Tag Archives: High Court

Drdo

Fight Against Corruption Lobby of DRDO

1 Comment

The appointment of the Director General (DG) of BrahMos became the subject of a prolonged legal dispute after concerns were raised regarding the selection process.

Sivan Subramanyam, the senior-most Distinguished Scientist (DS) in DRDO, challenged the appointment before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), contending that the prescribed selection procedure had not been followed. After examining the matter, the CAT directed the DRDO Secretary to revisit the appointment process and conduct a fresh selection in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures.

Instead of implementing the Tribunal’s directions, the DRDO Secretary challenged the CAT order before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. After extensive hearings, the final arguments were concluded on 8 July, and the matter now awaits judgment.

Throughout this legal battle, one individual stood firmly for the cause of justice—Advocate Shri Srinivas Chamarthy. Despite the complexity and significance of the case, he rendered his legal services without accepting a single penny in professional fees. His commitment to the rule of law, fairness, and institutional integrity reflects exceptional dedication and selfless service.

This case is not merely about one appointment; it concerns adherence to established procedures, transparency in public institutions, and the principle that every public authority must remain accountable to the rule of law.

Drdo

Will be ever improve ?

6 Comments
To – prabhudoon@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:09 PM

Sir,

I am herewith sending you the letter addressed to Sri Narendra Modi, PM

as on date, no action was taken.

Regards

K.Surya Kumari.

Visakhapatnam,

D/21-9-16

From

Smt. K.Surya Kumari (Retd.),

R/o H.No.13-24, LN Nagar,

Sujatha Nagar Post,

Visakhapatnam – 530051 (AP)

To

Dr. Narendra Modi,

Prime Minister of India,

7, Race Course Road,

New Delhi – 110001

Sir,

Sub: Non-issuance of Pension

Ref: 1) Cabinet Committee report on Sexual Harassment constituted

Vide Cabinet Secretariat order No.501/IV/3/2012-VCC dt.5-8-13.

2) CAT, Hyderabad orders on OA Nos.309 and 310 / 2010

3) High Court, AP order on WPMP No.36603 in WP

No.29554 / 2011

4) DRDO Hq. Letter dt.14-9-2012 on non-posting anywhere else.

5) Cabinet Secretariat Memo dt.9-12-2015 to S.Christopher,

Secretary, DG DRDO.

6) On line grievance No.DDRDO/E/2016/00111 dt.20-7-16.

I have served in NSTL, DRDO for 35 years 10 months and retired on 29th Feb. 2016 as Technical Officer-B (Class-I Gazetted).  I gave complaint against Sri SV Rangarajan on sexual harassment dt.18-12-2007.  Without any proper enquiry, DRDO  served me 3 charge sheets and suspended me for 33 months period.

Vide 2nd reference CAT stated that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, making allegations against several officers by petitioner also cannot be a ground for extension of suspension.  DRDO revoked my suspension on 7th Oct. 2011 and transferred me to NPOL, Kochi on the same day.  Vide 3rd reference, on 29th Aug. 2012, High Court suspended the transfer order stating that they are prima facie of the opinion that in effect it is an act of victimization and amounts to punishment.

Vide 4th reference, DRDO stated that my joining at NSTL cannot be permitted as the Department has filed a vacate petition at AP High Court.  High Court has dismissed the Vacate petition filed on transfer order suspension on 4th Feb. 2013.   From 1st Nov. 2011 to 3rd March 2013 i.e., my transfer period and joining not permitted period were not regularized till date.

….2.

-: 2 :-

Vide 1st reference the Committee stated that hostile environment creation by Sri SV Rangarajan (Page No.11), DRDO is lack of sensitiveness, lack of attention to the application of rules and procedures (Page No.12), attitude and action of DRDO administration which has shown a casual and insensitive approach in dealing with the case (Page 13), DRDO and NSTL created a hostile environment in which the petitioner found it difficult to function (Page No.13) which conforms that NSTL and DRDO officials have harassed me in several aspects.  No action was taken by Cabinet / Ministry on the findings of the Report.

Suspension period was regularized after my retirement (i.e, after 4 years) with imposing a penalty (though the matter is pending at High Court).  Transfer period and non-posting period was not regularized so far and my pension and retirement benefits were not settled (even after 7 months of retirement) by which I am facing hardship, mental egony.

The PGPORTAL online grievance as referred 6 above also disposed off as per false and baseless information provided by Dr. Hina Gokhale, DOP, DRDO without proper investigation.

Now the organization processed the partial pension without 2 increments (2013 and 2014) for transfer period which is even less than the provision pension as per PGDA phone inquiry.  Therefore, it is requested to instruct the concerned to take immediate action on the 1st reference report, Court cases, and release of proper pension and settlement of retirement benefits as early as possible (Gratuity, Commutation and Earned leave encashment).

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

(K.SURYA KUMARI)

 

Copy to

1) Dr.S.Christopher, DG (DRDO), DRDO Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.

2) Hina Gokhale, DOP, DRDO Bhavan, New Delhi-110011

3) Director, NSTL, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-530027

Drdo

Intimation about deliberate illegal acts and omissions done in DRDO

1 Comment

To                                                                                                               12th April 2015                 Hon’ble Shri Manohar Parrikar,                                                                                                   Defence Minister,Room No -104,                                                                                                   South Block,New Delhi-110011

Subject: Intimation about deliberate illegal acts and omissions done in DRDO.

Sir,                                                                                                                                                     Please find following informations about the intentional unlawful acts and omissions made in DRDO, MOD

  1. Shri Krishan Kumar and Shri J B Singh retired joint Directors of AFHQ Cadre of the o/o JS (T) & CAO, MOD have been appointed as consultants in the ADA, Bangalore (an autonomous body under the administrative control of DRDO, MOD.) soon after their retirement on superannuation for the regular official work of ADA Bangalore and they have been illegally posted in the very sensitive establishment of DRDO i.e. RAC, Delhi. these two (02) consultants are used illegally to attend the court cases at CAT Delhi & High Court of Delhi filed by regular employees of the DRDO like court case of retired Scientist ’G’ Shri Virender Kumar of DEAL Dehradun. These consultants even illegally screen the applications of direct recruitments of scientist in DRDO & in such screening no meticulous screening is carried out by these consultants resulting selection of ineligible & relatives of senior scientist of DRDO as a quid –pro-que. Moreover there is imminent danger of favoritism and leakage of confidential and sensitive documents/information of RAC Delhi.
  2. Shri S T Rajan & Shri R Natrajan retired joint Directors of AFHQ Cadre of the o/o JS (T) & CAO, MOD have been appointed as consultants in the program office of DRDO HQ New Delhi in the missiles program for carrying out routine works for which already their relievers in the form of regular employees have been posted in DRDO HQ. these retired GOVT. servants are also appointed against the vacancies of ADA Bangalore and posted in DRDO HQ New Delhi. they don’t belong to scientific or technical cadre. There is imminent danger of the leakage of the sensitive informations at their level.
  3. Shri V K Shrama retired joint Directors of AFHQ Cadre of the o/o JS (T) & CAO, MOD has been appointed as consultants in the o/o DOP, DRDO HQ New Delhi with the approval of the then defence minister of GOI by misrepresentation & distortion of the material facts particularly with regard to the actual need of hiring him as consultant. His services have been utilized for the assignments  for which he has not been appointed. There is imminent danger of leakage of the sensitive information.
  4. Dr. A K Singh, present DOP of DRDO HQ New Delhi has played an active role in illegal extension of the periods of consultancy and in new engagements of consultancies of the retired GOVT. servants which he carried out with deliberate misrepresentation and distortion of the material facts submitted to the various senior authorities of DRDO, MOD & to the defence minister.
  5. Shri A K Singh present DOP of DRDO HQ New Delhi did not take any initiative to suspend Shri G Malakondiah, the then CC R&D (HR of DRDO HQ) for his conviction in a contempt of court case of the high court of the judicature of Chennai on 24-sept-2014 although this conviction news came in almost all the important daily newspapers including Hindusthan times New Delhi edition. No convicted person can be retained in GOVT. service even for a single day if the news of his conviction comes to the notice of the concerned public authority through formal or informal channel. The stay granted to Shri Malakondiah on 26-09-2014 by the apex court was restricted to the implementation of the imprisonment and not his conviction. The convicted person was deliberately allowed an opportunity to influence the witnesses and to tamper, mend, amend, destroy, replace & concealment of the concerned documents against the public interest due to lake of devotion to duty and possession of doubtful integrity of the concerned officials of the DRDO HQ New Delhi.
  6. the number of retired officials of DRDO, AFHQ Cadre appointed as consultants, directly violating the rules of consultancy, for the regular work of DRDO has reached to the alarming point where regular employees are considering illegal interference of the consultants in their regular sphere of duties and are also feeling frustrated and de-motivated which is playing havoc on the output of the DRDO as an organization.

