Tag Archives: Hyderabad

Drdo

DRDO violated the Article 309 by implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade in 2011 without proper amendment in SRO.

3 Comments

DRDO violated the Article 309 by implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO.

NO Assessment interview requirement for Promotion from scientist ‘F’ to Senior scientist ‘G’ as per the DRDO service rule-1979-Rule-8(2)(e) ; but Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment of DRDO forward name before promotion committee after “ INTERACTION ’’ .

What is the meaning of interaction and what is its need against the rule?  Nothing except the violation of law for corruption. UPSC conducted examinations for thousands participant for few seats then how RAC chairman want to stop the limited scientists opportunities to appear before the committee directly. Intention of Chairman is very clear.

Then Chairman, RAC Dr. P. S. Goel’s letter RAC/01/Assessment/PSG, dated 22-3-11 introduced this mechanism to give favor to incompetent few DRDO scientists  and for this act in return he got Prof. MGK Menon’s chair, RCI, Hyderabad  which fed him 84 lakhs per year. It is pure kick back or DRDO should prove the justification of his appointment.

What is this, is it not corruption? Best part of this type of corruption is money which he is receiving is poor tax payer’s money.

Question is, if he was competent authority to amendment of this kind of mechanism than why later DRDO amended this through Government of India gazette notification. He doesn’t have knowledge of the constitution of India, he is not competent authority to amend the  DRDS rules which are framed under Article 309 of  the constitution of India.

Where is law, where is administration, where is governance, it is happening in every stage in DRTC promotions also, where incompetent fake certificates holders are getting promotions and all relevant benefits, in recruitment of scientists lot of cases are exposed like Arun Kumar’s daughter, Selvamurty’s daughter, A K Bansal’ daughter and now several in queue like Narendra Kumar’s daughter, R B Singh’s son appointment are under lenses

Recently in CEPTAM recruitment   drive nearly 5 lakhs applications was received by CEPTAM, they made almost Rs 15 lakhs or more by introducing mandatory SMS registration, pure corruption by CEPTAM management god only knows who is patronizing this kind of corruption in DRDO. The 1 lakh applicant were rejected,  and thousands were not appeared due to examination center, CEPTAM did great job candidate who want center in nearby DELHI put him to Goa, Mizoram, Ajmer, Kolkata, Chennai etc.

RTI Request to DRDO

 
To                                                                                                                           9th September 2013
CPIO, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105 

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of the  following

The amount of expenditure incurred on Internal Screening Committee ( Main ) held for promotion from the grade of Scientist `F` to the grade of Scientist`G`, under the following Heads separatelyfor the Year 2011,2012 and 2013

a)    TA/DA on the Chairman and Members of the Internal Screening Committee (Main).

b)    TA on the candidates ( Scientist `F`) who have appeared before the Internal Screening Committee ( Main )

c)    Miscellaneous Expenditure, i.e. other than above (a) and(b), on the Internal Screening Committee ( Main )

Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II

The requested information is pertain to routine establishment / administrative matter which is not covered under exemption as decided by CIC (refer to CIC decision no CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22/03/2013).

There was no government approval for conducting ISC, main in assessment year 2011, and it was conducted illegally against the DRDS rules for the benefit to few incompetent scientists of their choice.

“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty”

Regards

PrabhuDandriyal
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879
prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com
psg1
psg2
 
RTI Request has been filed successfully on RTI Online Portal. The following are the details:-
Registration Number: MODEF/R/2013/60363
Name: Prabhu Dandriyal
Date of Filing: 10/09/2013
Request filed with: Department of Defence
Contact Details:-
Telephone Number: 23015187
Payment Details:-
RTI Fee Received: 10
Payment Mode: Internet Banking
SBI Reference number : IK33631057
Transaction Status: Successfull
Drdo

DRDO Scientists are you aware – Communication of Below the Benchmark Grading in CPAR

6 Comments

DoPT OM No 21011/1/2010 Estt A Dated 13th April 201

 

IN  THE  CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE  TRIBUNAL,

HYDERBAD  BENCH, HYDERABAD

OA.No.390/2007

DATE   OF  ORDER: 24th  JANUARY, 2008

BETWEEN:

Ms. R.Amruthavani,
D/o Shri R.Chakriah,
Aged about 45 years
Occupation: Scientist ‘E’,
Head, Human Resources Development Department,
Defence Research and Development Laboratory,
Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.
                                                                                             ..         APPLICANT                                                                                                                A N D  
1. Union of India rep. by the Secretary to Govt.,
    Ministry of Defence, DHQ, New Delhi,
 
2. The Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri and
    The Director General Research and Development,
    Ministry of Defence, DRDO Bhavan, Rajaji Marg,
    New Delhi  110 011,
 
3. The Director, Directorate of Personnel (Pers-6A),
    Defence Research and Development Organisation,
    208 A Block, II Floor, New Delhi,
 
4.  The Director, RAC, Lucknow Road, Timarpur,
     New Delhi  110 054,
 
5. The Director,
     Defence Research and Development Laboratory,
     Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.
 
