Tag Archives: matters

Drdo

SC Suspends All Engineering Degrees Obtained Between 2001 & 2005 Through Distance Courses From 3 Universities; Those After 2005 Cancelled

1 Comment

BY: APOORVA MANDHANI NOVEMBER 3, 2017 4:05 PM LIVE LAW. IN
The Supreme Court has suspended the Engineering degrees granted between 2001 and 2005 to all graduates through distance learning by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan (JRN), Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Rajasthan (IASE) and Allahabad(AAI)

The Bench comprising Justice A.K. Goel and Justice U.U. Lalit ruled that the degrees would remain suspended till the students pass an examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC. It further added that “every single advantage” on the basis of the degree would also stand suspended till then.
For this purpose, the Court has directed the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) to conduct appropriate written and practical tests for the concerned students. The entire expenditure for conducting the tests has been directed to be recovered from the concerned Universities.
The students would get only two chances to pass the exam, failing which their degrees will stand recalled and cancelled. Further, in case the students do not wish to appear in such tests, the Court directed refund of the money deposited by them towards tuition and other charges. The students have been given time till 15 January to exercise the option to take the tests.
The degrees obtained after the year 2005, for courses through distance learning have, however, been cancelled. The Court clarified, “Any benefit which a candidate has secured as a result of such degrees in Engineering in the nature of promotion or advancement in career shall also stand recalled. However, if any monetary benefit was derived by such candidates that monetary benefit or advantage will not be recovered by the concerned departments or employers.”
The entire amount paid by such students has been directed to be refunded by 31 May, 2018. The decision was rendered after the Court found that the three Universities had, before 2005, imparted education in technical fields through distance learning without obtaining approval from the concerned authorities. Further, while ex-postfacto permission was obtained after 2005, this permission was declared illegal by the Court, for lack of adherence to the principles laid down in this regard.
For those who had enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005, the Court noted that since 2004, the UGC Guidelines gave liberty to the concerned Universities to apply for the ex-postfacto approval and observed, “the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001- 2005 is protected”.
This ‘sympathy’ was, however, not shown to those who had enrolled after 2005, observing that the “Policy Statements as well as warnings issued from time to time were absolutely clear” with regard to the lack of sanction to such Courses.

Factual matrix

The Court was hearing two groups of Appeals– one arising from a judgment passed by Orissa High Court and the other arising from a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The litigation began when the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (OLIC) refused promotion to an in-service graduate Engineer, contending that the degrees obtained by the concerned candidates through distance education from JRN were not recognized degrees. It had, therefore, contended that they could not be considered Graduate Engineers eligible for the benefits. The Orissa High Court had, however, disagreed with OLIC, directing it to consider the candidates as in-service Engineers.
The Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court had sought a direction that degrees in Engineering obtained through distance education from certain Universities including JRN be declared invalid for the purpose of obtaining Government jobs in the State. The prayer was allowed by the Court.
The two High Courts had, therefore, rendered conflicting judgments, prompting the Supreme Court to take up the matters together.
Examine whether Deemed Universities can offer such distance education programs, the Court took note of the notifications, circulars and guidelines issued in this regard and observed that the Deemed Universities in the case at hand had sought ex-postfacto approval for their distance courses. None of these Universities had taken any prior permission from the University Grants Commission (UGC), AICTE and Distance Education Council (DEC).
While the approval was granted by the DEC, the Court ruled that the DEC was not empowered to grant such permissions without consulting the AICTE. It ruled that not only did the DEC lack jurisdiction to grant the approval, but that it had also granted the same without any inspection.
“This leads us to conclude that the permissions granted by DEC in the first instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities in question to introduce courses leading to the award of degrees in engineering were illegal and opposed to Law,” the Court ruled.
It, thereafter, went on to accept the view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court and set aside the judgment rendered by the Orissa High Court.
Directives:
In the 118 page judgment, the Apex Court lamented the commercialization of education and highlighted the need for an oversight and regulatory mechanism for distance education degrees, especially those relating to technical education.
It then reiterated its directions, summarizing them as follows:

I. 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not justified in introducing any new courses in Technical Education without the approval of AICTE.
II  Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside.
III Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities stand suspended.
IV The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above. The option be given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by 15.01.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in accordance with the directions in Para 47 above. Students be given not more than two chances to clear test/tests and if they do not successfully clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in Paras 46 and 47 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018.
V Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and other charges within one month of the exercise of such option. Needless to say their degrees shall stand cancelled and all advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in Para 47.
VI If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully.
VII As regards students who were admitted after the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in Para 48 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.05.2018, as indicated in Para 48.
VIII By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be Universities shall refund the sums indicated above in VII and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter.
IX We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions who abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such investigation.
X The UGC shall also consider whether the Deemed to be University status enjoyed by JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF calls for any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 30.06.2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above are not refunded to the concerned students that factor shall be taken into account while conducting such exercise.
XI We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session 2018- 2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permission are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus Centres/Study Centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals have to be course specific.
XII The UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be Universities from using the word ‘University’ within one month from today.
XIII The Union of India may constitute a three members Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the Deemed to be Universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before August 312018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11.09.2018.”

Drdo

SUBMISSION OF THE FACTS OF COLLUSIN OF THE DOP, DRDO HQRS Dr. A.K. SINGH WITH THE ILLEGALLY APPOINTED RELATIVE SCIENTIST OF THE DRDO etc.

