Tag Archives: RM

Drdo

Congrats Sh.AvinashChander for AGNI-5

2 Comments
To
Sh Avinash Chandra
SA to RM, Secretary DRDO, DG DRDO
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105

 Congrats Sh.AvinashChander for AGNI-5

Heartiest congratulations to Sh.Avinash Chandra and all AGNI team members for the great success of AGNI-5 trials. It will boost the moral and reason to stay in DRDO to new upcoming young DRDO scientists.

Sh.Avinash Chandra is also keeping his promise to implement the Rama Rao Committee’s recommendations.

But major challenges are still waiting for your attentions like corruption and nepotism.  Both are big issues that require careful handling and also strongly like Honorable R.M. Sh. A K Antony gave example not to gave extension (License of Corruption) to Dr V K Saraswat.

The recent extensions to some senior incompetent scientists are example that Sh.Avinash Chandra is still in the grip of corrupt DRDO officials.

In Dr.Arun Kumar’s case Sh.Avinash Chandra was member of inquiry committee and gave clean chit to Dr.Arun Kumar and later on Sh. A K Antony corrected and suspended the culprit.

Sh.Avinash Chandra’s weaknesses are with corrupt DRDO officials gangs who are enriched and patronized by Dr. V K Sarswat and Dr. W Selvamurthy (PhD in Yoga).

Sh.Avinash Chandra ji leave your weakness, without fear declare the results of Scientist ‘H’, since you have taken responsibility to develop defence self reliance of our great nation. Leave the small weaknesses and weed out the corrupt gang of DRDO. A lot of honest and capable persons are available in DRDO.

Dr. Anil Kumar Tyagi’s case is also an example, why Dr. A K Singh helped him to get result via DoPT advice, have they shown you that this kind of practice done by DRDO before; you just allow them blindly to follow this route. You have been receiving hundreds of cases where humentrain / medical/ grievances request for transfer and other kind of help by DRDO scientist and staff. Can you tell me a single example of where these stalwarts took fast action?  I can send you a lot of examples where your HR/DOP dealings have been insensitive and the person has no choice but to bear it or leave the organization.

You can find their expertise and efficiency in protection of corrupt and incompetent DRDO officials like example case of Sh. R K Agarwal, who got promotion of scientist ‘H’ with false work claims and proudly publishes in DRDO news letter also, because he knows he managed his boss.

Sir, it is requested that you do the needful to save DRDO from the claws of these corrupt DRDO officials.

Please see the following:

Status of Complaint No: 569/11/9 against your one great scientist Dr Anil Kumar Tyagi, Sc ‘G’ CPIO, DRDO Hqrs

Date: 17/9/2013

Sent to CVO for Investigation/Action Taken Report on date :  16/3/2011

CVO Report Received on date:   18/7/2013

Prima facie material has been found against the officials involved. Regular Disciplinary action is recommended on: 9/9/2013 

Sir, now how can you give such important responsibility of CPIO, DRDO Hqrs to such individual?

Waiting for your quick response

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879
Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com  Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com  
 
Date -20th September 2013

Copy to

  1. Defence Minister, Room No 104, South Block, New Delhi – 110011
  1. Dr. Syamal Kumar Sarkar, Secretary, MOP, Room No-112, North Block, New Delhi
Drdo

Dr.Arun Kumar’s CAT Case – Right Decision – A perfect warning signal for corrupt DRDO officials

6 Comments

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-4075/2012

Reserved on : 09.04.2013.

Pronounced on :17.04.2013.

Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Dr. Arun Kumar,
R/o P-25/5, DRDO Residential
Complex, Lucknow Road,
Timar Pur, Delhi-54. . Applicant

(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)

Versus

1. Union of India through
Secretary, Deptt. Of Defence
R&D and DG, DRDO, DRDO Bhawan,
Rajaji Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Sh. Sameer Kumar Khare,
Chief Vigilance Officer,
Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi. . Respondents

(through Sh. Rajesh Katyal, Advocate)
O R D E R

Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
This is a second round of litigation. Earlier this applicant had filed OA-3293/2012, which was disposed of by this Tribunals order dated 24.11.2012. Operative part of the order reads as follows:-
24. Considering the aforesaid two sets of infirmities in the decision making process in the matter, we are of the considered views that the impugned communications dated 23.08.2012 and 05.09.2012 cannot be sustained and, therefore, those needs to be quashed. We accordingly set aside the same. We further provide that it would be open for the RM to consider the report of the Expert Committee first on the allegations against the applicant in a dispassionate manner, without getting influenced by the advice of the CVC or prejudiced by the views already expressed in the notes/files when the matter was subjudice before this Tribunal and take a considered view to accept or reject the recommendations of the Expert Committee. Obviously, if he does not accept the recommendations of the Expert Committee, appropriate decision should be taken at his level as per law, without being influenced by our observations in the order.

25. In view of the above, the Original Application stands disposed of in terms of our orders and observations leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Now the applicant has sought the following relief:-
(i) To Quash and set aside the impugned suspension order dated 30.11.2012 being illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to release all retirement dues of the applicant without any delay.

