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.
SHASHWAT GUPTA RAY Monday, December 24, 2012 AT 12:14 PM (IST)
PUNE: The Army’s refusal to accept a modular charge system developed by the city-based DRDO lab High Explosive Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL) has resulted in wasteful expenditure of Rs 13.48 crore for the DRDO, a recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has said.
The modular charge system helps to enhance functioning of Artillery guns. The chapter titled ‘Unfruitful expenditure on development of modular charge system for field guns’ said that the DRDO undertook a Technology Development (TD) project for development of the modular charge system for 105 mm and 130 mm guns based on a request by the Director General of Artillery. This project was handed over to Pune-based DRDO lab HEMRL.
In the field of artillery guns, modular charge system was considered desirable over the existing bagged charge system in view various advantages.
“HEMRL developed the systems by spending Rs 13.48 crore and after successful technical trials offered both the systems (105/130 mm) in September 2010 for user trials. However, at that stage DG Artillery showed disinterest in the system since the field guns were nearing the end of their life cycle and were likely to be de-inducted from service over next seven to 10 years. This rendered the entire efforts and expenditure of Rs 13.48 cr unfruitful,” the CAG report said.
In reply to audit observation, the DG Artillery stated (May 2012) that DRDO had been asked to undertake the project at no cost implication to the Army and the systems were not accepted as the DRDO did not adhere to the timeline.
On the contrary, the DRDO Headquarters stated (July 2012) that the Army had been associated at each stage of development and kept informed of progress.
“The finger pointing by two organisations both under the Ministry of Defence, DRDO which is responsible for indigenisation and Army which is expected to put such indigenous weapons system to use, indicates that both the organisations within the same Ministry have been operating in silos,” the report said.
While the Army headquarters did not respond to a Sakal Times query on the matter, Director of Public Interface, DRDO Headquarters Ravi Kumar Gupta said that after the establishment of technology, R&D work was undertaken to apply it to field guns of the other caliber like 105 mm and 130 mm field guns.
To, Hon’ble Defence Minister; Govt.of India, New Delhi,
Subject – Tender pulling ways in DRDO by corrupt Scientist – shelter by seniors for pecuniary arrangement – High revenue loss to Govt. of India.
Respected Sir,
Never possible that Mr. Sarasvat SA to RM is unknown from the Tender pulling ways in DRDO by corrupt scientist and sheltered by the seniors put up a big question and if he is not known then it is also a question to the intelligence and vigilance agencies. I put up few cases here sufficient to show the corruption and a high revenue loss to the Govt. of India
1-Ex – Scientists of DRDO getting the Tenders with the pecuniary arrangement with his colleagues Presently working in DRDO. — HERML having practice to hire outside manpower to produce explosive and the companies involved in this business is related to ex- DRDO senior officials. Dr Hardwar Singh, Ex- Director HEMRL & present director M/s Viswaat Chemicals Pvt Ltd since 2006), the sources said that earlier he was sleeping partner (his son Bunty was inducted in the firm as an employee) when he was active Director, HEMRL. [ For detail Pl. see Annex-I]
2- Single contractor submit tenders in different names and pull the tender on high value — Dr S K Vasudeva ex Director spic (presently Program Director at the age of 66 yrs).Dr S K Vasudeva has a close friend Sh Sudhir Marwaha.Sh Sudhir marwaha has created many namesake companies in the name of his close relatives and friends. Tenders are filled by these relatives and friends in the name of these namesake companies for all the construction and technical projects in SPIC DRDO.All the projects in this way are awarded to Sh Sudhir Marwaha by CCE R&D( for the last one decade). [ For detail Pl. see Annex-II]
3- Back door support — Tender released to another party came through back door with the support of DARE senior members who took all product input, budget, data sheets and quoted rates accordingly to pull tenders.[ For detail Pl. see Annex – III]
A high revenue loss is expected from this type of the tender pulling techniques developed by corrupt scientists. Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri & Secretary DRDO , Mr. Sarasvat is fully Accountable & Responsible to Govt. of India revenue loss.
I request you to take suitable action against the corrupt scientist / accountable officer and prevent the tender pulling by the Ex – Scientists of DRDO getting the Tenders with the pecuniary arrangement with their colleagues presently working in DRDO.
With high regards,
Your’s, Sincerely.
(Rajiv Chauhan)
COPY TO THE :
1- Hon’ble President of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
2- Hon’ble Prime minister of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
Rajiv Chauhan
FOR DETAIL PL. SEE ATTECHED ANNEXES- I/II/III.