I hope that some appropriate concrete action would be taken against the concerned guilty officers of DRDO & all Deviations and distortions would be set right in the national interest.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,Dehradun – 248008                                                                               Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,                                                                                 e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

Bloger

Ex-Delhi University Vice Chancellor Deepak Pental Sent to Tihar Jail on Plagiarism Complaint

4 Comments

All India | Edited by Deepshikha Ghosh | Updated: November 25, 2014 -NDTV

Deepak Pentel, Ex VC DU
Deepal Pentel, Ex VC DU

NEW DELHI: Former Delhi University vice chancellor Deepal Pental was today arrested and sent to Tihar jail on a fellow professor’s complaint. He will, however, be released soon as the High Court has stayed his arrest warrant.

A Delhi court ordered Professor Pental’s arrest on a petition by Professor P Parthasarthy, who had accused him of plagiarising his paper on biotechnology and also illegally using cobalt, a chemical substance, from the university’s science lab.

Professor Pental was arrested for the “unauthorized use of a hazardous material,” which is a non-bailable offence and carries a maximum sentence of life in jail.

Mr Pental, 63, a professor of genetics and a noted researcher, was the vice chancellor of Delhi University in 2005-2010. He is described as an expert in the field of transgenics and has reportedly published more than 60 research papers. He has also received many awards, including one from France.

Drdo

Former DRDO chief sentenced to 3 weeks in jail

2 Comments

PTI Chennai, September 26, 2014 Hindustan Times

Former DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat and another senior scientist were on Thursday sentenced to three weeks simple imprisonment by Madras High Court for committing contempt of court by disobeying its April 2009 order related to re-employment of a clerk in a school run by a wing of the organisation.

Taking a serious view of the non-implementation of its order, a division bench comprising Justice S Rajeswaran and Justice P N Prakash awarded three weeks simple imprisonment to Saraswat and Director of Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Dr G Malakondaiah and directed them to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 each personally.

The court was allowing a contempt of court petition by S Joseph Raj, who was an employee of the school run by Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE) at suburban Avadi here. The bench directed the Government to take appropriate departmental action against them for the “reckless, negligence and willful disobedience of the order of the Court”.

The court held Saraswat, a Padmabhushan awardee and former Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister and Director General of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), guilty of Civil Contempt under the contempt of courts Act, 1971. When CVRDE closed the school, he and other employees approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging it.

Even after several rounds of litigations before CAT and the High Court and Supreme Court, he was made to suffer, it noted. On April 30, 2009, the High Court directed the two officials to appoint Joseph Jaj as Senior Technical Assistant (Library Science) within a period of two months.

However, the officials on April 13, 2012, passed an order stating that Joseph Raj was not eligible to be considered as Senior Technical Assitant (Library Science) and that he was not a government servant, prompting him to file the present contempt petition.

“We find the above officers were doing everything within their powers to deny a just benefit to Joseph Raj. We are aware that the officers are occupying very high position in the government, but ensconced in a pedestal, their vision became blurred when it came to the travails of an ordinary employee who was suddenly thrown out of employment, for no fault of his,” the judges said.

It said that even during the contempt proceedings, there was no tinge of remorse or an attempt to correct the mistake by the two officials. “Therefore, we propose to impose punishment of sentence of imprisonment on the above officials for their willful disobedience of this court order,” it held.

The court also warned the above officials that it was not an end of the matter and directed them to comply with the order forthwith in the matter of appointment.

Drdo

Former DRDO chief sentenced to 3 weeks imprisonment in contempt case

Leave a comment

India Today.in New Delhi, September 25, 2014

Former DRDO chief V K Saraswat and another senior scientist were on Thursday sentenced to three weeks simple imprisonment by Madras High Court for contempt of court. They had disobeyed its April 2009 order related to re-employment of a clerk in a school run by a wing of the organisation.