To direct the respondents to issue relevant order for joining of applicant as Chairman CEPTAM as approved by ACC.

To allow the OA with costs.

Any other order or further order as the Honble Tribunal thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. Facts of this case have been gone into in great detail in OA-3293/2012 filed earlier by the applicant. We propose to only briefly mention them and then concentrate on the developments in the case subsequent to this Tribunals order dated 24.11.2012. We also do not propose to adjudicate again on the issues which have been covered in the earlier judgment of this Tribunal.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the applicant was working at the level of Outstanding Scientist in DRDO in the pay scale of Rs. 67000-79000. According to him, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet had also approved his appointment as Chairman, CEPTAM in DRDO for a period of three years from the date of joining. On the complaint of one Dr. Neelam Bhalla, Scientist-F of DRDO, submitted to various authorities, such as, CVC, Honble Raksha Mantri (RM), Cabinet Secretary, Womens Commission in Delhi, Secretary, DRDO and Vigilance Department of MOD, it was decided by RM to constitute an Expert Committee to enquire into the issue and ascertain whether there is any truth in the allegations made by Dr. Neelam Bhalla. The main allegation was that the applicant had committed irregularities and maneuvered the recruitment of Group-D Scientist in DRDO in such a way that he was able to secure appointment for his daughter Swati Srivastava. In the earlier OA, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the Chief Vigilance Officer of MOD had sought CVC advice on the action to be taken on the complaint without taking orders of RM. CVC had advised initiation of major penalty against the applicant. In that OA, the applicant had pleaded before the Tribunal that CVCs advice is bound to influence the decision of the DA i.e. Honble RM, who was supposed to first take a decision on whether to proceed against the applicant or not and thereafter seek CVC advice. It was also pleaded before the Tribunal that the Expert Committee constituted by RM had exonerated the applicant and the recommendations of the Expert Committee had been accepted by the RM. Thus, the matter should be treated as closed. The Tribunal after hearing the pleadings of both sides had given the above mentioned judgment in the said case by which it was directed that it would be open for Honble RM to consider the report of the Expert Committee first on the allegations against the applicant in a dispassionate manner without getting influenced by the advice of CVC or prejudiced by the views already expressed in the notings in the file and take a considered view whether to accept or reject the recommendations of Expert Committee. On 30.11.2012, the respondents have passed the impugned order by which the applicant has been placed under suspension with immediate effect. Now, the applicant has assailed the suspension order before us through this O.A.

4. We propose to deal with each of the grounds on which the applicant has challenged the suspension order:-
(i) The first ground taken by him is that the impugned suspension order has been issued in defiance of the orders of this Tribunal dated 24.11.2012. According to the applicant, the Tribunal had specifically directed that Honble RM would take decision without being influenced by the advice of CVC or the notings made during the pendency of O.A. However, the respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Defence has himself taken the file to Honble RM for passing the suspension order on the basis of same complaint and already quashed communications dated 23.08.2012 and 05.09.2012. Further, the applicant has alleged that the suspension order is biased because the respondents were determined to humiliate the applicant by all means. They have done so to satisfy false ego of respondent No.2 and complainant Dr. Neelam Bhalla.

4.1 In this connection, we have perused the original record of the department. In File No. 13011/6/D(Vig.II)/10 (Part File) on page-32/N, Honble RM has passed the following order:-
As advised by the Honble CAT P.B. New Delhi, I have gone through the report of DRDO expert committee and I am of the view that the report of the expert committee is full of contradictions as they have not considered the issues before them with proper application of mind. The issues are as under:-

(i) Ms. Swati Srivastava, daughter of Dr. Arun Kumar, the then Additional Director, RAC, DRDO, had applied for the post of Scientist B in DRDO in 2004. Although dealing with the instant recruitment process of Scientist B in his official capacity, Dr. Arun Kumar did not inform the office in writing and did not recluse himself from the recruitment process.

Dr. Arun Kumar, manipulated the selection process to include the subject Environmental Biology under the advertised subject Biotechnology, without issuing corrigendum or public notification. This was done solely in spite of the fact that there were 300 odd candidates with the requisite qualification in Biotechnology and was done solely to make Ms Swati Srivastava eligible for the post since she was having qualification Environmental Biotechnology.

Dr. Arun Kumar unjustifiably changed the criteria for shortlisting of applicants for the interview, such as introducing preference for NET qualified/ cut off marks for university toppers etc. with the sole objective of extending undue benefit to his daughter, who would not have qualified for the interview if the existing criteria were followed and not manipulated in her favour.

2. From the above, I am of the view that the report of the expert committee could not give satisfactory and convincing reasons on the above mentioned issues, and therefore, the report is not accepted.