ANNEXE- I
Annexure-II
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: sandeep chopra <sandeepchopradefence@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM
Subject: rampat corruption in spic drdo and security of our country geoprised
To: prabhudoon@gmail.com
sir,
With due respect I state that I have sent complaint to ministry of defence regarding corruption of thousands of crores of rupees done by Dr S K Vasudeva ex Director spic(presently Program Director at the age of 66 yrs).Dr S K Vasudeva has a close friend Sh Sudhir Marwaha.Sh Sudhir marwaha has created many namesake companies in the name of his close relatives and friends.Tenders are filled by these relatives and friends in the name of these namesake companies for all the construction and technical projects in SPIC DRDO.All the projects in this way are awarded to Sh Sudhir Marwaha by CCE R&D( for the last one decade).Due to weak and lukewarm responce of the ministry of defence these sharks are looting our country.Due to suffocated atmosphere in SPIC DRDO(most sensitive organisation of national importance),the security of our country is in extreme danger.It is requested that an immediate drastic action is taken to stop this mess,otherwise it will be too late.Inaction will result in disaster at an early date.Regards,Sandeep Chopra,Senior Scientist E ,SPIC DRDO ,delhi.Residence-270-c,urban estate,phase-1,jamalpur,ludhiana,punjab,india.phone-09779413097,01612677097.
Annexure-III
From: zing [mailto:sales@zingtec.com] Sent: 29 May 2012 17:14 To: cvc@nic.in Cc: ‘zing’ Subject: DARE-818
Dear Sir,
Thank you for reading this mail.
I have faith on our system, that’s why I am writing to you even after RTI rejected my request to provide a satisfactory answer.
The purpose of this mail is to “delink our scientists from the external polluted world” and if anyone does it for his own interest he or she must be noticed and get the due reward so that our new generation of scientists will focus on more creative things than doing unwanted jobs”
1.This is a requirement for a entirely new technology product called ARINC -818 used for Video data over Fibre Channel”
2. Normally for new technology it’s practice to initially purchase off the shelf product to get familiar with the technology.
3. Based on this requirement we spent almost 8 months time with DARE team to provide demo, data sheets etc etc.
4. finally tender came with our specification ( a product from GRT, USA).
5. since the requirement was very urgent they asked us to delivery in 4 weeks. You can see the same in the tender specification attached for your reference
6.after tender is released another party came through backdoor with the support of DARE senior members took all our product input, budget, data sheets and quoted
7. Due to his link he has managed to grab the order with 16 weeks as delivery time as a development project ( if it has to be a development project there are many companies to quote for the same, but since it was 4 weeks delivery no one quoted as it understood to be a off the shelf product.
9. the tender opening was delayed to make this party do some development job.
10. However it was not delivered ( as expected) even after 16 weeks.
11. in the mean time we asked the details of what this party is going to supply ( only technical info) in 16 weeks and i was replied in negative by RTI reply.
12. we even got calls to withdraw the complain which was actually not a complaint but an information. I have attached the RTI letter for your reference.
13. I request you to take this investigation forward as Mr. Arun kumar is not very responsive and showing negative interest on such matters.
14. It seems if no one ask them they will take their sweet time to deliver something which of course will be acceptable to DARE team as the TOP Senior people have the blessings. However it is not the way we look forward our scientist to get involved in favouritism to this extent and which will not take us forward.
We look forward for a quick and satisfactory investigation to this matter which will have a positive impact.
The High Energy Materials Research Lab (HEMRL), Pune, has outsourced the production of TATB, an explosive, to a private firm, Viswaat, with which an ex-director of HEMRL is associated
The firm does not have a licence to manufacture explosives
Worse, the workforce—which does not have intelligence clearance—enters the HEMRL facility to carry out the work
Local auditors have questioned payments, attendance records etc
Based on anonymous complaints and these audits, the CBI is investigating all work undertaken by Viswaat Chemicals
What Is TATB
TATB (or triamino trinitro benzene) is an explosive yellow powder
Being extremely stable, it’s called for in high-risk situations
One use of TATB is as a primer in nuclear warheads
Mixed with fuel oil or other binders, it can be used for bomb-making by terrorists When the CBI begins to investigate a premier defence research institute, the findings can be explosive. Quite literally so, in this case. Imagine the production of a restricted explosive substance being outsourced by a specialised government lab—that too to an unlicensed private firm. It’s just such a flagrant security lapse that was involved when the High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune, run by the venerable Defence Research & Development Organisation, parcelled out a production contract for the explosive triamino trinitro benzene (TATB) to Viswaat Chemicals. The storyline is by now familiar from other scams: a former director of HEMRL, Dr Haridwar Singh, is associated with Viswaat. The CBI probe began on anonymous complaints and local audits citing the conflict of interest. But especially worrisome is the security angle. One, Viswaat allegedly does not yet have a licence for producing explosives; and two, the workforce it provides does not have intelligence clearance.TATB may be a relatively lesser known one in the roster of explosive acronyms, but it packs quite a punch: it weighs in under rdx on the impact scale, but above TNT. Maj Gen G.D. Bakshi (retd), an explosives expert, says, “In the current scenario—take Monday’s terror attack in a high-security zone in Delhi—substances used to make explosives