Taking a serious view of the non-implementation of its order, a division bench comprising Justice S Rajeswaran and Justice P N Prakash awarded three weeks simple imprisonment to Saraswat and Director of Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, G Malakondaiah and directed them to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 each personally, PTI reported.

The court was allowing a contempt of court petition by S Joseph Raj, who was an employee of the school run by Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE) at suburban Avadi here.

The bench directed the Government to take appropriate departmental action against them for the “reckless, negligence and willful disobedience of the order of the Court”.

The court held Saraswat, a Padmabhushan awardee and former Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister and Director General of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), guilty of Civil Contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

When CVRDE closed the school, he and other employees approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging it.

Even after several rounds of litigations before CAT and the High Court and Supreme Court, he was made to suffer, it noted.

On April 30, 2009, the High Court directed the two officials to appoint Joseph Jaj as Senior Technical Assistant (Library Science) within a period of two months.

However, the officials on April 13, 2012, passed an order stating that Joseph Raj was not eligible to be considered as Senior Technical Assistant (Library Science) and that he was not a government servant, prompting him to file the present contempt petition.

“We find the above officers were doing everything within their powers to deny a just benefit to Joseph Raj. We are aware that the officers are occupying very high position in the government, but ensconced in a pedestal, their vision became blurred when it came to the travails of an ordinary employee who was suddenly thrown out of employment, for no fault of his,” the judges said.

It said that even during the contempt proceedings, there was no tinge of remorse or an attempt to correct the mistake by the two officials.

“Therefore, we propose to impose punishment of sentence of imprisonment on the above officials for their willful disobedience of this court order,” it held.

The court also warned the above officials that it was not an end of the matter and directed them to comply with the order forthwith in the matter of appointment.

 

Drdo

Sharply increasing the number of Court Cases in DRDO

6 Comments
To                                                                                                       1st September 2014
Sh Arun Jaietly Ji,
Defence Minister,
Room No 104, South Block,
New Delhi – 110011

Subject:  Sharply increasing the number of Court Cases in DRDO

Sir,

The DRDO top officials are not bothering the increasing numbers of court cases. It is not linear increase but it is in multifold, from CAT to High Court followed to Supreme Court.

As a learned lawyer you can very well understand the clients mental status when someone involve in court. Scientists or technical official who are engaged in court business than expectation of product output from them is futile.

If you ask your scientific adviser the figure of court cases and court expenses of last five years along with solicitor general’s advices or legal cell advices in which they deny for further move but the ego of DRDO’s top brass are very high.

Sir, you have check the payments to lawyers some time DRDO using project funds illegally and the scientists are also involved to attend court cases in the name of technical discussion in nearby DRDO or other establishment.

In RTI, DRDO will not provide the number of cases running in various courts across the country but certainly you will able to get data of cases and number of scientist and technical officials are involved. Number is alarming i.e. in thousand.

For example one simple case of tenure transfer of scientist is enclosed. In which you can understand the level of ego of senior DRDO officials compel to scientist go to the court and waste his hard earn money and suffer unnecessary. Dr. Vijay Veer, Director, DRL, Tezpur’s ego and his incompetency resulted to this CAT case.

As our Prime Minster said in his 15th August speech that he observed that in ministries department running as their own jagir and this clear cut accurately fit with DRDO working.

With great hope that you will certainly look into the matter and asked to correct this court business in DRDO.

Regards
 
Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter
Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter

Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter
Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter

Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter
Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter

Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter
Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter

Dr. A K Singh’s not able to handle DOP matter this is another failure in his part

Drdo

INTENT FOR CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT UNDER SECTION 13(1)(d) of PC ACT 1988 in PROCUREMENT OF FUME HOOD AT DMSRDE KANPUR BY DIRECTOR, DMSRDE, KANPUR

Leave a comment
To
Dr D C Pande,
Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist
For DS up gradation list 2014 seniority no 10
Chairman 2nd Fact finding Committee constituted for DMSRDE corruption
LRDE, DRDO, Bangalore   

Subject – Intent for corruption & criminal misconduct u/s 13(1)(d)of PC Act 1988 by Director, DMSRDE

Reference – Complaint to CVC – DMSRDE FUME HOOD PROCUREMENT CASE dated 22 January 2014 on the subject “Corruption in procurement of Fume Hoods in DMSRDE Kanpur officers involved in procurement”.

Sir,

For your kind attention on the complaint under reference on the subject cited above. In this procurement case Scientists of DMSRDE, DRDO were involved.

DGR&D, DRDO is trying to protect the corrupt Scientists of DMSRDE who involved in Corruption by means of illegal FFIC. In this series he constituted two FFIC which made investigation on 13-14 March 2014 and 9-10 July 2014. First FFIC gave clean chit to Dr. AK Saxena and beyond their constitutional rights recommended two scientists transfers as penalty. This is the example case in government department where fact finding committee chairman acts as judge or DRDO Hqrs’s top management used him for unconstitutional act. This brilliant idea was came from the Dr. W Selvamurty’s great चेला ( who is running DRDO administration because everyone knows that our DRDO, DG is always busy with cooking, out of the way promotion and directorships for his ………….., so he leaves all the conspiracy acts to his administrative man like his predecessor did. Beside the whole organization witnessed the exemplary result of Dr. Arun Kumar, the predecessor’s  Great चेला .

It is not new for DRDO, DRDO never take lessons from the failure of projects, that’s why Hon’ PM said on 19th August 2014 to DRDO’s so called ऋषि  leave the “चलताहै ” attitude.

The report of second FFIC is still awaited, GOD knows what will Pande ji do, it is very interesting to see his report outcome and maybe you are waiting for DS list.

Bye they way please go through some astonishing facts of only one case as a example which establish how tampering of evidences and fabrication of documents took place in DMSRDE.

Under the various guidelines of CVC, Hon’ble Supreme Court & High Court Judgments, the intent/intention for criminal misconduct is sufficient ground for section 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988.

The DMSRDE scientists are involved in Criminal Misconduct under section 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 which is established by following facts.

  1. Supply Order of Rs. 45,76,005.00 was issued to KAN-THT (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vide SO No. 14AT0089 dated 19 November 2013.(Copy Enclosed)
  2. Original Delivery Period (ODP) was 28 Feb 2014.
  3. Complaint was made to CVC on 22 January 2014.
  4. Supply Order was cancelled by Director, DMSRDE under planned conspiracy between Director, DMSRDE and KAN-THT India, Delhi.
  5. Commercial Invoice No.  BIOBASE20140123IN dated 22 and 23 January 2014 was issued from JINAN BIOBASE BIOTECH CO. LTD., CHINA to KAN-THT in the name of DMSRDE, Kanpur, I don’t think corrupt official of DMSRDE even know about this. (Copy of the Invoice is enclosed.
  6. From Invoice of Biobase, China it is quite evident that KAN-THTwas mediator in whole procurement deal and SO was issued to KAN-THT not to Biobase, China. Since SO was issued to KAN-THT India, Delhi then how Biobase, China issued Commercial Invoice of the Fume Hoods on name of DMSRDE, Kanpur.
  7. The price of 14 No.  of Fume Hood 1200C as per invoice dated 22 and 23 January 2014 is total $ 35000.00 as per conversion rate of one $ = 62 Rs. 2170000.00 (Rupees Twenty one Lakh Seventy thousand only)
  8.  The cost of supply order for 14 No. of Fume Hood 1200C as per SO dated 19 November 2013 in INR is Rs. 45,76,005.00(Rupees Forty five lakh seventy six thousand and five only).
  9. Therefore the difference in prices of Supply Order and Invoice is Rs. 24,06,005.00 (Rs. 4576005.00 – Rs. 2170000.00). The difference of amount of Rs. 24,06,005.00 was not justify, if you plus other expenses like transport/installation/profits etc not come more than 30 to 40%  the nexus between, DMSRDE officials and KAN-THT India, Delhi can clearly establish.
  10. The supply order was cancelled under exposure of deal & pressure of my complaint to CVC on subject matter. Cancellation of supply order itself shows that there was no need of Fume Hoods in DMSRDE and procurement was initiated just to get fatty commission by corrupt officials of DMSRDE. Therefore total amount of Rs. 4576005.00 of public money was going in wastage and major part of this, more than 50% was going in pocket of DMSRDE corrupt officer
  11. Mere cancelation of Supply Order cannot dilute their crime under section 13(1)(d) PC Act 1988 and their involvement in criminal misconduct. It is very clear that Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE was having intent for corruption of Rs. 26,14,815.00 and involved in criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct along with Mr. Ajitendra Singh Parihar, Scientist ‘D’(The Indenter). Mr. Shielendra Kumar, Scientist ‘F’ (Head Estate & Work Division and MMG) and Mr. Ajay Chandel, Head of KAN-THT India, Delhi.
  12. Till date no action has been initiated by Sri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE despite he is fully aware of the real facts and truth of the case.