                                                                           ..                               RESPONDENTS
 

COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT : .Mr. Siva, Advocate                                         (PRESENT)

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Mrs. K.Rajitha, SC for Rlys.                   (PRESENT)

CORAM:

 HONBLE MRS. BHARATI RAY, MEMBER (JUDL.)

HONBLE MR. M.JAYARAMAN, MEMBER (ADMN.)

ORDER

(PER HONBLE MR. M.JAYARAMAN, MEMBER (ADMN.)

                        The short issue that arises for our consideration in the present OA is whether the action of the respondents in not promoting the applicant herein from the post of Scientist ‘E’ to the next higher grade i.e., Scientist ‘F’  is maintainable in law or whether this Bench needs to interfere in the matter.

2.                     The brief facts that are required to be taken note of are that the applicant was appointed as Scientist ‘B’ on adhoc basis in 1984.  She was regularized and taken on the strength of the respondents’ organization in 1986 in the same post initially on adhoc basis.  In response to the open notification to fill in the vacancies of Scientist ‘C’, the applicant applied and after due selection process she was appointed to the said post.  Subsequently, she was promoted to the posts of Scientist ‘D’ and Scientist ‘E’.  After six years of residency in the grade of Scientist ‘E’, she was eligible to be called for being subjected to the assessment during 2007 provided she had a score of 75% in her performance.  The 5th respondent, based on the letter dated 28.3.2007 of the 3rd respondent, published a list of Scientists to be called for the assessment for promotion to the next higher grade of Scientist ‘F’ vide proceedings dated 30.3.2007 wherein the applicant’s name was not included.  Similarly, in the list that was released on 5.4.2007 also her name was not shown.  So, she made a representation dated 13.4.2007.  Iln the meanwhile,  the respondents released a third list on 1.5.2007 wherein also her name was not included.  Thereafter, the 3rd respondent, vide letter dated 11.5.2007, rejected the representation of the applicant on the ground that her name was not included as she has not come up to the bench mark.  Aggrieved by the above order, the applicant has filed the present OA with a prayer to call for the records relating to the Order dated 5.5.2007 of the 2nd respondent and letter dated 11.5.2007 and quash/set aside the same holding it as  violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to promote the applicant as Scientist ‘F’ if found suitable,  with consequential benefits.

3.                     (i)         The case of the applicant in this OA is that the impugned order is not a speaking order and is arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the applicant under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

                        (ii)        The applicant has submitted that it is a settled principle of law that where the grading of an individual is below the bench mark and the same would have an adverse impact on the very right to be considered for being promoted to the higher grade, the same need be communicated.  Since the bench mark was fixed at 75%, any grading below the same was liable to be communicated.  Otherwise, there is breach of principles of natural justice.

 

                        (iii)       The applicant has submitted that though there is a gradation required to be given in the Confidential Performance Appraisal Reports (CPARs), there is no yard stick for the purpose of grading the same and thus an unbridled power has been given to the assessment officer.  There is no guidance for the assessment officer to grade an officer since the guidelines given speak only of a grading of ‘Good’ etc.  This has resulted in the said officer arbitrarily rating an individual thereby denying the opportunity of promoting the officers to the next higher grade. 

4.                     (i)         The respondents have opposed the averments made by the applicant and have filed a detailed reply statement wherein it is stated that the recruitment, promotions and other service conditions of the DRDS Scientists are governed by the DRDS Rules, 1979 as amended.  As per Rule 8(2)(a) of the said rules, the promotion from one grade to the next higher grade in the service except to the grade of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist) shall be made under the Flexible Complementing Scheme from amongst the officers possessing the broad educational qualification as given in the Schedule III.  The promotions upto the level of Scientist ‘F’ shall be made on the basis of evaluation of Confidential Performance Appraisal Reports (CPARs) and assessment interview and, for Scientist ‘F’ to ‘G’ on the basis of evaluation of CPARs and assessment by a Peer Committee.  The Internal Screening Committees (ISC) constituted as specified in Schedule 1A and 1B, shall review the CPARs of Scientists ‘B’ on completion of minimum residency period of three years and of Scientist ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’ on completion of minimum residency period of four years and of Scientist ‘F’ and Scientist ‘G’ on completion of minimum residency period of five years and three years respectively as on 30th June of the year to which the assessment board pertains.  The Internal Screening Committee shall evolve its own criteria for deciding the eligibility of Scientists for consideration by the Assessment Boards and award average marks for the Scientists.  While deciding the eligibility of the Scientists for the assessment, the Internal Screening Committee shall follow  the criteria mentioned in the said rule. 

                        (ii)        The respondents have submitted that the assessment for promotion of the DRDO Scientists shall be carried out in two stages viz., in the first stage, the Internal Screening Committee decides the eligibility of the Scientists for consideration by the Assessment Board based on the average CPAR marks and in the second stage, the Assessment Board (for promotion upto Scientist ‘F’) assesses the candidates declared eligible by the ISC in the first stage and recommends them as fit or not yet fit for promotion.  Each scientist gives a presentation of the work done by him/her in the present grade before the Assessment Board which interviews the Scientist and gives its recommendation by applying the yardstick of merit of the Scientist for promotion to the next higher grade.  Based on the recommendation of the Assessment Board, the competent authority promotes the Scientist to the next higher grade.  There is no possibility that all the Scientists who have been found eligible for the assessment interview by the Screening committee will get promotion.   