6 Comments

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

SUBJECT:-  SUBMISSION OF THE FACTS OF COLLUSION OF THE                                         DOP, DRDO HQRS Dr. A.K. SINGH WITH THE ILLEGALLY                               APPOINTED RELATIVE SCIENTIST OF THE DRDO   etc.

Sir,

  1. DOP, Dr. A.K. Singh did not take timely action on the letters of cvc and cvo of mod on the illegal Appointments of blood relatives of senior scientist of DRDO as scientists namely SMT. T chandrabanu, Ms Swati Sriwastava, Ms Dolly Bansal & SMT. S Geetha to illegally retain them for the period as much as possible. He did not carry out his duty meticulously against illegal appointment of SMT. S Geetha to please his ex-boss Dr.W. Selvamurthy.
  2. He did not take the following actions as expected from him in the capacity of DOP to know the truth of the experience certificate, got issued from Dr.Ambedkar centre for Bio-Medical research of Delhi university (ACBR of DU) by SMT. S Geetha D/O Dr.W. Selvamurthy Ex- CC R&D, HR
  • Has not called for any explanation as yet from SMT. S. Geetha to tell the organization  about the name of the projects & names & designations of the principal investigators of the projects of the ACBR of DU in which she worked during November 1999 to January 2000 and for the same she was issued a experience certificate.
  • Has not called for any explanation as yet from SMT. S. Geetha about the date on which SMT. S. Geetha applied for the post of temporary research assistant in ACBR of DU in 1999.
  • Has not called for any explanation as yet from SMT. S. Geetha about the procedure and mode of selection to the post of temporary research assistant in ACBR of DU in 1999
  • Did not produce the original copy of the experienced issued to SMT. S Geetha by officiating Director Dr.Veena Brahamchari of ACBR of DU to the high power committee of Shri Bhujanga Rao & Shri Anup Malhotra set up on the orders of defence minister in  which DOP was himself a member.
  • Did not call for any explanation as yet from SMT. S. Geetha, SC-D of DIPAS, Delhi to know all the facts for issuance of the experience certificate to her by ACBR of DU.
  1. Has been instrumental in sending delayed & distorted replies to the CBI since 01-10-2012 (the date from which he is holding the charge of DOP) in respect of the ongoing through inquiry  against 04 illegal appointed relatives of the senior scientist of DRDO i.e. against SMT. T  Chandrabanu, Swati Sriwastava, Dolly Bansal & SMT. S Geetha.
  2. Has been instrumental in transferring DRDS Cadre Scientists by pick & choose rule without following any uniform policy.
  3. Has harassing the husband-wife scientists by not posting them at a convenient place violating the GOVT. policy.
  4. Has been adopting dilatory tactics to harass the employees of DRDO (who submit genuine grievances on service matters to DRDO HQ to obtain justice through administrative channel) by    unnecessarily seeking opinions of the nodal departments even in the matters where the rule position is expressively clear.
  5. Remains dormant in redressing the genuine grievances & acts super actively to help the dishonest employees & officers of the DRDO which shows his possession of doubtful integrity.
  6. Appointed retired officers of AFHQ Cadre, DRDS Cadre, service officers & DRDS Cadre officers as consultants during his tenure as DOP for the regular jobs for which either replacement have joined in DRDO or for the jobs for which no such appointments is permissible under concerned. He even allowed continuation of the tenure of such illegally appointed consultants.
  7. Has been implementing the special pay to the scientist ‘G’ & counting of the special pay in the fixation of Scientist ‘H’ & tapering of the variable increments of the Scientists by violating  the concerned express rules of DOP&T & ministry of Finance.
  8. Has omitted his duty as DOP with regard to misconducts of Shri A.K. Maini retired Director of LASTEC to save him from vigilance action.
  9. Dr A K Singh deliberately delayed in processing the case of misconduct prima facie against Dr A K Tyagi, Sc ‘G’ so he could get promotion to the post of Sc ‘G’ before issuance of formal charge sheet. He did not propose his suspension of Dr.A K Tyagi even when charges of corruption were forwarded by CVC for investigation to DRDO through CVO, MoD

It is requested that do needful in this with above all reference to save the DRDO.

Regards

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

PMO

Senior nuclear scientist faces wrath of offering suggestions to PM Modi

Leave a comment

India TV News Desk [ Updated 13 Mar 2015, 12:22:05
New Delhi: One of India’s senior nuclear scientists, Pashupati Rao, who works at Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) run by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) is now facing wrath for sending suggestions to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on a critical national project.

On 28 September, 2014, Rao had sent his suggestions including sensitive matters on the new nuclear complex to PM’s official portal (pmindia.gov.in), which PMO had further sent to Rao’s employer, DAE, marking them as ‘grievance’ and sent out another mail to Rao on January 21 this year, saying his ‘grievance’ has been disposed.

The PMO, in its communication to DAE, had revealed Rao’s name and designation, thus making his full identity known to his superiors.

Following this, DAE persistently started following up with Rao asking for explanations while the latter desperately continued to explain himself.

As published in Economic Times, some DAE officials on condition of anonymity even said that Rao may face serious consequences.

Prominent whistleblower Prabhu Dandriyal, who some years ago had claimed to have exposed corruption in Defence Research & Development Organization, filed a Right to Information application on January 27 this year with the PMO on Rao’s matter.

Dandriyal, in his RTI application demanded to know the guidelines followed by PMO while dealing with sensitive matters. He told that the PMO reply that came a month later, on February 27, said the request is being processed, and details are being collected.

