Need to revamp, give us roadmap in a fortnight: Govt tells DRDO
Manu Pubby Posted: Sun Apr 27 2008, 00:36 hrs New Delhi, April 26:
Barely a month after receiving the first ever external review report on the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), the government has decided to revamp the research body to fix accountability and clear the way for more private sector participation and foreign collaborations.
In fact, the Defence Ministry has decided to move a Cabinet note for the overall restructuring of DRDO as early as next month to ensure that the reorganization starts off by the end of this year. To facilitate this, DRDO has been asked to submit a detailed revamp roadmap to South Block within a fortnight.
The roadmap, which will be examined by the Defence Ministry to make sure that it “reflects the spirit” of the P Rama Rao Committee report, would lay emphasis on the need for using all means possible to incorporate globally available technologies for indigenous development projects.
As first reported in a series in The Indian Express, the 50-year-old organization came under flak for repeated delays and failures by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence in 2006. The government decided to set up a high-powered committee led by P Rama Rao, former secretary, Department of Science & Technology to “examine the effectiveness of R&D support provided vis-à-vis in-house research facilities with DRDO and to ensure effective participation of the private sector in Defence Research”. The committee submitted its report on March 5, exactly one year after it had been commissioned.
The major points recommended by the Rama Rao Committee that are to be incorporated into the road map:
• The 52 DRDO laboratories are to be realigned into five “lab clusters,” each will be headed by a Director General and have its own specialization. The broad clusters: Electronics, Armaments, Avionics, Missile Systems and a dedicated research cluster. Each cluster will have a certain degree of autonomy and will be accountable for failures and delays. The Chief Controllers, who will be re-designated as Director Generals, will move out of New Delhi to take charge of these clusters
• Setting up a tri-services cell within the framework of the organization to overlook all development projects from the conception stage itself. The cell will be headed by a three-star officer — this position will be held by all three forces on a rotational basis. The cell will have three Major General-rank officers who will oversee development projects of their respective services.
To speed up development and meet deadlines, promote joint ventures with global players, involve private sector and foreign collaborations to inculcate globally available technologies into the organization.
• Entire restructuring to be monitored by a special implementation cell that will be headed by a DRDO Chief Controller. The cell will also have a representative from the Rama Rao Committee and will report directly to the Defence Ministry.
DRDO, which has come under increasing flak for repeated delays and failures, will be made more accountable and has been told to put emphasis on private sector partnerships and foreign joint collaborations to ensure time-bound projects. The revamp will also address the long-standing demand of the armed forces for deeper involvement in defence-development projects and will push for a younger age profile of scientists.
SFCIANS, SF COMPLEX, DRDO, JAGDALPUR – DOP, DRDO IS DEAF & DUMB
The reply of my RTI related to SFCian issue was denied by DRDO Hqrs under the shelter of Schedule- II of RTI Act 2005.
As per section 19 of RTI Act 2005 I have appealed to DRDO Hqrs appellate authority and as you very well know that he is deaf & dumb for humanity issues and only act fast on personal issues in which he has some personal interest. So reply is known but we will take this issue up to supreme authorities.
Hope for best……………………
My RTI Request –
To 19 September 2011 CPIO & Addl Director, DRDO HQ Room No. 314A DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg New Delhi – 110105
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect SF Complex, JAGDALPUR
1) The official address of SF Complex (one of the labs/Establishment of DRDO), JAGDALPUR?
2) Copy of D O part order or any other order regarding the place of reporting duty at Plant Girola Village which is 40 Kms away from Jagdalpur.
3) Copy of D O part order any other order in which the employees posted at SF complex first they report to duty at SF Complex then report for duty at Girola Plant Site.
4) The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011
5) The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and human right not come under schedule -II – why because it is noticed that without proper movement orders and without proper maintained vehicles the employees of SF complex are going daily at Girola plant. Earlier in one accident case it is heard that the movement order was made by SF Complex administration in back date to give financial benefits to the deceased family.
First Appeal to Appellate Authority of DRDO 12th September 2011
The Right to Information Act, 2005
First Appeal for Central Govt.
