Tag Archives: List

Drdo

CORRUPTION IN DMSRDE (DRDO), KANPUR BY DR. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR

Leave a comment
To                                                                                            11th September 2014
Hon’ble
Shri Narendra Modi Ji,
Prime Minister of India,
Room No -152 PMO, South Block,
New Delhi-110011

 

SUBJECT: CORRUPTION IN DMSRDE (DRDO), KANPUR BY DR. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR

Honourable Sir,

DRDO basically turn as den of corruption and manipulations, still not ready to accept that the new era of corruption free governance begin in country.

The root of corruption and the confidence of manipulation and thinking of fooling the politicians in the name of defence secrecy are deeply absorbed in the blood of top old senior scientists who are running the DRDO show.

If some vital information exposed by media or frustrated honest scientists to the government, DRDO first advocate in the name of secrecy or next thing is same old established tactics that make a 1st fact finding committee then 2nd fact finding committee and encash the complaints with temporary duty claims in the name of inquiry and stretch the case up to year or two and people will forgotten the issue/corrupt officer retire from service  and corrupt official easily gulp the poor tax payers money.

Sir, will you seriously going to take the corruption prevailing in DRDO which is very important because our defence preparedness is lying on the shoulder of DRDO, if it is not strong enough then what will the fate of country.

As in 5th September 2014 in your interaction to our lovely school students gave clear message that up to 2024 you are ready to give blessing and service to our country. It is very important that you have to operate the inside spread cancer (corruption / nepotism / favoritism) of DRDO.

I would like to inform you that I have continuously submitting lot of complaints in various agencies like CVC, IB and CBI since last 15 years and simultaneously exposing via www.corruptionindrdo.com since 4 years.

Recently, I have submitted 12 complaints on corruption against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur to CVC, New Delhi. The complaints are tip of the iceberg and proper investigation can reveal hundreds of crores corruption which was executed by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena via various means.

DRDO’s expert manipulators made first fact finding committee spend few time and then made second fact finding committee and now they are killing the time in Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena’s corruption cases.

Then after few years CAG will submit a report in front of honourable parliament like CAG Report CA No 30 of 2013 (Defence Services) Chapter V, DRDO

Para 5.1 – Extra avoidable expenditure by ANURAG – Violation of the prescribed procurement procedure and allow M/S ITI to execute the job through outsourcing at higher price resulted extra expenditure of Rs 2.12 Crores by ANURAG.

Para 5.2 Unwarranted procurement of CATIA V6 Software costing Rs 11.05 Crores and lying unused since 2011 – ANURAG

Para 5.3 DRDO procured components for NAG Missile at a cost Rs 52.58 Crores in anticipation of an order from Army, which resulted in blocking of Government money of Rs 34.70 Crores.

The man behind the ANURAG procurement manipulation enjoying extension, he is one of the Gem of DRDO scientist and expert such procurement business since his induction in DRDO as direct Scientist D.

Above CAG reports are very tiny part of DRDO corruption the actual corruption is in the tune of thousands of crores every year, dumping equipments, construction buildings in the name of infra structure development without needs and lot of things.

Hope we will witness some great steps as the whole country believes in your working and fast decisions mechanism.

Sir hope you will segregate the real Rishis who are in clutches of few Rakshas.

With kind regards,

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

Copy to:

  1. Defence Minister, N. Delhi
  2. CVC, N. Delhi
  3. Director(Vigilance), MOD, N. Delhi

 

Enclosed:

  1. RTI Reply of CPIO, CVO, MOD
  2. Copy of the List complaint to CVC Cvo rti reply DMSRDE case4
  3. list of complaints DMSRDE
Drdo

Corruption Cases of Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Leave a comment
To                                                                                                        Date 5th July 2014                  
Hon’ble
Shri Arun Jaitly,
Defence Minister,
South Block, New Delhi-110011

Subject: Corruption cases of  Dr.  Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

Defence Materials and Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is one of the establishments under Defence Research & Development Organisation. Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena was appointed as Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur with effect from 01 January 2011 and he is posted in DMSRDE, Kanpur since 28 April 1984. In past 30 years he developed deep connections with local vendors and after his appointment as Director since 01 Jan 2011, these pet vendors are playing major role in procurement of stores & items.