In the Rao’s suggestions to the Prime Minister, he had proposed that an independent team be appointed to review the project and he also mentioned technical details on cutting costs in it.

However, the PMO having sent his suggestions as ‘grievance’ to DAE has put the top nuclear scientist in a bureaucratic nightmare.

The communication that happened with PMO was with NFC, Hyderabad, where Rao worked.

His matter was turned into a staff grievance. Although the scientist tried hard to explain his stand however, nothing worked in his favor.

In one of the communications to the Grievance Redressal Committee, Rao wrote, “I am a successful officer and I have been awarded with DAE group achievement award for indigenization associated work. My feedback given to the PMO which is converted as my grievance is not aimed at any individual.”

However, DAE has not relented and on February 10, it had sent out a letter to Rao reminding him that his job was limited to helping him in maintenance of NFC.

“As an organization, we will follow the process. As he is a staff member, it is being treated as a staff grievance and is being looked into,” S Goverdhan Rao, deputy chief executive of NFC, told ET.

Meanwhile, Dandriyal is still awaiting a full reply from the PMO. He says, “It will be very difficult for people from the system to come out and expose corruption and inefficiency if there is no mechanism to protect them.”

Drdo

PIL – Annexures – 1-28

Leave a comment

Annexure- 1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

            (RAKSHA ANUSANDHAN TATHA VIKAS VIBHAG)

  1. Apprising, assessing and advising RakshaMantri on the influence on National Security of emerging developments in Science and Technology.
  2. Rendering advice to RakshaMantri and to the three services and inter services organisations on all scientific aspects of weapons; weapon-platforms; military operations; surveillance;support and logistics in all likely theatres of conflict.
  3. To function, with the concurrence of the Ministry of External Affairs, as the nodal coordinating agency of the Ministry of Defence on all matters relating to Instruments of Accord with foreign Governments relating to the acquisition of technologies whose export to India is the subject of national security related controls of foreign Governments.
  4. Formulation and execution of programmes of scientific research and design, development, test and evaluation, in fields of relevance to national security.
  5. Direction and administration of agencies, laboratories, establishments, ranges, facilities, programmes and projects of the Department.
  6. Aeronautical Development Agency.
  7. All matters relating to certification of the design air worthiness of military aircraft, their equipment and stores.
  8. All matters relating to the protection and transfer of technology generated by the activities of the Department.
  9. Scientific analysis support and participation in the acquisition and evaluation proceedings of all weapon systems and related technologies proposed to be acquired by the Ministry of Defence.
  10. To render advice on the technological and intellectual property aspects of the import of technology by production units and enterprises manufacturing, or proposing to manufacture, equipment and stores for the Armed Services.
  11. To deal with reference made under section 35 of the Patents Act, 1970 (39 of 1970).
  12. Financial and other material assistance to individuals, institutions and bodies corporate, for study and for the training of manpower on aspects of Science and Technology that bear on national security.
  13. In consultation with the Ministry of External Affairs, international relations in matters connected with the role of Science and Technology in national security including-(a)       matters relating to relations with Research Organisations of other countries and with Inter-governmental agencies, particularly those which concern themselves, interalia, with the scientific and technological aspects of national security;(b)       arrangements with Universities, educational and research-oriented institutions or bodies corporate aboard to provide for foreign scholarships and the training of Indian scientists and technologists under the administrative control of the Department.
  14. Execution of works and purchase of lands debitable to the budget of the Department.
  15. All matters relating to personnel under the control of the Department.
  16. Acquisition of all types of stores, equipment and services debitable to the budget of the Department.
  17. Financial sanctions relating to the Department.
  18. Any other activity assigned to, and accepted by, the Department through understandings or arrangements with any other Ministry, Department, Agency of the Government of India whose activities have a bearing on the scientific and technological aspects of national security.

Annexure -2

annex-2

Annexure-3

annex-3

annex-3.1

annex-3.2

annex-3.3

Annexure -4

annex-4

annex-4.1

Annexure-5

annex-5

Annexure – 6

annex-6

annex-6.1

Annexure-7

annex-7

Annexure-8

annex-8

Annexure-9

annex-9

annex-9.1

Annexure-10annex 10

Annexure-11

annex 11

Drdo

PUBLIC OPINION & SURVEY ON CONTRACTUAL APOINTMENT OF SHRI AVINASH CHANDER AS DG,DRDO, SA TO RM & SECRETARY, DRD EVEN AFTER HIS RETIREMENT

17 Comments

Sri Avinash Chander, Distinguished Scientist and Chief Controller Research & Development (Missiles & Strategic Systems) as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development–cum-Director General, Defence Research& Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri vide letter No. 12/9/2013-EO(SM-I) dated 31st May 2013,Secretariat of Appointment Committee of Cabinet, DOPT, Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi. [copy of order dated 31 May 2013  enclosed]

According to the said letter dated 31 May 2013 , The appointment of Shri Avinash Chander beyond his date of retirement i.e.30.1 1.2014 would be on contract basis with the same terms and conditions as he would be entitled to Secretary (DRD) before the date of retirement.

The Chief of DRDO is holding three post simultaneously DGR&D,DRDO, SA to RM and Secretary, DRD and having control over 30000 employees, 52 establishments and Rs. 15283 crore of public money.