3. Hence, I find that it is a fit case where a departmental inquiry should be instituted as per applicable rules and guidelines. I hereby order that Dr. Arun Kumar may be placed under suspension with immediate effect before the action on disciplinary proceeding is processed. Since the first stage advice is required to be taken, let the matter be referred to CVC in accordance with the applicable rules.
We find from the aforesaid order that there is no reference to the advice of CVC or the communications dated 23.08.2012 and 05.09.2012. The order passed by Honble RM is well reasoned. He has ruled that the report of the Expert Committee was full of contradictions as they had not considered the issues before them with proper application of mind. Ms. Swati Srivastava D/o Dr. Arun Kumar (applicant and the then Additional Director, RAC, DRDO) had applied for the post of Scientist-B in DRDO in 2004. The applicant although dealing with this recruitment did not inform the office that his daughter was a candidate in the said selection process and did not recluse himself from the recruitment process. Honble RMs order further says that the applicant had manipulated the selection process to include the subject Environmental Biology with the advertised subject Biotechnology. This was done without issuing a corrigendum or public notification with the sole purpose of making Ms. Swati Srivastava eligible for the post since she was having qualification of Environmental Biotechnology. Further, the order says that the applicant unjustifiably changed the criteria for short listing the candidates for interview and introduced preference for NET qualified/cut off marks for university toppers etc. with the sole objective of extending undue benefit to his daughter, who would not have qualified for the interview if the unchanged criteria had been followed. Rejecting the report of the Expert Committee, Honble RM has directed that this was a fit case where a departmental inquiry should be instituted as per applicable rules. He has also directed that Dr. Arun Kumar be placed under suspension with immediate effect. Further, he has ordered that CVCs first stage advice may be taken in accordance with applicable rules.

4.2 In our considered opinion, the order passed by Honble RM is well reasoned and logical based on the material pertaining to the case. He has not been influenced by the advice of CVC as alleged by the applicant nor it appears that it has been done to satisfy false ego of respondent No.2 and complainant Dr. Neelam Bhalla. There is also nothing on record to show that Respondent No.2 has taken the file to Honble RM himself. Honble RMs order is of a date subsequent to the date on which Respondent No.2 saw the file. Thereafter, the file has been seen by Additional Secretary and Defence Secretary before being put upto Honble RM.

4.3 The second ground taken by the applicant is that respondent No.2 had no legal right to keep all the files containing the details of decision of Honble RM after receipt of High Power Committee report with him and after disposal of the OA by this Tribunal. As per rules and terms of this Tribunal, the decision on the Expert Committee report was required to be taken only by Honble RM on the filed to be submitted by Secretary, DRDO and not by MOD (Vigilance).

From the records produced by the department, we notice that the decision by Honble RM has been taken in the file of MOD(Vigilance). Respondent No.2, the Chief Vigilance Officer has made the following noting while submitting the case to Honble RM Honble RM may like to decide future course of action as mentioned in Para(4) of Note 28 above. The relevant Para-4 of the Note at page 28 is as follows:-
In view of the position explained above, the file is re-submitted to Honble R.M. for taking a decision on the findings of the DRDO committee in the matter as under:-

(a) To accept the recommendations of the Expert Committee/DRDO and close the case, in which case no action is required to be taken against Dr. Arun Kumar/shri A.K. Bansal.
OR
(b) To reject the report on the ground that the report was contradictory and has not covered major allegations as mentioned in the Table A (placed opposite) and to proceed ahead with the departmental enquiry based on the examination of the case by D (Vigilance). However, in this case Shri Arun Kumar will have to be placed under suspension [Under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965-F/Y] with immediate effect as he is retiring on 30.11.2012 to avoid the case being time barred as per Rule 9(2)(b)(iii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (F/X). It may be stated that as per Rule No.9(6)(a) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972(F/Z), the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted from the date the Government Servant is placed under suspension.
We have also seen the order of this Tribunal dated 24.11.2012 and we find that there is no mention in that order that Respondent No.2 was not required to keep the file with him or that Honble RM has to take decision on the report of the Expert Committee in the DRDO file and not on the file of MOD (Vigilance). Thus, the contention of the applicant in this regard is without merit.

4.4 The next issue raised by the applicant is that even the relevant rules and instructions have been violated while passing the impugned order. According to CCS(CCA) Rules, suspension should not be made in a routine and casual manner. It can be issued only where continuation of an officer in service is either likely to prejudice investigation or subvert discipline or after holding preliminary inquiry a prima facie case is made out, which is likely to lead to major penalty. According to the applicant, none o these conditions are applicable and the applicant himself was to leave the office on account of attaining the age of superannuation.
The respondents in their reply have stated that the DA has taken the decision after careful perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the material on record. The charges against the applicant were grave and he had failed to maintain absolute integrity while discharging his duty. The respondents have also denied the allegation of mala fide and have prayed for these to be ignored by the Tribunal.

5. We have perused the order of Honble RM by which the suspension has been ordered. It clearly brings out the grave charge of nepotism against the applicant, namely, that he had manipulated the recruitment process of Scientist-B of DRDO to favour his daughter. We do not feel that this has been done in a routine and casual manner. Since it is a grave charge which could lead to a major penalty, the respondents were justified in placing the applicant under suspension.

