Ex-Defence Minister Sh. A K Antony recommended reconsideration of DRDO recruitment of scientists again from UPSC channel instead of DRDO’s own Recruitment Assessment Centre (RAC). From 1984 on wards RAC independently recruited scientists as or when required by DRDO. The RAC is managed by DRDO scientists who were under control of DRDO top brasses directly.
CVO, MOD analyzed after receiving several complaints against DRDO top brasses that there were a lot of manipulations done in laid down recruitment rules by RAC & senior DRDO officials to recruit their wards. CVO, MOD proposed CBI enquiries against 10 top DRDO scientists who were involved in such criminal conspiracy. CVO, MOD also suggested that RAC be scrapped and scientists’ recruitment should be done through UPSC again. For this it was suggested that a study is conducted that would evaluate the RAC functionality by XLRI, ASCI Hyderabad, etc.
As DRDO has several experts bluff masters who have already proven their expertise by fooling the nation in different important projects, few are delayed by several years and few are closed unceremoniously.
So again they came forward to counter CVO, MOD suggestion and gave HR audit to Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI), Hyderabad. ASCI introduced just one program in DRDO in 2006-07. Today, in 2014, ASCI is running several programs in the name of risk management, basic project management and a lot of other gimmicks in ITM-Mussoorie, DIPAS-Delhi, DRDL, ANURAG and so on. It is essentially a give and take game with no scope for improvement or benefits of DRDO or the officials. This can be seen from HR Audit of DRDO: A Pilot Study, a feedback format by ASCI, Hyderabad enclosed for your ready reference.
Interestingly the format is very good but the process of feedback is very bad.
The ASCI approaches each lab/establishment of DRDO with the feedback format. I don’t know whether ASCI knows about the absolute power of DRDO directors or not. Example of LASTEC, when ASCI approached Director, LASTEC, Dr. A K Maini and asked for 20 volunteer names of DRDS, DRTC and Admin allied, he gave names of 20 chamchas (yes-men) in all categories. Can you imagine that ASCI will get the real picture of DRDO work scenario by using such methodology of assessment? It is impossible. These things repeat everywhere and this futile exercise is for countering CVO, MOD suggestion only.
The major check points for ASCI
Section 2 Point No. 1. (c) Working for nation attitude – Totally missing very few young scientists having such thinking.
(f) Professional freedom – Nil and this is the main reason of the exodus of nearly 700 in the last three years. You can verify this from continuous questions in the parliament on this issue.
(i) Rewards and recognition – Only reserved for chamachas. Please see the last ten years award list (in case of LASTEC local annual awards when Chairman award committee was Dr. R K Tyagi he gave award to himself and when Chairman award committee was Mrs. Neelam Malhan she gave the award to herself. It is not a joke; it is the great award culture of DRDO, which is followed in all awards of DRDO.
(t)Opportunity of Promotion – Only reserved for chamachas. Almost 90% results of every assessment were known by labs officials before assessment. In DRDO, officials are divided in three parts, one whom the director makes sure their promotions, second part those if get clear promotion line or not cleared director doesn’t bother and third part are those for them director makes sure that in any case they have to be deprived for promotion. This is a well known truth of today’s DRDO.
(u)Training – Only reserved for chamachas. Only name of selected officials cleared by Director’s office. It is immaterial whether person selected for training is related with his assigned work or field.
Remaining points are useless.
Point No 3.
(h) Workload – there are more than 50 % workforce (nearly 30000 personal) that has no work load due to outsourcing for minting money. It can be proved by analyzing their specific individual output.
(i) Grievances redressal mechanism – Very poor it can judged by the increasing number of court cases and representations received by Scientific Adviser , ASCI will not get clear picture from an individual feedback of chamchas.
ASCI will take money and forget but the nation who is going to pay for this HR Audit; it will get a big zero.
It is requested to DRDO’s honest officials to fill the following formats and send to ASCI mail address, nirmalya@asci.org.in to show the clear picture of DRDO to ASCI.
Apparently some officials in the United States consulates in India do not seem to have received the memo about sanctions against Indian entities like the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Indian Space Research Organisation, etc, which were imposed immediately after the May 1998 Pokhran nuclear explosions, being lifted years ago.
Or, still lurking in the shadows of the US State Department are non-proliferation ayatollahs who have not forgiven India for its nuclear tests and are totally opposed to the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal.