The crux of above case is how DRDO purchase manual manipulated in this case

  1. As per invoice of Biobase, China the billing address is DMSRDE and shipping address is also DMSRDE, it means Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE very well knows that if they ask CDC from CC R&D, DRDO who is suppose to issue CDC in the case of domestic suppliers will ask the copy of purchase order placed by domestic supplier to foreign supplier as well as the copy of invoice issued by foreign supplier to domestic suppliers and it is clear mandate that the more than 30% of the invoice cost are not allowed.
  2. If the billing and shipping is direct to DMSRDE or any establishment than Director is suppose to issue CDC.
  3. In this case as per Biobase, China invoice custom can made party for damrage charges to DMSRDE and DRDO lose its credentials.
  4. This the mechanism to fooling the CDA and Government of India after making so many rules and precautions DRDO officials busy in research to fix the poor tax payers money.

In light of aforesaid facts, I kindly request you to submit your true findings& recommendations in FFIC report and leave the DS promotion list to almighty GOD’s disposalas these corrupt top DRDO officials could not write your faith.

Although as per DOPT Guidelines for FFI, you should call me for personal hearing but you make that technical lapse, still I again like to inform you that there are several trump cards that has not been revealed till so far as your FFIC did not gave personal hearing to me.

Besides this I would also remind you very humbly that like your Bigboss Sri Avinash Chander, you will not submit false report to protect Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur as Sri Avinash Chander submitted false report to protect his friend Dr. Arun Kumar. That everybody knows the effort of Bigboss was failed and Dr. Arun Kumar was treated properly by Hon’ble Defence Minister Sri AK Antony.

Hope you will listen your heart’s voice “अब  कितने  दिन  बाकि  है  वैसे भी  लगता  है  मोदी  जी   ने    एक्सटेंशन  बंद करने  का  मन बना  लिया  19 अगस्त को  जैसा  की  उन्होंने  कहा  की  मुझे  5 लैब्स  ऐसी  चाहिए  कि   जिसमे  35  वर्ष  से ऊपर   कोई   नहीं  हो”  समझने  वालो  के  लिए  इशारा  ही  काफी  होता।

Regards 
 
Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com, website www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed

  1. Supply order details
  2. Specifications
  3. Copy of Invoice of Jinan Bio Base Biotech Co Ltd,  China

Copy to

  1. CVC,  CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, Satarkata Bhavan , A-Block, GPO Complex , INA, New Delhi – 110 023
  2. CVO, MOD, Room No 340, Office of Director of Vigilance, B- Wing Sena Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105

Supply order detailsfume supply order

SpecificationsFumeHood specification

Copy of Invoice of Jinan Bio Base Biotech Co. Ltd,  ChinaFumeHood invoiceFumeHood stand invoice

Some more facts

DMSRDE raised demand under works headfume demand

Quotation received for same Fume hood Model FH 1200 from Jinan Bio Base Biotech Co. Ltd,  Chinafume quotation

Tender inquiry for Fume Hoodfume tender

Drdo

DRDO RTI Cell Trying to take shelter of High Court Order

Leave a comment

DRDO RTI cell doing propaganda that Honorable High Court declared DRDO 100%   exempted  organization from RTI Act-2005 and started giving denial  to each and every RTI request without seeing the merit and facts that the request pertain to corruption. And best part of this now they are stop writing “except information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations”

RTI cell including First appellate authority also cited the Delhi High Court Judgment passed in WP © 83/2014 DR. NEELAM BHALLA .. Petitioner Through: Mr. R. Sathish, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..Respondents Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Advocate for R-1 and 2.