6. However, we do find that there is some merit in the contention of the applicant that since he was already retiring on 30.11.2012, the date on which Honble RM ordered his suspension, the suspension was not warranted inasmuch as the applicant would have otherwise left the office on account of attaining the age of superannuation. It is settled legal position that suspension is not a punishment and it is resorted to keep the delinquent officer away from office so that he does not get chance to tamper with the evidence so that the inquiry against him could proceed unhindered. In the instant case, the suspension order was issued on the last day of the service of the applicant on which day he would have, in any case, left the office and would not have been able to either tamper with the evidence or interfere with the inquiry. In our opinion, this appears to have been done in haste to meet the requirement of Rule-9(2)(d)(ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, which prescribe that no proceedings shall be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. The charge against the applicant pertains to recruitment that had taken place in the year 2004. The inquiry under CCS(Pension) Rules could not have been instituted against the applicant after 30.11.2012 since it pertained to an event which took place more than 4 years before his date of retirement. The respondents were, therefore, keen to institute the proceedings during the service time of the applicant. For doing so, either a charge sheet was to be served or the employee had to be placed under suspension. Only then the proceedings can be deemed to have been instituted. On 30.11.2012, when the suspension was order by Honble RM, the issue of charge sheet was not possible since before doing so CVCs first stage advice was to be taken. Therefore, the respondents resorted to issuing the suspension order.

7. While this may be so, we have to examine whether the suspension order gets vitiated for this reason and whether suspension order issued on the last date of retirement is unsustainable in law. It is an admitted fact that the order of suspension was served on the applicant at 2.30 P.M. on the date of his retirement. The applicant has contended that the relationship of the employer and employee had come to an end on that day and as such the suspension order was not valid. In this regard, the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Honble High court of Tamil Nadu in the case of G. Subramanian Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1988(2) MLJ 418 in which the Writ Petition was allowed and the order of dismissal passed against the applicant was quashed. In that case the applicant was due to retire on afternoon of 30.06.1977 on attaining the age of superannuation. That afternoon, he was informed by a telephonic message that Government of Tamil Nadu was placing him under suspension and not permitting him to retire. Thereafter, Government of Tamil Nadu issued an order on that very date stating that criminal offence was under investigation against the petitioner and, therefore, in public interest he was placed under suspension with immediate effect. He was also not permitted to retire. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted in which two charges against the petitioner were proved. He was issued a notice to show cause why he should not be removed from service. At that stage, the petitioner had approached the Honble High Court of Tamil Nadu.

8. While going through the facts of the case, we find that it is not applicable in the instant case. The reason is that in the case quoted above, the petitioner was not allowed to retire and was subsequently given notice for removal from service. The Honble High Court of Tamil Nadu had ruled that after the date of retirement of the petitioner, proceedings against him could have continued only for determining whether pension or a part thereof could be withdrawn from the petitioner. They, therefore, found that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner for removal from service was unsustainable in law. However, in the instant case, while the suspension order has been issued under CCS(CCA) Rules, the petitioner has been allowed to retire and now the proceedings are continuing under the CCS(Pension) Rules. This is obvious from the Annexure A-1 of the rejoinder, which is an order from the applicants Ministry transferring him to Pension Establishment w.e.f. 01.12.2012 (F/N).

9. The applicant has also relied upon the ruling of Honble Madras High Court in the case of P. Pandaram Pillai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (WP(MD) No. 10032/2009) dated 27.06.2011 in which it was observed as follows:-
7.."5.(i) the Disciplinary authority should not resort to last minute suspension of the Government servants (i.e) on the date of their retirement. A decision either to allow Government servant to retire from service or suspend him from service should be taken well in advance (i.e.) three months prior to the date of retirement on superannuation and orders issued in the matter and such a decision should not be taken on the date of retirement, if final orders could not be issued in a pending disciplinary case against a Government servant retiring from service due to administrative grounds

"13.Time and again, the Supreme Court and this Court has deprecated the initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings against an employee of the fag end of his retirement and keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the employee under suspension. Further when the petitioner had pleaded that there was official prejudice and enmity between him and the third respondent in the matter of use and maintenance of the official vehicle, the Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the case in proper perspective while dismissing the Original Applications. The Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner when there was hardly fifteen days left for his retirement. More over, when his date of retirement is on 11.3.1987 and the order of suspension was passed on 25.3.1987 by invoking G.O.No.173. Therefore, when once the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 11.3.1987, the placing the petitioner under suspension after his date of superannuation is without authority and that when the relationship of master-servant ceased to exist, no Disciplinary Proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner. On this ground also, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
10. Honble High Court has observed that last minute suspension of a Government servant should not be resorted and a decision either to allow the Government servant to retire or suspend him from service should be taken well in advance. The Honble High Court has also quoted the observations of Honble Supreme Court deprecating the initiation of disciplinary proceedings of an employee at the fag end of his retirement and keeping the matter pending for a long time.

