Tag Archives: position

Drdo

RTI-Army – Misutilization of Army manpower in DRDO

9 Comments

To                                                                                          23 December 2017

The CPIO, MoD (Army)
RTI Cell, G-6, D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan
Integrated Headquarter of MoD (Army)
DHQ PO, New Delhi 110011

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of rules position to use army manpower deputed to DRDO for various assignments. It is observed that in DRDO scientists and services officers are using army jawans for their personal service, like cleaning private vehicles, using as driver in their personal cars in office hours and after office hours even in holidays. In VRDE, DRDO, Ahemadnagar Lt Col Praveen Kumar utilizing army manpower Sh  Vaidya Mahesh  in his personal service. The enclosed pictures are self explanatory.

Please find some pictures of Army jawans performing duty for private vehicles of Dr DP Singh Scientist, EMU, DRDO Dehradun engaged a private Scorpio in contract since few years. The vehicle is fully painted with Bharat Sarkar, Raksha Mantralay, EMU, DRDO etc.

  1. Please provide the rules position for utilizing army jawans for personal works by services officers deputed to DRDO and DRDO scientists.
  2. Whether it is allowed by Indian army (Yes/No)
  3. Any disciplinary action can be initiate by competent authority if it is come under misutilization of army jawans or other ranks (Yes/No)
  4. If yes then in case of services officers deputed in DRDO who will the competent authority.
  5. If yes then in case of DRDO scientists who will the competent authority.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal

21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008

Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,

e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed

  1. Photographs from VRDE, DRDO, Ahemadnagar
  2. Photographs from EMU, DRDO Dehradun

Registration Number            MODEF/R/2017/53235

Drdo

CBI carries out searches in Rs 500 crore land scam

Leave a comment

THE ASIAN AGE. Published : May 16, 2017, 3:21 am IST Updated : May 16, 2017, 3:21 am IST
The vigilance department of the defence ministry had pegged the scam to be of Rs 500 crore.

Case is related to an alleged fraud by Lt. Col. M.G. Thimmaya (the then estate manager, DRDO) and a property developer N.H. Rustumji.

New Delhi: The CBI on Monday conducted searches at seven locations, including the officials and residential premises of an Army officer, in an alleged land fraud believed to be worth Rs 500 crore.

According to sources, the case is related to an alleged fraud by Lt. Col. M.G. Thimmaya (the then estate manager, DRDO) and a property developer N.H. Rustumji. Lt. Col. Thimmaya allegedly gave a joint memo before the court in the land dispute matter which was different from that cleared by the Defence Ministry.

Talking to reporters here CBI Spokesperson said, “The allegation is related to criminal conspiracy between accused during the year 2004-06, pursuant to which the officer abused his official position and cheated the government through the transfer of 12 acres 1 gunta of land in favour of a private person against the decision taken by the ministry of defence”.

The agency on Monday carried out searches at the residential and official premises of Lt. Col. Thimmaya, now with defence ministry in Hyderabad, and Rustumji in Bengaluru and district Kodagu. The vigilance department of the defence ministry had pegged the scam to be of Rs 500 crore. “The agency sleuths recovered several incriminating documents during searches. These documents are being scrutinised. They have been booked under the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act,” sources said. The agency will soon call Lt. Col. Thimmaya and Mr Rustumji for questioning.