In this judgment is nothing new every one clearly knows DRDO was an exempted organization under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In other words, the Act would apply to DRDO only to the extent of information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

In DR. NEELAM BHALLA case  DR. NEELAM BHALLA  prayer to honorable court that information supplied by then CPIO, DRDO  Sh Bundella was incorrect and inaccurate and court says

“4. It is a matter of fact that Shri Bundela had provided inaccurate and incorrect information to the appellant but Shri Bundela’s contention that he had transmitted information as received by him from CPIO of RAC cannot be disregarded. It is important to bear in mind that Shri Bundela was not the holder of information. The holder of information was CPIO, RAC. Whatever information was W.P.(C) No. 83/2014 Page 1 of 4 forwarded to Shri Bundela by CPIO, RAC, he transmitted the same to the appellant.

6. Even so, before parting with this matter, I would like to caution Shri Bundela to exercise due diligence in responding to the RTI application in future.”

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption.

But in whole judgment there is nothing new and not giving extra immunizing to DRDO from RTI act, if there is any extra facilitation in judgment than DRDO should quote specifically that.

  1. DRDO RTI cell also go through the judgment of  CWP No. 12904 of 2009

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE  MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

under Section 24(4) of the Act which envisaged that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organizations A combined reading of these provisions would reveal, only that information is exempted, which is directly effecting and co-related to the “Intelligence” and “Security” of that organization of the State and not otherwise.

The matters pertaining to recruitment/appointments and day to day administrative nature information, where it is also found that DRDO top officials did lot of irregularities. Therefore honorable defence minister approved CBI intervention against 10 top DRDO officials including 2 ex- DRDO chiefs one Dr V K Saraswat and other one Sh M Natrajan  for their ugly acts.

It was establish facts till date all senior officials of DRDO who were fixed by CVC and CVO, MOD were exposed with the help of RTI’s only.

So DRDO officials are afraid of RTI’s if they are honest then why they worries from RTI’s . The Ex CPIO, DRDO Dr A K Tyagi who is facing charge sheet in corruption case was the big manipulator and protector of corrupt officials.

I request to DRDO RTI cell you people are serving to our nation; please not to protect culprit’s corrupt officers, your younger generation will ask you what did you contributed for justice. Now in the age of IT revolution era kid can explore what are the score of my grandpa, because these documents are alive forever.

I want to appeal all information seeker from DRDO please don’t dishearten from these act of these corrupt DRDO officials who are taking false shelter.

Please mail/post/send ordinary dak all your queries to www.corruptionindrdo.com postal address or mail address, we will took the matter up to higher ups. We are also planning to filled a PIL for request supreme court for delist the name of DRDO from Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005. As we collected lot of of informations from all over the country.

regrads
www.corruptionindrdo.com
prabhudoon@gmail.com
21- Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun- 248001
Drdo

High Court bars coaching institute from using Brahmos name in test

Leave a comment

STAFF REPORTER – The Hindu – 3rd March 2014

Holding that Brahmos is a well known and reputed trademark for supersonic missile in the aerospace industry, the Delhi High Court has restrained coaching institute FIIT JEE from using it for its online aptitude test. It said it gives an impression to the engineering students that the institute’s test is affiliated with Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd under the Ministry of Defence.

Brahmos Aerospace, in which the Government of India is a majority shareholder, had moved the High Court after it started receiving queries from engineering students if they would be given any preference for employment in the company by taking the Brahmos aptitude test conducted by the FIIT JEE.

Passing the interim order, Justice Manmohan Singh said: “There is no valid justification given by the defendants (FIIT JEE) before this Court how this trademark Brahmos hit upon them except false and frivolous submissions. It is adopted and used by the defendants deliberately in order to take the advantage of the mark Brahmos of the plaintiff (Brahmos Aerospace).”

Brahmos Aerospace is a joint venture between India’s Defence Research & Development Organisation and Russia’s Military Industrial Consortium NPO Mashinostroyenia.

The FIIT JEEhad been advertising a course and an aptitude test for engineering students by the name of Brahmos in conjugation with the phrase ‘will give you top 03 career options as per your inherent aptitude’.