The said appointment order of Sri Avinash Chander was illegal on the grounds-

(i)            Shri Avinash Chander is not having International Stature that is basic requirement for extension in service from age of 62-64 years; hence the extension in service beyond the age of 62 years to Sri Avinash Chander was illegal.

(ii)          appointment from Distinguished Scientist to Secretary is promotion cum appointment (promotions in extension in service is illegal as FR 56(d)

(iii)         Shri V. Narayanasamy, Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office replied to Parliament in the year 2012 that “there is no policy formulation for appointing the Secretaries in Union Ministries and Departments on contract”.

(iv)         According to News published on 28 May 2012 in Hindustan Times stating “Contractual appointment post-retirement not in rules” based on reply given by DOPT, Ministry of Personnel in 15th Lok Sabha.

(v)          Orders for regular appointment and contractual appointment could not be clubbed in one order as both are totally distinct action as per recruitment rules.

(vi)         An official appointed on contract after retirement cannot function as Head of Office for all administrative & financial matters in the department. It is apparent from his appointment letter that he will exercise all administrative and financial powers on contractual appointment as he was having in his regular appointment before retirement.

In this matter several applications under RTI Act 2005 was filed to DOPT, Cabinet Sectt. , DRDO and MOD. In some applications vital information was provided by Government.

Recently on 06 August 2014, one DRDO scientist filed complaint to Hon’ble Prime Minister who is also the Chairman of ACC. The said complaint is under consideration to Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India.

India Today in its issue of 13 Oct 2014(English Edition) and 15 October 2014(Hindi Edition) published detailed News about post retirement appointment and extensions business in DRDO.

Besides several complaints against Sri Avinash Chander was filed by corruptionindrdo.com to Hon’ble Prime Minister regarding following matters.

  1. DEEMED SUSPENSION OF DR. G. MALKONDIAH, DS AND CCR&D (HR), DRDO AS under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965, dated 06 Oct 2014.
  2. Shri Avinash Chander SA to RM , DG DRDO, Secretary (DRD) patronizing organized corruption in procurement by Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur, Dated 13 September 2014
  3. CORRUPTION IN DMSRDE (DRDO), KANPUR BY DR. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR, dated 11 September 2014
  4. Non-Implementation of DOPT, Govt. of India, Office Memorandums regarding submission of IPR and put the same in Public Domain in Defence Research & Development Organisation, Min. of Defence, dated 28 July 2014
  5. The Appointment Committee of the Cabinet appointed Sh. Avinash Chander on contract basis, dated 27 May 2014
  6. Conspiracy and propaganda for reverse technology transfer to USA by forged TOT of EDK by DRDO under guidance of Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO and SA to RM, Secretary, DRD.
  1. डीआरडीओ में श्री अविनाश चन्दर, वैज्ञानिक सलाहकार की चल रही है जागीरदारी (Example of Sh Avinash Chander’s feudalism in DRDO) (Appointment of SK Patel case).

corruptionindrdo.com arranged a survey to know the view of DRDO  officials , Whether DRDO officials want that Sri Avinash Chander continues as SA on contract basis after 30th November 2014?

All Scientists, officers and officials of DRDO are requested to participate in the survey so that DRDO officials view and emotions could be put before the Government.

Above all the contractual appoint of Sri Avinash Chander a massage to whole world, that 125 crores of Indian doesn’t have a single capable scientist who can lead the DRDO, a big question to Modi ji government.

Regards

corruptionindrdo.comSA appointment order0001 (1)

 

Drdo

Dire need to speed up DRDO’s output

Leave a comment

Lt Gen Harwant Singh (retd), Hindustan Times  Chandigarh, August 29, 2014

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has called upon Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to speed up projects and advance delivery schedules. He has said that India can be world leader in defence technology and show the way forward to the world.

These are very high expectations and there is nothing in the DRDO’s past performance to generate such great hopes. In fact, the record of this organisation is extremely dismal.

There is no accountability and it has never been put through a science audit, in spite of repeated demands.

On the urging of the parliamentary committee on defence, a revamp of DRDO was carried out. Nothing much happened, except for some cosmetic changes, which are of little consequence.

We continue to import even low-technology equipment where over 70% of weapons and equipment is imported. Think of the outflow of foreign exchange and the jobs lost.

While the Prime Minister is unaware of the DRDO capabilities and potential, but surely, Arun Jaitley, the part-time defence minister, who has been in Parliament for a long time and is expected to have paid attention to debates on defence matters, ought to know better and, therefore, should have briefed the Prime Minister to lower his expectations from this organisation. In the past, these false hopes of delivery by DRDO have kept in limbo the deployment of private industry in this field.

DRDO budget

The DRDO budget has been 5% to 7% of the defence budget with allocations for major projects such as LCA, Arjun tank, etc being over and above this budgeted figure. Much of this amount has gone into civil works. If any proof of this lavish expenditure is required, one need go no further than have a look at the DRDO office complex at the rear of South Block and then of course see Sena Bhavan as well.

Those in the ministry of defence (MoD), who exercise control over DRDO, are blissfully ignorant of what defence equipment is all about. In weapons, they can’t tell a gun from a howitzer, and in engines, a cam shaft from a crank shaft. Projects can hang fire for decades while those responsible for these continue to move up the promotion ladder and so do those of the MoD who control them.

There is little understanding and mutual confidence between the DRDO and the defence services. The Prime Minister is aware of the disconnect, and that is why he impressed upon the DRDO to involve user in the development of military weapons and equipment.