Drdo

Anomaly claim in DIAT recruitment

Leave a comment

Mohammed Akhef | TNN | Updated: Oct 1, 2016,
toi-1-oct-2016AURANGABAD: A city-based associate professor has sent a fresh complaint to the defence ministry alleging discrimination during a recruitment process by Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (DIAT) in Pune.
In support of his claim, the associate professor has attached a bunch of “self-contradictory” documents from the DIAT received under the RTI Act. The DIAT – a deemed university funded by the defence ministry – had published an advertisement on April 25, 2015, inviting applications for the post of assistant professor in the technology management. It received as many as 18 applications.
In an RTI reply, the DIAT clearly stated that the scrutiny committee shortlisted nine applicants – all holding a postgraduate degree in management. Subsequently, the shortlisted candidates were called for an interview on September 12, 2015. The interview was attended by all the shortlisted candidates, following which one was provisionally selected and his name was published on DIAT’s website on the same night.
Unconvinced with the selection, the Aurangabad-based associate professor, Dr Nitin Untwal, challenged the decision of the selection committee and sent a letter to the DIAT, claiming that the appointment was in violation of the University Grant Commission norms. Untwal holds an MBA, MCom, PhD and has cleared UGC SET.
Taking cognisance of Untwal’s letter, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has initiated a probe into the recruitment as the seat was reserved for an OBC candidate. Untwal has also lodged a series of complaints with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). The PMO, in its reply, cited a Supreme Court judgment in the case between one P Sushila and UGC for carrying out the recruitment process.
According to Untwal’s complaint, out of the 18 applicants, nine were disqualified on the grounds that they did not have a PG or a master’s degree in management. He added that eventually a candidate with an M-Tech degree was not only shortlisted, but selected.
Moreover, an RTI query with the National Institute of Technology in Calicut revealed that M-Tech under mechanical engineering (industrial engineering and management) is not equivalent to postgraduation in management.
In a fresh complaint, Untwal cited that a letter sent by the DIAT to the UGC – a copy which has been obtained under RTI on September 28, 2015 – the DIAT stated that the essential qualification for the post were as per para 4.4.5 of the UGC regulation 2010, which is a post graduate degree in management declared equivalent by AICTE/AIU.
In its RTI reply, the DIAT on May 23, 2016 stated that the essential qualification for the position were as per para 4.4.6.1 of the UGC regulation 2010, which says that “the essential qualification for the post is a postgraduate degree in engineering and technology”.
When contacted, DIAT officials refused to comment. But in a reply to a query posed via email, DIAT’s joint registrar (administration) T V Ananthasubramanian said, “I am directed to forward the following as our response: Dr Untwal was a candidate for the position of assistant professor for technology management. He was not found suitable by the duly constituted Selection committee and hence, not selected. His various queries to DIAT and various other agencies and authorities, including the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri/Chancellor, DIAT have been replied. The DIAT has nothing more to add to the answers given earlier.”

toi-pune-oct-2016

Drdo

Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur’s misadventure by repairing multi utility shed from the cloths (Dress Material or other purpose) procured for Army Jawans

8 Comments

To,                                                                                                       10th May 2015                          ShriManoharParrikar,                                                                                                                      Defence, Minister,                                                                                                                             Ministry of Defence,                                                                                                                           Room No 104, South Block,                                                                                                              New Delhi-110011

Subject: Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur’s misadventure by repairing multi utility shed from the cloth (Dress Material or other purpose) procured for Army Jawans

Sir,    DMSRDE having a multi utility shed for organizing different local functions and programs. The structure built by steel and covered by water proof cloth like used by tent houses.

Recently this Feb 26-28, 2015 at DMSRDE, Kanpur organized a Conference on Microscopy in Materials Science and Biomimetic Technology with Academy of microscopic science and technology (AMST) society, Kanpur in above multi utility shed.

Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE founder of Academy of microscopic science and technology (AMST) society, Kanpur.

Just before conference MULI UTILITY SHED repaired by VIRAJ SYNTAX LTD, Kanpur, and the Material was provided by DMSRDE, Kanpur under directive of Dr A kK Saxena.

The material used was PU COATED NYLON WHITE FABRIC (Procured for fabrication of WIND CHEATER FOR GLACER REGION) and Green PVC Coated fabric they have used for upper layer of shed.

The Multi Utility shed being a part of the public  infra structure the work should have been  done by public concerned authority such as  CC (R&D)N , MES, but as a matter of habitual procedural defiance the work was done  the other way and therefore no norms for repairs followed resulting in wastage of the material

White fabric was procured in 1999-2000 in excess and store audit objection is in position.

Interestingly, the valuable public material got issued in the name of ‘study purpose’ just before the conference jointly organized by DMSRDE and AMST (Academy of microscopic science and technology) in which Dr. KN Pandey , Retd. TO”C”, one of the very close circle advisors group of Dr. AK Saxena is the founder general secretary of wonderful society the AMST where there are no declared policies or bye laws and no transparency in accounts handling.

With a very huge loss to public property approximately 1000 m market rate is (RS 250/meter) of pu coated nylon white was   used for lower layer total shed where a much low cost white cloth would have been sufficient for aesthetics.

400 meters market rate is RS 450 /meter of pu coated green heavy cloths were used for upper layer.