I.D. No_________ Date: _________ [For office use]
To
Dr Arun Kumar OS & Director, Directorate of PersonalRoom No.-217, DRDO Bhawan , Rajaji Marg New Delhi – 110105
Sir,
As I am aggrieved by decision/no decision of Central Public Information Officer, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
The reply of CPIO, DRDO, is completely confusing, misleading, incorrect, unjustified and willful not give any information, does not following the spirit of RTI Act 2005.
The information asked about SF Complex Jagdalpur is not come any norms of secrecy. I am not asking about any work or project information of SF Jagdalpur Unit. 1. Details of appellant
1.1 Full Name: Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
1.2. Full Address: 21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
1.3 Phone/Cell No. 0135-2787750 / 919411114879
1.4 Email ID: prabhu@dandriyal.com
2. Details of CPIO:
2.1 Name/Designation: Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, Head RTI Cell, Scientist ‘F’
2.2 Full Address : Room No 314 A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India
3. Details of RTI application to CPIO:
Date of Application : 19th July 2011
Mailed on: 19th July 2011
by speed post
4. Particulars of payment of filing fee:
Paid Rs.10/- by Postal Order No. 90E 611227
5. Details of information sought:
1) The official address of SF Complex (one of the labs/Establishment of DRDO), JAGDALPUR?
2) Copy of D O part order or any other order regarding the place of reporting duty at Plant Girola Village which is 40 Kms away from Jagdalpur.
3) Copy of D O part order any other order in which the employees posted at SF complex
first they report to duty at SF Complex then report for duty at Girola Plant Site.
4) The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011
5) The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and human right not come under schedule -II – why because it is noticed that without proper movement orders and without proper maintained vehicles the employees of SF complex are going daily at Girola plant. Earlier in one accident case it is heard that the movement order was made by SF Complex administration in back date to give financial benefits to the deceased family.
6. Particulars of Decision of CPIO:
Date of CPIO’s Decision:9th August 2011
Date of receipt of decision by the appellant:12th August 2011
7. Brief facts of the case:
The official address of SF Complex is “SF COMPLEX, AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING, JAGDALPUR-494001”. SFC Employees are given appointment letters with above address as reporting place. But, all are forced to report at the above address as well as at its work centre located at Girola village, Bakawand block, Bastar district. This location is completely out of 40 Kms away from municipality (Jagdalpur) of the official address.
As per rule they should report at the place of posting as per the appointment letter. But it is not so. Is it (forcing to report at other place) not violation of an employee’s right to report at the posting place? The management says that reporting place is at Girola and same time management says Airport terminal building, Jagdalpur. It is clear cut case of harassment of employees of SF Complex.
One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.
If the travelling from Jagdalpur to Girola and back is official and as per the rule and the rule position should be clear for all for management, employees and the general public. After this accident all the staff of SF Complex Jagdalpur took a decision and reported at posting place only. This happened for two days and later management has interfered and threatened to them for report at Girola and told them if they will not report at Girola, will get termination letter. Employees were forced to report at Girola. It is a violation of Human Right? Reporting at posting place is not correct? Then why appointment letters were given like that? DRDO has to duty to provide them proper necessary papers as per rule position of Central Government.
The requested information is not come under 8(1) (a) and 24 (1) of the RTI Act at all because the information asked not in the nature of secrecy like The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority. This the major concern of family and friends of employees of SF complex for their safety and well beings. For mere few thousand Rupees from contractors as bribe the Top DRDO officials playing with the life of SF Complex Employees.
The required information is fall under corruption and as well as violation human right and therefore in any means it is not come under schedule –II exemption of RTI Act 2005.
“RTI is a key instrument for imposing democratic values, accountability and transparency in our public administration,” Dr.Shah Faisal (IAS topper 2010 & RTI activist of J&K RTI Movement NGO) told Sakàl Times
8. Reasons/grounds for this appeal: i) To know the sensitiveness and work environment of DRDO ii) To expose the corrupt practices prevailing in DRDO
9. Any other information in support of appeal: 10. Prayer/relief sought for:
It is requested that please provide me correct information as per request of my RTI dated 19th July 2011 in larger public interest, because it is directly related to corruption and violation of Human rights. 11. Enclosures:
i) My RTI request dated 19th July 2011 ii) Denial of CPIO, DRDO Hqrs dated 09 August 201112. Declaration:
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with any information commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
Enclosed please find the recommendation of Investigation Officer, Sr Public Prosecutor & SP, CBI submitted vide CBI report No.PE-3(A) /2001, which I received against my RTI reply No 4798/8/1/2010/RTI Act-05/Vol-50/CBI/LZ/DAD dated 30/07/2010.
Final Recommendations of IO Para 18 of above report
“However, I am of view that department action for major penalty be initiated against Dr.A.S.Bains, Director, DEAL, Dehradun for overlooking the facts that procurement of———- should have been made on the basis of a single tender basis in which he was not competent to approve of purchase. The approval should be obtained from the competent authority. I am also recommended banning of M/S India Satcom Ltd. with DRDO, Ministry of Defence as well as with other Government Departments.” – Akhil Kaushik, Inspector of Police, CBI/ SPE/ Dehradun Date 20/04/2002
Recommendation of Sr.PP
“On the allegation as recommended by IO the Sr. Public Prosecutor of the branch has recommended RDA major penalty against Dr.A.S.Bains, Director, DEAL and D.K.Gangopadhyay, indenter of ——— for irregularities as mentioned above. He has also agreed to the recommendation of IO for banning of M/s India Satcom Ltd on the said allegation.”
Recommendation of SP,CBI,SPE, Dehradun page 165 Para-5
“Keeping in view what has been discussed above, I endorse the view of IO and Sr. PP for RDA major penalty against S/Shri .A.S.Bains, Director, DEAL and D.K.Gangopadhyay, indenter of ——— for irregularities as mentioned above. I also agree to the recommendation of IO and Sr.PP for banning ofM/S India Satcom Ltd.
Such action as deemed fit is also recomonded against S/Shri S. Halder, Raghuvir Singh and GC Pandey all official of DEAL and S/Shri H R Sharma, representative of DMM (DRDO HQ), New Delhi and PC Verma, Sc’G’, IRDE, Dehradun” – HC BIsht, Supdt. Of Police, CBI, SPE, Dehradun Date 30/05/2002
Two special PARA of report is
The recommendation of the TPC was approved by Director and the statement of case was prepared for obtaining sanction for approval of purchase from competetent authority i.e SA to RM as in case of single tender the financial competence of Director of Lab is restricted to Rs 1 Lakh. The statement of case put up DRDO under the signature of Dr.AS Bains and Dr.KD Nayak dt 7th Oct 1997 sate that the requirement of………
The deal for the purchase was approved by the then SA to RM Dr.APJ Abul Kalam. However the only bone of connection is fact that when the supplier asked for change of nomenclature and replacing the word down convertor with integrated circuit, Dr AS Bains, director of the lab had approved of the TPC recommendation and have not referred this matter of change of nomenclature to SA to RM as the deal was approved by him. However, comment to mention that as per scientist of SSPL the down convertor is very specialized integrated circuit. The act of Dr.AS Bains in approving the change of nomenclature and not referring to DRDO Hqrs is not justified.
May I ask you a question?
As a whistle blower I was the one who reported the criminal act being done by close associate
of then SA to RM, Dr VK Atre, even the SA to RM was kept in dark.
Then why I was made victim?
Why the criminals got outstanding promotions and freed scot free?
The entire team of so called scientists who were engaged in this criminal act were received the patronage of the successive SA to RM.Like Dr.KD Nayak who had in his kitty several engagements financial irregularities in number of project/procurement when he was in DEAL. With this biodata Dr.Atre, Dr Natrajan and Dr Saraswat all gave protection to him.
Which was a crime?
Encouragement in financial irregularities, which is directly responsible for the failure of DRDO output.
Or
I as whistle blower did a mistake.
Please convinced me DRDO has given me penalty or reward.
