To 10th August 2013Samir Ranjan AminU/Secretary & CPIORoom No – 340, Office of Director of VigilanceB- Wing Sena BhawanRajaji 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
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.
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.
To, 29th June 2013Shri. 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.
Copy of complaint sent to CVC against Dr A K Tyagi
Copy of CVC letter dated 15/03/2011
Copy of CVC Letter dated 17/03/2011
Copy of RTI to DIAT, DRDO, Pune
Copy of Reply of DIAT, DRDO, Pune
Copy of RTI request of Dr Rajiv Chauhan & CIC decision
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, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs
Facts: Till date nobody from DIAT has seen the Nature Journal
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 Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, RaipurDehradun-248008UttarakhandCell No- 9411114879, Landline- 0135-2787750e-mail-prabhu@dandriyal.comCopy of CVC letter dated 15/03/2011CVC letter dated 15/03/2011
Copy of 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
The copy of order of online subscription for NATURE magazine. With terms & condition
The copy of demand initiative for Nature magazine if any.
Copy of recommendation if any by approval committee of library.
Copy of renewal of subscription if any
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, PuneDIAT, DRDO, Pune Reply page1DIAT,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.
2.2 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
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
The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), increased on its own the pay scale of its officials, thus overlooking the objections by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) and Audit authorities, who had turned down the request for the increase. In spite of being asked to stop this, the DRDO ignored the Finance Ministry order and continued to pay the hikes salary, thus causing an annual liability of Rs 9.6 crore.
According to a note dated 10 September 2012 and signed by an under secretary of the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, upgrading the grade pay of Technical Officers (A) from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800, was “irregular, contrary to the accepted recommendation of the Central Pay Commission and in violation of the allocation and transaction of business rules and was undertaken suo moto without reference, much less concurrence, of the Ministry of Finance”. An audit conducted by the defence audit branch (DGADS) for 2011-2012 passed strictures against the DRDO authorities for this action. The audit report said that DRDO officials, during the audit, agreed to recover the amount that was paid to its employees.
“The grant of Grade pay Rs 4,800 did not have the approval of the Ministry of Finance. Department of Expenditure had treated it as ‘irregular’ and asked to withdraw it. During discussion, at the insistence of audit, the DRDO authorities agreed to recover the overpaid amount of Rs 24 cr,” remarked DGADS. Some DRDO officers said that scientists who do not have the required expertise have been entrusted with managing the administration of DRDO.
SHASHWAT GUPTA RAY Monday, December 24, 2012 AT 12:14 PM (IST)
PUNE: The Army’s refusal to accept a modular charge system developed by the city-based DRDO lab High Explosive Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL) has resulted in wasteful expenditure of Rs 13.48 crore for the DRDO, a recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has said.
The modular charge system helps to enhance functioning of Artillery guns. The chapter titled ‘Unfruitful expenditure on development of modular charge system for field guns’ said that the DRDO undertook a Technology Development (TD) project for development of the modular charge system for 105 mm and 130 mm guns based on a request by the Director General of Artillery. This project was handed over to Pune-based DRDO lab HEMRL.
In the field of artillery guns, modular charge system was considered desirable over the existing bagged charge system in view various advantages.
“HEMRL developed the systems by spending Rs 13.48 crore and after successful technical trials offered both the systems (105/130 mm) in September 2010 for user trials. However, at that stage DG Artillery showed disinterest in the system since the field guns were nearing the end of their life cycle and were likely to be de-inducted from service over next seven to 10 years. This rendered the entire efforts and expenditure of Rs 13.48 cr unfruitful,” the CAG report said.
In reply to audit observation, the DG Artillery stated (May 2012) that DRDO had been asked to undertake the project at no cost implication to the Army and the systems were not accepted as the DRDO did not adhere to the timeline.
On the contrary, the DRDO Headquarters stated (July 2012) that the Army had been associated at each stage of development and kept informed of progress.
“The finger pointing by two organisations both under the Ministry of Defence, DRDO which is responsible for indigenisation and Army which is expected to put such indigenous weapons system to use, indicates that both the organisations within the same Ministry have been operating in silos,” the report said.
While the Army headquarters did not respond to a Sakal Times query on the matter, Director of Public Interface, DRDO Headquarters Ravi Kumar Gupta said that after the establishment of technology, R&D work was undertaken to apply it to field guns of the other caliber like 105 mm and 130 mm field guns.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE RAJYA SABHA QUESTION NO 1286 ANSWERED ON 05.12.2012
Restricting financial powers of Chief of DRDO
1286 SHRI NAND KUMAR SAI
Will the Minister of DEFENCE be pleased to satate :-
(a) whether Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) enjoys a huge amount of autonomy because of it strategic nature of work;
(b) if so, the details in this regard;
(c) whether Government proposes to impose any restrictions on the financial powers of Chief of Defence Research and Development Organisation;
(d) if so, the details in this regard; and
(e) if not, the reasons therefor?
ANSWER
MINISTER OF DEFENCE (SHRI A.K. ANTONY)
(a) Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is a subordinate Organisation under the Department of Defence R&D in the Ministry of Defence and is governed by Central Government rules and regulations. Therefore, DRDO as an Organisation does not enjoy any special powers or autonomy because of its strategic nature of work.
(b) In view of the reply given at (a) above, Question does not arise.
(c) to (e): Financial powers of DG DRDO are being exercised by the Secretary, Defence R&D in the capacity of higher Competent Financial Authority (CFA) with the concurrence of Additional Financial Adviser (R&D) in the Ministry of Defence (Finance), pending final decision by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on implementation of Rama Rao Committee recommendations. Revised delegation of financial powers of DG DRDO was carried out in 2010 to address a long standing requirement and was done after due process and deliberation. The process of exercise of these powers has been further rationalized and, to this effect, a corrigendum has been issued by Department of Defence (R&D) on 21st November 2012 as a partial modification to the earlier financial powers as issued on 30th July 2010.