The DRDO never spells out its technological status in relation to the equipment to be developed. With the result, GSQRs are prepared without proper interaction with the DRDO, but keeping in mind what is already in the market.

The DRDO never seeks the scaling down of the GSQRs to a level at which it can handle projects, in the full knowledge and belief that the project can be dragged on endlessly and that no one will be called upon to account. Once a project is taken on, complete secrecy prevails and service officers posted with these establishments are kept out of the loop.

Little achievement

The DRDO in stand-alone mode has achieved little and will not be able to meet the future needs of the armed forces. It has shown little skill and capability in the field of even reverse engineering of comparatively simple equipment. This is legacy of the Nehruvian policies of entrusting all this to the public sector (DRDO in this case). Since then vested interests have opposed any change in this moribund policy.

When the USSR broke up, some governments of east European countries offered to shift state-of-the-art defence industries to other countries. India spurned these offers, while China took two thousand scientists and some of the defence industrial units. In India, there is a politico-bureaucratic nexus which has successfully thwarted such moves, for obvious reasons. There is so much money to be made in imports, the Augusta helicopter being the more recent example.

However, the government did go in for military technology cooperation with the Russian government and later with some others for joint development of cutting-edge defence technologies. So far, this has been a one-sided affair, ending, essentially in transfer of technology and the attendant cost.

Measures to be taken

If the new government is to make a positive impact on the future indigenous development of defence technologies, production of such equipment within the country and its export, it need shed the hope of achieving this with only the DRDO efforts. It needs to consider some of these measures:

Close down those establishments of DRDO which are busy re-inventing the wheel, and those whose tasks can best be done in the private sector. Get it out of the control of the MoD. Equally do away with most of the defence ordnance factories. Pass on production of such equipment to the private sector.

It is DRDO component grouped with the navy that has performed well. This has essentially been due to direct control that the navy has exercised over this component. Of the three establishments, one is always commanded by a naval officer and the other two have a number of naval officers on their establishment. Thus a series of projects have been successfully completed: some on their own and some others as part of collaboration with certain foreign companies. Nuclear submarine is one such example.

Restructure the MoD as an integrated organisation, consisting of bureaucrats, defence services staff, scientists and financial experts. It would ensure better coordination, cutting out duplication and triplication of work, improved efficiency and speedy decision-making. Integrated defence planning and defence technology development have become an inescapable necessity. Such a step will be opposed, tooth and nail, by the bureaucracy but it is the political executive which must take the final call.

Implement the Arun Singh Committee report, as accepted by the cabinet, and adopt the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) system. The DRDO needs to be placed under the CDS, which will result in mutual confidence and better interaction with the services and bring in efficiency and good performance.

Pending adoption of the CDS system, DRDO’s various establishments need to be grouped with the army and IAF on same lines as for the navy.

If we are serious in attracting high-tech equipment manufacturing companies to collaborate with Indian companies, then the FDI limit will have to be increased to 51%. The FDI limit of 49% announced by the finance minister was perhaps on the advice of the babus and urgings by others with vested interests. The Prime Minister during his forthcoming visit to the US must throw open invitation to American defence industry to establish manufacturing facilities in India, in collaboration with Indian companies.

Unless the above listed steps are urgently taken, and the status quo broken, the Prime Minister’s expectations of India developing high-end defence equipment and becoming self-sufficient in this field and being an exporter of such equipment will remain a distant dream.

(The writer, a former deputy chief of army staff, is commentator on security and defence matters. The views expressed are personal)

Drdo

RTI ONLINE PORTAL – Supporter of Corruption & Corrupt Officials

3 Comments
To                                                                                                                    16th April 2014
Honorable Dr Man Mohan Singh,
Prime Minister,
PMO, North Block,
New Delhi -110011

Subject: Unconstitutional act of DoPT officials who are managing the Online RTI Portal and supporting corrupt officers of DRDO

Honorable Sir,

I Prabhu Dandriyal, ex DRDO employee and resident of Dehradun, Uttarakhand fighting against corruption since 1999.

When the RTI Act 2005 implemented through our Honorable Parliament, it was a historical decision to empowerment common man of India.

Today, Sh Rahul Gandhi ji, Smt Sonia Gandhi ji daily quoting in election rallies that RTI Act 2005 is their gift to common man of India; it is 100% true that day one common man experiences his strength to correct the corrupt system and RTI Act helped mass common people of India.

Since its inception, I have filed several RTI applications to expose the corruption and slowly the corrective measures are taken by concern departments, but still long way to go on.

Sir, DoPT is the nodal agency for implementing RTI Act-2005 and I was found some officials from DoPT are supporting corrupt officials of DRDO.

Sir, I filed an online RTI application to DRDO for request information in respect of Dr. AK Singh, DOP, DRDO, Ministry of Defence. The information can expose the wrong doings of DRDO officials. But my RTI application was returned by DoPT official unprecedentedly.

My  RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 filed online portal on 31/03/214 addressed to Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO, DRDO under department of Defence was returned online on 15th March 2014 with this remark which one is  unprecedented act of portal manager/ in-charge against the guideline.   Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.

As per Guideline – An applicant who desires to obtain any information under the RTI Act 2005 can make a request through this RTI Online Portal to only the Central Public Authorities of main Ministries/Departments located at New Delhi initially. In the first phase, this facility is available to Ministries/Departments/Apex Bodies mentioned in the list available in ‘GUIDELINES’

It is astonishing fact that DoPT official mentioning   that DRDO placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 but they forget they are not exempted for corruption and human right violation matters; it seems that the officials involved are biased and supporter of corrupt official of DRDO.

