Tag Archives: New Delhi

Drdo

RTI- CVO,MoD

2 Comments
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
Drdo

Tejas project gets wings again under new DRDO chief

1 Comment

By Anantha Krishnan M | ENS – BANGALORE 01st June 2013 12:33 PM                 – THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESSavinash The Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) new boss Dr Avinash Chander has put India’s fighter jet project Tejas on his radar, with a possible mission to jettison it out of the current turbulence. In an interview to Express on Friday, soon after New Delhi officially handed over the mandate to pilot DRDO for the next three years, Avinash said that completing the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) of Tejas by September this year and attaining the Final Operational Clearance (FOC) by the end of 2014, are two primary targets he has already set. “After finishing the taking over formalities, I am catching the first available flight to Bangalore to review the project. I am absolutely aware of the issues that are dogging the project and I would now want to see it from close quarters, what the delays are. The Tejas’ IOC and FOC cannot be postponed any further,” said Avinash, who will also double up as the Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister. He said the induction of India’s long-range ballistic missile Agni-V and development of 155-mm gun are other projects that would get his immediate attention. Saying that his task is cut out with many projects reeling under time overruns, Avinash promised to turn around DRDO into a delivery-oriented unit. “There are grey areas still, despite our efforts to stick to the deadline. We are lagging behind in directive energy systems such as high-energy electro-magnetic lasers. We also need to gear up on the materials front,” said the missile scientist. We have proven our abilities with multiple missile programmes and we need to emulate the same in other projects as well,” said the 62-and-a-half-year-old DRDO chief. He said DRDO will be restructured to catch up with the challenges of modern times. “I will take everything one step at a time. I am aware that we need to create the ‘Brand DRDO’ image,” he said It will be a collective team effort. The idea is to take DRDO to the next level. I will ensure that the confidence of users in DRDO will be always high, Avinash said. Incidentally, Avinash will be the second man after former president Dr A P J Abdul Kalam, who will serve as the DRDO chief beyond 65 years.

Drdo

Zero for DRDO

11 Comments

Bharat Karnad | 26th Apr 2013 – Deccan Chronicle

The Indian Air Force has been clever over the years in a petty sort of way. Short-range or medium-range combat aircraft and so on are uniquely IAF nomenclature; no other Air Force has such categories. In the age of aerial tankers, describing warplanes by their radii of action is a distraction.

Forty years ago the IAF invented another category of warplanes — “deep penetration and strike aircraft”, which permitted the purchase of Jaguar. The IAF sees this sort of thing as a harmless ruse to serve its interest.

The multiplicity of combat aircraft thus procured allows, the service belie­ves, in a crisis to at least have some squadrons in its fleet not subject to sanctions or the spares-and-servicing tourniquet, which supplier countries in greater or lesser measure always apply, depending on their foreign policy goals and national interests of the moment, and which tool of manipulation is now legitimated by the recent Arms Trade Treaty.

This policy of buying aircraft from diverse sources was first articulated in a 2006 note from Air Headquarters (AHQ) to the ministry of defence (MoD), which stated that the requirement for a sub-30-ton fully loaded combat aircraft was being deliberately proposed to escape the Russian stranglehold, and avoid going in for more Sukhoi-30 MKIs or the upgraded variant the “Super” Sukhois. Thus, Rafale passed the spurious test, clocking in at 27 tons. Of course, the IAF-invented range-dictated categories serve another purpose. They confuse generalist civil servants in the MoD and convincing clueless politicians that there are big gaps in combat aircraft numbers which need filling.

In this game of “fool you, fool me”, where the IAF is being jerked around by supplier countries, the threat to national security stays unaddressed. IAF is principally to blame, of course. But the inability of the Aeronautical Dev­e­lo­p­ment Agency (ADA) and other Defence Res­earch and Development Organisation (DRDO) units tasked with aircraft and on-board systems designs, and the sheer incompetence of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) are equally responsible.