The repairs could not last even for two months and again they are using the unduly expensive cloth for re-repairing with the purpose of getting rid of the audit objection in an unmindful and sheepish way.

The current position of this multi utility shed’s photographs is enclosed for your ready reference.

Sir, It is requested that please direct these DRDO officials not to waste public money for their adventures,  needful inquiry is also requested in this Dr A K Saxena’s misadventure.

Regards

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

mus5 mus3mus4mus2

PMO

RTI- Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad – PMO portal case

Leave a comment

To                                                                                                                Date 15th March 2015
Shri S. Goverdhan Rao,                                                                                                                      CPIO & Dy. Chief Executive (Administration),                                                                             Nuclear Fuel Complex,                                                                                                                     Department of Atomic Energy Government of India,                                                               Hyderabad – 500 062.

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of NFC s Response to the Misleading report carried by Economic Times on 13.3.2015, posted on http://www.nfc.gov.in/ in reference of following points.

Point No 7. Against NFC s advertisements for hiring external professionals for the Project Management Consultancy jobs offers were received from outside and retired Officers of NFC. After evaluation, four retired Officers were selected and awarded the Consultancy contract for review Engineering documents and drawings prepared by Detailed Engineering Consultants i.e., M/s. Engineering India Limited.

Point No 8. While sanction for Project Management Consultancy at an estimated cost of Rs. 5 Crores was available, NFC managed to get the work done by spending only Rs. 16.15 lakhs by engaging retired Officers as Consultants, which NFC saved huge amount and considerable time in the process.

Point No 9. Shri Pasupathi Rao was informed of the factual position.

  1. Provide the total number of job offer other than retired officer from NFC, their names and qualification, experience which they have submitted with said offer.
  2. Name board members and name of chairman who selected four retired officer.
  3. Whether any of these four retired officer involved in planning or any means with Green Field Project at Kota earlier when they were in NFC.
  4. Provide the copy of justification given for budgeting estimated cost of Rs 5 crores in the name of Project Management Consultancy for Green Field Project at Kota.
  5. The total amount as salary, as transport allowances, medical allowances, TA/DA, communication bills and any other payments was given to these four retired officer as consultant of above said project up to 28th Feb 2015.
  6. The copy of information given to the factual position to Shri Pasupathi Rao as stated in point no 9 of NFC response.

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

Registration Number      DOATE/R/2015/60170

Drdo

Dear Ravind Please don’t occupy DRDO chair or Consultant post after your retirement

4 Comments

One comment was submitted by one of our visitor with above Headline –

It is true picture of all DRDO lab, Government already asked one question from DRDO in its 25 question query as following and same was circulated to all Labs

” The best talent is going to multinational and not joining DRDO because of certain reasons. DRDO is going only left over. Please furnish data for last 3 years on talented people joining from esteemed institute . (CC R&D HR)”

The following comment is specially important to our DRDO top management for introspection.

Submitted on 2014/11/19 at 4:23 pm

Ravind is as bad as projected here.

He had no vision but he ran out of time to realise it.

He was having no clarity to drive program and make things moving

He was a task master and made everyone to work for his PPTs and visit arrangements only.

It’s fortunate for LRDE that he didn’t get his extension.

His bad quality is that he didn’t take every one with him. The position and power ruined him.

He neglected demotivated working class with his tongue

He started interacting only with LMC and his chela’s .

He treated everyone as untouchables.

If he had come down to lab alone and interacted with ground level

LRDE today may in better position.

He created bad name to LRDE with his egoism.

Spoiled relationship with CDA, DGs and posted out

All those who spoke against him to DG office or sidelined from active projects.

Sincere request to him that after his retirement he should not try to occupy some DRDO chair or

Consultant position at BEL or some company or NTRO consultancy.

He passed his productive professional innings long back

He can’t contribute further he should understand and live his retirement life quietly

He can’t bring harmony in work place where ever he goes.

He is just power hungry and egoistic. He can’t become a good leader who can take everybody with him and can listen wisely.

Request to all those agencies / organisations think thrice before appointing him for post retired roles. Keep all the comments in mind and give a chance to Ravind.

Drdo

Request to PM for DEEMED SUSPENSION OF DR. G. MALKONDIAH, DS AND CCR&D (HR), DRDO AS under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965

4 Comments
To                                                                                                                         6th October 2014
Hon’ble
Shri Narendra Modi,
Prime Minister of India,
Room N0 -152, PMO, South Block,
New Delhi-110011

 

SUBJECT:  DEEMED SUSPENSION OF DR. G. MALKONDIAH, DS AND CCR&D (HR), DRDO AS under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965

Hon’ble Sir,

Hon’ble Madras High Court Judgment dated 24 Sept 2014 in Contempt Petition No.1711 of 2012 inW.P.No.13067 of 2005 and Sub Appln.No.602 of 2012 in which Dr. G Malkondiah, Distinguished Scientist and Chief Controller Research & Development (HR & TM) was one of the respondents. By the order dated 24 Sept 2014, Hon’ble Court pronounced following order:

Para 40 of judgement – Therefore, we propose to impose punishment of sentence of imprisonment onthe respondents 2 and 3 for their wilful disobedience of this Court’s order. In the facts of this case, we feel that merely imposing fine on the second and third respondents would be inadequate and ends of justice would be served, only if they are awarded imprisonment and fine.

Para 41 of judgement – In the result, respondents 2 and 3 are held guilty for civil contemptunder Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and they are punished with Simple Imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- each personally. The Government is directed to take appropriate departmental action against them for the reckless negligence and wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, which lead to insurmountable sufferingsfor the petitioner for more than a decade.

Para 42 of judgement –  The contemnors are directed to surrender for undergoing the punishment of imprisonment within one week from today, failing which the Registry is directed to issue warrant of commitment to prison for undergoing the sentence imposed upon them.

Para 43 of judgement- By this order, the issue has not come to an end and the liability ofthe petitioners/contemnors in W.P.No.13067 of 2005 to comply with the orderdated 30.04.2009, does not abate. Therefore, they are directed to comply with the order forthwith.

  1. Dr. G. Malkondiah has been punished with simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Therefore Dr. G. Malkondiah, CCR&D (HR&TM) has been convicted by Hon’ble Madras High Court for civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
  1. Hon’ble Madras High Court stated in their order “A sleeping man can be woken, but not a man who pretends to sleep. Here the Contemnors belong to the latter category and they can never be woken up unless orders in this Contempt Application are passed. Therefore, we hold that the second and thirds respondents have wilfully committed contempt of the order of this Court dated 30.04.2009 in W.P.No.13067 of 2005 as affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court”.
  1. Provisions of Rule 10.(2)(b) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 reproduced here for ready reference:

(2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority –

(a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours;

(b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.

  1. Provisions of Rule 10(5)(a) CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 reproduced here for ready reference:

(5)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shallcontinue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authoritycompetent to do so.

  1. Therefore, under the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) , Dr. G. Malkondiah is now under deemed suspension wef 24.09.2014 and his deemed suspension shall remain continued  until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.
  1. The formal orders of deemed suspension has not been issued till date by the authority competent to do so in MOD and he is continue as CCR&D(HR&TM).
  1. Vide [G.I. , MHA, Letter  No. 39/72/51-Ests., dated the 23rd October 1951] and [G.I. , MHA, O.M. No. 25/70/49-Ests., dated the 26th December, 1949], conviction of Government servants to be promptly communicated to administrative authorities. Whether Dr. G Malkondiah has informed to authority competent so about his conviction or not, is matter of investigation by the competent authority, if not then it will be regarded as suppression of material information and will render him liable to disciplinary action on this ground alone.
  1. Under the provisions of Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, the authority competent to do so in case of Dr. G. Malkondiah, should take necessary action as per rules.
  1. Dr. G. Malkondiah challenged the said order dated 24.09.2014 of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court vide civil appeal D No. 31977/2014 dated 25 Sept 2014.
  2. The hearing of the civil appeal D No. 31977/2014 along with civil appeal D No. 31978/2014 took place at Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.09.2014 and Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the order dated 24.09.2014 of Hon’ble Madras High Court in contempt petition no. 1711/2012.
  3. Dr. G. Malkondiah knowingly victimizing & mentally torturing the employee of minority community since past ten years by misusing his official position and deliberately disobeying the Court orders. Hon’ble Madras High Court makes comment on his act as “wilful disobedience of Court orders “. This act of Dr. G. Malkondiah is of moral turpitude and should not be ignored by authority competent to do so.
  4. Dr. G. Malkondiah, Distinguished Scientist, took over as Chief Controller R&D (HR) at DRDO HQ on January 01, 2013. As matter of fact Directorate of Personnel (DOP) report to CCR&D (HR) and all legal matters of DRDO be taken care by DOP under CCR&D (HR). Thereby Dr. G. Malkondiah misused his official position to satisfy his ego by contemning the Hon’ble Court order and on the other hand victimizing the man of minority community who was unemployed since the year 2004. Thereby Dr. G. Malkondiah wasted lakhs of rupees from public fund in fighting the cases from Hon’ble Tribunal to Hon’ble Supreme Court since 2004 to 2014.

Therefore, in light of the facts stated above suitable disciplinary action may kindly be initiated by Government against Dr. G. Malkondiah, CCR&D(HR&TM), DRDO and he should be placed under deemed suspension by written order by the competent authority so that  justice and rule of law could be establish in DRDO.

Regards

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

Annexures:

  1. GOI OM 23 October 1951 under Rule 19 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965
  2. SC order dated 25.09.2014
  3. SC order dated 26.09.2014cca rulesITEM NO.56                              COURT NO.4               SECTION XII

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Civil Appeal Diary No(s).                 31977/2014

     G MALAKONDIAH                                                                Appellant(s)

    VERSUS

      S. JOSEPH RAJ AND ORS                                              

    Respondent(s)

    (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and permission to file appeal. And office report)

    WITH C.A. D 31978/2014

    (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and appln.(s) for permission to file appeal. and Office Report)

    Date : 26/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

    CORAM :

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT

     

    For Appellant(s)                  Mr.   Mukul Rohtagi, AG

                                        Mr.   R. Bala, Adv.

                                        Mr.   R.K. Verma, Adv.

                                        Mr.   B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.

      For Respondent(s)                 Mr. V. Balaji,Adv.

                                        Mr. Asai Thambi, Adv.

                                        Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv.

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

    O R D E R

    Permission to file appeal is granted.Perused the photocopy of the certified copy of the order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Signature Not Verified Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711 of 2012.

    Digitally signed by

    Rajni Mukhi

    Date: 2014.09.29

    12:12:10 IST

    Reason: Petitioner is allowed two weeks’ time to file affidavit enclosing the copy of the said order.

    Notice be issued on respondents returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

    Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1.   He may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder   Affidavit, if any, be filed   within a week thereafter.

    In the meantime, the order dated 24 th September, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711/2012 arising out of Writ Petition No. 13067/2005 and sub Application No. 602 of 2012 shall remain stayed.

    (Rajni Mukhi)                                    (H.S. Parasher)

    Sr. P.A.                                                       Court Master

Drdo

Poor Tax payer money wasted to save corrupt DRDO officials – RTI – MOD (Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO, (DOB 1-Jan-1951Retiring on 31st December )(Supreme Court Stay Order)

Leave a comment
To                                                                                            30th September 2014
Sh A. M. Manichan,
Under Secretary (IC-IV), CPIO,
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence,
Sena Bhavan, 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 Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO  held guilty for civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and   punished with Simple Imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ by Honorable Madras High Court on 24.09.2014. Subsequently Sh.G MALAKONDIAHfiled   an appeal   in      SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 25th September 2014 and got stay on Madras High Court order of 24th September 2014. In Supreme Court there are four advocates were present for appellant Sh.G MALAKONDIAH  

For Appellant(s)      Mr.   Mukul Rohtagi, AG
                                    Mr.   R. Bala, Adv.
                                    Mr.   R.K. Verma, Adv.
                                    Mr.   B. V. Balaram Das, Adv.
  1. Provide the Ministry of Defence rule position for providing advocates to government servant.
  2. Number of advocates
  3. Limit of fees
  4. The criteria for providing advocates
  5. In case of Sh.G MALAKONDIAH provide the total expenditure done by Ministry of Defence.
  6. Provide the advocate fee given to each one for Sh.G MALAKONDIAH case.

   

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com                                                      Registration Number            MODEF/R/2014/61806 

 

ITEM NO.56                              COURT NO.4               SECTION XII

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal Diary No(s).                 31977/2014

 G MALAKONDIAH                                                                Appellant(s)

VERSUS

  S. JOSEPH RAJ AND ORS                                              

Respondent(s)

(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and permission to file appeal. And office report)

WITH C.A. D 31978/2014

(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and appln.(s) for permission to file appeal. and Office Report)

Date : 26/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT

 

For Appellant(s)                  Mr.   Mukul Rohtagi, AG
                                    Mr.   R. Bala, Adv.
                                    Mr.   R.K. Verma, Adv.
                                    Mr.   B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.
  For Respondent(s)                 Mr. V. Balaji,Adv.
                                    Mr. Asai Thambi, Adv.
                                    Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Permission to file appeal is granted.Perused the photocopy of the certified copy of the order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Signature Not Verified Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711 of 2012.

Digitally signed by

Rajni Mukhi

Date: 2014.09.29

12:12:10 IST

Reason: Petitioner is allowed two weeks’ time to file affidavit enclosing the copy of the said order.

Notice be issued on respondents returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1.   He may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder   Affidavit, if any, be filed   within a week thereafter.

In the meantime, the order dated 24 th September, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711/2012 arising out of Writ Petition No. 13067/2005 and sub Application No. 602 of 2012 shall remain stayed.

(Rajni Mukhi)                                    (H.S. Parasher)

Sr. P.A.                                                       Court Master

Drdo

DRDO claim on LCA export premature: Former top IAF officers

3 Comments

29 Jun, 2014, 1430 hrs IST, PTI
DRDO’s claim about being in a position to export Light Combat Aircraft Tejas has been dismissed as premature and unrealistic by former top IAF officers.

NEW DELHI:  DRDO’s claim about being in a position to export Light Combat Aircraft Tejas has been dismissed as premature and unrealistic by former top IAF officers, who want it to focus on getting the indigenous fighter plane inducted into own air force first.

“It is good to have ambitions but there are several miles to go before we can talk or think about exporting LCA.

“It is too early to talk about this as it has to be fist inducted into IAF before we take a decision on selling these planes,” former IAF chief Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy said.

He was reacting to DRDO’s claim that it can sell light-weight multirole LCA to friendly foreign countries in future.

Krishnaswamy said DRDO and the country will have to be “realistic” as for exporting the aircraft. The country will have to make huge investments to create a new and big production line for mass production of these aircraft, he said.

The development of the home-grown fighter aircraft, which recently got ‘Initial Operational Clearance’ by IAF, has already taken 30 years at an estimated cost of over Rs 17,000 crore.

However, the induction is still awaited as IAF has not yet given the ‘Final Operation Clearance’. Production of the aircraft is estimated to push up the cost further.

Krishnaswamy said when it comes to exporting combat aircraft or helicopters, the seller has to provide long-term fleet support to the customer countries and “DRDO has no exposure to such fleet management practices”.

“We had exported some choppers to a country and one of them crashed during the national day parade of that particular nation.

“So, we should first focus on developing the aircraft for our own requirements and then think of other things,” he said.

Krishnaswamy said the first indigenously built bomber HF-24 Marut aircraft had to go through several modifications due to problems experienced in it even several years after it was inducted in IAF.

Drdo

For DRDO RTI Act-2005 means, wasting the public funds, wasting the public time

2 Comments

It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II.  This RTI request will reveal the policy of DRDO in which DRDO official stated that they give reply of all RTI requests but not to give the requested information.

DRDO RTI cell is always lead by corrupt official, like Dr. Prahalada who held the position of appellate authority very long time. He is a corrupt person did a lot of corruption in DRDO and is still doing corruption sitting as Vice Chancellor of DIAT, DRDO.

One CIC decision exposed his corrupt practice that year of years he claimed the HRA from the government and simultaneously enjoyed the government accommodation. Although as per DRDO RTI reply that he refunded a few lakh but no administrative action was taken against him for his corrupt practice.

Dr. Arun Kumar is facing suspension and disciplinary action against him after intervention of Honorable Defence Minister, was also holding the position of appellate authority for long time in DRDO.

Present CPIO, DRDO Dr A K Tyagi also faced numerous enquiry and transfers due to his involvement in corruption.

javed0001

 

javed0002

 

javed0006

Following RTI of Bangalore, CPIO, ADE and Dr Prahalada then appellate authority provide wrong/false information to applicant.javed0008

 

javed0015

 

javed0013