CCS Rules 1965 they have be-fooled the DoPT,PMO,ACC etc.
DRDO at an interval of every three months gives extension to at least 10-12 scientists, out of which not a single scientist deserve the recommendation as per guide lines of DoPT O M No.26012/8/2011-Estt. (A) Dated the 16th May, 2011 Normally DRDO Hqrs recommend extension to the (Service Provider) like Sh T Mohan Rao, Ex Director, GTRE (Massage Parlour Fame), DRDO recommend Dr S K Vasudeva of SPIC even beyond 64 years of age as he arranged the all cocktails parties + in 5* with help of CS Constructions etc and provide Mrs Kanimozhi‘s methods routing money through her daughter’s firm M/S M V- Grfix as IB already reported to PMO.
DRDO recommends the name of scientists/Directors who manage the misappropriation of funds of projects/ programs. As an example the case of Sh R C Aggarwal, Director, DEAL, Dehradun and Sh Iqbal Singh of IRDE, Dehradun Sh R C Aggarwal joined as Charge-man and become Director, DEAL as Scientist ‘G’ in 2007.
He has no international publications,No patents,No significant contribution in any projects at LRDE, NPOL, DLRL and DEAL where he was posted earlier
As a director he wrote an essay (cut paste copy technology) on Software Defined Radio and prepared a proposal for sanction having 60 sub contracts paras. This proposal opened up an avenue to distribute poor tax payer’s money. Rs 100 Crores sanctioned for SDR project and with few months he was promoted as Scientist ‘H’ and also got extension for two years and waiting Scientist for Director’s post Sh K N Rao of DEAL died with shock (Heart Attack).
Sh R C Aggarwal’s extension was recommended by Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO who was Scientist ‘E’ in 2001 when Sh R C Aggarwal was Scientist ‘F’. The DPRC which recommended Sh R C Aggarwal had a external member Dr P S Goel, Charman, RAC, whose contribution in ISRO as scientist is big zero, No international publications, No patents, only cut copy paste technology expertise.
Sh R C Aggarwal spent Rs 10 Lakh on TA/DA per year so he is able to contribute Rs 1.25 Lakhs per month in GPF account. As he is using Red beacon on his vehicle drawing Transport allowance using official driver in private car for fooling department.
Sh R C Aggarwal very bluntly says “the development of SDR will take 20 years time” and the PDC of SDR is 36 months.
Dr S C Jain who is enjoying extension but in the same time did not get the promotion to Scientist ‘H’, when he was not fit for promotion then how come he was recommended for extension in service, it can only happened in DRDO.
He has no international publications,No patents,No significant contribution in any projects at DEAL
But he is master in manipulation of government funds and misinterpretation of government rules in the interest of his boss. The reason he was benefited, was to get extension and job for his son who has fake qualification.
Sh Iqbal Singh Scientist ‘H’, IRDE, Dehradun got extension without justification of his scientific contribution.
He has no international publications,No patents,No significant contribution in any projects at IRDE
Only significant contribution is misappropriation of government funds, he gave orders to a firm where his son works
Dr S S Sundaram, Director, IRDE, Distinguished Scientist got extension for his golden achievement in project SAMYUKTA (Electronic Warfare), it is well known that Project SAMYUKTA started with Rs 250 Crores initial cost in May 1994 and when buried unceremoniously in 2006 it consumed Rs 6000 Crores of poor tax payer’s money.
Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO never did science and there is no question of scientific contribution. He is master in manipulation the governments rules and extend the path of favoritism to benefit DRDO’s top brasses wards. Appointment of his own daughter as scientist ‘B’ by violating all recruitment rules of DRDO. The enquiry is going on without any result like DRDO projects because the chairman of enquiry Dr Salwan, Ex DRDO scientist got Rs 80 Lakhs project with Rs 1 Lakh/month salary from Dr Arun Kumar itself.
The Honorable Prime Minister is requested to stop this criminal act of DRDO’s extension business, which they are recommending without justification. Please go through the recommended applications of DRDO scientists which I have received from DoPT through RTI.
Sir, this is the major reason of brain drain in DRDO because I am receiving lot of mails of ex DRDO young scientists from all over the world in my website www.corruptionindrdo.com, they share their experiences in this pathetic condition of DRDO.
Defence Minister, Room No 104- South Block, New Delhi- 110011
Shri Shashi Kant Sharma, Defence Secretary, Room !01- South Block, New Delhi – 110011
Ms. Alka Sirohi, Secretary (Personnel), Room No 112, North Block-110011
Dr V K Saraswat, D G (R&D), DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi=110105FR 56 (d) comparisonNo.26012/8/2011-Estt. (A)Government of IndiaMinistry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions(Department of Personnel and Training)North Block, New Delhi,Dated the 16th May, 2011
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Grant of Extension of service of Scientists beyond the age of superannuation – Issue of instructions regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel & Taining O.M. No.26012/6/2002-Estt.(A) dated 9.12.2002 (copy enclosed) on the subject mentioned above laying down the criteria for considering cases of extension of service of Scientists in terms of proviso to FR 56(d) and to state that the guidelines for extension of service of eminent scientists of international stature beyond 62 years have been further reviewed as a need has been felt for a rigorous Peer group screening by an inter disciplinary Committee of experts.
2. Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRCs) headed by the Secretary of the Scientific Departments are constituted by the DOP&T with the approval of Prime Minister for a term of 2 years to consider the cases of extension of service of scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years.
3. It has now been decided with the approval of Prime Minister that the existing/reconstituted Departmental Peer Review Committee shall also do the first stage screening of Scientists for their extension beyond 62 years of age and thereafter the DPRCs’ recommendations will be placed before the Committee under the Cabinet Secretary provided that the DPRCs’ have at least two outside experts apart from Secretary (Personnel & Training). The DPRCs must give detailed justification for such extension based on merits of the case; the international stature of the person recommended and also indicates whether this will block promotion opportunities of others in the Department. Such recommendations of the DPRCs for extension of service of Scientists beyond 62 years will be sent of the Establishment Division of the Department of Personnel & Training for placing the cases before the Committee under Cabinet Secretary. Only such cases recommended by the Committee under Cabinet Secretary will be processed further for approval of ACC through the office of the Establishment Officer. Cases of extension of service of Scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years recommended by DPRC will continue to be sent directly to the office of Establishment Officer in DOP&T as at present.
4. All proposals for extension of service of Scientists beyond 62 years in terms of the 3rd proviso to FR 56(d) may, therefore, be processed keeping in view the above guidelines in addition to the criteria stipulated in the OM dated 9.12.2010.
(P.Prabhakaran)Director (E)
DoPT RTI replyDoPT Reply for Sh R C Aggarwal Page 1DoPT Reply for Sh R C Aggarwal page 2DoPT Reply For Sh R C Aggarwal page 3DoPT Reply for Sh Iqbal Singh page 1DoPT Reply for Sh Iqbal Singh Page 2
DoPT Reply for Sh Iqbal Singh page 3
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
