Tag Archives: Ministry of Defence

Foundation Laid for Recruitment Scam in DRDO

To,                                                                                                                  23rd  October 2013
Shri. Sameer Kumar Khare,
Joint Secretary (Estt.) and Public Grievances & CVO,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 97, South Block,
New Delhi -110 105.

Subject: Foundation Laid for Recruitment Scam in DRDO

CEPTAM was constituted with aim and objective to recruit the technical/ scientific/ admin allied man power, who can be the workforce in major national DRDO projects.

DRDO Hqrs made it a mockery and laughing object. DRDO has violated SRO from beginning of CEPTAM and there are several cases pending in CAT/High courts all across the India.

The recent recruitment drive tells a different story.

CEPTAM – 06 Advertisement Published in Employment News dated 04-10th May, 2013.

No of post advertised in various categories – 844

Approximately 5 lakhs application received (excluding hundreds of applications misplaced)

Approximately 1 lakh applications were rejected for silly reasons (example followed)

Approximately 2 lakhs candidates not able to appear for examination held on 25th August 2013

Approximately 3 lakhs candidates deprived by Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM

It is very big question, how DRDO can give permission to Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM to play with fundamental right of young citizen of India.

Please go through the following facts which clearly shows Sh Rajesh Goyal’s, Director, CEPTAM personal vested interest

  1. The SMS game – All interested candidates who wish to apply for DRDO Entry Test, are compulsorily required to register themselves on mobile no. 56677 of CEPTAM by sending a SMS in this format CEPTAM First choice of Exam City Code Post Code Date of Birth as ddmmyy NAME (Leaving a space between first, middle and last name) Example: CEPTAM 15 0112 231283 Rupesh Kumar Goyal (Name of Director’s son, it is example of pure chamchagiri environment of CEPTAM). Why this SMS system introduced by Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM

Approximately 5 Lakhs application received and each applicant paid Rs 3 for each SMS registration.

Total money received by CEPTAM 15 Lakhs

The contract was cooked with M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS  a computer peripheral supplier and well connected with Sh Rajesh Goyal since he was in ISSA. Anyone can verify these things with back record of firms supply orders vs with Sh Rajesh Goyal’s involvements. The M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS website http://milsys.co.in is shown the order of client list. If 5 lakhs applicants registered the money was huge 15 Lakhs and in open market bulk SMS service providers 6 to 7 paisa /SMS so any one can work out the play in this contract. The CEPTAM  did not give this contract through DAVP shows the corruption angle.

  • No approval from competent authority to induct compulsory Mobile registration.
  • No tender floated by CEPTAM for bulk SMS service providing
    • No minimum 7 vendors address procurement policy of DRDO followed (Limited tender)
  • CEPTAM was not approached to DAVP empanelled SMS bulk service provider

M/s MILLENNIUM SYSTEMS – Provides -Selling of Computers & Related Peripherals such as :Range of Desktops / Servers – IBM / HP / COMPAQ / ACER etc.Range of POS and Kiosk / Billing Machines – Panasonic / Epson,Multimedia Products e.g. Video & Audio Processing Cards, Website designing and hosting. Man power Solutions / Recruitment Solutions /Data Entry. Annual maintenance contracts (AMC)

CEPTAM Website FAQ

Q-6.     Is it necessary to send application after registering through SMS?

A-6.     YES. Without registration number application will not be accepted. It is FIRST STEP for Applying for any post. (Note: Register for each post code separately if you are applying for more than one post code and get registration for each post code.)

Q-9.     I have submitted my application on prescribed format but could not register myself through SMS. Whether my application will be considered?

A-9.  NO; Applications received without registration number are liable to be rejected. Prior registration is mandatory for all posts, candidates applying for.

Application form the marked box for office use only
Application form the marked box for office use only

2.    In above application form the marked box for office use only so hundreds of candidates not filled the SMS registration, result in this basis CEPTAM rejected their applications, who is responsible. Is DRDO ready to repay the money/time wasted by individuals?

Question is whether this kind of provision for like diesel mechanic posts and for SC/ST candidates who belong to rural areas and do not have access or are familiar with internet to verify or clear their issues, is allowed by government of India?

Example rejection of application due to SMS Registration

Example rejection of application due to SMS Registration
Example rejection of application due to SMS Registration

3.    The CEPTAM asked applications by ordinary post and other option were put in 2 boxes in both gates of Metcalf House and 1 box in front of CEPTAM entrance. There was no mechanism to acknowledge applications. So what happened to hundreds of hundreds candidates who spent their days in front of CEPTAM reception but could not get their admit cards because simply they were told that their application was not found. If so then CEPTAM should show their accounts about how many postal orders they enchased against each application. The total number of available applications & postal orders will never match. There is no other example in entire government of India or PSU, Banks where application acknowledgement mechanism is not applied. CEPTAM violated fundamental right of young citizens of  India.

Example  application – not received /found

Example  application – not received /found
Example application – not received /found
Example  application – not received /found
Example application – not received /found

4.   Approximately 2 lakhs candidates could not appear due to wrongly assigned examination centers. It is not possible that the huge number of candidates themselves asked for the centre, this whole thing is deliberately done by CEPTAM on the direction of Sh Rajesh Goyal or otherwise it is clearly proved that he is incompetent to handle such a task. Please find some examples of admit cards issued by CEPTAM.

post5
In Application centre city code clearly mentioned – 09 (Delhi NCR)
Admit Card centre city code given – Ranchi (Code -24)
Admit Card centre city code given – Ranchi (Code -24)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Kanpur (Code 16)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Kanpur (Code 16)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Ahmedabad (Code 02)
In Application centre city code asked – 09 (Delhi NCR) Given Ahmedabad (Code 02)

5.    Although CEPTAM corrected some centre errors and provided that list on the website but numbers (First list -89, http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/ceptam/CityChangeList.pdf second list 54 http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/ceptam/CityAndPCDlist.pdf) were few in respect to the numbers of candidates who were not able to appear i.e. 2 Lakhs.

6.     There are many example in which any one can see, how Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director chose data entry firms who played with the future of young India.

Examples

Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Wrong date of birth, wrong post code entered by data entry firms
Photo placed wrongly by data entry firm and Centre wrong
Photo placed wrongly by data entry firm and Centre wrong
Photo Lalita and name in admit card Rajnish Kumar
Photo Lalita and name in admit card Rajnish Kumar

7.      In one of my RTIs, I have requested information regarding selection boards’ expert members, because it is observed that Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM engaged his wife, his co-brother and other blood relation persons as expert in different selection boards all over India. Like Dr Madhu (Madhuri) Goyal , Mr M C Goyal,  Mr Sekher Gupta,  Mr Anupam Gupta . The act of Sh Rajesh Goyal, Director, CEPTAM assigning his relatives as experts violated the laid down rules CCS rules. No prior approval from competent authority was taken in this regards. This act can give liberty to do manipulation in recruitment. My RTI dated 2nd May 2013 and CPIO, CEPTAM Reply is enclosed here with for your ready reference. (Assessment Boards and Recruitment Board constituted in the year 2012) This mechanism is also following in recent recruitment drive. (RTI request and reply of CPIO, CEPTAM enclosed herewith for your ready reference.)

8.     Please find enclosed list of the name and phone numbers of some candidates from whom you can visualize how CEPTAM, DRDO played with the future of young Indians for their own vested interest. (List enclosed as annexure)

Sir, above all examples are enough evidences to investigate the CEPTAM-06 recruitment drive, beside this lot of complaint already received by honorable Defence Minister and various authorities. The CEPTAM director putting his efforts to diluting and burring the subject matter. It is requested kindly do needful urgently for the future of young citizens of India.

Regards

 Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand
Cell No- 9411114879, Landline- 0135-2787750
e-mail- prabhudoon@gmail.com, website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed

  1. Copy of my RTI request to CPIO,CEPTAM dated 2nd May 2013
  2. Copy my RTI request to CEPTAM dated 9th June 2013
  3. List of the name and phone numbers of some candidates

 

 

Fooling the RTI applicant by DRDO with help of DoPT

To                                                                                                                 2nd August 2013
Shri R K GIRDHAR
Under Secretary 
RTI Section, Room No 215 A /II                                                                                                                                                   North Block, New Delhi

Subject: Fooling the RTI applicant by DRDO with help of DoPT

Sir,

  1. I have send a RTI request CPIO,Under Secretary (Estt.A-IV) R.No.202, North Block, D/o.Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi on 23rd July 2013. (Copy enclosed for your ready reference.)
  2. I have received a letter from Sh B Bandyopadhyay, Under Secretary, & CPIO, vide letter No 28034/265/2013-Estt.(A) dated 29th July 2013 stated that my application forwarded to CPIO,DRDO Hqrs for providing information directly to me. Copy enclosed)
  3. Subsequently vide letter no RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0210 DRDO Hqrs CPIO, Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’   refused to disclose this information u/s 24 (1) of the RTI Act.

In view of above I would like to inform you some facts for your kind perusal.

  1. In 11th July 2011 I had requested similar RTI request to DoPT and received proper information from Sh Mohd. Moniruazzaman, CPIO vide letter F.No 29/41/2011/EO(SM-II) date 2nd August 2011. ( Copy enclosed)
  2. The DRDO Hqrs CPIO, Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’ is facing CVC probe vide CVC No.569/11/9. Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’ major concern to protect corrupt officials by not providing information to RTI applicants who want expose DRDO officials  corrupt practices in procurement/ recruitments/ promotions / extensions etc.                         The current status of Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’ case is the case file No 203/D/(Vig.II)/2011 was referred to CVC on 17th July 2013 from CVO, Ministry of Defence for further action.
  3. In my RTI request is directly related to corruption in Sh R C Agarwal’s extension case, the guidelines FR 56 d was not followed properly.   Sh R C Agarwal have no international or national reputation credits, his second extension backed by DRDO for Software Defined Radio Project (100 Cores),  without any output PDC Date 27th July 2013, there is no further extension received by DEAL, DRDO till date. As per sources 18 members team of Project Management Review Committee found that project is not feasibly fit for further extension on 14th August 2013 but the DRDO will manage to get extension for another 12 months for wasting rest Rs 40 corers precious poor tax payers’ money.

It is requested to do needful action to replace Dr A K Tyagi from the duty of CPIO as he is facing CVC inquiry against him.

It is requested to kindly directed Sh B Bandyopadhyay, Under Secretary, & CPIO to provide the requested information as earlier followed by DoPT.

Regards,

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

Enclosed

  1. Copy of RTI request sent to CPIO,Under Secretary (Estt.A-IV) R.No.202, North Block, D/o.Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi on 23rd July 2013.
  2. Copy of letter of Sh B Banddyopadhyay, Under Secretary, & CPIO, vide letter No 28034/265/2013-Estt.(A) dated 29th July 2013.
  3. Copy of denial letter no RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0210 dated 16th August 2013 from  DRDO Hqrs CPIO, Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’
  4. Copy of   Sh Mohd. Moniruazzaman, CPIO vide letter F.No 29/41/2011/EO(SM-II) date 2nd August 2011

Copy to

  1. Prime Minister of India, PMO, South Block, New Delhi
  2.  Defence Minister of India, Room No 104, South Block, New Delhi.
  3. Dr. Syamal Kumar Sarkar, Secretary, MOP, Room No-112, North Block, New Delhi

RTI- CVO,MoD

To                                                                                10th August 2013
Samir Ranjan Amin
U/Secretary &  CPIO
Room No – 340, Office of Director of Vigilance
B- Wing Sena Bhawan
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Dr A K Tyagi, Sc ‘F’,DRDO Hqrs, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,New Delhi.

A complaint sent to CVC against Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Scientist ’F’, DRDO, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi on 10th Nov 2010 by undersigned.

The CVC registered the case vide complain no 569/11/9 and further sent to CVO, Ministry of Defence, South Block vide CVC letter No 011/DEF/018-121962 date 15/03/2011

Information Sought

  1. Provide the copy of correspondences between CVO,MoD and DRDO Hqrs in respect of Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Scientist ’F’, DRDO, Ministry of Defence.
  2. Current status of vigilance enquiry – completed/ still in investigation stage

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 require 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  16F 964391

Regards

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

Letter to Shri. Sameer Kumar Khare, Joint Secretary (Estt.) and Public Grievances & CVO

To,                                                                            29th June 2013
Shri. Sameer Kumar Khare,
Joint Secretary (Estt.) and Public Grievances & CVO,
Ministry of Defence, of India,
97, South Block, New Delhi -110 105.

 Subject: Request to investigate the complaint against Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Scientist’F’,DRDO, Ministry of Defence.

Reference:  Vide CVC letter No 011/DEF/018-121962 date 17/03/2011 complaint forwarded to CVO, Ministry of Defence, South Block.

Sir,

A complaint sent to CVC against Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Scientist’F’, DRDO, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi on 10th Nov 2010, Copy enclosed for your ready reference.

The CVC registered the case vide complain no 569/11/9 and further sent to CVO, Ministry of Defence, South Block vide CVC letter No 011/DEF/018-121962 date 15/03/2011(Copy enclosed)

Further in between I have sent an RTI request to DIAT, DRDO, Pune to get more input on the subject matter. (Copy enclosed)

I have received information that was enough to prove the irregularities in procurement and payment to vendors. (Copy enclosed)

Further Mr. Rajiv Chauhan, Advocate filed one more RTI and requested the details, after CIC intervention DIAT, DRDO provide the some documents for inspection related to procurement of online magazine costing around 22 lakhs plus. Copy of RTI and related information which we received from DIAT DRDO are enclosed herewith as evidences.

DRDO’s procurement practices are the most illogical and in the name secrecy DRDO is fooling the whole nation and in this act CDA is also equally responsible, in some cases knowingly, or in some cases unknowingly, because in the name of technology DRDO scientists are easily able to fool them.

This is a very small case of few lakhs or nearly 1.5 crores but it will show you the mechanism of how DRDO scientists are making money and fooling the system.

The ink signed order copy is not available in the department and the payment of more than 22 lakhs was done.

Like online ‘Nature Magazine” subscription available online, all the procurement papers i.e. order copy and other related papers in files are scanned papers.

Main questions in Dr. A K Tyagi case

1.    Where is the ink-signed order copy of Online Nature Magazine?
2.    Without ink signed order copy of Online Nature Magazine, how JCDA, Pune released the payments?
3.    Are any records in DIAT, Library available which can show how many persons logged with Online Nature Magazine?
4.    The observations of DIAT, DRDO enquiry committee against Dr. A K Tyagi still unanswered?

              i.        To understand the existing procedure for procurement of Books by Library, it was necessary to go through basis of existing procedure, record and files to related to procurement. In absence of OI/C,IC&L very limited records made available by Library and after arrival of OI/C,IC&L access  to information and records was totally denied to the Board of Officers.
            ii.        Existing Procedure and Anomalies- the following is observed by Board of Officers.

i)             OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation/negotiation followed. it is noted that as per terms and conditions no discounts have been asked.

ii)            Order has been placed on single tender basis

           iii.        During limited observations it was seen that Books were accepted at   higher prices than the order/approval price by the purchase committee.
           iv.        No proof of price is being put up to the purchase Committee for approval.
            v.        Firm Orders are being placed by OI/C,IC&L without bidding/negotiation
           vi.        Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not registered. As per purchase procedure orders of only up to Rs 5000/- can be placed to unregistered vendors. This rule is not followed.
          vii.        In our limited inquiry, we observed that large numbers of books were
        viii.        Accepted at much higher price. We site few example-

a)      Book ordered for Rs 6029.07 was procured for price Rs 81,936.00

b)      Book ordered for Rs 13,156.00 was procured for price Rs 27,362.68

c)      Book ordered for Rs 40,000.00 was procured for price Rs 3,60,00.00

d)      Book ordered for Rs 3,292.24 was procured for price Rs 5,233.09

           ix.        We did not find any justification in orders or Terms & Conditions to accept such high billing prices for payment to vendors.
            x.        OI/C,IC&L did not conduct independent investigation regarding over valued books supplied by the vendors for their correct price.
           xi.        We found such number of cases where over payment was cleaned by OI/C, IC&L and Finance Officer without amendment or without bringing to notice of approving authority or VC
          xii.        We did not find any power vested to OI/C,IC&L, Finance Officer to clear the over payment cases.
xiii.        Before payment to vendors, pre-auditing is mandatory (as per purchase procedure) No such pre auditing mechanism is found resulting in escaping the over payment cases from scrutiny and corrective action. We did not find any document or authority to exempt from pre –auditing.
        xiv.        Functioning of Library in case Library procurement was found devoid of adequate check and balance and control mechanism. We can conclude that OI/C,IC&L and Finance Officer flouted the principle of FR-21