must always be guarded. If anyone manages to smuggle TATB out of the factory, it can be used for any purpose. The purpose of intelligence checks is to prevent free accessibility. Also, untrained personnel may, without knowing the implications, sell the stuff, leading to disastrous consequences.”Viswaat is said to have applied for the relevant manufacturing licence to the Union industries ministry’s chief controller of explosives, headquartered in Nagpur. (It issues licences under laws governing the manufacture, use and transport of explosives, petroleum products and flammable substances.) The non-issuance of a licence may well be attributed to procedural delay. But it’s the fact of the workforce supplied by the firm not having intelligence clearance that experts cite as a serious internal security threat. In such circumstances, uncleared employees—or anyone claiming connections to Viswaat, for that matter—could gain access to the high-security HEMRL facility.VidyaKrishnan, an SP with the Pune branch of CBI, which is in charge of the probe, confirmed the firm and the lab were being investigated but said “revealing anything beyond this wouldn’t be possible at this stage”. However, sources said Viswaat has been working with DRDO since 2000 on what are known as government-owned, company-operated (GOCO) projects, taking on assignments outsourced by the Advanced Centre for Energetic Materials (ACEM), Nasik, and the Advanced Systems Laboratory, Jagdalpur. Those close to the investigation said all contracts obtained by the firm are now under the scanner. The amount isn’t comparable, say, to the Devas–Antrix deal—it’s no more than Rs 15 crore—but the security angle, given that explosives are involved, helps it take on immense gravity.Before the CBI took on the case, local-level government auditors had in 2009-10 raised serious objections to the contracts, pointing to discrepancies in allocation of work and the bill claims made for the workforce. One report, for example, says: “Please intimate the costing formula adopted for fixing the price of TATB at Rs 11,000 per kg and whether any concurrence has been obtained from audit authorities”. They had also sought inspection of documentary proof of raw material being brought into HEMRL by the contractor for producing TATB and the roster of employees deployed for production schedules, saying there was no uniform system for maintaining attendance records. That is a security gap even accounts auditors homed in on, though they were looking at it only from the payments angle: records say Viswaat had provided less manpower in Jan-Feb 2010, but payments made to it weren’t calculated accordingly. Similarly, there were no records of the entry and exits of vehicles the contractor was supposed to provide; again, the auditors looked at it from the payments angle, but the security angle looms large.
Dr Singh put on a brave face when asked to comment. “I am aware of the CBI inquiry against Viswaat—these days an inquiry can be initiated against anyone,” he said. “But I know I’ll come out clean.” And although investigators believe he heads Viswaat, Dr Singh maintains his role is that of independent director, and hence “very limited”, which is why he doesn’t know much about the contracts obtained by the company. About the explosives licence, he says, “I think the company was not into explosives earlier, and then started working in the field, so it had to apply for one. I’m not involved with the company directly, so I wouldn’t be part of the process. They requested me after retirement to join them, so I did, as an independent director.”
As for the DRDO, its public interface director, Ravi Gupta, was circumspect: “The contract related to production of TATB was awarded after following duly laid down procedures. It won’t be appropriate to make any further comments as the matter pertains to sensitive defence projects.” That really seems to be the whole point. Should a sensitive issue like this be handled in such a fancy-free manner?
The CPIO
Under Secretary (Estt.A-IV)
R.No.202, North Block, D/o. Personnel & Training, North Block
New Delhi
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL, Sutarwadi, Pune- 411021 granted extension/re-employment as per rule laid down wide OM DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt.(B) dated the 18th May, 1977 for Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.
Extension: F.R. 56(d) states that no Government servant shall be granted extension of service beyond the age of 60 years. However, provisions exist in the rules to grant extension of service to certain category of Government servants only. Therefore, it must be ensured that no Ministry/Department should propose to grant extension in service unless the case is covered by the Rules
Please Provide me the copy of proposal of extension in respect of Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL with copy of certificate of Integrity along with the DoPT prescribed Annexure-I (Enclosed)
In the recommendation for extension of his service beyond 60 years whether any confirmation/ information regarding pendency of any criminal/ civil case against Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL is mentioned or Not.
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
No. 26012/6/2002-Estt. (A)Government of IndiaMinistry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions(Department of Personnel & Training )
New Delhi, dated 9th December, 2002
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject : Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation – issue of instructions regarding.
The undersigned is directed to say that the criteria for grant of extension/re employment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation are laid down in the DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt.(B) dated the 18th May, 1977. After May, 1998 and when the age of retirement of the Central Government employees increased from 58 to 60 years, some of the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 18th May, 1977 referred to above have lost their relevance. Accordingly, it has been decided to revise the instructions relating to extension/re-employment to Central Government employees.