These could be the only possible explanations why visa applications of some of the DRDO delegation members were rejected or delayed, which almost made them, miss the official launch last week of the DRDO-developed Explosive Detection Kit in Washington, which was a historic reverse technology transfer by India to the US.
But what is ironical here is that the leading research scientists from DRDO who had applied for visas and were part of the delegation slated to attend the official launch of the EDK had developed and were now transferring a technology that was going to save the continued killing of US troops from IEDs.
This visa issue had gotten so embarrassing that former Defence Secretary William Cohen, now a member of the US-India Business Council’s board of directors, who was presiding along with Ambassador Nirupama Rao at the launch, had to prevail upon Secretary of State John F Kerry and get the visas okayed.
Obviously, not wanting this visa issue to colour the growing Indo-US defence relationship, which he has been promoting assiduously, Cohen said at the outset of the launch that ‘we tend to accentuate the negative in our relationship with India over the years,’ but acknowledged that ‘this most recent snafu about getting visas cleared,’ didn’t help.
Cohen said, ‘We complain about Indian bureaucracy frequently and we only have to look at the mirror and see what happened to American bureaucracy.
‘And thanks to the activities of Secretary Kerry, who at least tried to rectify the errors that we made,’ he said.
In welcoming the DRDO delegation, Cohen said, ‘So we apologize for your delay and I know as a frequent traveller what it means to get off a plane after flying 14 hours and to come directly to a meeting such as this.’
‘So, we are honoured that you are here, embarrassed that we somehow forced you to delay your trip and not give you enough time to rest before coming.’
DRDO Director General Dr Avinash Chander, Dr S Radhakrishnan, Director, Services Interaction and Technology Acquisition, DRDO, Dr S Sunderesh, Chief Controller, R & D, DRDO, Dr Reny M Roy, Scientist at DRDO who lead the team that develop the EDK, and others, immediately from the airport after dumping their baggage at the hotel, had to rush to the US Chamber of Commerce building where hundreds of administration officials, defence industry representatives and fellow scientists had assembled for the official launch.
Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC
Website inputs
Historic reverse technology transfer by India to the US
US Company details
As per available records of Ms Faye Crowe, CEO, Crowe and Company 975 Bacons Bridge Road Summerville, SC 29485 USA in Internet is following
Crowe And Company, LLC
975 Bacons Bridge Road
Summerville, SC 29485
Phone: (843) 991-6759Company Contacts – Fay CroweBusiness InformationWebsite: crowderscustomizing.comLocation Type – Single LocationState of Incorporation South CarolinaYear Established 2007
Annual Revenue Estimate 100000
Employees 2
SIC Code 8742, Management Consulting ServicesNAICS Code 541613, Marketing Consulting ServicesBusiness Categories Distribution Channels Consultants in Summerville, SCDistribution channels consultantManagement Consulting ServicesMs Reny M Roy, DRDO Sceintist and Sh Satish R Nayak visited the M/s Crowe and Company on May 2010, Question is how and what they evaluate above US firm – GOD KNOWS
To 20th May 2014
Sh Avinash Chander,
DG DRDO, DRDO Bhawan,
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110105
Dear Sir,
This website has been reporting the several cases of corruption/ nepotism and anarchy against SC/ST and weaker section of the society prevailing in DRDO.
The legacy followed from early 80’s has shown that instead of to counter the corruption / nepotism the top brasses of DRDO has carved out a mechanism to disseminate the whistle blowers.
The whistle blowers of DMSRDE, Kanpur who had been helping the DRDO Hqrs to keep an eagle eye on corrupt practices of senior officials and Director of DMSRDE has been served transfer orders to Timbuktu.
DRDO Hqrs thinks the transfer order is a only weapon to solve the problem and divert attention from corruption, but those days are over now.
Sh R P Bhat, Scientist ’F’ and Sh Naveen Prakash Gupta, Scientist ’C’ both were awarded transfer order on 19th May 2014 afternoon and immediately relived on account of their fight against corruption of Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
The transfer shows that DRDO Hqrs is deaf and dumb and bunch of corrupt officials who are protecting corrupt officials of DMSRDE are not able to hear the Modi’s Hunkar against corruption. The clear mandate by 125 crores people of India for eradication of corruption and corrupts only.