                        (iii)       The respondents have further submitted that in order to rationalize the variations in CPARs from one lab to another, the marks awarded are normalised at national level by the Screening Committee and the normalised marks are taken into account for determining the eligibility for the second stage of consideration. 

                        (iv)       Coming to the case of the applicant, it is stated that she has put in six years of residency in the grade of Scientist ‘E’ and so she should get a minimum average of 75% marks to become eligible to be called for the assessment from the post of Scientist ‘E’ to Scientist ‘F’.   The Internal Screening committee which examined the CPARs of the applicant for five years found her not eligible to be called for the assessment interview in 2007.  However, in deference to the directions issued by this Tribunal in the present OA, the applicant was interviewed on 1.6.2007 by the Assessment Board for promotion to the post of Scientist ‘F’ and the result has not been declared.

                        (v)        The respondents have further submitted that as per the minutes of Performance Appraisal Discussions of the applicant and her Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the applicant’s work output.  The Assessing Officer narrated the commitment of the applicant towards the work and the positive attitude etc. but no indication that the applicant accomplished her targets exceedingly well, was given.  Accordingly, the IO, RO and the Head of the lab rated the applicant as per the guidelines on the subject.  Since there were no adverse remarks during the residency period, the question of communicating adverse remarks did not arise.  The respondents have further submitted that the decision of finding the applicant not eligible for assessment is linked to the finding of the Internal Screening Committee based on her performance during the last five years.  The applicant was considered by the Internal Screening Committee but she could not qualify for the second round of procedure i.e., Assessment Interview. 

5.                     The applicant has filed a rejoinder to the reply statement of the respondents reiterating the averments made in the OA.  The applicant has submitted that the first stage of the selection process is nothing but the ministerial act which normally is done by the clerical staff of either the Administration or the Establishment Section and the second stage would be to call for the assessment interview in which the applicant was not found to be eligible by the Internal Screening Committee which examined her CPARs.  The applicant has further submitted that the Assessment interview is akin to the Departmental Promotion Committee and that is the only selection/recommendatory agency. 

6.                     During the hearing on 30.5.2007, the Bench, after hearing both sides, directed the respondents to allow the applicant to appear for the interview which was to be held on 1.6.2007 in terms of Annexure A-VII, along with other Scientists for the promotion to the post of Scientist ‘F’ provided that she has not been communicated with the percentage of the marks, which is below the bench mark obtained by the applicant. It was made clear in that order that the respondents shall not declare the result of the applicant.

7.                     The matter was heard extensively in several sittings through Mr. Siva, learned counsel for the applicant as also Mrs. Rajitha, learned standing counsel for  the  respondents. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is the settled principle of law that where the grading of an individual is below the bench mark and the same has an adverse impact on the very right to be considered for being promoted to the higher grade, it needs to be communicated.  The applicant has placed reliance on the Judgment of the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 283 of 2001 wherein it was held that any remark or grading in the performance appraisal report which places an individual below the specific bench mark for elevation, would have to be treated as adverse and would have to be communicated.  The Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi allowed the said O.A. and  while allowing the said O.A., the Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi   followed the judgment of the  Apex Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors Vs Prabhat Chandra Jain & Ors . Reported in  1996 SCC ( L& S) 579.    The Learned Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the said judgment of the Principal Bench has been upheld by the High Court of Delhi in  CW 3115 of 2003, which has been upheld by the Apex Court .  He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in W.P.No. 6624 and 6659 of 2007 dated 16.4.2007, which  upheld the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 403 of 2003.  The Tribunal in the said  case relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of the Tribunal ( Ernakulam Bench) in O.A. NO. 1304 of 2000 and in O.A. No. 523 of 1996 ( Lucknow Bench) which held that the adverse remarks recorded in ACRs cannot be taken into account unless they are communicated and denial of promotion on the basis of uncommunicated adverse remarks is not sustainable.  It was also said that  it is now settled position of law that communicated entries in one’s ACR which is below the required Bench mark grading should not be given cognizance and accordingly allowed that O.A.s

8.                     We have given our careful consideration to all the submissions of the rival sides and we have also seen the relevant papers.  We have also gone through the cited case laws.  It is generally accepted that the rules or the administrative instructions  cast an obligation upon the administrative authorities to communicate adverse remarks to the employees against whom the said remarks have been made solely with the purpose to enable such employees to make representation against the same.  This is also in consonance with the principles of natural justice in that opportunity is given to the employee concerned to improve himself so that he can come upto the expected level.  Several courts have commented on the need to communicate the adverse remarks to the concerned employees.  The Apex Court had also an opportunity to observe that administrative authorities should take remedial measures including opportunity to the employee to have his say at the time of recording of the remarks (refer decision in 1979(1) SLR 804 at page 814 SC).  This being the position, where adverse remark has been passed against an employee, such remark should be communicated and it also goes without saying that the communication should be written communication with acknowledgment of the concerned employee. Communication of the adverse entry is the first essential of a fair administrative exercise and so any uncommunicated adverse remarks are of no avail and cannot be relied upon for any purpose such as promotion etc., to the prejudice of the concerned employee.