I request you kindly take appropriate corrective measure  take action against officials who are involved in unconstitutional act and give strength to claim of UPA government that RTI- Act 2005 is really empowered the common man and fix those who are diluting the effectiveness of  strong RTI Act -2005.

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

Enclosed: Copy of my RTI application returned with remark by DoPT officials.

Final Status of   MODEF/R/2014/60617

Top of Form

Applicant Name Prabhu Dandriyal
Date of receipt 31/03/2014
Request Filed With Department of Defence
Text of Application To,                                                                                             31st March 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist G is presently holding the charge of DOP, DRDO at DRDO HQ. He is holding following post in DRDO since January 2007. Details are given as under:
SN Post Duration   Directorate
1.Staff Officer to CC(R&D) (HR) -Oct 2004- Dec 2006DRDO HQ, DRDO,
2.DirectorJan 2007 Sep 2010CEPTAM, DRDO,
3.DirectorOct 2010 27th Feb 2013Dte. of HRD, DRDO HQ,
4.Director28 Feb 2013 till date DOP, DRDO HQ
Note: He was holding the charge of two Directorates as Director, DHRD & Director, DOP from 01 Dec 2012 to 27 Feb 2013
In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
1.Procedure/Guidelines/Rules for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM, DRDO duly approved by DOPT, Government of India.
2.Criteria for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM (Seniority/Administrative & Management skill, qualification & experience etc.)
3.Charter of Duties & Nature of work carried out by Scientist appointed as:
I.Staff Officer to Chief Controller R&D(HR)
II.Director, CEPTAM
III.Director, DHRD
IV.Director, DOP
4.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Staff Officer to CCR&D (HR) & copy of appointment order
5.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, CEPTAM & copy of his appointment order
6.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD, DRDO HQ & copy of his appointment order
7.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DOP & copy of his appointment order
8.List of Scientist consider in the appointment of following post by DRDO Hqrs.
a.Director, CEPTAM Jan 2007- Sept 2010
b.Director, DHRD Oct 2010- Feb 2013
c.Director, DOP March 2013- Jan 2014
9.Administrative & Managerial Experience and Educational Qualification of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist F as on Jan 2007 when he was appointed as Director, CEPTAM, DRDO.
NOTE – Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) because Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD was part & parcel of implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO   (Violation of Article 309). He was also one of the candidates for scientist F to scientist G promotion in year 2011 assessment.
a.Please refer CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO)-
b.Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
Request document (if any) document not provided
Status RTI REQUEST APPLICATION RETURNED TO APPLICANT
Date of Action 15/04/2014
Remarks Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.

Bottom of Form

 

 

Drdo

RTI- DoPT- Dr AK Singh ke hath kanoon se bhi lambe hain

1 Comment
To
Sh R.K.Girdhar,                                                                                     16th April 2014
Under Secretary (RTI), PIO,
D/o.Personnel & Training, North Block,
New Delhi

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of my RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 filed online portal on 31/03/214 addressed to Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO, DRDO under department of Defence.  My RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 was returned online on 15th March 2014 with this remark which one unprecedented act of portal manager/ in-charge against the guideline.  Remark – Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.

As per Guideline – An applicant who desires to obtain any information under the RTI Act 2005 can make a request through this RTI Online Portal to only the Central Public Authorities of main Ministries/Departments located at New Delhi initially. In the first phase, this facility is available to Ministries/Departments/Apex Bodies mentioned in the list available in ‘GUIDELINES’

It is astonishing fact that DoPt official mentioning   that DRDO placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 but they forget they are not exempted for corruption and human right matters; it seems that the officials involved in are biased and supporter of corrupt official of DRDO.

  1. Provide me certified copy of concerned note of DoPT on the basis of my RTI application MODEF/ R/ 2014/ 60617 dated 31/03/214 was returned by above remark.
  2. Provide me the names and designations of the DoPT officials who initiated proposal and processed the given approval in concern file for returning online RTI application  unprecedentedly
  3. Provide the DoPT provision/guideline on the basis of my RTI application MODEF/ R/ 2014/ 60617 dated 31/03/214 was returned by above remark.
  4. Copy of proposal received from DRDO for not accepting in online RTI application in the name department of defence.
  5. Please provide that any ceiling to file RTI application by citizen of India.
 Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com
Registration Number       DOP&T/R/2014/61539

Final Status of   MODEF/R/2014/60617

Top of Form

Applicant Name Prabhu Dandriyal
Date of receipt 31/03/2014
Request Filed With Department of Defence
Text of Application To,                                                                                             31st March 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist G is presently holding the charge of DOP, DRDO at DRDO HQ. He is holding following post in DRDO since January 2007. Details are given as under:
SN Post Duration   Directorate
1.Staff Officer to CC(R&D) (HR) -Oct 2004- Dec 2006DRDO HQ, DRDO,
2.DirectorJan 2007 Sep 2010CEPTAM, DRDO,
3.DirectorOct 2010 27th Feb 2013Dte. of HRD, DRDO HQ,
4.Director28 Feb 2013 till date DOP, DRDO HQ
Note: He was holding the charge of two Directorates as Director, DHRD & Director, DOP from 01 Dec 2012 to 27 Feb 2013
In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
1.Procedure/Guidelines/Rules for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM, DRDO duly approved by DOPT, Government of India.
2.Criteria for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM (Seniority/Administrative & Management skill, qualification & experience etc.)
3.Charter of Duties & Nature of work carried out by Scientist appointed as:
I.Staff Officer to Chief Controller R&D(HR)
II.Director, CEPTAM
III.Director, DHRD
IV.Director, DOP
4.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Staff Officer to CCR&D (HR) & copy of appointment order
5.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, CEPTAM & copy of his appointment order
6.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD, DRDO HQ & copy of his appointment order
7.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DOP & copy of his appointment order
8.List of Scientist consider in the appointment of following post by DRDO Hqrs.
a.Director, CEPTAM Jan 2007- Sept 2010
b.Director, DHRD Oct 2010- Feb 2013
c.Director, DOP March 2013- Jan 2014
9.Administrative & Managerial Experience and Educational Qualification of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist F as on Jan 2007 when he was appointed as Director, CEPTAM, DRDO.
NOTE – Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) because Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD was part & parcel of implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO   (Violation of Article 309). He was also one of the candidates for scientist F to scientist G promotion in year 2011 assessment.
a.Please refer CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO)-
b.Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
Request document (if any) document not provided
Status RTI REQUEST APPLICATION RETURNED TO APPLICANT
Date of Action 15/04/2014
Remarks Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.
Drdo

RTI-RAC- Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘D’, DMSRDE, Kanpur

1 Comment
To,                                                                                                          30th December 2013
Central Public Information Officer
RAC, DRDO, Ministry of Defence
Delhi-110054                     

Hello,

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘D’, DMSRDE, Kanpur was directly recruited on post of Scientist ‘C’ from ISRO to DRDO in the year 2004. He was posted in SASE, Chandigarh in 2004 and transferred to DMSRDE Kanpur in 2009. Kindly provide the following information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Copy of advertisement published in Employment News/Newspapers/Website against which Mr. Arun Kumar Singh was recruited as Scientist ‘C’ in DRDO.
  2. Name of the establishment/lab of DRDO on the request of which RAC created vacancy and advertise the direct post of Scientist ‘C’.
  3. Provide the copy of letter of request sent by Director of that establishment/lab to Director, DHRD/Director, RAC /DOP for recruitment of Scientist ‘C’.
  4. Qualification & experience sought in advertisement against which Mr. Arun Kumar Singh was recruited as Scientist ‘C’ in DRDO.
  5.  Date, venue and list of board member for selection of candidate against that vacancy.
  6. List of candidates those appear in interview/exam for recruitment of Scientist ‘C’ against that vacancy along with their qualifications & experience.
  7. Whether Mr.  Arun Kumar Singh informed to RAC that he was already in service at ISRO and applied through proper channel. (Yes/No)
  8. If answer to point (7) is yes then provide the copy of the declaration submitted by Mr.  Arun Kumar Singh to RAC, DRDO in this respect.
  9. Project/Task against which said vacancy of Scientist ‘C’ was created by RAC.
  10. Whether the experienced Scientist with same qualification and experience as sought in said recruitment were available in DRDO. (Yes/No)

The information sought is pertaining to Establishment matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.

This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

Besides purchase and establishment matter the information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.

 

Regards

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

Registration Number  – MODEF/R/2013/61200

Drdo, Uncategorized

First Appeal – Private Cars Using Commercial Purpose – DMSRDE

2 Comments

FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005

To,
Dr Lokendra Singh,
OS & Sceintist ‘H’
First Appellate Authority, DRDO
RTI Cell, Room No. 314 – A/A,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110105

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005

Reference:  Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14 Nov 2013 issued by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1.       Details of appellant:-

Name           Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address       21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008, Uttarakhand                    

2.       Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-

Name & Rank       Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address                 DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013

3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14th  Nov 2013 received by appellant on 24 November 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Facts & Grounds leading to appeal:

(a)  An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 23rd October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Private cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 using DMSRDE for commercial purpose”. Copy of the RTI Application dated 23rd October 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)  Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14th November 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of Corruption and not come under Schedule-II. However CPIO replied in the highly irresponsible manner which indicates the mismanagement and Corruption in DMSRDE.

(c)  It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 23rd October 2013 that “Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010”.

(d)  In point d (1) of reply dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO provided false argument. As per Purchase Management 2006 it is the responsibility of Director, DMSRDE to hire the transport services from that vendor, the vehicles of which are registered under Taxi at RTO. How can RTO know that a private car vehicle is being used for transport services at DMSRDE?

(e)  In point d (2) of reply dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO gave false argument for not providing the information sought. Committee under Chairmanship of Dr. Ashok Ranjan, Scientist ‘F’ and four other members for identification of vendors did not perform their responsibilities properly. As per findings of the Committee 15 vendors were identified for hired transport services and out of which 10 vendors were qualified as per guidelines framed by the Committee. General terms and conditions were also framed on 18 points by Committee as Annexure II of proposal provided to vendors for seeking quotations for hired transport services. In point no. 8 of General terms & conditions framed by the Committee it was clearly mentioned that “The lowest quotation will be accepted. In case of more than one lowest quotation, the firm whose cars/vehicles registered at RTO for taxi will be preferred”. This indicates that it was responsibilities of DMSRDE to check the registration of taxies whether these were registered as taxies at RTO.

(f)   The arguments at point d (3) is again to put the responsibilities and accountability to minimize corruption in hiring of transport services , on the soldiers of local audit and test audit teams. In case both local & test audit teams were obliged by Director, DMSRDE   on cash & kind then how can they raise the objections on irregularities and corruptions in contract of hired transport. It is well known fact that hired vehicles are being provided to local audit personnel (ACDA officials) on 24×7 and one DMSRDE official is also posted at ACDA office to assist ACDA. These illegal obligations putted on ACDA by Director, DMSRDE establish Corruption in the whole process of contract of hired transport.

(g)  Contract given to M/s Super India Travels, Kanpur has been expired in July 2012 as contract was for only for one year and still now new contract has not been provided to any other vendor by the fresh tendering process as per Purchase Management 2006. One & half year extension to the same vendor smacks vested interest and leads Corruption.

(h) The vendor is not claiming service tax from DMSRDE; the vendor is not having service tax registration and not depositing service tax to Custom & Excise Department, Govt. of India. The issue of service tax registration is clearly mentioned in General terms and conditions framed by the committee so constituted by Director, DMSRDE. In point no. 17 of General terms & conditions framed by the committee it was clearly mentioned that “The rates quoted should be excluding the service tax. The service tax will be paid additionally only after receiving the proof of the service tax registration. No service tax will be paid if the operator fails to provide proof of valid service tax registration”.

(i)   Facts mentioned at above establish irregularities in giving contracts to M/s Super India Travels, Kanpur and further illegal extension since one and half year indicates Corruption at DMSRDE, Kanpur in the whole process.

5.       Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vides RTI Application dated 23 October 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 23rd  October 2013.

6.       Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                            
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                               
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                 
prabhudoon@gmail.com,  www.corruptionindrdo.com                                                                                                                                          

 Enclosure: Two

(1)      Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 14th  November 2013

(2)      RTI Application dated 23 October 2013

 
 RTI Application dated 23 October 2013
 
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,
Central Public Information Officer,
DMSRDE, GT Road,
Kanpur-208013             

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Hello,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given thereof in these decisions.

  1. File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO)Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.
  2. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

CIC in its above mentioned decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

In light of the above decisions of CIC, Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Total No.  of transport/vehicles available in MT Division DMSRDE.
  2. Provide following information in respect of all vehicles available in DMSRDE.
  1. Type of vehicle, Brand name, Manufacturer
  2. Date of Purchase, purchase cost and source of fund(Build up/Project etc)
  3. Present depreciated cost as on 31.10.2013
  4. Average distance run /traveled by each vehicle in the year 2012-2013 separately for
  5. each vehicle.
  6. Total expenditure on maintenance of each vehicle separately in the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

3.      How many CMTD /MTD are posted in MT Division?
4.      Mode of tendering for selection of vendors for hired vehicles (Local Board/Single                  Tender/Limited Tender/Open Tender/Repeat Order) for the following years.

  1. 2010-2011
  2. 2011-2012
  3. 2012-2013
  4. 2013-2014

5.     Total budget of MT Division years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
6.     Total expenditure and payment made for hired vehicles/transport for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13 along with name of vendor to whom the payment made.
7.      Provide expenditure incurred on various heads for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
8.      Provide information about vendor/firm which got contract for hired vehicles and amount paid to these vendors in following format

9.      Amount of Service Tax that has been paid by DMSRDE to Vendor as reflected in bills submitted by vendor for depositing in Custom, Excise & Service Tax Department in

following format

  1. Provide copies of CST (Comparative Statement) after opening of quotations duly approved by competent authority for the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 for giving contract to vendors for hired vehicles services in DMSRDE.
  2. Provide copy of supply order placed for hiring private vehicles/transport for the FY   2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in DMSRDE.
  3. Copy of contract with terms & condition and rate (usage charges) for the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
  4. Whether any extension of contract for hired vehicle has been given to any vendor for during the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. (Yes/No)
  5. If answer to point (13) is yes then provide copy of rules under PM 2006 by which extension for contract of hired vehicle services (Repeat Order) could be given to vendor without going in fresh bidding.
  6. Details about maintenance of vehicles/transport available in DMSRDE for each vehicle/transport in following format
  1.  Status of vehicle (operational/Non operational) available in DMSRDE when services of hired vehicles were utilized.
  2. Whether hired vehicles provided by vendor Super India Travels, Rama Devi, Kanpur with following registration number are registered at RTO, Kanpur under category of Taxi for commercial purposes. Registration & Details of vehicles are

(a)   UP78 BS 1144 ( Indica Car White Color with white number plate)

(b)   UP78 CP 6510 (Indigo CS White Car with white number plate)

  1. If answer to point (17) is Yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by RTO Kanpur for said vehicles under Taxi for Commercial purpose.
  2. If answer to point (17) is No then provide the grounds on which vendor not having proper registration under Taxi from RTO, Kanpur was allowed to provide services in DMSDRE.
  3. The details of Vendor Registration Committee at DMSRDE with name & designation of Chairman and members.

The color of the number plates used in cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 provided by vendor for hired services are not Yellow. The color of these no. plates are White. It establishes that cars used for hired transport in DMSRDE are not registered under TAXI FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. Also the said vendor is not registered at Custom & Excise Department under Service Tax category and not depositing any Service Tax for hired vehicles services at DMSRDE.

Therefore the Information Sought is pertaining to Allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549289) is annexed as Annexure-1.

 
 
(Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal)           Date: 23 October, 2013                                                       
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand                    

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.   17F 549289   as application Fee.dmsrde rti reply car