5.    Who is saving the culprit?

As we are aware that now some cases of DRDO were taken up seriously with efforts, like Dr. Arun Kumar, Dr. S M Veerabhadrappa, etc.

We hope that you will take this matter seriously and personally because it was pending since 15/03/2011 in CVO, Ministry of Defence.

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand
Cell No- 9411114879, Landline- 0135-2787750

e-mail- prabhudoon@gmail.com , website : www.corruptionindrdo.com

Copy Enclosed-

  1. Copy of complaint sent to CVC against Dr A K Tyagi
  2. Copy of CVC letter dated 15/03/2011
  3. Copy of CVC Letter dated 17/03/2011
  4. Copy of RTI to DIAT, DRDO, Pune
  5. Copy of Reply of DIAT, DRDO, Pune
  6. Copy of RTI request of Dr Rajiv Chauhan & CIC decision
  7. Copy of procurement papers received during inspection at DIAT, DRDO, Pune

 Copy of complaint sent to CVC against Dr A K Tyagi

Date -10th Nov  2010
To
The Chief  Vigilance Commissioner                                                                                        
Satarkata Bhavan A-Block GPO Complex INA
New delhi : 110023
 

Complaint is being lodged against

Name – Dr.A K Tyagi, Tele 23007453

Designation- DRDO – Scientist ‘F’, CPIO, Head, RTI Cell, 314 A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110105

Dr. A.K.Tyagi, Scientist ‘F’, Head, RTI Cell,  DRDO previously posted in Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, (DIAT), Deemed University. Defence Institute of Advanced (Deemed University) is a premier academic institute functioning under the aegis of Defence Research & Development Organization

Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT as O I/C(Officer In-Charge), IC&L(Information Center & Library)  and Finance Officer during his posting.

He has violated the all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there Revised Edition 1999, DRDO manual of Procedure for Management of Library & Technical Information Centers. – DRDO Hqrs, Ministry of Defence.

Page No – 25 Para 4.2.3 No 4 Terms for procurement of books

Page No – 33 Para 4.3.4 Terms for procurement of periodical publication

Above procedure were violated by Dr  A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself and as well as for his god fathers.

The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order.

There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher.

In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.

The God Father guide him to commit the corrupt practice and got protected by none other than Dr W Selvamurthy, CC R&D,DRDO.

With his blessing he purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, LondonUnited Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs

Facts :   Till date nobody from DIAT has seen the Nature Journal

This journal was not useful for DIAT as the same deals with life sciences and DIAT area is ARMAMENT ENGINEERINGAPPLIED MATHEMATICSMETALLURGYCOMPUTER ENGINEERINGAPPLIED PHYSICSAEROSPACE ENGINEERINGMECHANICAL ENGINEERINGEXPLOSIVES & APPLIED CHEMISTRYELECTRONICS

The chairman for the Nature Journal procurement was Vigilance Officer of DIAT   who approved this procurement from local vendor.

In other cases the books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but  Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds

The inquiry constituted to address this issue inspire of giving punishment the God Father Dr W Selvamurthy, CC R&D,DRDO than CC (HR) gave him safe passage and now DRDO Hqrs made him CPIO,DRDO Hqrs, Head RTI Cell and the best part of this

DRDO is exempted from RTI Act 2005 of Schedule-II  only corruption & human right RTI entertained by DRDO so one can imagine the DRDO find most suitable corrupt official for the handling of RTI issues.

The finding of inquiry committee of DIAT (Board of Three Senior Officers)

1. Observations – To understand the existing procedure for procurement of Books by Library, it was necessary to go through basis of existing procedure, record and files to related to procurement. In absence of OI/C,IC&L very limited records made available by Library and after arrival of OI/C,IC&L access  to information and records was totally denied to the Board of Officers.

2. Existing Procedure and Anomalies- the following is observed by Board of Officers.

i) OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation/negotiation followed. it is noted that as per terms and conditions no discounts have been asked.

ii) Order has been placed on single tender basis

iii) During limited observations it was seen that Books were accepted at   higher prices than the order/approval price by the purchase committee.

iv) No proof of price is being put up to the purchase Committee for approval.

v) Firm Orders are being placed by OI/C,IC&L without bidding/negotiation

vi) Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not registered. As per purchase procedure orders of only up to Rs 5000/- can be placed to unregistered vendors. This rule is not followed.

vii) In our limited inquiry, we observed that large numbers of books were

accepted at much higher price. We site few example-

a)    Book ordered for Rs 6029.07 was procured for price Rs 81,936.00

b)    Book ordered for Rs 13,156.00 was procured for price Rs 27,362.68

c)    Book ordered for Rs 40,000.00 was procured for price Rs 3,60,00.00

d)    Book ordered for Rs 3,292.24 was procured for price Rs 5,233.09

viii) We did not find any justification in orders or Terms & Conditions to accept such high billing prices for payment to venors.

ix) OI/C,IC&L did not conduct independent investigation regarding over valued books supplied by the vendors for their correct price.

x) We found such number of cases where over payment was cleaned by OI/C, IC&L and Finance Officer without amendment or without bringing to notice of approving authority or VC

xi)           We did not find any power vested to OI/C,IC&L, Finance Officer to clear the over payment cases.

xii)         Before payment to vendors, pre-auditing is mandatory (as per purchase procedure) No such pre auditing mechanism is found resulting in escaping the over payment cases from scrutiny and corrective action. We did not find any document or authority to exempt from pre –auditing.

xiii)        Functioning of Library in case Library procurement was found devoid of adequate check and balance and control mechanism. We can conclude that OI/C,IC&L and Finance Officer flouted the principle of FR-21

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand
Cell No- 9411114879, Landline- 0135-2787750
e-mail- prabhu@dandriyal.com
 
Copy of CVC letter dated 15/03/2011
CVC letter dated 15/03/2011
CVC letter dated 15/03/2011

Copy of CVC letter dated 17/03/2011

CVC letter dated 17/03/2011
CVC letter dated 17/03/2011

 

Copy of RTI to DIAT, DRDO, Pune

 
To                                                                                                          Date 15th February 2011 
The CPIO                                                                             No RTI/DIAT/HARASS/14/2/2011
Defence Institute of Armment Technology (DIAT) 
Simhagad Road, Girinagar
Pune-411 025

 Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.   In respect of online subscription of Nature magazine by DIAT, Pune

  1. The copy of order of online subscription for NATURE magazine. With terms  & condition
  2. The copy of demand initiative for Nature magazine if any.
  3.  Copy of recommendation if any by approval committee of library.
  4. Copy of renewal of subscription if any
  5. Present status of subscription.

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 require 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 172113

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com  
website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

Copy of Reply of DIAT, DRDO, Pune

DIAT, DRDO, Pune Reply page1
DIAT, DRDO, Pune Reply page1
DIAT,DRDO,Pune RTI Reply page 2
DIAT,DRDO,Pune RTI Reply page 2

Copy of RTI request of Dr Rajiv Chauhan & CIC decision

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

File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001219

Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan
Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012
Date of decision 09.08.2012

Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’

2. The appellant had filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2011 seeking information
about the purchase of certain books and other materials by the Defence Institute of Armament Technology, Pune. This information was denied to him on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organisation. During the hearing, the appellant submits that he will be satisfied if he is given inspection of the file/files relating to the order placed by Dr. A.K. Tyagi, the then Library Incharge, DIAT, Pune, for online subscription of ‘Nature Magzine’ against payment of about Rs. 25 lacs

3. The appellant also produces a copy of the letter dated 14.3.2011 of Dr. S.S.Sirurmath, University Librarian, in which he had informed the appellant that copy of order and terms and conditions of Nature Magazine(on line) were not available. He expresses surprise at this response in as much as an order of Rs. 25 lacs could not have been placed without due processing in the file.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that CPIO may give inspection of all records relating to the online subscription to the appellant or his representative in 05 weeks time.

Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.

( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar

Address of parties :-
1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.

2. Shri Rajiv Chauhan,
1053/3, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut-250005.

The Right to Information Act, 2005

Appeal before the Central Information Commission;

Appeal No. ———————– Dated ————————
As I am aggrieved by decision of Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate

Authority, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.

1. Details of appellant:

1.1 Full Name: – RAJIV CHAUHAN

1.2. Full Address: R/O-1053/3, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT (U.P)-250005

1.3 Phone/Cell No.: 09412628314 ; 09258045938 ; 0121-4009512;

4 Email ID: rajivchauhan89@yahoo.co.in

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

2.1 Name/Designation: Dr.A.K.TYAGI ; SCIENTIST “F’ , CPIO, DRDO HQ;

2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105

2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

IMPORTANT NOTE :-

The RTI information is related with the corruption of the CPIO of RTI Dr.A.K.TYAGI during the office-in charge ,information centre/ library & finance officer of DIAT (Defense institute of Advanced technology). So that the decision on my RTI decision given by- Deepak Mishra , Addl.Director, RTI Cell, DRDO BHAWAN , NEW DELHI-110105

3. Details of First Appellate Authority [FAA]:

3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: Dr. ARUN KUMAR

3.2 Full Address of FAA: OS & DIRECTOR; DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL;

ROOM NO- 217, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105

4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:

4.1 To CPIO — 29 OCT 2011

4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011

5. Particulars of Decisions:

5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-

22nd NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0283; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI

5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:-

10 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/114; Dr.Arun Kumar,OS & DOP , FAA,DRDO HQ

6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-

6.1 CPIO— 28 NOV2011

6.2 FAA: — 17 JAN 2012

7. Details of information sought:-

Kindly inform to you that Dr.A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi. He has violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself .The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order. There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher.
In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.
He purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs

Facts : Till date nobody from DIAT has seen the Nature Journal

This journal was not useful for DIAT as the same deals with life sciences and DIAT area is ARMAMENT ENGINEERING, APPLIED MATHEMATICS, METALLURGY, COMPUTER ENGINEERING, APPLIED PHYSICS, AEROSPACE ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, EXPLOSIVES & APPLIED CHEMISTRY, ELECTRONICS
The chairman for the Nature Journal procurement was Vigilance Officer of DIAT who approved this procurement from local vendor.

In other cases the books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds

The finding of inquiry committee of DIAT (Board of Three Senior Officers)
1. Observations – To understand the existing procedure for procurement of Books by Library, it was necessary to go through basis of existing procedure, record and files to related to procurement. In absence of OI/C,IC&L very limited records made available by Library and after arrival of OI/C,IC&L access to information and records was totally denied to the Board of Officers.
2. Existing Procedure and Anomalies- the following is observed by Board of Officers.
i) OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation/negotiation followed. it is noted that as per terms and conditions no discounts have been asked.
ii) Order has been placed on single tender basis
iii) During limited observations it was seen that Books were accepted at higher prices than the order/approval price by the purchase committee.
iv) No proof of price is being put up to the purchase Committee for approval.
v) Firm Orders are being placed by OI/C,IC&L without bidding/negotiation
vi) Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not registered. As per purchase procedure orders of only up to Rs 5000/- can be placed to unregistered vendors. This rule is not followed.
vii) In our limited inquiry, we observed that large numbers of books were
accepted at much higher price. We site few example-
a) Book ordered for Rs 6029.07 was procured for price Rs 81,936.00
b) Book ordered for Rs 13,156.00 was procured for price Rs 27,362.68
c) Book ordered for Rs 40,000.00 was procured for price Rs 3,60,00.00
d) Book ordered for Rs 3,292.24 was procured for price Rs 5,233.09
viii) We did not find any justification in orders or Terms & Conditions to accept such high billing prices for payment to venors.
ix) OI/C,IC&L did not conduct independent investigation regarding over valued books supplied by the vendors for their correct price.
x) We found such number of cases where over payment was cleaned by OI/C, IC&L and Finance Officer without amendment or without bringing to notice of approving authority or VC
xi) We did not find any power vested to OI/C,IC&L, Finance Officer to clear the over payment cases.
xii) Before payment to vendors, pre-auditing is mandatory (as per purchase procedure) No such pre auditing mechanism is found resulting in escaping the over payment cases from scrutiny and corrective action. We did not find any document or authority to exempt from pre –auditing.
xiii) Functioning of Library in case Library procurement was found devoid of adequate check and balance and control mechanism. We can conclude that OI/C,IC&L and Finance Officer flouted the principle of FR-21

This is a case of the corruption so that the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before high power investigating officer / commission / higher courts in the interest of law and justice .

I want the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Is it true that Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi ?
Yes/No
2. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation / negotiation followed ? Yes/No
3. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L has been placed orders on single tender basis? Yes/No
4. Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not
registered?
Yes/ No
5. Book cost was approved by library committee in US dollor 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds ?
Yes/No
6. Order copy and term, conditions for the nature Magazine is not available. So the order place by Dr. A.K.Tyagi for Nature Magazine verbally or in written? Pl. provide suitable reply with authentic documents.

I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request to you please provide me the information by the speed post.

8. Brief facts of the case:-
I submitted my RTI application before the CPIO, DRDO, New Delhi on dt.29-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office by Dr.A.K.Tyagi . He violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself .The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order. There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher. In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs. He purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs
CPIO reply is not satisfactory and not as per the law because the RTI is related with the allegation of the corruption and not exempted under section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.
In Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454 clearly mentioned that- “37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.
The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”

I was not satisfied with the reply of CPIO,DRDO HQ, New Delhi, after that I submitted an appeal before FAA to take the information but the FAA of DRDO dismissed the appeal and failed to provide the information with the ref. of second schedule of the RTI Act & section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.

9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:-

1- That the RTI application is related with the public information because the tenders generally published in news paper / internet for the purchasing of the books as per the DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication.

2- That this information is directly related with the corruption and misuse of the office and not come under section 24(1) of the RTI Act because the books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds
3- In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.
4- That the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice.

10. Any other information in support of appeal:-
1- This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the purchasing of the books / periodical publication.
2- Dr.A.K.Tyagi violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself.
3- That this action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. This committee was put up an adverse report to the authorities.
11. Prayer/relief sought for:-
I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Is it true that Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi ?
Yes/No
2. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation / negotiation followed ? Yes/No
3. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L has been placed orders on single tender basis? Yes/No
4. Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not
registered?
Yes/ No
5. Book cost was approved by library committee in US dollor 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds ?
Yes/No
6. Order copy and term, conditions for the nature Magazine is not available. So the order place by Dr. A.K.Tyagi for Nature Magazine verbally or in written? Pl. provide suitable reply with authentic documents.

I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the information’s by the speed post.
(2)- I request your honor to pass an order in favor of the applicant as deemed fit as an any relief .

Personal Presence at hearing:- — YES
Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with this commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
Place: MEERUT

Date: —————-
Signature of appellant

Copy of procurement papers received during inspection at DIAT, DRDO, Pune

 DIAT Inspection 1DIAT Inspection 2
 DIAT Inspection 3DIAT Inspection 4DIAT Inspection 5DIAT Inspection 6DIAT Inspection 7DIAT Inspection 8DIAT Inspection 9
 DIAT Inspection 11 DIAT Inspection 12 DIAT Inspection 13 DIAT Inspection 14 DIAT Inspection 15 DIAT Inspection 16 DIAT Inspection 17 DIAT Inspection 18 DIAT Inspection 19 DIAT Inspection 20 DIAT Inspection 21 DIAT Inspection 22 DIAT Inspection 23

CAG pulls up DRDO for irregularities in new projects

Agencies : New Delhi, Thu Nov 29 2012, 20:41 hrs The Indian Express

The CAG has pulled up the DRDO pointing out “deficiencies” and “procedural irregularities” committed by it in taking up new projects and splitting sanctions for them to bring it within financial powers of the organisation head.

“Scrutiny of project sanctions issued by DRDO revealed procedural irregularities relating to misleading nomenclature of sanction issuing authorities, absence of data base of sanctions and splitting of sanctions,” the CAG said in its report tabled in the Parliament today.

“The above audit findings underscore that the efforts of the Ministry of Defence to bring in transparency and objectivity in functioning of its departments remain unachieved as of now,” the report said.

The CAG noted that financial powers of Director General, DRDO and Secretary, Defence Research and Development were enhanced to the range of Rs 25 crore to 50 crore and Rs 60 crore to 75 crore respectively and both these offices are held by one person only.

“Audit of sanctions revealed non-adherence with established norms and procedures for issue, circulation and recording of sanctions authorising expenditure out of public funds for various purposes,” the report said.

On the splitting of sanctions, the Government auditor said, “We observed that after the enhanced delegation of financial powers in July 2010, sanctions were spilt up to bring them within the delegated financial powers of the DG R and D (DRDO Chief) that is up to Rs 50 crore in consultation with the Integrated Financial Advisor.

” “DRDO splitting such sanctions is tantamount to selecting financial advisor which clearly erodes the integrity and independence of financial scrutiny of expenditure proposals,” the report said.

The CAG noted that in some cases, the cost of DRDO projects was brought down below Rs 50 crore by reducing the number of deliverables and curtailing its scope enabling the DG, DRDO to issue the sanction within his delegated powers.

“Clearly projects were being split up to keep the sanction below Rs 50 crore,” it said.

The report said, “instead of obtaining the revised sanction for existing projects by approaching the competent financial authority at the next higher level, fresh projects were sanctioned.”

The project cases cited by the CAG included the Project Akashdeep of DRDO for developing indigenous Aerostat radars and Project ADITYA for the vehicles mounted high power laser directed energy weapons.

The report said the enhancement of delegated financial powers has resulted in concentration of financial powers with the DRDO headquarters which has a “tendency to split projects to avoid reference to higher CFAs.

” The CAG also noted that the DRDO “did not maintain a control register of sanctions issued and there excited no mechanism to track the number and total amount of sanctions issued for projects.”

“In absence of minimum control records, the possibility of sanctions being issued in excess of funds, splitting of sanctions, issue of multiple projects for the same objective could neither be ruled out nor noticed in normal course,” the report observed.

In the recent past, an internal audit report of the Defence Ministry had made similar observations there which were refuted by the DRDO saying they were only preliminary in nature.

 

Defence audit raises questions about scientific adviser’s grants

The CGDA has pointed out several infirmities in the grants sanctioned by V.K. Saraswat.

ABHINANDAN MISHRA NEW DELHI | 6th Oct 2012 – The Sunday Gaurdian

he Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) has raised questions about certain research grants and aids given by the Defence Minister’s Scientific Adviser, V.K. Saraswat, to undeserving societies headed by scientists. These questions have been raised during an audit of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO), ordered by the Ministry of Defence. The projects are all part of the DRDO.

According to the report, Saraswat, the scientific adviser, sanctioned a grant of Rs 288 lakh to Professor V.U. Reddy of C.R. Rao Advanced Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science (AIMSCS), Hyderabad for a project on a futuristic radar.

The CGDA has pointed out several infirmities in this sanction. Since Saraswat is the president of the society’s governing body, it was wrong on his part to sanction any grants to the society. More importantly, the society is known for its achievements in mathematics, statistics and computer science and “is not even generally connected with research relating to futuristic radars”. The society also does not have the necessary equipment to carry out such research and did not have the expert manpower when it was given the grant.

The DRDO sanctioned another grant-in-aid project costing Rs 298.17 lakh to another scientist from the same society, S.B. Ra, who is a co-principal investigator for the above project. The CGDA has questioned the sanctioning of large grants-in-aid to institutes that do not have the required number of researchers or even basic facilities like computers.

The audit has also questioned the way various DRDO chairs are being given to ex-DRDO employees. S.K. Salwan, an ex-laboratory director, was appointed to the Dr B.D. Nag Chaudhari DRDO chair for three years at a cost of Rs 83.064 lakh. Kota Harinarayana, former director of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a DRDO sponsored society, was awarded the Dr D.S. Kothari-DRDO chair for three years at a cost of Rs 83.064 lakh.

As per the audit, no public notice was issued seeking applications for these highly paid positions. The appointment was made by DG, DRDO in a discretionary manner on the basis of nomination. Further, instead of paying a monthly remuneration, the DRDO released a sum of Rs 27.688 lakh each to both of them without deducting tax at source.

The grant to S.K. Salwan was released even before he joined the Dr B.D. Nag Chaudhari DRDO chair. The audit has recommended appropriate recoveries. It has further questioned the rationale behind leaving the ownership of intellectual property rights generated by research performed under this grant with the experts and not with the government.

Appointment scandal brews, 2 DRDO scientists under cloud

Indian Express

 By Yatish Yadav / ENS – NEW DELHI 21st September 2012 10:59 AM

In a fresh blow to Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has advised initiation of major penalty against two of its scientists.

Acting on a complaint alleging irregularities in appointment and promotion of scientists and based on subsequent investigation by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Defence Ministry, the CVC found Arun Kumar and A K Bansal blameworthy.

“The case has been examined by the commission. On the facts of the case, the commission is in agreement with Ministry of Defence and advises initiation of major penalty proceedings against Dr Arun Kumar, senior scientist, DRDO, and A K Bansal, additional director, Recruitment Assessment Centre,” the CVC office memorandum dated August 23 said.

Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC) of the DRDO was set up in July 1985 for the recruitment and promotion of scientists. The RAC is exempted from the purview of Union Public Service Commission.

Sources said the complaint was lodged by a DRDO employee alleging nepotism and lapses in the policy of recruitment and promotion.

It is learnt that the matter was taken up by the defence vigilance based on Defence Minister A K Antony’s directions.

Arun Kumar is currently serving as Director, Personnel – a DRDO department that coordinates recruitment of scientists and appointment of consultants. Kumar was promoted to the grade of an outstanding scientist in 2010. It was alleged that he misused power to induct his daughter in a laboratory functioning under the DRDO, in violation of laid down norms. After examining the probe report, the CVC has also advised the ministry to reconsider the appointment of his daughter.

The DRDO’s image took a beating recently after a secret audit report ordered by Antony unravelled the rot within. Citing various cases, the report claimed that the DRDO’s functioning was not transparent.

Also, no comprehensive database with details of projects sanctioned by the DRDO and how many were declared successful was in place.

The DRDO has a network of 52 laboratories and establishments spread across the country with an annual budget of over Rs 10, 500 crore. Currently, it has over 5,000 scientists and around 25,000 support staff working in several areas of defence technology.

“Truth Never Dies” ll Satyameva Jayate ll

                                                                                                                                  29th January 2012
To
The Honorable Prime Minister
PMO, South Block
New Delhi -110011

Honorable Sir,

Truth Never Dies” ll Satyameva Jayate ll

A Powerful orator, economist of International repute, most reliable financial expert, trusted lieutenant of Smt. Indira Gandhi, Ex-governor of Reserve Bank & Ex-Chairman of Planning Commission- All these decoration warrant that at least PMO should not ignore the fight against corruption prevailing in DRDO. If the Prime Minister obliged the scientist with 20% incentive in a country where 40 crore people have to fight for at least one meal for survival.  How come PMO helps DRDO to conceal the truth of the prevailing corruption?

I assure you Sir, the way the website www.corruptionindrdo.com has been targeted with fake cases with fake charges FIR registered with Police against whistle blower and Ministry of Defence has put all efforts to close their eyes against documentary evidences of corruption on DRDO is not a welcome sign of good governance.

This website mainly advocated the self reliance in front of defence technology.  The huge one lakh crores infrastructure and 28000 strong competent scientists/engineers/technicians of DRDO in last 50 years have failed to deliver a single indigenous output of International standards.

This website has exposed the corruption, nepotism in DRDO and this neck deep corruption/nepotism is stumbling block in development.

The scientists/engineers are encouraged to justify the failures.

Nobody is talking about the success, about the projects/programs. When it will stop? Only time will tell.

DRDO is targeting those who give positive criticism for technology development.

Similar firm and thunderous decision is required in DRDO like ISRO.

This website represents the common people of India and expects the result of action taken on issues exposed with evidences and so far DRDO is ignorant of national perspective of development. Only goal is personal interest.

The accountability of DRDO is Zero

The Accountability is directly proportional to work output.

Therefore DRDO work output is Zero

Even the honorable parliament has been mislead by DRDO several times.

Thanking you

Regards   

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.comprabhu@dandriyal.com
Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com

AMU VC committed financial impropriety’

15th January 2012

To
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

Reference: a)  Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21st March 2011
                       b)  Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th May 2011           
 

Honorable Sir,

The following news was published on Friday, 13th January 2012 Times of India, New Delhi.

‘AMU VC committed financial impropriety’: CBI is believed to have found that AMU VC P K Abdul Azis had committed financial impropriety and knowingly claimed allowances for which he was not entitled.

Sir, Dr Prahlada, VC, DIAT, DRDO has also did same corruption and the RTI reply from JCDA and DRDO Hqrs proved the same then why the similar action is not taken by Ministry of Defence ?

Dr. Prahlada is not only case in DRDO there are so many other senior officials who have committed similar corruption until my RTI was raised. Like Sh S Ravi, Scientist ‘G’, Sh Neeraj Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ etc.

Please find enclosed documentary evidences of above corrupt practices done by DRDO officials for your needful action.

Yours sincere effort is needed to clean the DRDO.

Thanking you

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com,  Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed

  1. RTI reply of JCDA
  2. RTI Reply of DRDO Hqrs in respect of Dr Prahlada, Sh S Ravi, Scietist’ G’ etc
  3. RTI Reply of DRDO Hqrs in respect of Sh. Neeraj Kumar Scientist ‘ D’
  4. DOP,DRDO Hqrs letter for HRA recovery dated 17thAugust 2011
    JCDA RTI Reply
    DRDO Hqrs Reply
    DRDO Qrs RTI Reply 2
    DRDO Hqrs RTI reply in respect of Sh Neeraj Kumar
    Neeraj Kumar HRA Amount

     

    DOP Letter

     

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

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)