2. In the absence of specific orders to the contrary by the competent authority, a Government servant must retire on the due date. The date of superannuation of a Government servant is known in advance and ordinarily there should not be a question of failure to make arrangements for his release sufficiently in advance. It is the responsibility of the administrative authority concerned to ensure that the Government servants under their control retire on the due date.
3. Extension: F.R. 56(d) states that no Government servant shall be granted extension of service beyond the age of 60 years. However, provisions exist in the rules to grant extension of service to certain category of Government servants only. Therefore, it must be ensured that no Ministry/Department should propose to grant extension in service unless the case is covered by the Rules.
4. The proposal for grant of extension in service to the categories of personnel referred to in the first, second and third proviso to F.R. 56(d) -2- shall be referred to the Estt. Division of Department of Personnel and Training two months prior to the date on which the individual concerned is due for superannuation. The procedure for grant of extension to the Scientists is laid down in DoPT d.o. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO(SM-II) dated the 10th July, 2000.
5. Procedure for consideration of cases for extension of specialists in the medical and scientific fields:- It should be appreciated that even in the case of extension to specialist in the medical or scientific fields, 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 or reemployment are likely to cause frustration and affect the morale of the upcoming scientists who have exposure to latest technological developments in connecting fields. Keeping in view these circumstances, the following criteria and procedure has been evolved with a view to ensure that 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 and in addition satisfy one of the following two conditions:-
i) that the retiring specialist is not just one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest; or
ii) that other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the job.
Test (ii) would be satisfied only if there is shortage in particular specialization, or if it is not possible to find a suitable successor or if the specialist is engaged on a work or project of vital importance, which is likely to produce results in a year or two. If specialists in the next lower post are not eligible for promotion on the ground that they have not put in the minimum service in the lower grade prescribed under the rules, no promotions can be made to the higher grade, unless such specialists put in the requisite length of service. But specialists who are eligible for promotion to the post against which extension is recommended, should not be rejected solely on the ground that they do not have as much experience as the retiring specialist. They should be considered for promotion according to the -3- recruitment rules and if they are found suitable they should be promoted to the posts being vacated by the retiring specialists.
6. Whenever any specialist is considered for grant of extension, his character roll and personal file should be carefully scrutinized and all other relevant information that may be available should be taken into account to judge whether the specialist had good reputation for integrity and honesty. In cases where the specialist is not considered to have good reputation for integrity and honesty, he should not be considered for grant of extension in service. The appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry should furnish a certificate of Integrity along with the Annexure-I as follows where it proposes to grant extension of service.
“Having scrutinized in character roll and personal file of
Shri/Smt./Kum._____________________ and having taken into account all other relevant available information, I certify that he/she has a good reputation for integrity and honesty.”
7. 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.
8. No extension of service should be considered on the ground that a suitable successor is not available unless it is established that action to select a successor had been taken well in advance but the selection could not be finalized in time for justifiable reasons. A proposal for the grant of extension of service based merely on the consideration that the specialist’s predecessor had been given extension should obviously not be accepted. -4-
9. Re-employment: No proposal for employing a government servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years shall be considered. It is also clarified that no person can be appointed/ reappointed to Central Government service after the age of superannuation of 60 years through contract.
10. Re-employment of military pensioners who have not reached the age of superannuation for Central Government employees will not be governed by these instructions.
11. Appointment of Consultant:-
Detailed instructions have been issued for appointment of consultant vide DoP&T’s Office Memorandum No. 16012/7/97-Estt.(Allowance) dated 13th February, 1998. Hindi version will follow.
Sd/-
Mrs. Pratibha Mohan
Director (E-II)
To
All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.
(As per standard list)
Annexure-I
Performa for sending proposals for approval of Department of Personnel & Training for grant of extension to Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.
1. Designation of the post
2. Duration of the post :
3. Scale and terms of the post and perquisite attached, if any:
4. Whether financial sanction for the creation of the post/continuance of post for the duration shown at (2) has been obtained:
5. Method of recruitment:
6. Name and the terminal date of appointment of the outgoing incumbent of the post:
7. Name of the specialist proposed for appointment and the service to which he belongs:
8. Full service particulars of the Officer with date of birth and pay drawn:
9. Names of other Officers considered:
10.If promotion post, whether copies of proceedings of a D.P.C. are being enclosed? If not, why not?
11. Whether character roll of the specialist proposed and those considered are being sent. If not, why not?
12. Please indicate:
(i) (a) Whether the post is scientific or medical specialist.
(b) Periods of extension granted earlier to the officer, if any
(c) Date from which extension is to be granted.
(d) Period of extension of service.
(ii) Justification for grant of extension:
(a) The date from which it was known that vacancy would occur.
(b) Action taken to select a successor with chronological details.
(c) If selection is being made, reasons why this could not be finalized in good time.
(d) Can some officiating or ad-hoc arrangements be made, pending fresh appointment by proper selection? If not, why not?
(iii) Whether orders of the Minister-in charge have been obtained?
13. Whether the prescribed Integrity Certificate, from the appropriate authority, is enclosed.
DOPT covering letterintegrity ceritificate - see the date?Dr Arun Kupar's play 1Dr Arun Kumar's play 2Dr Arun Kumar's play 3Dr Arun Kumar's paly 4
Please refer the subject decision of CIC 29 Jun 2011 received in this office on dated 03 Aug 2011
The information, as directed by CIC, is as under:
(1) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000381
(a) The amount spent on Long Term Post Graduation Training Programme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 6,38,33,535/-
(b) The amount spent on PhD Programme under RT Scheme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 3,38,143/-
(2) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000384
The total amount spent during 2008, 2009 and 2010 on the following Awards:
(a) Agni Award for excellence in self reliance – ‘ 75 Lakhs
(b) DRDO Award for Performance Excellence.- 60 Lakhs
(c) Scientist of the year Award — 60 Lakhs
(3) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000385
(a) Numbers of papers published by the Scientist of DRDO during last five years:
Journal of Applied Physics — Nil
Electronics Letters – Nil
(4) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000386
(a) Visits of Dr. Prahlada on official duty during 2009 & 2010. Number of visits to Hyderabad – 22
Total amount of TA/DA drawn – 4,11,900/-
(c) Visits made by Shri R C Aggarwal on official duty during 2007 to 2010. Number of visits — 26
Total amount of TA/DA drawn — 18, 23, 672/-
(5) File No. CICILSIAI2O11/000387
Number of sanctioned strength of substantive Joint Directors and Deputy Directors in DRDO.
(a) Joint Directors — 04
(b) Deputy Directors — 20
(6) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000412
Para wise reply pertaining to years 2009 and 2010 is as under:
(a) Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest House at Delhi —105
(b) DRDO officials availing DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station — 17
(c) Sh. S Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 10 Jul 2009 to 10 Sep 2010.
(d) Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 26 Mar 2010 to 20 Mar 2011.
(7) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000413
No Gazette Notification of D0PT is available.
(Dr. A K Tyagi)Scientist ‘F’CPIO, DRDO HQ
Copy to:
Central Information Commissioner – With refer to your 10 decision dated
Room No. 308, B —Wing 29 Jun 2011 in respect of Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
August Kranti Bhawan, Bikaji Kama Place
New Delhi – 1 10 066
Real Facts:
1. File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000381
What I have asked in my RTI
Total amount invested on long term post graduation training program and PhD program under R & T scheme, and under Post Graduate Training (PGT) scheme of DRDO during period forApril 1990 – March 2010 under following heads
i) Adhoc advances
ii) Study leave salary
iii) Reimbursement of expenditure on account of stationary items, preparation of thesis, purchase of books and journals etc.
iv) Non refundable fee
v) TA
vi) DA
vii) Financial incentive on acquiring higher qualification at their own
2. Total number of official Grade wise/Post wise/ Categories wise received MS/ME/MTech, PhD degree during period April 1990 – March 2010
i) Full time
ii) Part Time
iii) External Registration
3. The Institution from where degree of MTech/ PhD was awarded from April 1990 – March 2010
4. Total amount invested on short term training/ workshops/seminars/courses in India (Including DIAT/ITM/IIM’s/ IIT’s, NIT’s, ESCI, ASCI, IISc’s etc.) and abroad, during period from April 1990 – March 2010
i) Training/ Courses/Delegations Fee/Registration Fee
ii) TA
iii) DA
5. Total number of Scientist resigned from April 1990 – March 2010
6. Total number of scientist joined DRDO from April 1990 – March 2010
Why I asked this Information –
DRDO sends annually many officers for higher studies particulars to IIT’s and national Universities. The admission which granted normally after tough competitions are available to DRDO’s sponsored candidates was easily.
Aim of such higher studies is to use the academic platform to solve the complicate technical issues. DRDO in turn give the IIT’s or Universities sufficient grants against project and R&T schemes.
No one gets benefited neither the institutions nor the DRDO, it is because the most of the individuals after getting higher education working as admin, allied works, and the reaction of this most of them leave the organization. For example Dr.DP Singh, Estate Manager, Scientist ‘F’ did his post graduation and PhDs from DRDO sponsoring and performing duty of admin purely non scientific assignment. Sh A.K Musla, Sc ‘F, holding post Joint Director Admin in IRDE, Dehradun, he also did his B.Tech and M.Tech from DRDO sponsored funds and working as purely in admin. I am quoting only two names as tip of the iceberg, because in DRDO you will find 100 of such cases. DRDO is shear wasting the corers and corers rupees public funds in the name of higher education programs. Although, the aim and object of the higher education program is really good, but in hands of bad corrupt officials, the output is wasting by DRDO.
According to the ministry, a total of 1,107 scientists, mostly young entrants, have resigned from the DRDO between 2003 and 2007, implying that on an average one person leaves every two days.