In similar case Sh Prakash Singh, SAO-II, LASTEC, DRDO, Delhi, who exposed the corrupt practices of Dr A K Maini, Director, LASTEC. Sh Prakash Singh was dismissed by service on the wrong feedback of Dr A K Maini. Defence Minister noticed the truth and reinstated Sh Prakash Singh and ordered high level inquiry against corrupt officials. To avoid the consequences of investigation Dr Maini took the VRS and the current position of the case is on your table as CVO, MOD was not satisfied with DRDO Hqrs reply in Dr Maini’s case.
The same bunch of officials of DRDO Hqrs who suggested the termination of Sh Prakash Singh, SAO-II is instrumental in recent transfer orders of DMSRDE scientists. You very well know the then DG Dr V K Saraswat did not apply his mind in Sh Prakash Singh’s case and trusted those bunch of flatterers and result he was out unceremoniously and CBI sword is also hanging.
Sir, if at all you can prove your worthiness, please gives your reaction in turn help the organization.
HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times New Delhi, May 28, 2012 First Published: 00:18 IST(28/5/2012) | Last Updated: 00:23 IST(28/5/2012)
Faced with uncomfortable questions on the lack of clarity in allowing some of its officials to continue in service after retirement, the government has conceded that post-retirement appointment on contract basis is not covered by the rules defining extension of service.
The government’s view has come in the form of replies to questions in both Houses of Parliament on the grant of extension for coal ministry secretary and appointment of law secretary on contract basis for a period of a year and 11 months.
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), in its reply to Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi, has stated that “government servants are allowed to continue in service after 60 years in rare and exceptional cases.”
Owaisi wanted to know why the continuation in service of Central government officials beyond the age of 60 years was not being treated as a violation of government’s own rules.
The DoPT has made it clear that decisions in such matters are taken “on a case-to-case” basis and has also given its view on officials being employed on contract. “Appointment of an officer after superannuation (after retirement) is not covered by the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56, which deal with extension of service,” the department said in its reply.
The DoPT has stated that All India Services Rules, 1958, provide for extension in service in public interest “only to the incumbents of five posts — cabinet secretary, defence secretary, home secretary, director of Intelligence Bureau, and director of Central Bureau of Investigation.”
On the question of promotion chances of serving officers being hampered by extensions and employment on contract of retired officials, the DoPT has stated that the government is committed to ensure “promotion aspects of long-serving bureaucrats are not hampered.”
The DoPT’s reply, however, is not in line with law minister Salman Khurshid’s reply in the Rajya Sabha last week on the appointment of law secretary on contract.
Khurshid had stated that such an appointment was done “since there was a need for a high-level technical person towards handling of law”. This particular criterion does not find mention in the existing list of government rules which allow continuation of officials beyond the age of 60 years in particular fields.
Apart from the five posts mentioned above, the government rules allow specialists in health services, scientific field, those dealing with budget work and full-time members of a committee to be wound up soon, to continue in service after retirement.
EXCLUSIVE INTELLIGENCE SECURITY BREACHES By The Way, I Dropped It India’s defence data could be an open secret. Ask the NTRO bosses who lost their laptops. SAIKAT DATTA – OUTLOOK INDIA.COM
MAGAZINE | AUG 30, 2010
The Agni missile: India’s nuclear delivery mechanism could well be in enemy knowledge
In 2006, Ravind Sistala was one among a clutch of scientists on deputation from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) in New Delhi. Set up in the aftermath of the 1999 Kargil War, NTRO was meant to be a single technical intelligence facility to keep watch on India’s hostile neighbours. It was also supposed to issue warning signals to those manning India’s missile systems and nuclear warheads in real time so that they could retaliate in case of a possible enemy strike. Sistala’s was a crucial job. The fortysomething was the centre director of NTRO’s missile monitoring division, a position that called for high levels of responsibility and secrecy. But very few within India’s security apparatus are aware, even today, that Sistala was involved in one of the biggest security breaches in India’s post-Independence history. He compromised a Rs 1,850-crore intelligence-gathering programme that had key linkages to India’s growing nuclear arsenal and missile systems. Unencrypted ‘Top Secret’ data pertaining to these was stored on Sistala’s Hewlett-Packard laptop (given to him by NTRO) which disappeared mysteriously while he was on his way to the Delhi airport in early 2006. Did the information-packed computer fall into the wrong hands? Was it stolen by an enemy agent? Even today, no one knows where the laptop is. If still in enemy hands, it has the potential to inflict immense damage.
Ideally, such a security leak should have set alarm bells ringing and occasioned a swift and thorough investigation by the IB, RAW and Delhi Police. But rather than give the incident the attention and inquiry it deserved, a small but extremely powerful group of people—comprising a PMO official, DRDO scientists on deputation to NTRO and intelligence officials—helped Sistala escape any indictment by holding just an in house inquiry, which unearthed little. The missing laptop forgotten, Sistala continued as the head of the sensitive missile programme for another two years, and then returned to the DRDO.
Two years after the Sistala episode, another security breach took place in the NTRO. Arun Dixit, the centre director of the organisation’s atomic explosion division (AED), lost his laptop somewhere in Washington DC during an official trip to the US with the NTRO chairman. The laptop was crammed with top secret data on India’s intelligence on the nuclear weapons programmes of several countries, including Pakistan, China and North Korea. But like in Sistala’s case, the powerful lobby of defence scientists once again scuttled a thorough investigation. The leak was buried and kept out of the files. Dixit too escaped any scrutiny and still serves in the NTRO in the very same post.
Lost Laptops And Their ‘X’ Files
Place Delhi
Year 2006
Official Involved Ravind Sistala
Designation Centre Director (missile monitoring division)
Organisation National Technical Research Organisation
Incident Laptop goes missing from his car
Secret Data Lost
Presentations on Indian efforts to monitor missiles of neighboring countries
Details on the capabilities of the nuclear delivery systems of Pakistan and China
Response options available to India’s nuclear forces (Strategic Forces Command)
Deployment of radars to counter incoming missiles
Vulnerable points in India’s air defence network
Action taken None. Laptop not recovered. Official transferred to DRDO in a more sensitive position.
***
Place Washington DC
Year 2008
Official Involved Arun Dixit
Designation Centre Director (atomic devices division)
Organisation NTRO
Secret Data Lost
Defence nuclear programmes of neighbouring countries
Nuclear proliferation in Asia
Dirty bombs being made in neighbouring countries
Action taken None. Laptop not recovered. After probe, errant official retained in the same organisation.
***
Place Delhi
Year 2003
Organisation Defence Research and Development Organisation
Incident 53 computers go missing; later found with hard disks removed
Secret Data Lost
Secret coding of all communication used by the Intelligence Bureau (IB), Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the defence forces, and the paramilitary forces, including Border Security Force
Logs of intercepted Pakistani communications
Action taken Case still unsolved. None of the hard disks have been recovered. DRDO has practically closed the case.
SistalaandDixitclearly violated OSA,butescaped. They were also liableto 14 years’imprisonment.
The NTRO was set up in the summer of ’03. A year earlier, a Group of Ministers had handpicked RAW special secretary R.S. Bedi to set up the new intelligence outfit. Bedi started the process by setting up an office in room no. 326, Sardar Patel Bhavan, in the heart of Delhi, on March 29, 2003. The organisation was formally notified in July.
Set up to plug gaps in India’s security establishment post the Kargil debacle, the NTRO’s charter eventually went much beyond the mere act of gathering intelligence. It became a key element within the security apparatus, hitting headlines recently when Outlook reported its ability to pluck GSM phone calls off the air. Bedi had served in RAW’s Aviation Research Centre, which monitored the missile and atomic programmes of neighbours. NTRO took on this responsibility after it came into being.
NTRO’s task thus was to monitor and gather intelligence on all missile programmes in the region and convey the data in real time to the Strategic Forces Command (SFC), a special military organisation that mans India’s nuclear arsenal and would deploy it in the event of a nuclear war. The SFC would also, based on NTRO data, periodically review and upgrade its positioning of nuclear missiles, and coordinate with the defence forces in launching a counter-strike against any nuclear threat.
This called for a credible linkage between a vast and intricate network of ground-based radars, satellites, secret command codes and SFC’s nuclear arsenal. NTRO’s missile monitoring division established these linkages and set up an early warning network for the SFC. Sistala had a key role in creating these linkages and as such had access to the most sensitive data on India’s capabilities, response time and secret codes. Naturally enough, all these details were part of the presentations, notes, documents, files and folders—all marked ‘Top Secret’—he had on the laptop he was given by the NTRO. Standard rules mandate that a laptop given by the organisation cannot be taken home or used to connect to the Internet. But these being early days for NTRO, Sistala was travelling around the country making presentations to security officials, beginning with then NSA M.K. Narayanan to the three service chiefs, the SFC commander, the intelligence chiefs and other top DRDO scientists who were to work on the technological aspects of the project.
This is the time his laptop went missing. Shockingly, NTRO buried the episode in no time. A preliminary inquiry was ordered to be carried out by Brigadier Anil Malhotra, its counter-intelligence official, but it was quickly wound up. By this time, Bedi had retired from NTRO. A powerful lobby of defence scientists, led by R. Chidambaram, the principal scientific advisor to the government, had already determined his successor: DRDO scientist K.V.S.S. Prasad Rao. Rao had no previous experience in intelligence but he had served as the staff officer to Chidambaram for several years. Sistala, also from the DRDO, got a much-needed reprieve from the ongoing inquiry. He continued with the missile monitoring division for two more years before returning to the DRDO to work on air defence radars.
Outlook’s attempts to elicit an official comment from NTRO via a detailed questionnaire sent a week before going to print met with silence. Phone calls and text messages to NTRO chairman Prasad Rao, its advisor P.V. Kumar, Sistala and Dixit evoked no response either. DRDO, in a cryptic response to an Outlook query, said it wasn’t aware of any lapses by Sistala at NTRO.
Such security breaches are nothing new for the clique that still lords it over DRDO and NTRO. In Oct ’03, 53 computers were stolen one night from two DRDO labs—the Systems Analysis Group and the Institute for Systems Analysis and Studies—in Metcalfe House in Delhi. The computer carcasses were found later, but the hard disks had been removed. They contained secret encryption codes and communications of the army, navy, air force and all central police organisations. Till date, no DRDO scientist has been blamed. Many have even been promoted. A police investigation made no headway, while an internal inquiry remains alive on paper even though many of its members have retired.
It’s also ironical that while many other officials have been prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) on flimsy and concocted cases (see following story), Sistala and Dixit have escaped, despite being in clear violation of the OSA. In fact, since the leaks were related to India’s nuclear defence as well as secret codes, they could easily have attracted a penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. Instead, the duo has continued in their careers. Should India’s intelligence agencies really be allowed to operate without even a modicum of accountability?
Smriti Singh,TNN | Apr 28, 2014, 05.04 AM IST
NEW DELHI: Four people, including an 82-year-old, have been sentenced to four years in jail by a special CBI court in connection with a 2001 corruption case.
Observing that “corruption hinders the economic growth of the nation”, special CBI judge Kanwaljeet Arora also imposed a fine of Rs 1.5 crore on the convicts. The court convicted the then officials of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant —Bhima Razu Prasad and Ashwani Kumar Gupta— and officials of a private company —Anil Verma and A C Chanana— under sections of Prevention of Corruption Act. In 2001, CBI had registered a case against them for entering into a criminal conspiracy to cheat Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The prosecution stated that Prasad and Gupta obtained pecuniary advantage for Verma and Chanana by increasing the contractual rates of handling and transportation from Rs 36 per metric tonne to Rs 140 per metric tonne. Their act caused a wrongful loss of Rs 2.01 crore to the plant.
Even as 82-year-old Chanana pleaded leniency on the quantum of sentence citing his old age and a protracted trial, the court rejected his plea saying, “it has to be borne in mind that punishment prescribed by law is to protect society by deterring the potential offenders on one hand and by preventing the offender from repeating the offence on the other hand”.
While the court imposed a fine of Rs 15 lakh each on Prasad and Gupta and Rs 10 lakh on Chanana, it imposed a fine of Rs 1.05 crore on Verma saying he was the principal beneficiary and gained more than Rs1 crore at the expense of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. “The conduct of the convicts not only led to pecuniary loss to public exchequer but raised the basic cost of the product manufactured by their organization, which is being used in manufacturing automobile, general engineering and fabrication sectors. The increase in this cost ultimately affected the consumers who were required to shell out more,” it said.
Sh A K Antony Defence MinisterRoom -104, South BlockNew Delhi – 110011
SUBJECT: Deliberate Violation of FCS Scheme in DRDO
Sir,
1.Enclosed please find the report prepared to expose the violation of FCS rules by DRDO authorities.
2.Dr. A K Singh, present Director of Personal was staff officer to CC R&D,HR in 2004 as Sc’E’
3.In 2007 and 2011 violating all the norms of DoPT as approved by President of India, Dr. A K Singh was promoted firstly as Scientist ‘F’ andthen Scientist ‘G’
4.Dr. A K Singh was party as DHRD, DRDO Hqrs with RAC Chairman (then) Dr P S Goel who was amended SRO for which he was not authorized and fabricated the condition where corruption/nepotism/ favoritism could flourished.( Copy of letter issued by Dr P S Goel). This clear-cut violation of Article 309 which was supported by Dr V K Saraswat then SA to RM. Dr V K Saraswat was pioneer in misappropriate of Govt funds, misinterpretation of Govt. rules as resulted the honorable defence minister recommended CBI intervention against him and nine other top ex officials of DRDO.
5.Dr A K Singh is big inspiration of incompetent scientists for achieving fast promotions without doing scientific work. The 2014 recent assessment call list reflected the Dr A K Singh’s path, Sh Ashok Sharma, Scientist ‘D’ get assessment call in three years residency period, involved full time working as works officer his big scientific achievement is putting Air conditioners in boss place, placing good tiles and other day to day sundry civil works in premises of INMAS and other important places where the key of outstanding APAR found.
6.Sir, Ask DRDO that how many scientists and officials are not appearing for assessment, the level of humiliation are in peak because of after working delicately for years and years but superseding by those who are incompetent and doing non scientific works.
7.The case of Dr A K Singh be thoroughly examined in the light of FCS rules and appropriate action may please be taken for manipulation of SRO which deprived many dedicated scientists to get their due credits. It is directly related to performance and output of DRDO.
8.Sir, for sake of DORO, for sake of our defence preparedness, for sake of dignity of real scientists, it is requested immediate action and directive is needed to stop the violation of FCS rules.
DRDO RTI cell doing propaganda that Honorable High Court declared DRDO 100% exempted organization from RTI Act-2005 and started giving denial to each and every RTI request without seeing the merit and facts that the request pertain to corruption. And best part of this now they are stop writing “except information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations”
In this judgment is nothing new every one clearly knows DRDO was an exempted organization under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In other words, the Act would apply to DRDO only to the extent of information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
In DR. NEELAM BHALLA case DR. NEELAM BHALLA prayer to honorable court that information supplied by then CPIO, DRDO Sh Bundella was incorrect and inaccurate and court says
“4. It is a matter of fact that Shri Bundela had provided inaccurate and incorrect information to the appellant but Shri Bundela’s contention that he had transmitted information as received by him from CPIO of RAC cannot be disregarded. It is important to bear in mind that Shri Bundela was not the holder of information. The holder of information was CPIO, RAC. Whatever information was W.P.(C) No. 83/2014 Page 1 of 4 forwarded to Shri Bundela by CPIO, RAC, he transmitted the same to the appellant.
6. Even so, before parting with this matter, I would like to caution Shri Bundela to exercise due diligence in responding to the RTI application in future.”
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption.
But in whole judgment there is nothing new and not giving extra immunizing to DRDO from RTI act, if there is any extra facilitation in judgment than DRDO should quote specifically that.
DRDO RTI cell also go through the judgment of CWP No. 12904 of 2009
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
under Section 24(4) of the Act which envisaged that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organizations A combined reading of these provisions would reveal, only thatinformation is exempted, which is directly effecting and co-related to the “Intelligence” and “Security” of that organization of the State and not otherwise.
The matters pertaining to recruitment/appointments and day to day administrative nature information, where it is also found that DRDO top officials did lot of irregularities. Therefore honorable defence minister approved CBI intervention against 10 top DRDO officials including 2 ex- DRDO chiefs one Dr V K Saraswat and other one Sh M Natrajan for their ugly acts.
It was establish facts till date all senior officials of DRDO who were fixed by CVC and CVO, MOD were exposed with the help of RTI’s only.
So DRDO officials are afraid of RTI’s if they are honest then why they worries from RTI’s . The Ex CPIO, DRDO Dr A K Tyagi who is facing charge sheet in corruption case was the big manipulator and protector of corrupt officials.
I request to DRDO RTI cell you people are serving to our nation; please not to protect culprit’s corrupt officers, your younger generation will ask you what did you contributed for justice. Now in the age of IT revolution era kid can explore what are the score of my grandpa, because these documents are alive forever.
I want to appeal all information seeker from DRDO please don’t dishearten from these act of these corrupt DRDO officials who are taking false shelter.
Please mail/post/send ordinary dak all your queries to www.corruptionindrdo.com postal address or mail address, we will took the matter up to higher ups. We are also planning to filled a PIL for request supreme court for delist the name of DRDO from Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005. As we collected lot of of informations from all over the country.
To 16th April 2014Honorable Dr Man Mohan Singh,Prime Minister,PMO, North Block,New Delhi -110011
Subject: Unconstitutional act of DoPT officials who are managing the Online RTI Portal and supporting corrupt officers of DRDO
Honorable Sir,
I Prabhu Dandriyal, ex DRDO employee and resident of Dehradun, Uttarakhand fighting against corruption since 1999.
When the RTI Act 2005 implemented through our Honorable Parliament, it was a historical decision to empowerment common man of India.
Today, Sh Rahul Gandhi ji, Smt Sonia Gandhi ji daily quoting in election rallies that RTI Act 2005 is their gift to common man of India; it is 100% true that day one common man experiences his strength to correct the corrupt system and RTI Act helped mass common people of India.
Since its inception, I have filed several RTI applications to expose the corruption and slowly the corrective measures are taken by concern departments, but still long way to go on.
Sir, DoPT is the nodal agency for implementing RTI Act-2005 and I was found some officials from DoPT are supporting corrupt officials of DRDO.
Sir, I filed an online RTI application to DRDO for request information in respect of Dr. AK Singh, DOP, DRDO, Ministry of Defence. The information can expose the wrong doings of DRDO officials. But my RTI application was returned by DoPT official unprecedentedly.
My RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 filed online portal on 31/03/214 addressed to Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO, DRDO under department of Defence was returned online on 15th March 2014 with this remark which one is unprecedented act of portal manager/ in-charge against the guideline. Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.
As per Guideline – An applicant who desires to obtain any information under the RTI Act 2005 can make a request through this RTI Online Portal to only the Central Public Authorities of main Ministries/Departments located at New Delhi initially. In the first phase, this facility is available to Ministries/Departments/Apex Bodies mentioned in the list available in ‘GUIDELINES’
It is astonishing fact that DoPT official mentioning that DRDO placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 but they forget they are not exempted for corruption and human right violation matters; it seems that the officials involved are biased and supporter of corrupt official of DRDO.
I request you kindly take appropriate corrective measure take action against officials who are involved in unconstitutional act and give strength to claim of UPA government that RTI- Act 2005 is really empowered the common man and fix those who are diluting the effectiveness of strong RTI Act -2005.
Enclosed: Copy of my RTI application returned with remark by DoPT officials.
Final Status of MODEF/R/2014/60617
Top of Form
Applicant Name
Prabhu Dandriyal
Date of receipt
31/03/2014
Request Filed With
Department of Defence
Text of Application
To, 31st March 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist G is presently holding the charge of DOP, DRDO at DRDO HQ. He is holding following post in DRDO since January 2007. Details are given as under:
SN Post Duration Directorate
1.Staff Officer to CC(R&D) (HR) -Oct 2004- Dec 2006DRDO HQ, DRDO,
2.DirectorJan 2007 Sep 2010CEPTAM, DRDO,
3.DirectorOct 2010 27th Feb 2013Dte. of HRD, DRDO HQ,
4.Director28 Feb 2013 till date DOP, DRDO HQ
Note: He was holding the charge of two Directorates as Director, DHRD & Director, DOP from 01 Dec 2012 to 27 Feb 2013
In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
1.Procedure/Guidelines/Rules for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM, DRDO duly approved by DOPT, Government of India.
2.Criteria for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM (Seniority/Administrative & Management skill, qualification & experience etc.)
3.Charter of Duties & Nature of work carried out by Scientist appointed as:
I.Staff Officer to Chief Controller R&D(HR)
II.Director, CEPTAM
III.Director, DHRD
IV.Director, DOP
4.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Staff Officer to CCR&D (HR) & copy of appointment order
5.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, CEPTAM & copy of his appointment order
6.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD, DRDO HQ & copy of his appointment order
7.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DOP & copy of his appointment order
8.List of Scientist consider in the appointment of following post by DRDO Hqrs.
a.Director, CEPTAM Jan 2007- Sept 2010
b.Director, DHRD Oct 2010- Feb 2013
c.Director, DOP March 2013- Jan 2014
9.Administrative & Managerial Experience and Educational Qualification of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist F as on Jan 2007 when he was appointed as Director, CEPTAM, DRDO.
NOTE – Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) because Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD was part & parcel of implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO (Violation of Article 309). He was also one of the candidates for scientist F to scientist G promotion in year 2011 assessment.
a.Please refer CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO)-
b.Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
Request document (if any)
document not provided
Status
RTI REQUEST APPLICATION RETURNED TO APPLICANT
Date of Action
15/04/2014
Remarks
Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.