9.                     Now the question that arises in this connection is what is to be considered as adverse in a given case.  The contention of the respondents here is that since the score was not less than 60% it was not adverse in nature, and so the same was not required to be communicated. This is where the respondents have committed an irregularity.

10.                   A careful reading of the cited case laws above clearly shows that where the bench mark for promotion is ‘Very Good’ and the applicant was found unfit for promotion as he was graded two ‘Very Good’ and three ‘Good’ out of five ACRs considered for promotion and the ACR gradings were not communicated to him,  any grading affecting his promotional prospects have to be communicated and where they were not communicated the said ACRs cannot be relied upon for consideration for promotion (refer decision dated 10.12.2002 in OA 2607/02 in the case of Smt. Aryavir) reported in 2003 (1) ATJ 130.  In fact it is very clearly stated in this decision that where officers are granted ‘Good’ or ‘Average’ but promotion is given to those who are assessed as ‘Very Good’ only, the grading of ‘Good’ or ‘Average’ has to be treated as adverse in nature and has to be necessarily communicated.  The other cited case laws also support such an interpretation.

11.                   Coming to the subject case, the respondents seem to be adopting the maxim Heads I win and Tails you lose meaning thereby that a CPAR score of 60% marks is not good enough for promotion as it is not upto the required standard i.e., 75% bench mark but  the same will not also be communicated to the employee, as it is not adverse.  Thus, the employee is kept completely in the dark.  Therefore, the contention of the respondents that they need not communicate the CPAR 60% marks which is  below the bench mark, since these are not, per se, adverse in nature cannot be accepted.  An employee is entitled to know where he stands with reference to his/her  CPAR grading or performance.  If nothing is communicated to him/her, he/she will be right in presuming that he/she would be meeting the bench mark for promotion.  Otherwise, the below the bench mark grading,, whatever it may be,  60%, 70% or whatever needs to be communicated to him/her in the interests of justice, so that he/she will be given an opportunity to improve himself/herself.

12.                   Here, the applicant has been denied promotion to the Scientist Grade ‘F’ because the Internal Screening Committee while deciding the eligibility of the applicant found that she did not have 75% marks but had a CPAR score of 60% only i.e., less than the bench mark.  Accordingly, the respondents ought to have communicated the CPAR grading (60% marks) to the applicant.  So long as they have not communicated such below the bench mark grading, the said grading ought not to have been considered for the purpose of promotion by the Internal Screening Committee or the Assessment Board.  Therefore, the impugned letter dated 11.5.2007 denying her the promotion, cannot be sustained and has to be set-aside. 

13.                   In the light of the above discussions, we deem it necessary to issue a direction to the respondents to open the sealed cover/folder containing the results of the interview conducted in respect of the applicant on 1.6.2007 as per the interim directions given on 31.5.2007 and then promote her to the grade of Scientist ‘F’ if so recommended by the Assessment Board.  If the applicant has not been so recommended for promotion to Scientist ‘F’, then, the respondents will have to hold a review meeting of the Internal Screening Committee and the Assessment Board, in respect of the applicant herein with the stipulation that the CPAR gradings of 60% which were not communicated, should not be considered but ignored.  In the interests of justice, the above exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

14.                   For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the OA with the above directions.  There will be no order as to costs.

 

            (M.JAYARAMAN)                                                  (BHARATI RAY)

         MEMBER (ADMN.)                                                  MEMBER (JUDL.)

Drdo

Congratulations – Sh Avinash Chander for taking charge as DRDO HEAD

7 Comments
AVINASH CHANDER
AVINASH CHANDER

Hope you will take DRDO to fly high, with output of products which are extreme essential to our defence and a step towards self-reliance.

As per current scenario of DRDO, it is only possible, if you will able to weed out corrupt and incompetent senior officials from DRDO.

Waiting and watching for your honest steps.

 

With warm regards

Prabhu Dandriyal
www.corruptionindrdo.com
 

Mr. Avinash Chander obtained B.Tech degree from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT Delhi)  in Electrical Engineering in 1972 and M.S. (Spatial Information Tech.), JNTU, Hyderabad. . Mr. Avinash Chander, Distinguished Scientist is the Director of Advanced Systems Laboratory, Hyderabad and an eminent scientist in the field of Missiles.

Mr. Chander joined DRDO in August 1972.  A leader in missile technology, he is the Chief Designer of Long Range Missiles System.  He has the unique achievement of delivering and deploying three weapon systems viz., A1, A2 and A3.  He is currently the Programme Director for the Agni Missile Programme.  His latest achievement is the successful development of 3000 kms range Agni-III Missile which is under induction.

AWARDS & HONOURS:

DRDO Scientist of the year 1989 – Awarded by Dr. PV. Narasimha Rao, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India.

Astronautical Society of India Award for the year 1997 in the field of Rocketry –

Awarded by Dr. R. Chidambaram, Principal Scientific Advisor to Govt. of India.

AGNI Self-Reliance Award in 1999 – Awarded by Sri Atal Behari Vajpayee, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India.

Dr. Biren Roy Space Science Award in 2000.

DRDO Award for the year 2007 for Path Breaking Research /Outstanding Technology Development – Awarded by Hon’ble Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of  India

Outstanding Technologist Award 2008 by Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar.

DRDO Technology Leadership Award 2008 – Awarded by Dr. A.K. Anthony, Hon’ble Defence Minister of India.

 

 

Fellow, Indian National Academy of Engineers & Convenor, Sub-Committee of Aerospace Section.

Fellow, System Society of India.

Fellow, Andhra Pradesh Academy of Sciences.

Fellow & Vice-President, Astronautical Society of India.

Chairman – INSARM & ISAMPE, Hyderabad Chapter.

 
Drdo

DRDO director Saraswat to retire

4 Comments

DC | 28th Apr 2013

sasarswatdc
Hyderabad: Not many are aware that Dr V.K. Saraswat, director general, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, is superannuating on May 31 because of a clause which says that the appointment is for a period of four years or till 64 years of age, that is, which ever happens earlier.

He is 64 years old. Dr Saraswat said that he had not applied for any extension and the decision lies with government. Honoured with a Padma Bhushan recently, Dr Saraswat, based in Hyderabad since 1972, says that he is overwhelmed with the support and recognition he received through these years.

Sources revealed that the search has already begun for short listing the probable candidates and the name would be finalised by a committee to be headed by the Cabinet Secretary. This committee is yet to be constituted and guesstimates suggest the figure to comprise of about 10-12 distinguished scientists.

Though his achievements and DRDO’s giant strides during his tenure are compared with that of former President and former DRDO DG, Dr A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, unlike Kalam’s ten-ure where there was a major thrust on missiles, the DRDO under Saraswat, took a jump in making India self-reliant by developing indigenous critical technologies of missiles and strategic systems, artificial intelligence etc, elevating India on par with advanced nations of the world on the technology front.

Drdo

DNA special: MoD audit questions DRDO functioning

Leave a comment

DNA special: MoD audit questions DRDO functioning

Published: Wednesday, Aug 15, 2012, 10:00 IST

By Pradip R Sagar | Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA

Years after the CAG tore into DRDO and its functioning, a special audit has once again exposed the organisation and its chief, VK Saraswat, blaming him for passing on funds to a society in a clear case of conflict of interest.

The audit, conducted on the orders of defence minister AK Antony, has come down on the ‘arbitrary’ functioning of the DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation).

The audit has highlighted questionable approval by scientific advisor to defence minister, Saraswat, of grant- in-aid of Rs2.9 crore to an academic institution he heads.

According to the report, accessed by the DNA, Saraswat sanctioned a grant of Rs2.88 crore to Hyderabad-based Advanced Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science (AIMCS) for research of futuristic radar systems.

Raising infirmities in the sanction, the audit report says, “AIMCS comprises scientists known for their achievement in mathematics, statistics and computer sciences and is not even generally connected with research relating to futuristic radars. And it (AIMCS) does not have any equipment and other wherewithal to undertake such research and development.”

The report says DRDO’s Bangalore-based LRDE (Electronics and Radar Development Establishment) is specifically meant for the evolution of the technologies relating to radars and has required number of scientists and equipment for conducting research of radars.

“It was thus strange to entrust this work to a Hyderabad-based academic institute. Further scrutiny has revealed as the grantee body did not have expert manpower, it started recruiting them after getting money from DRDO, which was liberally disbursed on annual basis.”

The report claims that release of advance payment to the society even for salary in respect of non-existent manpower blocks government funds and provides an opportunity to private society to earn ‘interest income’.

“DRDO is hiring a consultant and the consultant is also planning to hire consultants. This does not seem to be reasonable. Whether recruited personnel had DRDO connection needs to be seen further.”

The internal audit report prepared by senior additional controller general of defence account (ACGDA-Internal audit) maintained that DRDO has undertaken research project relating to radars and part of this research project was offloaded to a private society.

“As such it is only a sub-project of a main project. These facts were not however brought out in the file concerned.”

Interestingly, the report has also questioned another grant-in-aid of Rs3 crore to Dr SB Rao of the same institute, who is co-principal investigator under this radar research project. “A comparison of cost estimates between two projects suggested the possibility of different norms being adopted for costing and possible duplication.”

Comments

Raghubir Singh from Pune

Mathematics and statistics are much relevant like computers in radars as should be evident from some books on the subject. As such on the face of it Advanced Institute of Maths, Statistics & Computer Sciences (AIMCS) seems to have adequate credentials to carry out research in these areas relating to radar engineering? Generally research scholars are hired only after funding is available. For achieving self- reliance in defence , which should be our top priority now , it would be essential to encourage academic and other reputed institutions to take up research in areas which can have military applications. This is the model for defence research followed in other advanced countries including in the US which should suit us too? Now that DRDO is notching successive successes on daily basis–discomfiture of import lobby is understandable and this leakage of secret audit report hopefully is not to slow down the momentum?

Reply | Report abuse       Posted on: Aug 17, 2012 6:34 IST

Raghubir Singh from Pune

Mathematics and statistics are much relevant like computers in radars as should be evident from some books on the subject. As such on the face of it Advanced Institute of Maths, Statistics & Computer Sciences (AIMCS) seems to have adequate credentials to carry out research in these areas relating to radar engineering? Generally research scholars are hired after funding is available. For achieving self- reliance in defence , which should be our top priority now after revelations how the import lobby has tentacles everywhere including in our DPSU’s, it would be essential to encourage academic and other reputed institutions to take up research in areas which can have military applications. This is the model for defence research followed in other advanced countries including in the US which should suit us too? Now that DRDO is notching successive successes on daily basis–discomfiture of import lobby is understandable and this leakage of secret audit report is not to slow down the momentum-hopefully?

Reply | Report abuse       Posted on: Aug 16, 2012 8:47 IST

Raghubir Singh from Pune

It is not correct to say that there is no connection between mathematics, statistics and computer with radar. We can glance through ‘Mathematics of Radar’ by Bill Moran to feel some impact of mathematics on radars. In fact there are large number of books on mathematics of radar, synthetic aperture radar & tracking radar etc. Similarly probability of detection & statistics thereof do form important aspects of radar and need to be explored. Therefore AIMSC with its mathematics, statistics & computer credentials should be able to do research in these important areas relating to radar Futuristic radar or any other such system can see the light of the day only if we encourage academic or research institutions –not necessarily only govt labs to explore domains which have defence applications. To carry out, presumably theoretical work to begin with –the Institute would not need radar system which if required should be available in DRDO labs in Hyderabad? Research work is not production line –it needs new thinking, newer approaches and interfacing of academic, institutional and defence research work for military usage. The auditors & learned author can see

the research models in US & other countries. For sure research scholars for the project can be recruited only after funds are available

Drdo

DRDO scientist was faculty member of Tripoli varsity

Leave a comment

EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE
Posted: Mon May 05 1997 IST

HYDERABAD, May 4: Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist Srinivasulu, who was nabbed by Intelligence Bureau (IB) officials and city police here on Thursday night, was found to be working as a faculty member in the Tripoli University in Libya.

IB officials, acting on a tip off, sought the assistance of city police, who arrested the B-grade defence scientist at the Rajiv Gandhi International airport when he was about to board the Dubai-bound Air-India flight.

According to sources, Srinivasulu neither submitted his resignation nor obtained permission from the DRDO

authorities for working in Libya. He obtained a passport without the knowledge of DRDO which is statutory. He left for Libya an year-and-half back and joined as a faculty member in the university at Tripoli.

During interrogation, Srinivasulu reportedly confessed before IB officials that he was taking some secret documents with him and one of his colleagues at Tripoli university, Kumar, was also involved in the spying.

Sources added that Srinivasulu has planned to go to Sharjah by the Dubai-bound Indian Airlines flight and then to Malta Islands in Africa by air. From there he was to catch a ship for Tripoli.

 

Drdo

AAP KI ADALAT-EPISODE -2

3 Comments

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.

Drdo

Corruption in ITR Balasore Part- 2

5 Comments

ASHIT KUMAR DASH Submitted on 2011/07/26 at 4:33 pm 117.201.165.173

Sir,
Shri RANJIT MARNDI , Scientist”E” ,ITR, Chandipur has huge Immovable Property in BALASORE, which is disproportionate to his income by corrupt practices in DRDO. He has recently built a Two Storey Building with High Class Marble brought through a Contractor M/s Jeet & Jeet, Jaipur as a Free Gift by helping him out for procurement of two Nos of Blast Proof Shelters in 2009-10. He has purchased landed property of around 2acres in around Balasore without permission from Govt. Can the DRDO authorities investigate his disproportionate wealth ? Otherwise he will eat whole

ASHIT KUMAR DASH Submitted on 2011/07/26 at 3:53 pm

To
SA to RM & DG R&D
DRDO HQs
DRDO Bhawan
RAJAJI MARG
New Delhi- 110 105

Sub.: MISCONDUCT & CORRUPT PRACTICES BY Shri PC ROUTRAY,Sc”F”,

Dear Sir,

  1. 1.  The following allegations may be verified against Shri PRAKASH CHANDRA ROUTRAY, Scientist”F”, ITR, Chandipur.

(a)  In the year, 1996-1997, he had used political influence (by approaching a Senior Member of Parliament Shri Srikant Jena) to influence upon the DRDO Hqs to get his transfer from VRDE, Ahmednagar to ITR, Chandipur. On this aspect he has been duly warned by DRDO Hqs and then Director of the VRDE. But subsequently, after succumbing to the pressures of the political person, DRDO HQs finally transferred him to ITR. The records at DOP,DRDO HQs and VRDE, Ahmednagar can be verified.

(b)  Shri PC Routray,Sc”F” has used his official position in ITR,Chandipur to influence Shri R Appavuraj , Sc”F” (the then Secretary of DRDO Range Educational Society, Chandipur) and Maj Gen(retd) US Abrol, the then Director & Commandant of PXE,Chandipur and Patron of DRDO Range Educational Society to get his wife Mrs Bindukalpa Routray , M Sc (Zoology), B Ed to get her selected as a Primary Teacher (PRT) in Range School, Chandipur by unfair means , whereas she was rejected by a selection board headed by Mr N Ganeshan,Sc”F”(retd) in 1998 to select TGTs. Without any proper advertisement for PRTs and clear violation of norms by DOMS, DRDO Hqs, wife of Shri PC Routray was appointed as regular Primary Teacher (PRT) by ignoring other candidates and without giving wide publicity.

(c)  Shri PC Routray, Sc”F” had appeared for a examination for part-time MCA course conducted by IGNOU at FM Autonomous College, Balasore Centre along with his wife Mrs Bindukalpa Routray, a Primary Teacher in Range School, Chandipur. During this course, he had several times harassed the teaching faculty especially Ms Minati Mishra of the IGNOU, Balasore Centre by influencing other part-time students. During the examination, she was caught red handed while doing malpractice. He had misbehaved with the invigilators and was debarred from the examination. The matter was reported to ,DOP, DRDO Hqs and subsequently his assessment result for post of Sc”F” for 2006 & 2007 was withheld and DRDO Hqs conducted inquiry in this aspect. He had threatened the IGNOU Professors for taking revenge with the help of his spouse’s brother who is a political leader in Cuttack (now in Indian National Congress Party) and another relative of his own who was IG, Police, Bhubaneswar in 2005. The then Director of ITR, Shri AK Checker ,Sc”G” and several senior officers of ITR e.g. Shri SR Bera,Sc”G”, Shri R Appavuraj ,Sc”F” were also threatened by him. The records at DOP, DOMS may be verified

(d)  Shri PC Routray,Sc”F” had influenced his spouse Mrs Bindukalpa Routray, a PRT in DRDO Range Educational Society ,Chandipur) to file a criminal case against the Principal of the Range School in Sep 2005 on a false allegation which is still  sub judicious,    By approaching his relatives who are in political circles and IG,Police ,Bhubaneswar he got SA Ahmad,Principal, Range School arrested from his residence at Bhubaneswar. The Departmental inquiry ordered by Shri GC Das,Sc”G’ ,the then Director of PXE and President ,DRDO Range Educational Society found Mrs Bindukalpa Routray ,PRT guilty of filing a false allegation & without putting a formal complaint/grievance to the School Management. But the report was put under cold storage by Director, PXE who was influenced through pressures from Maj Gen (retd) US Abrol, the then Director, VRDE. Now Shri PC Routray is using his official position and threatening the staff of Range School to give witnesses in his wife’s favour. The retired Principal who is under medical treatment at Bhubaneswar is being unnecessarily harassed by Shri PC Routray ,Sc”F” . He is also instrumental in instigating contract workers in Range School to file several court cases, cases in EPF Commissioner’s Office and Central labour Commissioners Office. Thus he is instrumental in spoiling the reputation of the Range School and DRDO in particular.

(e)  Shri PC Routray,Sc”F” had manipulated in Purchases made by his Deptt. From 2004-2008. He has awarded Annual Maintenance contracts and several purchase orders (Cash purchase & Tender purchase) to one M/s SP Sales & Service, Balasore which is not having existence now. He had manipulated the procurement by allowing a cartel formation of firms during limited tender process. He has visible links with M/s Pentagon Rugged Systems, Hyderabad whose Managing Director uses official transport at ITR and DRDO VIP Guest House at Chandipur & also M/s Maity & Co, Chandipur,M/s Balaji Enterprises, Balasore & M/s Sk Allauddin, Balasore. He is collecting huge amount of Bribe in Cash from the Contractors pressuring them not to pay the minimum wages to Conservancy workers and their EPF in collusion with Shri LAXMAN LIKHAR, JCDA, Balasore, to construct his house at Cuttack and Flat at Bhubaneswar. He has use political pressure by approaching Mr Pranab Mukherjee,Defence Minister in 2007-08 through WB Pradesh Congress to get his promotion with retrospective effect from July 2006 though SA to RM & then CCR&D(MSS) were not in his favour .During BrahMos missions conducted from ITR, Chandipur he had personally hired A/C buses for Russian Team from Grand Coach, Cuttack through his relative (his spouse’s brother ,a political activist at Cuttack) by manipulating purchase procedure of Brahmos Aerospace Ltd, N Delhi.. He has misbehaved with several Senior Officers posted to ITR (Shri BK Paltasingh, Sc”F’, Shri A Thyagraj. Sc”F”,Col R Sharma, Maj Gen(retd) RK Sahoo, Cdr A Mishra, Col S Anikhandi, Cdr A Sarabhai, Shri NN Nayak,Sc”F’, PXE,Shri SR Bera,Sc”G”(retd) ,Col(retd) B Bas, EMU , Gp Capt US Rajababu, PGAD and also several other Senior Officers of PXE & Projects and staff of ITR to name a few who want peaceful co-existence). Recently again he used political influence on DOP to get DRDS Assessment Call in Excellent Category by increasing his C_PAR marks of 2006 which was damaged by then Director, ITR Shri AK Checker due to his gross misconduct.

2.     It is requested that ,the DRDO Hqs should take a strong stand in this matter by not succumbing to political pressures and transferring both Shri PC Routray,Sc”F”, B.Tech, M.Tech. ,MBA,PGDM who is a so called Management Guru, from ITR, Chandipur and removing his wife Mrs BK Routray, PRT from Range School, Chandipur at the earliest and post him to a suitable place like SASE, MANALI or FRL,LEH on PUBLIC INTERST to have a conducive atmosphere at DRDO estate, Chandipur

30 Jun 2011

(ASHIT KUMAR DASH)
Chandipur President
ITR TECHNICAL OFFICERS” ASSOCIATION

Copy to :

  1. CCR&D (MSS) DRDO Hqs DRDO Bhawan, RAJAJI MARG,New Delhi-110105
  2. Director, PXE, Chandipur-756025
  3. Secretary, RANGE SCHOOL, Chandipur-756025
  4. DOMS,DRDO Hqs, DRDO BHAWAN, New Delhi- 110 105
  5. Director, Vigilance & Security, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi-110105
Drdo

CIC Decisions on RTI -3

2 Comments

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION                                                                      Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

 Information Asked Regarding – Dr. Prahlada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS and Other top DRDO officials are misusing the guest house facility and also drawing HRA , attract the serious disciplinary action against the official, DRDO following blind law, different rules for different persons.

Why I asked this Information – The DRDO Appellate Authority Dr. Prahlada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS have not given his residence address and contact details in any documents or website or any other public domain. I think he is staying in DRDO Bhawan itself.  The CPIO and FAA of DRDO Hqrs both are on their posting at DRDO Hqrs,   staying in DRDO Guest House and drawing the HRA. So how can Indian citizen expect any right information from these corrupt officials?

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.

Following DRDO senior official are staying in guest house since their positing to DRDO Hqrs and drawing the 30% HRA .  it is big money and two major points i.e. one -these guest house not meant for permanent residence  and second when the official come from various station to attend the meeting  these guest house are not available for them and they have to spent precious poor tax payers money in luxury hotels.

There are more than 15 room is permanently occupied by DRDO senior officials in C-7, DRDO Guest House, Qutab Enclave, &6 official also unauthorized  /occupied the  DRDO Guest Development Enclave Rao, Tularam Marg, because as per sanction both places are as DRDO guest house facility in Govt .of India’s records. This is the purely dadagiri of DRDO.

Following DRDO senior official are staying in guest house as DRDO telephone Directory

And some of official are drawing HRA as per CDA records it can be verified I have recived some information from PCDA in this regard.

Under the chairmanship of DRDO’s Appellate Authority, so called expert of DRDO Hqrs, DRDL, Hyderabad and DEAL, Dehradun met on 16th July 2010 at First Appellate Authority’s Office and decided not to give single information to RTI requester but only to reply to obstruct the giving of correct information to RTI requester they wasted lot of public money on TA/DA for said government officials who attended the said meeting from Hyderabad and Dehradun.

Camouflage of exemption under schedule –II of RTI Act 2005 has been deliberately taken to circumvent to deny the required information

The DRDO Appellate Authority Dr. Prahlada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS has not given his residence address and contact details in any documents or website or any other public domain. It is therefore considered that he is staying in DRDO Bhawan itself.  The CPIO and FAA of DRDO Hqrs both are on their posting at DRDO Hqrs,   staying in DRDO Guest House and drawing HRA.

APPELLANT – Shri Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                        PUBLIC 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 12th June 2010   The CPIO & Addl Director, DRDO HQ                                No RTI/DRDO/GHD/12/6/2010   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.

  1. Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest houses at DELHI.
  2. How many DRDO officials are availing  DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station i.e. Delhi from 1st  Jan 2007 to 31st May 2010
  3. Total number of days Sh. S.Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO Hqrs has been availing the DRDO guest house facilities since his posting to DRDO Hqrs till date.
  4. Total number of days Dr. Prahalda , CCR&D,(Ae &SI),DS, DRDO HQRs   has been  availing the DRDO guest house facilities since his posting to DRDO Hqrs  till date.
  5. Please intimate me date time for inspection of guest house records under Right to Information Act 2005 section 2 (j) (i) & (ii)

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 provision 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 above request, where I may required file first appeal.

I do hereby declare that I am the 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 expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No 60E 128575

Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com Blog – http://corruptionindrdo.blogspot.com

 The RTI request was denied by CPIO, DRDO Hqrs on 2nd June 2010

The Appellate Authority, DRDO Hqrs was denied on 16th August 2010

 File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/000412:-

 The appellant has sought information on 05 paras regarding the availability of accommodation in DRDO Guest House at Delhi and availment thereof by the scientists of DRDO. The requested information squarely falls in public domain.

Hence, the CPIO is directed to disclose parawise information for 2009 & 2010.