What I have received
(a) The amount spent on Long Term Post Graduation Training Programme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 6,38,33,535/-
(b) The amount spent on PhD Programme under RT Scheme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 3,38,143/-
(2) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000384
What I have asked in my RTI
The DRDO Awards Scheme, in its present form, was introduced in the year 1999 to motivate DRDO scientists, engineers and partners in industries and academic institutions in contributing for the cause of national security and self-reliance. The present Award Scheme, instituted by the Government of India, are therefore, meant to encourage DRDO scientists and our partners in the Private Sector Undertakings (PSUs), the private firms as well as the academic institutions in performing even better towards accelerating the pace of development of critical technologies, transfer of technologies from laboratories to industries as well as productionisation of the state-of-the-art defence systems
The Scheme consists of a total of 17 awards, out of which, 4 awards are given by the Directors of the concerned laboratories/establishments in recognition of outstanding contributions of their scientists and other supporting staff consisting of technical, administrative and allied cadres. The remaining 13 awards are decided at the DRDO HQrs for which nominations are called every year from all laboratories/establishments. The nominations are initially short listed by the Screening Committee under the chairmanship of the Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC). The short listed nominations are, thereafter, examined by the Apex Committee for finalisation of the awards which also consists of two outside experts. These awards are normally given away by the Prime Minister of India on the “Technology Day” which falls on 11th May of every year.
In this connection it is requested to provide the following detail information
Total amount of investment made on DRDO awards year wise from 1st April 1999 to till date 2010
i) Total amount invested in arranging Award ceremony
ii) TA/DA on recipient of the awardees and spouse
iii) All categories of all cash award by all Laboratories/Establishments and DRDO Hqrs. during period of April 1999 to till date. In following format
Why I asked this Information –
The awards given by Government of India like Padma Award, Shanti Swaroop Bhatnager Award etc all these awards are given with an aim to encourage/motivate/ recognize the contribution of individual recipients and therefore it carries a citation.
DRDO constituted its awards like Scientist of the year, Young Scientist awards, Technology Leadership Award etc. with the aim to inculcate a culture of hard work, dedication, scientific achievements, and technology breakthrough leading to the technology development for national security.
But the award given in DRDO, the mode of selection, the encouragement to the scientific team does not rely on the standards.
Different rules for different occasion or different rules for different officer, the motto of DRDO or the definition of DRDO is suitably implemented..
The public would like to know the manner DRDO spending nearly 2 crores of rupees annually to these awards, the recipients does not know that he has been chosen for this award, there is no scientific presentation of technology. The recipients, are even unable to operate any scientific instruments like network analyzer, spectrum analyzer etc because most of awardees scientist or technical personals are working as Director Management Services, Head Material Managements, Security Officer, Library In-charge, Works In-charge and other suitable position from where they can feed their Akas(Boss).
If any one look in to the list of award recipients and analyses year wise, he will be find the most of citation actually not even justify the work or relation between award and awardees.
There is N number of examples available in various labs where most of awards were not justified; it is purely depending upon the Director’s choice. So nut shell DRDO awards are like ”Andha banten revari apne apne ko de” it is nothing doing with their contribution whether the awardees is related to technology or not. How come a person sitting in security, MT will entitled to get technology award, when DRDO having other awards for non technical working area.
It is really big question in front of country people?
Like in Kargil, one officer got gallantry award and later it was found that the fake encounter was staged for award. (Famous ketchup Colonel Case)
Same tactics is adopted by DRDO they are distributing awards to their own boys with fake technology propaganda.
Since money belongs to poor tax payers, when Padama award citation are available to citizen of India then how can DRDO deny give details in the name of schedule –II exemption.
One award Defence Technology Absorption Awardis using by DRDO for giving color to their pet firms. Anyone can judge from the recipients list that these firms are really worth does these firms have any significant signature in field of respective industry like M/s Resins & AlliedProducts, Vijayawada. received this award from Honorable Prime Minister Sh Man Mohan Singh is related to Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC R&D, Director, HEMRL)
What I have received
The total amount spent during 2008, 2009 and 2010 on the following Awards:
(a) Agni Award for excellence in self reliance – ‘ 75 Lakhs
(b) DRDO Award for Performance Excellence.- 60 Lakhs
(c) Scientist of the year Award — 60 Lakhs
(3) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000385
What I have asked in my RTI
How many technical paper were published by DRDO Scientists in International Journals like Journal of Applied Physics, IEEE Transactions, Proceedings IEEE, Transactions IEE, Electronics Letter, SPICE etc. from 1990 to March 2010?
How many authors were awarded by DRDO for their contribution and keeping the flag of DRDO high
How many such authors were assigned the administrative task to lead the DRDO Labs as Director and then CC R&D?
How many such authors were left the DRDO during April 1990 to March 2010 period?
Why I asked this Information –
Almost 400 Corers of rupees are distributing through these boards and different DRDO projects to IIT’s, Universities’ and Colleges and even some NGO’s, in the name of expanding and deepening the knowledge-base, Enhancing core competence in the field of knowledge, To encourage and provide funds for basic research in pertinent scientific disciplines etc.
The most of funds distributed till date to maximum private universities and private institutions and especially in last ten years out of total grants has gone to southern states. DRDO in its charter of duty has specifically mentioned Kashmir to Kanyakumari and Gujarat to North East the equal opportunity will given to universities/institutions.
The DRDO is giving funding for various R&T projects with IIT’s, IIsc’s and various premier scientific institutions. In return DRDO sends annually many officers for higher studies particulars to IIT’s and national Universities.
The number of international papers can justify the real out of projects working with IIT, IIsc and other various institutions.
I am surprised that DRDO is deny for giving information related to paper publish in international journals, where is schedule-ii exemption is comes in between.
Information sought is already publish in journals, so why DRDO afraid to give information. It shows that DRDO is not respect for RTI Act 2005.
International publications are basically the most valuable achievement of any scientific institute /organization and it always proudly mentioned by each and every institute /organization.
What I have received
(a) Numbers of papers published by the Scientist of DRDO during last five years:
After taking his charge as CC R&D at DRDO Hqrs, how many days he stayed in DRDO Hqrs up to 31st March 2010
How many temporary duties to Hyderabad he had been with total stay at Hyderabad.
How much in total TA/DA he has drawn year wise from his joining as CC R&D at DRDO up to 31st March 2010.
With Reference to Shri RC Agarwal, Director DEAL, Dehradun
After taking his charge as Director DEAL, Dehradun , how many days he stayed in Dehradun up to 31st March 2010
How many temporary duties to Bangalore he had been with total stay at Bangalore
How much in total TA/DA he has drawn year wise from his joining as Director, DEAL up to 31st March 2010.
Why I asked this Information
The information sought for is not related to end senior officer in his individual/personal capacity but in his capacity being a public authority.
Too frequent visit to a particular destination on Government expenses require to justify and as to how much it was beneficial to the organization and how much to the officer especially when he belongs to that particular destination. It appears that the permanent residence is his Hqrs and place of posting is a temporary duty station. The frequent move availability of the officer in the Hqrs. station may lead to problem of command and control and discipline, which may hamper the progress and led to undue delay and time and cost overrun to ongoing projects of DRDO.
In this particular case I requested the TD details of Dr. Prahlada, Appellate Authority, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, who is staying C-7 Qutab Enclave, DRDO guest house since his posting to DRDO Hqrs, for him most of time he took his breakfast in his Hyderabad residence and lunch in DRDO Hqrs and evening for dinner he was again back to his Hyderabad residence. Please see his TD detail and then decide.
Second one is Shri RC Aggarwal, Director DEAL, Dehradun, since his posting he use to out from DEAL, Dehradun almost more than 250 days out of 365 days. How can the armed forces expect trustworthy products from these so called senior scientists?
There more 9-10 CC R&D and Directors who are belongs to Hyderabad and Bangalore and their families are staying Hyderabad and Bangalore respectively and they all are staying in DRDO guest houses they are giving their residence address in telephone directory at DRDO guest houses and enjoying HRA also. They are frequent fliers, they all are already break the Milkha Singh ‘s (Flying Sikh of India) records and relishing without fear with TD with poor tax payers money.
What I have received
(a) Visits of Dr. Prahlada on official duty during 2009 & 2010. Number of visits to Hyderabad – 22
(b) Total amount of TA/DA drawn – 4,11,900/-
(c) Visits made by Shri R C Aggarwal on official duty during 2007 to 2010. Number of visits — 26
The Sunday guardian exposed DRDO’s Pune labs corrupt activities today morning and also Indian Express Pune on July 24, 2011.
HEMRL to save Dr. Hardwar Singh’s company M/S Viswaat Chemicals start doing all efforts to hide all the corrupt acts for favoring the M/S Viswaat Chemicals.
Today morning HEMRL security withdraws all bio-metric cards issued to GOGO (M/S Viswaat Chemicals) work force.
Col Mathur, Security Officer issued simple without monogram (HEMRL) cards to GOGO (M/S Viswaat Chemicals) work force.
A register put for in/out for signature of GOGO (M/S Viswaat Chemicals) work force.
The two-wheeler entry for GOGO (M/S Viswaat Chemicals) work force was stopped.
Now the numbers of GOGO (M/S Viswaat Chemicals) work force was tallied with contract order.
This exercise today takes time to issue the new cards so GOGO (M/S Viswaat Chemicals) work force reached their respective job site nearly 1100 hrs to 1130 hrs
The GOGO (M/S Viswaat Chemicals) work force is now asking the refund of Rs 500 which HEMRL deposited for issuing bio-metric cards.