So criminally negligent has HAL been that in all the years it assembled a variety of MiG-21s, MiG-27s, MiG-29s, and the Jaguar, and the power plants for each of these aircraft at its Koraput factory, it failed to maintain a dat­abase. In other words, for all the licence manufacturing it has done over the years, by failing to compile how every component in the aircraft and in the engines does what and how, it has learnt nothing.

Had HAL maintained a database of all the items it has put together, the country by now would have had the built-up capability to manufacture the Tejas Mk-I and Mk-II on the run. But this defence pu­blic sector unit has red­uced its­elf to an adjunct of supplier companies. That top HAL leadership has not been brought to acc­ount on this score and that the Indian taxpayer continues funding such profligacy only reflects the state of things.

DRDO, on its part, has prospered by creating illusion. Other than in certain areas, such as in writing sophisticated software and devising complex algorithms to drive military systems, DRDO projects are mostly scams. Behind every project that’s touted for realising “self-sufficiency” lies imported technology in some guise. In fact, it has been so grossly inept in not insisting on total transfer of technology from its partners that foreign defence firms happily strike deals in which Indian monies fund the development of state-of-the-art technology in other countries but get nothing out of it except finished high-cost products.

It is not the fault of the supplier firms that DRDO has proved so inattentive, gullible, and plain reckless with public monies. Take for example the advanced medium-range and long-range missile systems supposedly being collaboratively developed with Israel. Except in striking a contract for `15,000 crore, DRDO settled for only a work-share arra­ngement and that too to fabricate the low-value backend of these missile systems, with the Israeli company retaining the intell­ectual property rights on all the technology so developed.

A similar deal for a short-range missile system with Dassault Aviation has just been signed and another `30,000 crore is consequently going down the drain. Because in this business suckers are not given an even chance, the foreign companies can hardly be blamed for exploiting DRDO’s unwillingness to leverage India’s financial subsidy to obtain full proprietary and production rights for all technologies generated in such projects. So what is the department of defence finance doing other than sleeping on the job?

If DRDO brass were to be hauled up, it would be like pulling out a foundational stone that could bring the whole fraudulent public sector defence industrial edifice that, notwithstanding its claims, has produced no original technology after the Marut HF-24 in the 1970s, tumbling down. It is the reason why the Naresh Chandra Committee’s recommendation that the offices of scientific adviser to defence minister, head of DRDO, and secretary defence R&D be separated, may never get implemented. There are too many vested interests in the armed services, DRDO, and DPSUs who have it good to want this situation to change.

Coming back to Rafale, had Reliance Aerospace gone about it the right way it could have emulated Larsen & Tubro (L&T), which has indigenously developed the engineering, tooling, and manufacturing capability to locally produce everything from nuclear-powered and conventional submarines of any design to artillery systems. This proactive attitude to build up its all-round capability means it is in a position to benefit from “transfer of technology” portions of deals for high-value weapons platforms India has signed in the past two decades, and very quickly to absorb foreign technologies India pays for but which, owing to the complete inability and incompetence of defence public sector units, has to-date not capitalised on. We are talking cumulatively of waste now reaching the thousand billion dollar-level.

If the L&T business model is too onerous, Reliance Aerospace, instead of turning itself into a mere cog in the Dassault Aviation machine by channelling payoffs to the right quarters in the ruling party to lubricate the Rafale deal, could have tried to buy off large chunks of the Rafale-maker, Dassault Aviation itself, as the Tatas have done by purchasing the South African company Denel’s entire 155mm/52 calibre Howitzer line. That might have been the second-best strategy to become a commercially viable defence production entity in double-quick time and do right by the country as well.

The writer is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

Comments

by Air Cmde Raghub… (not verified) on Fri, 2013-04-26 22:43
Zero sum Game.Only history will tell whether DRDO has been zero or hero. Import of even obsolescent BMD would have cost us fortune which DRDO has been able to save. Calling Names.. If IAF has managed to get its magnificent flying machines from diverse sources instead of all from Russia without love-it has been smart move by them for which they need to be lauded? Jaguars & Mirages have served us well as Canberra’s & Hunters did? HAL & ADA. The two are incomparable and class apart. While HAL has hardly picked up any worthwhile aviation technology during its half a century of assembling MiG’s & missiles in its sprawling MiG complexes- ADA has developed fourth generation plus Tejas. Flight testing & overcoming problems during development takes time but rewarding eventually. Successes as Scams? It is much easier to call a success a scam than calling a spade a spade. If DRDO has made use of some imported technology where is the problem? Most of the defence technologies are copied all over the world sans any qualms or copyright compulsions.155×52 or Desi Bofors will be copy work of some technologies. Russian K-13A air to air missile was true copy of the the US Sidewinder-without being a scam. Missiles. The learned author can rest assured that no short, medium or long range missiles can take India for a ride in any missile deal till Dr VK Saraswat is around. A scientist who has successfully lead us to the ICBM regime must have seen some technology benefit in these collaborations.

by MVP (not verified) on Sat, 2013-04-27 17:57
The so called DRDO Scientists are busy playing Golf in the DRDO Phase-II Township Golf Course, Bangalore. Unlike the soldiers, risking their lives in difficult terrains, a majority of these scientists enjoy their entire life (doing very little official work) in splendid townships, utilising CSD facilities, many festival holidays, discussing (obviously during office hours) and buying /investing in plots of land, flats etc. without concern to build good quality weapons at the shortest possible time. They do research(at tax payers expense) without any urgency to complete the tasks with an end result in mind. They should be made accountable for each and every pie of tax payers money. In case of not meeting the deadline, the scientists should be asked to reimburse back to the Govt. of India 50% of the salary drawn.

Drdo

DRDO scientist suspended hours before his retirement

3 Comments

Express news service : New Delhi, Sat Dec 01 2012, 04:02 hrs
The DRDO Friday suspended a senior scientist, Dr Arun Kumar, just three hours prior to his superannuation for alleged irregularities in recruitment.

The Central Vigilance Commission had passed strictures against Kumar in August as well as asked the Defence Ministry to reconsider his daughter’s appointment as scientist ‘C’ by the DRDO. Another senior official, Dr Neelam Bhalla, had accused Kumar of favouritism.

However, an internal panel had given Kumar a clean chit in June 2012, stating that “no favour or undue advantage was given to his daughter”.

The DRDO spokesperson refused to comment but Dr W Selvamurthy, Chief Controller R&D for Life Sciences confirmed Kumar’s suspension.

Drdo

CAG pulls up DRDO for irregularities in new projects

Leave a comment

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.

 

Drdo

How DRDO respects CIC orders- Case – II

1 Comment

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 1

Posted on September 7, 2012 by admin

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


File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001207
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. It is noticed that in the RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras about the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava. The CPIO had refused todisclose any information vide letter dated 2.11.2011 on the ground that the DRDO is an exempted organisation.

3. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the DRDO had advertised posts of Scientists ‘B’ in 2004 for which qualification was M.Sc. Bio Technology. Ms. Srivastava was M.Sc. in Environmental Biology. Thus, she was not qualified for the job. Yet due to the influence of his father Dr. Arun Kumar, who was then Deputy Director in DRDO, she was fraudulently selected as Scientist ‘B’
4. Shri Mishra submits that there is no one single file relating to this selection. In fact, there were about ten thousand candidates and to cull out Ms. Swati Srivastava’s record would be a herculean task. Further, the record is ten year old.

5. No doubt, DRDO is an exempted organisation, yet in my opinion, there is no harm if the appellant or his representative is given inspection of the entire records relating to the selection of Ms. Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’. As regards the difficulty expressed by Shri Mishra in tracing out the relevant record, I appreciate the same and yet I expect him to cull out the record for appellant’s inspection.

6. This order may be complied with 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.

 

DRDO’ Action

 

Drdo

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 3

1 Comment

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

 

 

Drdo

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 1

Leave a comment

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


File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001207
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. It is noticed that in the RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras about the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava. The CPIO had refused todisclose any information vide letter dated 2.11.2011 on the ground that the DRDO is an exempted organisation.

3. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the DRDO had advertised posts of Scientists ‘B’ in 2004 for which qualification was M.Sc. Bio Technology. Ms. Srivastava was M.Sc. in Environmental Biology. Thus, she was not qualified for the job. Yet due to the influence of his father Dr. Arun Kumar, who was then Deputy Director in DRDO, she was fraudulently selected as Scientist ‘B’
4. Shri Mishra submits that there is no one single file relating to this selection. In fact, there were about ten thousand candidates and to cull out Ms. Swati Srivastava’s record would be a herculean task. Further, the record is ten year old.

5. No doubt, DRDO is an exempted organisation, yet in my opinion, there is no harm if the appellant or his representative is given inspection of the entire records relating to the selection of Ms. Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’. As regards the difficulty expressed by Shri Mishra in tracing out the relevant record, I appreciate the same and yet I expect him to cull out the record for appellant’s inspection.

6. This order may be complied with 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.

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

IMPORTANT NOTE :-

The RTI information is related with the corruption of the First Appellate Authority of RTI Dr. Arun Kumar & her daughter during the selection as a scientist “B’, so that the decision on my RTI first appeal decision given by-

Dr. S. SUNDARESH, CC R&D(ACE), SI&DS; TRANSPARENCY OFFICER, DRDO,

DRDO BHAWAN , NEW DELHI-110105

4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:

4.1 To CPIO — 03 OCT 2011

4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011

5. Particulars of Decisions:

5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-

02 NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0250; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI

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

11 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/113; CC R& D (ACE), SI&DS;
TRANSPARENCY OFFICER;DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI

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

6.1 CPIO— 07 NOV2011

6.2 FAA: — 17 JAN 2012

7. Details of information sought:-

Kindly inform to you that Ms. Swati Srivastava,D/o Dr. Arun Kumar,Director DRDO Bhawan,Rajajimarg,New Delhi was selected Scientist”B’ through RAC(Recruitment and
assessment centre of DRDO) Adv.no, item no34 without having the required qualification for the post as published in the advertisement. The required qualification for the post was M.Sc- Biotechnology, where as the qualification of Swati Srivastava is M.Sc in Environmental Biology. Her father Dr. Arun Kumar ,was the Addl.Director of the DRDO at that time. One RAC interview board external member of Ms. Swati Srivastava was her teacher. However Ms. Swati Srivastava was not completing the minimum eligibility qualification as published, then also she was selected with the criminal conspiracy of her father with board members of the RAC. Ms. Swati Srivastava, Dr. Arun Kumar and RAC board Chairman and Members did dishonesty and cheated all the participants who applied for the post and forged the official documents to select as a Scientist “B” to Ms. Swati Srivastava.

In the Director, DRDO fax message 03/8/2004 for RAC Adv.No.66,item.34, eligibility subject showing Biotechnology. RAC,DRDO document of assessment sheet dt. 26/9/2004 for adv.66 subject of Ms. Swati Srivastava forgely filled in Biotechnology list.
However , as per the DRDO letter RTI/01/2091/p/2011-12/005 dt. 6/4/11, Ms.Swati Srivastava subject is environment biology. Therfore Ms. Swati Srivastava without fulfill the eligibility qualification got the scientist “B” post in DRDO on forged documents of the RAC. (Recruitment and assessment centre of DRDO)

Secondly, In the seniority list for promotion of scientist “C” as published on july 2010 page no.45 of DRDO official document again dishonestly changed Ms. Swati Srivastava qualification belive to be a forged M.Sc-Biotechnology instead of M.Sc in Environmental Biology. I hereby enclosed all related documents for your consideration and action.
I want the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY

1. Is Ms.Swati Srivastava, Scientist “B”,DIPAS the daughter of Director DRDO, Mr.Arun Kumar ?  Yes/No

2. What was the eligibility subject of RAC Adv. No.66, item 34 ? Biotechnology/ Environmental Biology –  Yes/No

3. What was the subject qualification of Ms. Swati Srivastava in her M.Sc ? Biotechnology/Environmental Biology – Yes/No

4. Did RAC – DRDO,ADV.NO-66 Assessment sheet mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms.Swati Srivastava ?  –Yes/ No
5. Did promotion list of the DRDO mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms. Swati Srivastava ?  – Yes/No

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.03-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office during the selection of the scientist. 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 his reply CPIO mislead to me with the reference of Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454. However in this 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 / Transparency officer 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 63 participant were applied for the above mentioned scientist post after the publication of the advertisement in employment news paper .

Encl- (a)- List of the 63 participant applied for the post.
(b)-Employment advertisement no-66; dt-2/4/2004

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 required qualification for the post was M.Sc- Biotechnology, where as the qualification of Swati Srivastava is M.Sc in Environmental Biology. Her father Dr. Arun Kumar ,was the Addl.Director of the DRDO at that time. One RAC interview board external member of Ms. Swati Srivastava was her teacher. However Ms. Swati Srivastava was not completing the minimum eligibility qualification as published, then also she was selected with the criminal conspiracy of her father with board members of the RAC. Ms. Swati Srivastava, Dr. Arun Kumar and RAC board Chairman and Members did dishonesty and cheated all the participants who applied for the post and forged the official documents to select as a Scientist “B” to Ms. Swati Srivastava.

3- 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:-
This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the selection. Secondly, In a RTI reply of the CPIO, DRDO HQ vide his letter no rti/01/2091/p/2011-12/005 dt 6/4/11 Ms Swati subject is environment biology however as per the seniority list for promotion as published on july 2010 page no.45 of DRDO official document Ms. Swati subject is M.Sc- Biotechnology.

Encl- (a)- RTI reply vide letter no-o rti/01/2091/p/2011-12/005 dt 6/4/11 Ms Swati subject is environment biology.
(2)- seniority list for promotion as published on july 2010 page no.45 of DRDO official document Ms. Swati subject is M.Sc- Biotechnology.

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 Ms.Swati Srivastava, Scientist “B”,DIPAS the daughter of Director DRDO, Mr.Arun Kumar ?
Yes/No
2. What was the eligibility subject of RAC Adv. No.66, item 34 ? Biotechnology/
Environmental Biology
3. What was the subject qualification of Ms. Swati Srivastava in her M.Sc ? Biotechnology/
Environmental Biology
4. Did RAC – DRDO,ADV.NO-66 Assessment sheet mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms.Swati Srivastava ?
Yes/ No
5. Did promotion list of the DRDO mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms. Swati Srivastava ?
Yes/No

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

Drdo

DRDO to take action against terror suspect researcher

Leave a comment

Deccan Herald

New Delhi, Aug 31, 2012, (IANS) :

Taken by surprise over the arrest of one of its researchers in Karnataka for links with Pakistan-based terror outfits, India’s defence research agency Friday announced that it was initiating disciplinary action against him under government rules.

Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) spokesperson Ravi Gupta said the youth, identified as Aijaz Ahmed Mirza, was only a junior researcher, which is a temporary position.

Mirza was not an employee, Gupta clarified.

“This has reference to reports in certain sections of media reporting the arrest of Aijaz Ahmed Mirza. In this regard, it is intimated that Mirza had been placed as Junior Research Fellow (JRF) for the past few months, at the Centre for Air Borne Systems (CABS), a DRDO laboratory,” he said.

Gupta also said that verification of Mirza’s antecedents as well as police verification was conducted in the process of his placement in the temporary position.

“He was not involved in any sensitive work and as such no sensitive/classified information has been compromised. Disciplinary action as per government of India rules is being taken,” he added.

Under the research fellowship scheme, DRDO offers opportunities to young scientists and engineers to work in its labs in the areas of basic research relevant to the laboratory.

Drdo

Defence ministry report slams DRDO chief

Leave a comment

Defence ministry report slams DRDO chief

14 Aug 2012Hindustan Times (Bhopal)

NEW DELHI: Defence Research and Development Organisation chief VK Saraswat sanctioned R2.8 crore to a mathematical society headed by him, an audit report has revealed. The report prepared by the defence ministry’s finance wing has also dealt with issues of transparency and shortcomings in projects developed by the organisation.

Defence ministry audit questions DRDO functioning

New Delhi: An internal audit report ordered by the defence ministry raised questions over the functioning of the DRDO and the grant of Rs 2.8 crore by its chief VK Saraswat to a society under him.

The report prepared by the finance wing of the defence ministry raised several issues in its review and the transparency of the research agency with a budget of over Rs 5,000 crore, defence sources said in New Delhi.

The report has questioned the grant of Rs 2.8 crore by Saraswat to a mathematical society.

The report has also pointed out that to avoid seeking approvals from the competent financial authorities, the DRDO was splitting the sanctions for its projects, they said.

It has also cited shortcomings in the products developed by the DRDO such as the Arjun tank, which has been found to be overweight by the Army for operations in certain areas along the border.

However, the DRDO said the issues raised in the report “are essentially in the nature of preliminary observations” and it was “vitiated by a faulty audit process”.

“Such preliminary observations are required to be formally issued and replies to the same should be sought prior to compilation of any report. Only if the replies are not satisfactory is the next step of making a preliminary report taken.

“In the extant case, the laid down procedure was not followed and to that extent, the process of audit stands vitiated. Thus, even before seeking replies of DRDO, presumption and baseless conclusions appear to have been arrived at,” DRDO spokesperson Ravi Gupta said.

PTI

DRDO ‘develops’ blatant financial irregularities

Published: Friday, Aug 17, 2012, 9:00 IST

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

The ministry of defence’s special audit has found blatant irregularities in the Defence Research Development Organisation’s handling of finances.

The special audit report, accessed by the DNA, reveals that financial sanctions are being split so that they do not require approval of higher authorities.

The audit carried out by Comptroller General of Defence Audit on the direction of defence minister AK Antony has found that key projects costing over Rs300 crore were tweaked by the DRDO to get them sanctioned without approaching the concerned financial authorities.

“DRDO authorities have sometimes used delegated powers to sanction supposedly new projects to complete the work taken up under ongoing projects, instead of going to the concerned financial authority for revision of cost of the old projects,” the audit report claims.

For instance, programme for development of main battle tank Arjun was sanctioned at Rs69.99 crore in November 2010. But the DRDO authorities changed the entire programme and split it into smaller sub-heads and several procurements were sanctioned under ‘build-up’ so that higher authorities within the system could be avoided. This shows that a coordinated attempt to avoid going to higher financial authorities, which is contrary to financial regulations,” the auditors observed.

Similarly, despite having a comprehensive five-year programme sanctioned for human performance enhancement in May 2009 at a cost of Rs34.56 crore, the director of Defence Institute of Physiology & Allied Sciences (DIPAS-DRDO), has managed to get approval for additional projects over the already sanctioned project. Such practice defeats the very purpose of making projects/programmes,” the report added.

Another project called ‘Product support and product improvement of NAG weapon system’ was sanctioned at a cost of Rs28.35 crore by VK Saraswat, director general of DRDO, despite the fact that the Cabinet Committee on Security approved similar programme was still in the pipeline.

Audit report also pointed out an unjustified cost reduction by DG, DRDO for a project for design and development of electro-optical sensors for air-borne platforms (UAV and Aerostat) at a cost of Rs49.82 crore.

“Director General, DRDO has reduced the cost from Rs70 crore as proposed to Rs49.82 crore so as to bring it just under Rs50 crore, which is his sanctioning power,” the special audit report claims.

Under scrutiny of accounts, the audit also found anomalies in facility for elctro-optical system testing (FACET). “FACET was sanctioned at a cost of Rs35 crore by DG, DRDO to create a facility, which is essentially required to meet the objectives of an already sanctioned project,” the report added.

The audit report also observed several split sanctions were issued for renovation of DRDO Bhawan in New Delhi while an unauthorised sanction of Rs49.15 crore to develop vehicle testing facility in Pune from public accounts mainly for civilian use was granted by the DRDO authorities