  1. As vigilant & patriot citizen of the country, I filed 12 complaints on issues of Corruption against Dr.  Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE to CVC and Hon’ble Defence Minister with proofs. Details of complaints on Corruption against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena is enclosed as Annexure-1.
  2. CVC has informed me vide his various letter & sms that my all 12 complaints have been forwarded to CVO, Ministry of Defence but till date no action has been taken against Dr.  Arvind Kumar Saxena. Copies of letters from CVC are annexed as Annexure-2.
  3. Since copies of all these complaints were also sent to Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri but till date no action has been taken against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena by Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO.
  4. The two statutory rules viz CCS (Conducts) Rule 1964 and CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 have been framed by Government of India for maintaining good conduct and discipline. Under Rule 14, Government of India Order on “Inquiry Officers to be senior in rank to the officers enquired against” it is mandatory that inquiry officer –Chairman as well as all members Inquiry Committee should be one  rank senior to the officer whose conduct is being inquired into. This principle has been reiterated in CVC Vigilance Manual, Railway Manual, CPWD Manual and all other DOPT Manuals.
  5. Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri is giving patronage to corrupt practices of Dr.  Arvind Kumar Saxena and promoting corrupt officers in the organisation. One simple example of patronage to Dr.  Arvind Kumar Saxena by Shri Avinash Chander, DG R&D, DRDO is to constitute an illegal Fact Finding Committee in Jan-Feb 2014 for inquiring complaints against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena. In this committee Shri SS Negi, Scientist ‘H’ was Chairman and Mr. Manoj Bali, Scientist ‘G’ and Shri Jagdeep, Scientist ‘F’ was members. This Committee was totally illegal as Chairman was of equivalent rank and two members of FFC were very junior to Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena. This establishes that Shri Avinash Chander, DG R&D, DRDO wilfully constituted an illegal committee for giving patronage & protection to corruption in DMSRDE, Kanpur by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena. Intentions of Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO is very open to protect corrupt officer Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena by any means.
  6. This Fact Finding Committee took only one complaint out of my several complaints and gave false report despite FFC did not interact with me and all proofs were submitted along with complaints. That complaint was regarding procurement of ‘REACTOR’. The said REACTOR was procured by DMSRDE in 2012 and REACTOR was supplied to DMSRDE in January 2013. Till date payment of said REACTOR has not been made to the vendor.
  7. In light of the above, in the interest of organisation, I kindly request you to take appropriate action against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE   and issue directives to CVO (MOD) to speed up the investigation on my complaints.

With kind regards,

(Prabhu Dandriyal)
21, Sundarwala, Raipur Road
Dehradun-248008

Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com   website – www.corruptionindrdo.com 

Copy to:

  1. Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, PMO, New Delhi.
  2. Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO and SA to RM, New Delhi.
  3. Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.

Annexure:

  1. Details of complaints on Corruption against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena to CVC.
  2. Copies of letters from CVC.

 

List of Complaints to CVC against
Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur
list of complaints dmsrde
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CVC ON COMPLAINTS AGAINST
DR. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR, DMSRDE, KANPUR

RTI was filed to CVC on 29 Jan 2014 and ACPIO replied vide letter No. CVC/RTI/13/1862-24017 that “Information has been gathered, a suitable reply will be sent shortly”.