Hope S A to R M will see these inputs and will ask do this to all other sites like ASL, ACEM, SF Complex and other sites where Dr Hardwar Singh is running his empire, because SA cannot dare to touch the Singh.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONRoom No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Information Asked Regarding DRDO annual in Which DRDO distributing Rs 2 Corers
Annually and for managing ceremony DRDO spending a huge amount.
Why I asked this Information – The awards given by Government of India like Padma Award, Shanti Swaroop Bhatnager Award etc all these awards are given with an aim to encourage/motivate/ recognize the contribution of individual recipients and therefore it carries a citation.
DRDO constituted its awards like Scientist of the year, Young Scientist awards, Technology Leadership Award etc. with the aim to inculcate a culture of hard work, dedication, scientific achievements, and technology breakthrough leading to the technology development for national security.
But the award given in DRDO, the mode of selection, the encouragement to the scientific team does not rely on the standards.
Different rules for different occasion or different rules for different officer, the motto of DRDO or the definition of DRDO is suitably implemented..
The public would like to know the manner DRDO spending nearly 2 crores of rupees annually to these awards, the recipients does not know that he has been chosen for this award, there is no scientific presentation of technology. The recipients, are even unable to operate any scientific instruments like network analyzer, spectrum analyzer etc because most of awardees scientist or technical personals are working as Director Management Services, Head Material Managements, Security Officer, Library In-charge, Works In-charge and other suitable position from where they can feed their Akas(Boss).
If any one look in to the list of award recipients and analyses year wise, he will be find the most of citation actually not even justify the work or relation between award and awardees.
There is N number of examples available in various labs where most of awards were not justified; it is purely depending upon the Director’s choice. So nut shell DRDO awards are like ”Andha banten revari apne apne ko de” it is nothing doing with their contribution whether the awardees is related to technology or not. How come a person sitting in security, MT will entitled to get technology award, when DRDO having other awards for non technical working area.
It is really big question in front of country people?
Like in Kargil, one officer got gallantry award and later it was found that the fake encounter was staged for award. (Famous ketchup Colonel Case)
Same tactics is adopted by DRDO they are distributing awards to their own boys with fake technology propaganda.
Since money belongs to poor tax payers, when Padama award citation are available to citizen of India then how can DRDO deny give details in the name of schedule –II exemption.
One award Defence Technology Absorption Awardis using by DRDO for giving color to their pet firms. Anyone can judge from the recipients list that these firms are really worth does these firms have any significant signature in field of respective industry like M/s Resins & AlliedProducts, Vijayawada. received this award from Honorable Prime Minister Sh Man Mohan Singh is related to Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC R&D, Director, HEMRL)
APPELLANT – Shri Prabhu Dayal DandriyalPUBLIC AUTHORITY – DRDO.
DATE OF HEARING – 29.06.2011
DATE OF DECISION – 29.06.2011
Facts:-
Heard today dated 29.06.2011. The appellant is present. DRDO is represented by Dr. A.K. Tyagi, Scientist ‘F’ and Dr. Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’. These appeals are being disposed of through a common order. The parties are heard. The order passed in each case is as follows:
The RTI Request –
To Date 30th May 2010 The CPIO & Addl Director, DRDO HQ Room No. 314A DRDO Bhawan , Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110 105
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The DRDO Awards Scheme, in its present form, was introduced in the year 1999 to motivate DRDO scientists, engineers and partners in industries and academic institutions in contributing for the cause of national security and self-reliance. The present Award Scheme, instituted by the Government of India, are therefore, meant to encourage DRDO scientists and our partners in the Private Sector Undertakings (PSUs), the private firms as well as the academic institutions in performing even better towards accelerating the pace of development of critical technologies, transfer of technologies from laboratories to industries as well as productionisation of the state-of-the-art defence systems.
The Scheme consists of a total of 17 awards, out of which, 4 awards are given by the Directors of the concerned laboratories/establishments in recognition of outstanding contributions of their scientists and other supporting staff consisting of technical, administrative and allied cadres. The remaining 13 awards are decided at the DRDO HQrs for which nominations are called every year from all laboratories/establishments. The nominations are initially short listed by the Screening Committee under the chairmanship of the Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC). The short listed nominations are, thereafter, examined by the Apex Committee for finalisation of the awards which also consists of two outside experts. These awards are normally given away by the Prime Minister of India on the “Technology Day” which falls on 11th May of every year.
In this connection it is requested to provide the following detail information
Total amount of investment made on DRDO awards year wise from 1st April 1999 to till date 2010
i) Total amount invested in arranging Award ceremony ii) TA/DA on recipient of the awardees and spouse iii) All categories of all cash award by all Laboratories/Establishments and DRDO Hqrs. during period of April 1999 to till date. In following format
Year 1999-2000
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule-II
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.