To
Sh R.K.Girdhar, 16th April 2014
Under Secretary (RTI), PIO,
D/o.Personnel & Training, North Block,
New Delhi
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of my RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 filed online portal on 31/03/214 addressed to Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO, DRDO under department of Defence. My RTI application MODEF/R/2014/60617 was returned online on 15th March 2014 with this remark which one unprecedented act of portal manager/ in-charge against the guideline. Remark – Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.
As per Guideline – An applicant who desires to obtain any information under the RTI Act 2005 can make a request through this RTI Online Portal to only the Central Public Authorities of main Ministries/Departments located at New Delhi initially. In the first phase, this facility is available to Ministries/Departments/Apex Bodies mentioned in the list available in ‘GUIDELINES’
It is astonishing fact that DoPt official mentioning that DRDO placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 but they forget they are not exempted for corruption and human right matters; it seems that the officials involved in are biased and supporter of corrupt official of DRDO.
Provide me certified copy of concerned note of DoPT on the basis of my RTI application MODEF/ R/ 2014/ 60617 dated 31/03/214 was returned by above remark.
Provide me the names and designations of the DoPT officials who initiated proposal and processed the given approval in concern file for returning online RTI application unprecedentedly
Provide the DoPT provision/guideline on the basis of my RTI application MODEF/ R/ 2014/ 60617 dated 31/03/214 was returned by above remark.
Copy of proposal received from DRDO for not accepting in online RTI application in the name department of defence.
Please provide that any ceiling to file RTI application by citizen of India.
Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website – www.corruptionindrdo.comRegistration Number DOP&T/R/2014/61539
Final Status of MODEF/R/2014/60617
Top of Form
Applicant Name
Prabhu Dandriyal
Date of receipt
31/03/2014
Request Filed With
Department of Defence
Text of Application
To, 31st March 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist G is presently holding the charge of DOP, DRDO at DRDO HQ. He is holding following post in DRDO since January 2007. Details are given as under:
SN Post Duration Directorate
1.Staff Officer to CC(R&D) (HR) -Oct 2004- Dec 2006DRDO HQ, DRDO,
2.DirectorJan 2007 Sep 2010CEPTAM, DRDO,
3.DirectorOct 2010 27th Feb 2013Dte. of HRD, DRDO HQ,
4.Director28 Feb 2013 till date DOP, DRDO HQ
Note: He was holding the charge of two Directorates as Director, DHRD & Director, DOP from 01 Dec 2012 to 27 Feb 2013
In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
1.Procedure/Guidelines/Rules for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM, DRDO duly approved by DOPT, Government of India.
2.Criteria for appointment of Directors in Corporate Directorate/RAC/CEPTAM (Seniority/Administrative & Management skill, qualification & experience etc.)
3.Charter of Duties & Nature of work carried out by Scientist appointed as:
I.Staff Officer to Chief Controller R&D(HR)
II.Director, CEPTAM
III.Director, DHRD
IV.Director, DOP
4.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Staff Officer to CCR&D (HR) & copy of appointment order
5.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, CEPTAM & copy of his appointment order
6.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD, DRDO HQ & copy of his appointment order
7.File noting for appointment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DOP & copy of his appointment order
8.List of Scientist consider in the appointment of following post by DRDO Hqrs.
a.Director, CEPTAM Jan 2007- Sept 2010
b.Director, DHRD Oct 2010- Feb 2013
c.Director, DOP March 2013- Jan 2014
9.Administrative & Managerial Experience and Educational Qualification of Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Scientist F as on Jan 2007 when he was appointed as Director, CEPTAM, DRDO.
NOTE – Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) because Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh as Director, DHRD was part & parcel of implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO (Violation of Article 309). He was also one of the candidates for scientist F to scientist G promotion in year 2011 assessment.
a.Please refer CIC decision in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. DRDO)-
b.Information asked is on Establishment Matter and not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act as per various decisions of CIC.
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
Request document (if any)
document not provided
Status
RTI REQUEST APPLICATION RETURNED TO APPLICANT
Date of Action
15/04/2014
Remarks
Remarks :- You have filed more than 40 online RTI applications relating to DRDO on the address of Department of Defence which has been physically transferred to DRDO under intimation to you. DRDO is a separate public authority and is also placed under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, your online RTI applications seeking information in r/o the DRDO and sent to Department of Defence will not be acted upon henceforth. You may directly send your application to the DRDO for the information.
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