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.
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.
To, Hon’ble Home Minister of India Govt.of India, New Delhi,
Subject : DRDO; Ministry of Defense, Classified information’s available on web pages can harm to National Security – A clear cut violation of the Official Secrets Act-1923 .
Respected Sir,
Investigation agencies of India are unable to take suitable investigating decisions on a very important issue on my information’s to the Hon’ble Prime-Minister of India related with DRDO; Ministry of Defense, Classified information’s availability on web pages can harm to National Security.
Every year heavy Govt of India revenue is invested on the DRDO, defense related research for national security, but surprisingly classified information’s reached on web pages after the violation of the official secret act.
My information was forwarded for investigation to Special Cell and now it is forwarded to the Ministry of Defense by special cell. However investigation is a jurisdiction of the police then why they are unable to reach on investigation result that who is responsible / accountable?
I hereby enclose my information and its action before you to take a suitable and necessary action to decide the responsibility and accountability as per the law of official secret act.
I will be highly obliged.
To,Hon’ble President of India,Govt.of India, New Delhi
Subject – Corrupt Top Scientists of India making undue pressure on complainants of the corruption in DRDO; Ministry of Defense.
Respected Madam,
A planning by the Corrupt TOP scientist against the complainants of the corruption in DRDO; want to falsely implicate the charges against the complainants; come out from the RTI reply. A high power inquiry committee was formed with a planning to make a pressure to stop the corruption complaints against DRDO. Mr Prabhu regularly pointed the corruption points in DRDO through www.corruptionindrdo.com The Chairman of the High Power Committee was the Husband of a Scientist presently working under the TOP scientist of DRDO. This RTI reply is sufficient example to show that how DRDO, TOP corrupt scientists make undue influence on the complainants of the corruption in DRDO. I hereby enclose my RTI application and its reply before you to take a suitable action to prevent such type of undue influence on the complainants. I will be highly obliged.
With high regards,
Your, Sincerely.
(Rajiv Chauhan)
RTI Request from Cyber Law Group Formulations & Enforcement Division, GOIRTI Reply by Department of Information TechnologyRTI reply from Department of Technology
To, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Central Vigilance Commissioner, New Delhi;
Subject : CVO / Director (Intelligence & vigilance) / Add. Director (Intelligence & vigilance) O/o the DRDO; Ministry of Defense involved in corruption to give shelter to corrupt senior scientist
Dear Sir,
I can give you my affidavit whenever you require to put my strong complaint related with the CVO / Director / Add. Director (Intelligence & vigilance); O/o –DRDO that they are working for providing the shelter to the corrupt officers and scientist in DRDO. After having strong evidences they ignored and give the clean chit to the corrupt officers / scientist. This clean chit is used by the corrupt officers and scientist to show their integrity. A lot of honest departmental senior officers and scientist put up complaints against the corrupt DRDO scientist but this Directorate of Intelligence and vigilance give the shelter to corrupt persons and recommended the action against the honest officers and scientist. This is a very good joke in your corruption preventive department. Can you scrutinize the complaints investigated by this CVO / directorate (Intelligence & vigilance) of DRDO? If yes than a lot of honest officers / scientists / NGO’s and individuals will give you strong evidences related high level corruption in DRDO, Ministry of Defense.
Secondly , however RTI is not your jurisdiction but a lot of the RTI file before CPIO, o/o DRDO to take the corruption related information’s, but CPIO never give the corruption related information to the RTI activist and get sheltered from 24(1) of the RTI act. If you can take the notice on RT I applications related with corruption than definitely you can get evidences against the corruption.
Thirdly, a lot of the scientist are involving in spy the researches and leak the classified information’s. This Directorate (intelligence and vigilance) O/o – DRDO is fully aware about these things but after that they are given the shelter to the corrupts.
Fourthly, I put up more than 100 complaints scrutinized by the (intelligence and vigilance) O/o – DRDO and give shelter to the corrupt offices / scientists—-
1- Scientist ’F’ O/o-DRDO; Neelam Bhalla complaint for recruitment of Swati Srivastava Scientist D/o-Mr Arun Kumar, Director O/o- DRDO HQ.
2- Senior Administrative Officer, O/o- DRDO Mr Prakash Singh , more than 40 corruption related complaints.
3- My corruption related more than 20 complaints against RAC OF DRDO.& others.
4- Spy of the research related complaints by the honest DRDO Scientists.
5- More than 50 corruption related complaints through www.drdocorruption.com
TOP senior scientists of the DRDO directly related with corruption, so that CVO / Directorate (intelligence and vigilance) O/o – DRDO give the shelter to his senior involved in corruption.
I request you to re-investigate the all corruption related cases of the DRDO investigated by the CVO / Directorate (Intelligence & vigilance) of DRDO through another investigating agency or directly by the CVC. I assure you that you will find out the heavy corruption in DRDO. I will be highly obliged for your kind consideration and necessary action.
Regards,
Rajiv Chauhan
COPY TO THE :
1- Hon’ble President of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
2- Hon’ble Prime minister of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
3- Hon’ble Home minister of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
4- Hon’ble Defense Minister of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
5- Hon’ble CIC of India for kind consideration and necessary action.
6- Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, for kind consideration and necessary action.
7-Director, Intelligence Bureau, for kind consideration and necessary action.,
Rajiv Chauhan
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials