Tag Archives: organisation

Chinks in the Armour – What ail DRDO, India’s Premier Defence Organigation?

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- V

‘Kalam has been promoting himself, not self-reliance’

George Iype

Avul Pakir Jainulabeen Abdul Kalam, who headed DRDO for years, is credited with drawing up the blueprint for India’s entry into the league of developed nations. He is the protagonist of the government’s grand plans to make indigenisation of defence products a reality.

If he could transform DRDO from a moribund, bureaucratic government organisation to an establishment that fights for self-reliance in defence production, will Kalam’s effort to build aircraft, war machines and missiles on the Indian soil bear fruit?

Many acknowledge that despite technology denials and control regimes enforced by the developed countries, Kalam imbibed a high-end research and development initiative in DRDO laboratories that the government, academic institutions and the industry now look at him in awe.

Thanks to Kalam, DRDO now has a leading role in generating technologies and secure systems in the field of information technology which could change the quality of life in defence forces. Under his stewardship, the organisation created the critical components and devices that will be the backbone of state-of-the-art electronic systems in defence.

Many claim Kalam’s discovery has been a turning point in India’s history and national security. But these days the boat owner’s son from Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu is setting sail on just one massive project — take India to self reliance in defence production at least 70 per cent by 2005.

It is because of Kalam that India can now boast of the ambitious indigenisation Plan 2005. Plan 2005 is not just about making weapons indigenously. It is the symbol of national pride.

Years after it professed the indigenisation mantra, the government sheepishly admitted last year that only 30 per cent of Indian weapons were of domestic origin. The realisation prompted it to turn to Kalam. It then immediately created a Self-Reliance Implementation Council headed by Kalam that will implement Plan 2005.

Is DRDO’s aim to achieve 70 per cent indigenisation in the defence system realistic in the wake of unaccomplished high profile projects like the Light Combat Aircraft, Arjun main battle tank, the missile and nuclear submarine programmes? But can Kalam deliver?

Not many believe that Kalam will accomplish 70 per cent self-reliance by 2005. The task us gigantic. More than one-third of the budget for the missile programme, the Arjun MBT and the LCA has gone into imports of critical components. More imports are to follow as DRDO’s indigenous engine programme, especially for the LCA, is on the verge of collapse.

“Indigenisation is a hoax. Kalam is spreading it boasting that he will attain self-reliance in defence equipment in five years time. Indigenisation should have been the DRDO motto when it was established in the 1950s, not in 2000,” says an army officer.

Many within the army, the air force and the navy, who have been waiting in vain for DRDO-developed defence equipment and electronic warfare systems, claim Kalam has been promoting himself, and not self-reliance.

“Both DRDO and Kalam have failed to win over the armed forces because many of their projects have become serious stumbling blocks for the forces’ modernisation,” the army officer adds.

The accusations against Kalam are three — that he did not create a good research and development culture in DRDO, that his relationship with the armed forces has been rocky and that he did not embark on any plan to stem the brain drain from DRDO.

Designing and developing defence weapons is perhaps the toughest engineering task. But experts claim DRDO suffers from a poor research and development culture thanks to Kalam.

“DRDO under Kalam has done more on public relations than on proper research and development. That is the reason why many of our projects like LCA are terribly lagging behind in schedules,” says Shankar Sen Chaudhury, an independent technical analyst based in Hyderabad.

“The structural environment in DRDO labs have to change if effective results in indigenisation is to take place,” he adds.

Another problem is the rocky relationship that Kalam has with the armed forces. He and his colleagues argue that the forces do not have any specialists who understand the design and development concepts of DRDO. “Therefore, the armed forces always interfere in our projects halfway through,” a DRDO scientist says.

Many say this messy relationship between DRDO, “the seller” and the three armed forces, “the buyers”, should be blamed on both sides. “Kalam was a marketing man. He wanted to hard-sell his half-baked DRDO products to us, like the Arjun tank,” says an army officer.

But DRDO asks: When the forces induct imported products without any trails, why can’t they rely on indigenous products? DRDO officials say the only reason for this is that the army does not have the experience to induct an indigenous weapon system.

DRDO has been mouthing the politically correct mantra of indigenisation because a number of disgruntled scientists in the organisation charge, “Dr Kalam is a politician.”

His critics say the problem is that India’s defence programmes is a one-man show. “Only Kalam is recognised and acknowledged. It is ridiculous that thousands of us are working there, and only one man is framed in a glass house. That is the precise reason for the high rate of brain drain from DRDO,” a disgruntled DRDO engineer said.

The rate at which scientists and engineers are leaving the laboratories is a cause for grave concern. According to a survey, more than 3 per cent of scientists and engineers leave the organisation every year in search of attractive salaries and perks.

“We have been demanding better salary packages and service conditions. But neither Kalam nor the government has listened,” says the engineer.

A section of DRDO scientists are now happy that the organisation is no longer under Kalam. Ever since the new chief, Dr Vasudev K Aatre, took over in December, things are looking up. One of the his first decisions was to initiate a university interactive programme for DRDO scientists. Now, professors of premier science institutes like the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore will spend time with DRDO scientists on specific research projects.

Dr Aatre is also taking a few radical decisions — he is on the verge of dropping some projects that the organisation has failed to execute in many years.

TOMORROW: ‘DRDO is like the Indian cricket team’
“They have been pampered with money and praise that they cannot just deliver,” remarks Major General (retd) Ashok Mehta.

Perform or perish: Antony tells DRDO

Perform or perish: Antony tells DRDO

PTI | May 29, 2013, 08.08 PM IST – Times of India

Antony told the country's premier government-run organisation responsible for manufacturing defence equipment that it should adhere to the timelines and satisfy the user.
Antony told the country’s premier government-run organisation responsible for manufacturing defence equipment that it should adhere to the timelines and satisfy the user.

NEW DELHI: Reflecting frustration over long delays of strategic projects like Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), defence minister A K Antony came down hard on DRDO, saying there is a “limit to time slippages” and that it should “perform or perish”.

Antony told the country’s premier government-run organisation responsible for manufacturing defence equipment that it should adhere to the timelines and satisfy the user.

He specifically referred to the LCA project, which has not fructified even after nearly three decades of inception, and said, “I am waiting that the LCA should become a reality.”

The defence minister said in military development projects across the globe, it is a “herculean task” to meet timelines and there are time slippages. “But there is limit for slippages,” he said, clearly reflecting the frustration.

“In the times of cut-throat competition, the choice is very clear, perform or perish. In delivery of strategic systems, timelines must be adhered to and the satisfaction of the user is the litmus test,” Antony said at a DRDO awards function.

Asking the DRDO to focus on its core competence and “not fritter away its resources and energy”, he said, “Do not think that I am criticising you, I am with you in all times but as the minister of defence, it is my duty to say some things to you.”

On the LCA programme, he said he had been given a particular date by the DRDO. “I hope that it is the final date and the aircraft gets its Initial Operational Clearance II.”

The IOC-I of the LCA was held in January 2011 in Bangalore and its IOC-II was scheduled to be held in July but it has now been postponed to be held in November.

Antony asked the team of HAL, DRDO and the IAF to work together on the LCA project and ensure that it achieves the IOC-II and then the final operational clearance by the end of next year.

Antony defends fired DRDO staff

By Gautam Datt in New Delhi   Saturday May 25, 2013

ak antony

A DRDO employee, sacked on the grounds that he was a perpetual troublemaker after blowing the lid off alleged irregularities in the recruitment procedure, has sought protection from the Central Vigilance Commission ( CVC) claiming he was harassed for being a whistleblower.

The CVC had sought response from the defence ministry’s vigilance wing before taking any action on the complaint filed by Prakash Singh, an administrative officer, who has been at loggerheads with the DRDO for some time now.

Singh was forced to go on premature retirement last year for alleging that his boss A. K. Maini had indulged in malpractices in the recruitment process. He had forwarded the complaint to the CBI. The DRDO claimed that Singh was sacked because the allegation levelled by him was baseless and caused embarrassment to the organisation and defamation to his senior. It also said the officer had “ acquired a habit of complaining against his colleagues, superior officers and other agencies like DCDA.” The other charge against Singh was that “ he had been involved in creating problem to the organisation by the hostile attitude towards his colleagues and officers that shows, he has not been performing his duties with the requisite quality”. In its reply to the CVC, the defence ministry said that Singh has sought defence minister A. K Antony’s intervention for getting reinstated.

It also said that allegations made by Singh about a scam in the recruitment exercise were being investigated by a high level committee in DRDO on the direction of the defence ministry.

The defence ministry has instructed DRDO to submit its report within a month.

The officer had complained to the CBI against some officers occupying key positions in the defence scientific establishment claiming irregularities in recruitment. But his identity was disclosed after the CBI referred his complaint to the DRDO’s vigilance wing.

Singh had approached the CVC earlier this year seeking protection under Whistleblower Resolution. The CVC on March 18 sought response from the vigilance wing of the defence ministry which came up with the reply on April 25.

DRDO employee sacked after blowing lid off alleged irregularity in recruitment procedure

‘ BASELESS’ ALLEGATIONS

The DRDO claimed that Prakash Singh was sacked because the allegation levelled by him was baseless and caused embarrassment to the organisation and defamation to his senior

Singh has sought defence minister A. K. Antony’s intervention for getting reinstated

High- level committee in the DRDO, on the direction of the defence ministry, will investigate the allegations made by Singh

 

Nearly 700 scientists quit DRDO in six years, says Govt

NEW DELHI, December 5, 2012 – THE HINDU

Scientists install a DRDO-developed bio-toilet in the icy vastness of Siachen. File photo: DRDO

Nearly 700 scientists have resigned from India’s premier military research body DRDO in little less than six years from 2007, Defence Minister A K Antony said on Wednesday.

In a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha on resignation of scientists from Defence Research and Development Organisation(DRDO), Mr. Antony said a total of 637 scientists resigned during 2007-2011 and 50 scientists up to October 31 this year.

Scientists who had resigned have either cited personal or domestic reasons for leaving DRDO, Mr. Antony said.

However, it is assumed that increased opportunities or incentives available in other organisations and industries are the main reason of such resignation, he added.

On incentives taken as corrective measures to restrict resignation of scientists from DRDO, Mr. Antony said excellent infrastructure facilities have been created at work places and residential complexes and two additional increments have been given on promotion to each grade.

To another question, Mr. Antony said DRDO is a subordinate organisation under Defence Ministry and does not enjoy any special powers or autonomy because of its strategic nature of work.

Asked whether DRDO enjoys a huge amount of autonomy because of its strategic nature of work, he said, “DRDO is a subordinate organisation under the Department of Defence( R&D) in Defence Ministry and is governed by central government rules and regulations.

“Therefore, DRDO as an organisation does not enjoy any special powers or autonomy because of its strategic nature of work.”

Revised delegation of financial powers of Director General of DRDO was carried out in 2010 to address a long standing requirement and was done after due process and deliberation, he said.

“The process of exercise of these powers has been further rationalised and a corrigendum has been issued by Department of Defence (R&D) on November 21, 2012 as a partial modification to the earlier financial powers,” the minister added.

____________________________________________________________

Question and Answer in  RAJYA SABHA

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
RAJYA SABHA

QUESTION NO 1295
ANSWERED ON 05.12.2012

Resignation of scientists from DRDO

1295 SHRI DILIPBHAI PANDYA

Will the Minister of DEFENCE be pleased to satate :-

(a) whether it is a fact that about 650 scientists have resigned from their posts in Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) during the last five years;

(b) if so, the year-wise and post-wise details thereof;

(c) whether low emoluments in DRDO are the reasons for their resignation; and

(d) if so, what corrective steps are taken / proposed to be taken by Government to persuade the scientists not to resign?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF DEFENCE
(SHRI A.K. ANTONY)

(a) A total of 637 scientists have resigned during 2007-2011 and 50 scientists upto 31st October 2012.

(b) Year-wise and post-wise details are given below:-

Post Year
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
(as on 31st October 2012)
Scientist ‘B’ 166 78 41 38 58 35
Scientist ‘C’ 86 58 18 18 21 12
Scientist ‘D’ 13 8 2 2 5 3
Scientist ‘E’ 2 5 1 3 1 –
Scientist ‘F’ 6 1 3 2 1 –
Total 273 150 65 63 86 50

No Scientist ‘G’, Scientists ‘H’ and Distinguished Scientist have resigned during 2007-2012.

(c) Scientists who had resigned have indicated their personal / domestic grounds as the reasons for leaving DRDO. However, it is assumed that increased opportunities / incentives available in other organizations / industries is the main reason of such resignation.

(d) The following incentives have been granted as corrective measures to restrict resignation of scientists from DRDO:-

• Two additional increments on promotion to each Grade.
• Up to six variable increments on promotion granted on fast track.
• Professional update allowance to all scientists.
• Fast track promotions through assessments.
•Opportunity to acquire higher qualifications at reputed institutes viz. IIT’s / IISc, etc. as DRDO sponsored candidate.
•Young Scientists, Scientist of the Year and other DRDO Awards in recognition to their contributions, etc.
• Excellent infrastructure facilities have been created at work places and residential complexes.

Government is making all efforts to grant Performance Related Incentive Scheme (PRIS) to DRDO scientists at par with scientists of Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

 

‘Strategic nature of work doesn’t give DRDO special powers’

Last Updated: Wednesday, December 05, 2012, 17:43 ZEENEWS.COM

New Delhi: DRDO is a subordinate organisation under Defence Ministry and does not enjoy any special power or autonomy because of its strategic nature of work, Defence Minister A K Antony told the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.

In a written reply to question whether DRDO enjoys a huge amount of autonomy because of its strategic nature of work, he said, “DRDO is a subordinate organisation under the Department of Defence R&D in Defence Ministry and is governed by central government rules and regulations.

“Therefore, DRDO as an organisation does not enjoy any special powers or autonomy because of its strategic nature of work.”

Revised delegation of financial powers of DG of DRDO was carried out in 2010 to address a long standing requirement and was done after due process and deliberation, he said.

“The process of exercise of these powers has been further rationalised and a corrigendum has been issued by Department of Defence (R&D) on November 21, 2012 as a partial modification to the earlier financial powers,” Antony said.
In reply to a question on resignation of scientists from DRDO, he said, “A total of 637 scientists have resigned during 2007-2011 and 50 scientists up to October 31, 2012… Scientists who had resigned have indicated their personal or domestic grounds as the reasons for leaving DRDO.”

However, it is assumed that increased opportunities or incentives available in other organisations and industries are the main reason of such resignation, he added.

On incentives taken as corrective measures to restrict resignation of scientists from DRDO, he said excellent infrastructure facilities have been created at work places and residential complexes and two additional increments have been given on promotion to each grade.

Replying to a query on ‘One Rank One Pension’ for the ex-servicemen, Minister of State for Defence Jitendra Singh said, “Substantial improvements have been made in the pensions of the Armed Forces personnel after 2006. However, improvement of pensionary benefits is an ongoing process.”

He also said that the recommendations of a government committee, headed by Cabinet Secretary, have been accepted by the government and are in the process of implementation.

PTI

Under scanner DRDO official suspended hours before retirement

Press Trust of India / New Delhi November 30, 2012, 20:15 –

Business Standard

A senior DRDO official, who is under scanner for his alleged role in an appointment made against the laid down procedures, was suspended hours before his retirement from service today.

The official, a senior scientist, has been suspended by the department as an inquiry is pending against him in a recruitment-related case where he allegedly recruited his own daughter in the organisation, sources said here.

“The case is sub-judice,” DRDO spokesperson Ravi Gupta said when asked about the details.
The matter had come to light after the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) recommended action against two DRDO officials for their alleged role in the case.
Following the CVC inquiry, DRDO chief V K Saraswat had sought an explanation from the officials.

The official suspended was involved in promotion and selection of scientists in the organisation.

CVC had also recommended review of the appointment of the scientist’s daughter who is now working in DRDO as a ‘Scientist C’.

Arun Kumar finally suspended on the last day of service

Kudos to the Defense Minister for at last getting rid of the black-sheep of DRDO before he could escape.

Lots of thanks to Sh A K Antony for taking such a great decision of suspending Dr. Arun Kumar, Out Standing Scientist for his corrupt activities.  This is clear cut message to the corrupt DRDO officials that no one can escape from justice and it will also be a booster message to all honest DRDO officials who are protesting and exposing the corruption prevailing in this  great organisation.

Again great salute to Sh Antony ji

 

Prabhu Dandriyal

www.corrruptionindrdo.com

 

 

Seeking judicial intervention in the cases of corruption in DRDO

Dear Prabhu,
Time has now come to seek judicial intervention for  investigation in the acts of omission and commission of DRDO chief as GoI   (MoD) does not seem to be acting against culprits. This person , when in trouble,  tries to divert attention by firing couple of toys in the sky. He is so blatant in his acts of favoritism and nepotism that despite the orders of constitutional bodies , he tries is his best to dilute the action. As I set the ball in motion for seeking intervention of Delhi High Court ( and of SC if necessary) , I would like to appeal to , through your blog,  all like minded  countrymen to join me in making DRDO a better place to work in. These rouge elements have destroyed DRDO and they must be brought to book and punished suitably.I was proud of DRDO once but have been deeply saddened  by what is happening in this wonderful organisation. A bunch of looters , thugs and rouges have destroyed it . Kindly communicate to all concerned that they may contact me to start the judicial campaign  to clean up DRDO.As you may also be aware  that despite all the pressure/ request  of Solicitor General to the SC bench to dispose off my present petition (on the plea that  PMO  itself is taking action in NTRO scam case,) the SC  bench rebuffed the Govt by saying that ‘ this court have reasons to believe that Govt is taking action only after the intervention of this court and hence monitoring of investigation ( in NTRO scam) by this court  will contine.’In so far as my second PIL on the issue of accountability of Indian Intelligence Agencies is concerned, my junior advocate on record in SC   Rohit Singh (who prepared the petitions for filing ) was down with slip disc for last 3 months and hence the delay in filing second PIL. We hope to file two more PILs  shortly directly in  SC .The evidence and constitutional position is documentary and irrefutable. .The whole exercise/aim  is to ensure that executive arrogance be questioned and agencies work as per Indian Constitution and ‘Thughs and Robbers ‘ are brought to book.

I must tell you that I did nothing big in exposing corruption in NTRO , merely used my right as the citizen of India and sought judicial intervention after Govt failed to act. I know that all out attempts are still being made to delay the action against the big wigs in NTRO ( quite a few middle level and junior level officials have been dismissed or have resigned – in all about 90+ ; but the politically well connected are still being protected by delaying action) . Usual stuff and predictable action by Govt. My case and other cases prove the point that ‘how so ever big you may be , you are non-entity in front of the law’. Hence if you want some concrete action to be taken in DRDO case , seek judicial intervention; do not expect one looter/thug  to act against another looter/thug. I have seen well  known individuals shaking when it comes to questioning by courts .

Remember if I can do it, others can do it as well . So it is high time that all right thinking people join hands and work together to save DRDO .

Best wishes,

V K Mittal
605, Satpura Apartment
Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad-201010
(m)- 9811333195
(LL)-0120-2776171

How DRDO respects CIC orders- Case – II

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

 

CVC orders penalty against DRDO official

ABHINANDAN MISHRA   Sunday Guardians NEW DELHI | 30th Sep 2012

The officer has been found guilty of appointing his senior’s daughter without following the due process.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has advised the initiation of major penalty proceedings against an additional director rank officer and his superior, a director, with the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO). The officer has been found guilty of appointing his senior’s daughter without following the due process. The proceedings have been advised after a complaint filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was probed by the CVC.

The CVC has recommended the penalty against A.K. Bansal, who was at that time additional director (Recruitment and Assessment Centre) (Scientist F) and Arun Kumar, director, (RAC) (outstanding scientist). Bansal illegally facilitated Kumar’s daughter’s appointment.

The Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC) of DRDO looks after the recruitment and promotion of scientists in the organisation.

The CVC in its memorandum dated 23.08.2012 has stated, “The case has been examined by the commission. On facts of the case, the commission in agreement with MoD, advises initiation of major penalty proceedings against Dr. Arun Kumar, Senior Scientist, DRDO, and Shri A.K. Bansal, Additional Director, RAC.”

The CVC has also asked the ministry to reconsider the appointment of Swati Shrivastava, daughter of Arun Kumar, who is working as Scientist C in DRDO. “Further, the commission advises the ministry to reconsider the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava, daughter of Dr. Arun Kumar.”

“This is a clear case of corruption and misuse of position to appoint close relatives,” an employee of DRDO stated on the condition of anonymity.

Arun Kumar is serving as Director (Personnel) in the DRDO headquarters at present. A.K. Bansal, who retired in 2009, was till last month working with the Institute of Defence Scientists and Technologists (IDST), a registered body of retired DRDO professionals, which claims to provide consultancy, expertise and assistance to DRDO.

The DRDO had earlier tried its best to stonewall an RTI (Right to Information) query filed by an employee of the organisation, seeking to inspect the records related to the employment of Dolly Bansal, daughter of A.K. Bansal. DRDO, while refusing to allow the inspection of records, had said that it was an exempted organisation under the RTI Act.

However, the Central Information Commission rejected the DRDO’s contention and said that since it was related to alleged irregularities in the selection of Dolly Bansal as a scientist and there was no harm in the inspection of the available records.

When contacted, DRDO spokesperson Ravi Kumar Gupta said that the organisation follows a transparent and fair policy of recruitment: “It may be a matter of difference of perception (the findings of CVC). Decisions by RAC related to recruitment are taken by a chairman who is independent of the scientific advisor. However, whatever action is required to be taken, will be taken.”

Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne with DRDO officials during a function in Bangalore earlier this month. PTI