Vide letter No. CVC/RTI/13/1862/241925 dated 18.03.2014 CPIO, CVC informed that:

  1. Complaint dated 29.11.2013 was sent for necessary action to CVO, MOD vide OM No. 1323/2014/V9 dated 30.01.2014.
  2. Compliant dated 17.12.2013 was sent for necessary action to CVO, MOD vides OM No. 2056/2014/V9 dated 19.02.2014.
  3. Complaints dated 24.12.2013, 26.12.2013, 22.01.2014 have been received in the Commission and their complaint Nos. are 5022/2014/Vigilance9, 4967/2014/ Vigilance9 & 5387/2014/Vigilance9 respectively. These complaints are under consideration in the Commission.
  4. Complaints dated 28.12.2013, 06.01.2014 & 09.01.2014 have been received and these have been sent to CVO, MOD for necessary action vide Commissions OM No. 30714/2013/Vigilance9 dated 26.12.2013, 3617/2014/Vigilance9 dated 10.03.2014 respectively.
  5. Complaints dated 12 Jan 2014, 06 Feb 2014 & 03 March 2014 are consideration of Commission.
  6. Complaint dated 11 June 2014 has been forwarded to CVO (MOD) for further action.
  7. Complaint 13248/2014 has been forwarded to CVO (MOD) for further action on 26th June 2014
Drdo

Civil Suit No. 1200/2011-1. Dr. Vijay Kumar Saraswat-SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION AND DAMAGES :- Re. 1/- (RUPEE ONE ONLY)

3 Comments

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE AT PUNE 

Regular  Civil  Suit  No. 1200/2011.

Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware
Age: 55 yrs.  Occupation: Service
Residing at:   A-11, Vijayraj Sankul,
Aundh-Baner, D.P. Road,
Pune – 411 007.                                                            —       Plaintiff

 Vs.

1.      Dr. Vijay Kumar Saraswat,
Age: 62 yrs.  Occupation: Service
The Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri and
Director General, Research & Development,
DRDO, DRDO Bhavan,
New Delhi- 110105.
 
 2.      The Union of India
Represented by
The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India,
South Block,
New Delhi -110 011.                                            —       Defendants

SUIT    FOR    RECOVERY  OF   COMPENSATION   AND DAMAGES :-  Re. 1/- (RUPEE  ONE  ONLY)

The plaintiff most respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court as under:-

1.      The plaintiff was working in High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune, the unit of DRDO, under Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India.  He was working as a Technical Officer ‘B’. It is a Gazetted Group ‘A’ post. He completed 26 years’ spotlessly clean service in HEMRL, Pune. Not a single letter of instruction / warning, any memo or any show cause notice is on his entire record.

But on 24.08.2009 at 16.45 hrs, the Plaintiff was suspended by fax order, all of a sudden, without any show cause notice. The suspension order bears the signature of Dr. Arun Kumar, the Director of Personnel (DoP). The order is issued as per section 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, but Dr. Arun Kumar is not the authority who can sign the suspension order of a Gazetted Group ‘A’ Officer.  Dr. Arun Kumar, on 08.06.2010 has admitted this fact in his deposition as a Defence Witness before the Inquiry Officer.  The Plaintiff immediately lodged a protest against this unauthorized and hence illegal order. As the Defendant No.1 is the Director General of DRDO and as he is the only Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had submitted a copy of the protest to him also.

2.      Though the ultimate responsibility of the working of DRDO lies with Defendant No.1, he did not take any cognizance of the protest of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff submitted his grievance to the Defendant No.1 through his letters sent on 16.09.2009, 21.10.2009, 03.12.2009, 18.12.2009, 02.03.2010, 27.05.2010, 09.07.2010, 14.07.2010, 24.08.2010 and 01.12.2010. The Plaintiff sent him the legal notices on 14.09.2009, 02.03.2010 and 19.03.2010. But Defendant No.1 did not give any response to any of the letters or notices of the Plaintiff. He did not take any cognizance of the grievance of the Plaintiff.

3.      The Plaintiff was illegally compelled to go through the Inquiry proceedings and was penalized on 08.12.2010 under Rule 11 (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules. This penalty order was issued by one Mr. S B Yadav, the Dy. DoP who is not at all the Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff. As if this was not enough, the Plaintiff was dismissed from the service. This Dismissal Order under Rule 11 (ix) of CCS (CCA) Rules was issued by one Mr. Abhinavjeet Ojha, the Dy. DoP, who is not at all the Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff. 

As per Article 311 of the Constitution, no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

 4.      The DGR&D is the only Appointing and Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff. No officer below his rank can take any Disciplinary Action against the Plaintiff who is a Gazetted Group ‘A’ officer and a Doctorate fellow. As per Organization Chart of DRDO, DGR&D is on the top. Below him there are 11 CCR&Ds. And under one CCR&D, DoP is there. The person who has signed the dismissal order of the Plaintiff is one of the staff members of the Directorate of Personnel. There are no such posts as Associate Director, Deputy Director, Joint Director or Assistant Director in DRDO. Mr. Abhinavjeet Ojha is a self-styled and self-proclaimed Deputy Director of the Directorate of Personnel.

5.      The Plaintiff filed a Criminal complaint No. 1198/2011 in the Court of Hon’ble J.M.F.C. Court No.9, Pune against Dr. Arun Kumar, the DoP and his 5 colleagues. Hon’ble Court issued process against them all under sections 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant No.1 to immediately suspend these accused as per Rule 10 (1) (b) of CCS (CCA) Rules.

6.       Though the Defendant No.1 is the only Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff, the officers much below his rank issued suspension order and penalty orders without any authority. The Plaintiff put up his grievance to Defendant No.1 but he did not take any action against the unauthorized officers. He remained a silent spectator. Moreover, he protected his erring subordinates who, without any authority played with the service life of the Plaintiff.

7.      The Plaintiff is dismissed from the service by the unauthorized officers and the Defendant No.1, the Head of DRDO is just looking at the situation as if he is not concerned at all. His inaction has deprived the Plaintiff of his service. Plaintiff has suffered a lot due to his inaction.

8.      Revengefully and mercilessly the Plaintiff has been dismissed from the service without any monetary benefits.  Without giving a single Rupee to the Plaintiff, he has been driven out of DRDO, after 26 years’ spotlessly clean service.  The Plaintiff is running 56 years of his age and huge liabilities are ahead of him now. And at such time the Plaintiff is extinguished from the service by a blatantly unauthorized and low grade officer. The provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules regarding the suspension and the dismissal have been arrogantly flouted by the unauthorized officers who are systematically protected by Defendant No.1. This is nothing but a torture by a very responsible officer i.e. Defendant No.1. As per the Organization Chart of DRDO he is the apex authority. Being a Disciplinary Authority, he has not dared to sign the dismissal order of the Plaintiff. He remained behind the curtain. His cowardly behavior has ruined the service life of the Plaintiff. This unbecoming of a Government servant is liable for the torture of the Plaintiff. He is liable to pay the compensation to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff wants compensation for his sufferings from Defendant No.1

9.      The amount of compensation is not material at all. Liability of Defendant No.1 to pay the compensation to the Plaintiff is material. The Plaintiff wants only one Rupee as the compensation. This one Rupee will definitely soothe the injury which Defendant No.1 has inflicted on the Plaintiff by his impotent neutrality in the matter.

10.   Notice to Government: Actually this suit is not against the Government, but as the Govt. officer is involved in his personal capacity, the notice u/s 80 of Civil Procedure Code has been sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence on 27.04.2011 for information only. The Plaintiff has not received any reply to the said notice from Defendant No. 1 or 2.  Defendant No. 2 has been made formal party to this suit.

11.   Jurisdiction: As the plaintiff is residing in the city of Pune and cause of action has happened in Pune, Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try this case.

12.   Cause of Action: First arose on 24.08.2009 when the Plaintiff was suspended by the unauthorized officer in DRDO. The cause of action is continuous since then till this date as the Defendant No.1 is protecting the illegal acts of his subordinates.

13.   Court Fee:  As this suit is for recovery of compensation of Rs.1/- (Rupee One only) it has been valued for Rs.1/- and required stamp of Rs.200/- is given herewith.

14.   It is, therefore, prayed that:-

a.      The Defendant No. 1 may kindly be ordered to pay compensation and damages of Re.1/- (Rupee One only) to the Plaintiff.

b.      Permission may be granted to amend the suit, if required.

c.       Any other just and equitable orders may be passed in the interest of the justice.

Pune
Dated: 29/08/2011
Plaintiff
(Dr. R G Taware)
 
(Mr. B R Barge)
Advocate for Plaintiff           

VERIFICATION

            I, Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware, Age – 55 years, Occupation – service, R/at- A-11, Vijayraj Sankul, S.No. 244, Aundh-Baner, D P Road, Pune- 411007, do, hereby, verify the above contents from Para 1 to 14 as true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and in witness whereof I have put my signature under it at Pune on this 29th  day of  August 2011.

Plaintiff

(Dr. R G Taware)

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE AT PUNE

 

Regular  Civil  Suit No. 1200/2011.

Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware                        .            —       Plaintiff

Vs.

Dr. V K Saraswat and other 1                                    —       Defendants

List of Documents submitted by Plaintiff is as follows:-

Sr.No.

Description of Document

Date

Page No.

1.

 Legal Notice to the  Secretary, Ministry of Defence, u/s 80 of Code of Civil Procedure 27.04.2011 01 – 02

2.

 Notice to Defendant No.1 (Dr. V K Saraswat) 27.04.2011 03 – 05

3.

 Suspension Order 24.08.2009 06

4.

 Protest letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for suspension order 26.08.2009 07 – 09

5.

 Legal Notice to Defendant No.1 14.09.2009 10 – 11

6.

 Representation of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 against illegal order of suspension 16.09.2009 12 – 13

7.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for subsistence allowance 21.10.2009 14 – 15

8.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal suspension by DoP 03.12.2009 16 – 17

9.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal extension of suspension period 18.12.2009 18 – 19

10.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1  through the Director, HEMRL for inquiry and action for C-PAR for the year 2008 02.03.2010 20 – 23

11.

 Notice to Defendant No.1 02.03.2010 24 – 25

12.

 Notice to Defendant No.1 19.03.2010 26 – 27

13.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal extension of suspension period 27.05.2010 28 – 30

14.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal suspension & extension of suspension period 14.07.2010 31 – 34

15.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for anniversary of illegal suspension 24.08.2010 35 – 37

16.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal extension of suspension period 01.12.2010 38 – 39

17.

 Penalty Order under Rule 11 (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by Mr. S B Yadav, Dy. DoP 08.12.2010 40 – 41

18.

 Dismissal from service : Penalty Order under Rule 11 (ix) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by Mr. Abhinavjeet Ojha, Dy. DoP 30.12.2010 42 – 43

19.

 Protest letter against Punishment Order  dated 08.12.2010 by Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL 01.01.2011 44 – 45

20.

 Protest letter against Punishment Order  dated 30.12.2010 by Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL 10.01.2011 46 – 47

21.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal dismissal from the service 14.01.2011 48 – 50

22.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for reservation of right of appeal 14.01.2011 51 – 52

23.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for reinstatement after penalty order dt. 08.12.2010 15.01.2011 53 – 54

24.

 Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL  regarding service benefits 07.03.2011 55 – 56

25.

 Notice to Defendant No.1 14.06.2011 57 – 58

26.

 Penalty Order by Mr. M Natarajan, DGR&D to Mr. M A Muhatte, STA’C’, HEMRL, Pune 30.06.2005 59 – 60

27.

 Penalty Order by Dr. V K Saraswat, DGR&D (Defendant No.1) to Mr. D T Bhosale, TO’A’, ARDE, Pune 17.03.2011 61

28.

 Regular Criminal Complaint by Plaintiff against Dr. Arun Kumar, DoP and his 5 colleagues in the Court of Hon’ble JMFC, PuneVerification of Complainant

Order below Exh.1 in RCC 1198/2011

Order below Exh.1 in RCC 1198/2011

 

 21.03.2011 

 

09.06.2011

07.05.2011

 

13.06.2011

 62 – 67 

 

 

68 – 71

72

 

73

 

All Xerox copies of documents are submitted by the Plaintiff.

Total No. of Documents:  28 (Twenty Eight) &

Total No. Pages                       :  73 (Seventy Three only).

 

PuneDate: 29.08.2011                                                                        Adv. For Plaintiff

(Mr. B.R. Barge)