11. Further, the applicant has relied on the Honble Madras High Court judgment in Writ Petition No. 14786/2011 in the case of V. Meenakshi Vs. The Director of Social Welfare dated 17.11.2011 in which the suspension order was issued on the last date of retirement of the petitioner. The Honble High Court observed as follows:-
11. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the disciplinary action initiated by the department. But in an extraordinary case, like the case on hand, where the petitioner was proceeded with an action on the last day of her service, based on the report in letter No. 031783/V2/1999, dated 9.5.1999, which was issued twelve years back, this Court has no option, but to interfere. The reason given by the respondent for taking such action on the last day that the report dated 9.5.1999 was received by the office of the respondent only on 31.5.2011 is not acceptable. As stated above, the respondent ought to have pursued with the Director of Government Examinations on his request made in 1998 to verify the genuineness of the certificate. For the above said reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and accordingly those orders are quashed.
12. The respondents have, on the other hand, stated that in the instant case the applicant himself filed OA before the Tribunal in which stay order had been granted putting the proceedings on hold. The OA was disposed of on 24.11.2012 i.e. just a week before the retirement of the applicant. Thus, the time available was very short and, therefore, the suspension order could be served only on the last day of the service of the applicant. However, according to the respondents, this does not vitiate the suspension order or the proceedings against the applicant in any manner. They have placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, AIR 2008 SC 1235 in which it was held as follows:-
In the instant case the show cause notice was issued to the respondent employee on January 13,2000 when he was very much in service. The respondent submitted his explanation on January 15,2000 which was not found to be satisfactory. A regular show cause notice was, therefore, issued by the Corporation on January 31,2000 and was served upon the respondent employee on the same day. The notice was also sent by registered post which was received by the employee on February 11,2000. But it is clear from the documents that show cause notice was issued and replied. A regular show cause as to departmental inquiry was also served upon the respondent employee on the last day of his service which was January 31,2000. Therefore, it could not be said that the proceedings had been initiated against the respondent employee after he retired from service.
The respondents argued that the Apex Court had clearly ruled that when an employee is served with the suspension order on the last day of his retirement, it cannot be said that the proceedings against him have initiated after the employee had retired from service. In view of this, the argument of the applicant that the employer-employee relationship had already ended is not sustainable.

13. We have considered the arguments of both sides and find that in the cases cited by the applicant there was unexplained delay in initiating action against the petitioners which were kept pending till the fag end of his retirement. In one case, the petitioner was not even allowed to retire and was given show cause notice for removal from service. However, in the instant case, the facts are different as the preliminary inquiry had been instituted against the applicant quite some time back through an Expert Committee. The findings of the Expert Committee were under examination. In between the applicant approached the Tribunal and obtained the stay order, which was vacated a week before his retirement. Thus, the respondents were left with very little time to initiate action against the applicant. Moreover, the charge memorandum clearly mentions the rules, namely, rule-9(2)(b)(ii) of CCS(Pension) Rules and Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Thus, after retirement of the applicant and his passing on to the Pension Establishment w.e.f. 01.11.2012(F/N), the proceedings against the applicant can only be continued under the Pension Rules for deciding whether full or any part of his pension may be withheld. We do not find any infirmity in this order.

14. The applicant has also pleaded for quashing of the proceedings on account of delay. His contention is that the first complaint was made by Dr. Neelam Bhalla in the year 2009 i.e. 5 years after the recruitment had taken place. The disciplinary action against him had been started 8 years after that recruitment. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (Appeal (civil) 4901/2005 dated 08.08.2005 in which it was ruled as follows:-
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account o the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistake committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.
The same judgment was relied upon by Honble Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 10694/2005 and connected cases.

15. However, we find that in the same judgment in Para-19, the Honble Supreme Court has also observed as follows:-
It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay.
16. Moreover, in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. V. Appala Swamy, (2007) 14, SCC 49 the same observation was made by the Apex Court. They further have gone on to say that if there has been delay then the delinquent officer should take that plea before the Inquiry Officer and also explain how delay has caused prejudice to his defence. Thus, the position that emerges is that facts and circumstances of each case have to be gone into and proceedings cannot be quashed merely on account of delay. In the instant case, the inquiry has just begun. The applicant can take the plea of delay before the IO and also explain if delay has caused any prejudice to his defence. We are not inclined to quash the proceedings on this ground alone.

17. In their arguments, the respondents counsel has emphasized on the fact that disciplinary proceedings in the instant case are at the interlocutory stage and judicial interference at this stage is not warranted. He has relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. A.N. Saxena, 1992 SCC(L&S) 861 in which the Honble Supreme Court had quashed the order of this Tribunal staying the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant holding that the charges against the applicant were serious and Tribunal had erred in granting injunction in restraining the UOI from taking disciplinary action against the officer. He has also retied on the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Govind Prajapati Vs. UOI & Ors., 150(2008)DLT 435 in which the Honble High Court quoted the Honble Supreme Court guidelines that interference by the Court at the stage of issuance of chargesheet would amount to pre-judging the issue as the correctness of the charges are yet to be looked into by the DA.

18. From the above analysis, we come to the conclusion that none of the grounds taken by the applicant for challenging the suspension order have any merit. Moreover, as laid down by Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Court of Delhi interference in disciplinary proceedings should not be ordinarily resorted to at interlocutory stage. We, therefore, dismiss the O.A. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)

 

/Vinita/

Drdo

Vision 2020

Leave a comment

India became a nuclear state with underground explosion on 18th May 1974, known as Pokhran-I (Smiling Buddha). The economic condition then did not permit this misadventure as the fallout was international sanction.

Sh. Atal Bihari Bajpai, then opposition leader expressed his view in the parliament “A hunter went for hunting the lion in the deep & dense forest on a bullock cart, when the lion appeared and roared the hunter in hurry asked his subordinate to load the gun, the helping hand said sorry sir, in a hurry we forgot to bring the gun but license is with us. The hunter requested the lion please give me some time to bring the loaded gun and then I assure you a decisive fight”

What Sh Bajpai said then was proved during KARGIL WAR 1999, the active defence asked for latest arsenal from DRDO and in return DRDO showed them the license.

DRDO bosses show the licenses instead the loaded gun (Product) and when the user demand they always seek more time. This mockery will continue until a firm accountability is implemented and user active participation in project/ program is made mandatory.

User requirements if not met in time then concerned officers who participated in developmental process should be made accountable.

Until these steps are taken, DRDO will only show the licenses of doing research even if country faces next KARGIL like scenario.

DRDO needs similar determination in development projects/programs like the US & Russia. When Americans developed the mother of bomb GBP-43/B with blast yield 11 Ton in 2003, then in 2007 Russia produced Father of Bomb (ATBIP) with blast yield 44 Ton. And now US produced MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator) which penetrate 60 feet thick concrete wall bunker and will reach the target with satellite guidance.

SA to RM is not only to enjoy the personal gym which was constructed and procured at Development enclave under project funds but he is also supposed to accelerate the developmental efforts in frontline technologies having 20 years life.

The constitutional limitation of SA to RM is such that he is not able to take timely decision/action to save the image of DRDO like Sh T Mohan Rao, Director, GTRE’s massage parlour episode; he has overlooked GTRE lab which is running without suitable and committed head since May 11, 2011. Similarly like Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, lots of cases/complaints pending against him with documentary evidences right from Defence Minister, CVC, Women Cell, Court etc but SA to RM does not bother about the image of DRDO.

This type of corrupt team of DRDO are becoming role model for the young scientists and in the process sincere scientists leaving DRDO.

The decision made for extension of service is without any analysis. The incompetency is growing, the deserving are the sufferers, the team lead by aspiring seniors stop working and result no output is poor tax payer of the country is ultimate looser.

The PMO, the Finance Minister is not able to find the hole in their GDP. In last 20 years technology import by DRDO has bypass all the procurement policy. For DRDO Directors “money is flowing”. The government has show leniency and the technology being imported is on its peak. 90% of the sanction budget for DRDO is being spent on 15 years old abandon technology of developed nations.

The experts from DRDO justify the procurement as the supplier agents offers them massage parlour to hefty commissions, good food, spa and stay in a 5 stars for a brief period.

The obsolete technology are imported as custom built item and 5 to 10 times higher cost and paid in Indian currency. The global tenders placed two to three times until the desired supplier decides the percentage of commission with journey to country from where technology is being imported. Further in the name of AMC signed MOU to ensure their periodical personal inputs and this periodical revenue is the sole cause of extension in service.

With this attitude of DRDO top brasses and MoD’s inability to handle the situation can we imagine to ever see the Vision – 2020? It is a big question?

Drdo

Arrogance of Ex-Scientific Adviser to Rakhsha Mantri (Dr V K Atre)

Leave a comment

Date 13th January 2012

The Government of India in its pursue to provide leader ship to an organisation like DRDO/ISRO/BARC etc always selects the chief through a selection process whose search committee examine the whereabouts of the individual  whom the responsibility is to be given.

Unfortunately due to over confidence or may be the political interference a leader who do not deserves the post is selected to lead the organisation. And the ultimate looser is the poor tax payers. The KARGIL WAR proved the biggest failure of DRDO and its leadership.

As former Army chief V P Malik, who led the army during the 1999 Kargil war, has said casualties in the conflict could have been reduced had DRDO “not come in the way” in the acquisition of weapon-locating radars.

“We had one or two incidents particularly on the weapon locating radar. If the DRDO had not come in the way we would have got them before the Kargil war and that would have definitely reduced our casualties,” he told Karan Thapar during a show.

Asked whether DRDO was “slight boastful” in claims over developing weapons, Malik said “well that has been our (armed forces’) experience over the development of weapons and equipment the DRDO has delivered or not delivered.“

Following is the example Vision/Working/commitment/Long Term Planning/Communication with fellow workers – Dr V K Atre then SA to RM commented about DRDO is following.

Today there is lot of hue & cry about the Chinese presence along with border from NEFA to POK, every Indian hearing through news channels and it is talk of the common people about our preparations vis-a-vis the Chinese capability.

Some of the activity which were suppose to be taken early was ignored by DRDO as then SA to RM due to his poor fore slightness ignored the real requirements of our Defence Services.

(Total pages —9) Page 1 of 1

Record of Discussions

Venue Room                                   : Room No -137 South Block. New Delhi
                                                               Office of Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri

  Dr V.K. Aatre

Time                                                   :12.30 Hrs

 Date                                                  : 10 April 2001

Visitor Slip No.                                : 83097 10th  April 2001

The following were present

Dr.V.K.Aatre        Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri
                                   Secretary (R&D), DRDO, Director General (R&D),
                                    Ministry of Defence, Government of India

Dr. A K Dutta       Chief Controller,  DRDO Hqrs

P D Dandriyal     Charge man – II/ Technical Assistant/ Sr. Technical Assistant

Background of the Meeting

P.D.Dandriyal brought on to notice or Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri, Defence Minister, Prime Minister and Honorable President of India, the immoral character of Dr. Amarjeet Singh Bains, Director DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun. Ministry of Defence, Government of India

The representation highlights the sabotage of national interest, misappropriation of Government funds, misinterpretation of Government rules,  regionalism, castism by  Dr. A.S Bains.  In support of this statement P.D. Dandriyal submitted two cheques of his take home salary to Prime Minister’s National relief fund as Dr Bains stopped giving him any work in retaliation. The cheqees were returned by PMO letter No 365/11/C/2/2000IPOL dated 05.06.2000 and R&D Hqr letter No DOP/P/2/20027/MISC/M/0 I dated 0202/2001 with the assurance of appropriate action.

An official confirmation for meeting with SA to RM on 10/04/2001 at 1230 hrs was given to PD Dandriyal at 1300 Hrs on 09/04/2001.  The individual submitted and earn Leave for three days to attend scheduled meeting as he was denied Ty. Duty

Page 1 of 2

P D DANDRIYAL May I come in Sir

SA:                 Please come in

PD:                 May I sit

SA:                 Yes, please.

SA:                  So, you are the only honest person in lndia( laugh)

PD :                No. Sir,I  am one of them

(SA feels that. 99% oIl Indians are dishonest, but I strongly feel that the 97% Indian people are honeM)

SA:                  So, where you want to go?

(till date in any controversy the DRDO Hq transfer the employee without giving  scrious thought over tie problem posed)

PD:                 Sir, I donot understand what is your motive?

SA:                 So you are writing that in DEAL 80% people have no work so I want  to give you some work elsewhere..

PD:                 Sir, if you want to put me in any mission of national interest then you can send me right from Leh to Cochin. As I already liwe showh in capabilities by staying at Antarctica and also provided critical communications   as well as witnessed the Agini-II hitting the target near Andman Sea.

SA:                 No no. you just tell me where :you want to go,

PD:                 Sir just listen to rme I have already performed a very useful project work in mountaineous  terrain of Himachal for  solving, night time communication problem faced by army during Kargil war we have solved the communication problem by using NVIS techniques.

SA:                 What is NVlS?

PD:                 Sir, Near Vertical Insidenanc Sky wave mode of radio cornniunicauon

(during mid Kargil war the army faced a serious problem of night time communication where no communication equipment whether HF/VHF/UHF were able to communicate. The matter was taken by army Hq and then the Defence Minister imported HF communication sets from M/s Tadiran, Israel. Unforutently these sets did not worked, however army conducted some trails along with Israeli engineers near Delhi and the

Page 1 0f 3

system was functional. He was not able to through light on the problem erupted at KARGIL. Then he Defence Minister handed over the problem to SA to RM who in turn asked Director, DEAL for quick solution. The solution was obtained immediately after carrying NVIS communication trials in Himachal Pradesh having Kargil like uneven mountain terrain. Unfortunately the report has been buried by Dr Bains/DRDO Hqrs.

SA:                 OK, I will stop NVIS studies further.

PD:                 Then Sir, you can give me work in the JEMCAB requirement of hardening of advance air base against nuclear EMP. As the JEMCAB secretariat has asked to assess the feasibility of above from DEAL, but our Director has flatly refused to take up to this activity and written to JEMCAB that give this to LRDE as we are preoccupied.

SA:                 No EMP project whether projects are from army, navy or air force this my privilege what to take and what not to take.

                       (This show to what extant SA has attachment with national security and for keeps his ego up to what extant he can compromise with national security)

PD:                 But Sir, we have infrastructure and expertise on EMP and our people are interested to take this challenging task.

                        (the team has developed a nuclear hardened shelter for JEMCAB a mini lab for nuclear simulation has also setup at DEAL and waiting for such assignment. SA forgotten the parliament (Loksabha) question D No.11042 dated 18th March 1999 and his comment to honorable Parliament for protecting our communication network against threat of Nuclear EMP and this is clear case of contempt honorable Parliament.)

SA:                 No, I will stop this activity this is my previlage. Before you one senior scientist of DEAL reported that I have not enough work and he has been transferred do you know?

                        (SA trying teach me that he can go to any extent and he is ready to stop any activity which are working in real national interest.)

 PD:                Yes Sir, Shri R C Chakarborty was transferred as Director, DTRL

(Sh R C Chakarborty was project Director “ SARVADRISTA” which was supposed to give real time image of enemy territory by using remote sensing data collected by earth station at DEAL he was on his job but to drive maximum advantage from the success of this project Dr.Bains removed him from the project director right in the middle of KARGIL WAR and takeover the command himself, the result was no further image was useful for army. People suspect that Dr Bains has been planted by some foreign agencies to sabotage the national program.)

Page 1 0f 4

SA: So, you would you like to join Chakorborty

PD: No Sir not at all. Because my background propagation and communication and he is engaged with image processing bun Sir DEAL is a propagation and communication,

SA: You know we already stopped propagation work there. So then Balasore, are you interested?

(NASA and NOAA in US have been carrying out the propagation studies right from VLF to Sub millimeter wave to enhance their defence preparation till date.)

PD: Sir, whenever and wherever DRDO needed my services I did l it honestly. In Balasore initiated the remote control of HF sets in Long Wheeler Island for Agni-ll. Why don’t you put me CNR because of communication background?

SA: No, I can’t

PD: Sir, you can send me in any mission mode project activity anywhere in country but if you will transfer me without justifying the points raised by me I have no option other then handover these Documents to public in front of parliament and to draw attention of the countrymen against the siphoning of pretty FE in the name of US sanction. I will go for self-immolation in front of Parliament

SA: (Stunned for a while) pause No, I am not transferring you but I warn to know where you want to go. Everyone parsing your work, we want to utilize your enthusiasm.

PD: Now it is up to you Sir, but without justification I will not leave Dehradun. Since, I have worked devotedly whenever any critical assignment was given to me. As an example then SA to RM Dr.Kalam gave a problem of Landmine detector to DEAL.As you know the casualties due to landmine can upset the total movement of army personals in battlefield. SA wanted to a most modern microprocessor based landmine detector to be developed by DEAL. To carry out the feasibility Director DEAL made a small committee and Sh Kundu, Sc ‘D’ was asked to explore internet for  explore relevant information available elsewhere, for two days Mr. Kundu tried his best but failed to get useful information. Later my boss asked me to explore as he knows my capabilities, used PC at home and spent my own time and brought 125 pages with full of useful information pertaining history, design and development parameters etc. report was prepared and submitted to R&D Hqrs and a presentation on this

minutes of SA's meeting5
minutes of SA's meeting6
minutes of SA's meeting7
minutes of SA's meeting18
minutes of SA's meeting9

 

 

Drdo

Undue Advantage Received Against the Reputation of Dr Kalam

3 Comments
To                                                                                                                            Date 28th December 2011                           
The Prime Minister
Room No -152, PMO, South Block
New Delhi- 110011

 

The Defence Minister
Room No – 104, South Block
New Delhi- 110011

 

The Home Minister
Room No – 104, North Block
New Delhi- 110011 

Honorable Sir,

Before taking over as President of India Dr Kalam was renowned scientific figure in international arena. He received for his valuable contribution “Bharat Ratna” by government of India.

Prior to this Dr Kalam was Scientific Adviser to RM and leading single handedly the missile program under the banner of IGMDP

To accomplish this mission he explored man, machine, components etc from across the globe. Unfortunately he picked up Dr Amarjeet Singh Bains a salesman of Marconi, UK and was given an opportunity as scientist ‘E’ in DRDL, Hyderbad. However, within a short span of time he joined DEAL, Dehradun as scientist ‘F’ in 1987 and became director, DEAL in 1996.

The misadventures of Dr A S Bains began and he started taking advantage of the close proximity of Dr Kalam. The items were ordered to his friend’s firm under single tender basis. The tender was approved by then scientific adviser to RM, further showing utter disregard to constitutional provision Dr A S Bains changed the nomenclature without the consent of the scientific adviser to RM.

RTI reply shows the truth, CBI, Dehradun investigation finds that Dr K D Nayak, present CC (R&D), distinguished scientist was key person who manipulated the file. This promotion to DS is the reward given to him for befooling the then scientific adviser to RM.

CBI report No.PE-3(A) /2001 of DEAL,DRDO, Dehradun

Page 15 para 3 line 6 “The deal for the purchase was approved by the then scientific adviser to RM Dr A P J Kalam. However, the only bone of contention is the fact that when the firm had asked for change of nomenclature and replacing the word down convertors with integrated circuit Dr A S Bains, Director of the laboratory had approved of the TPC recommendation and have not referred this matter of change of nomenclature to SA to RM, as deal was approved by him………….. The Act of Dr A S Bains in approving the change of nomenclature and not referring to DRDO Hqrs is not justified.”

The information received from Business Registration Div Fullerton, CA  92832, USA is following

The facts about firm

From: Business Registration <Busreg@ci.fullerton.ca.us>
Date: 2010/12/22
Subject: 07 – M/S Wave Components & System
To: prabhudoon@gmail.com
Cc: Victoria Pardue <VictoriaP@ci.fullerton.ca.us>

Waitlist reason: Jackie Barkley (JackieB@ci.fullerton.ca.us) is not on your Guest List | Approve sender | Approve domain |

 

Thank you for contacting the City of Fullerton with your business inquiry.

Unfortunately there is no current record of a registered business with the information you have provided however there is some previous history.  Our records show the following:

Account #129185, Expired July 1, 1999

Status:  Inactive/Closed

Name:  Wave Components & Systems Assoc.

Address 1409 W. Woodcrest Avenue

Ownership:  Sole Proprietor

Owner:  Mani K. Thakur

Activity: Mail Order

Applied:  July 17, 1998

Account #129184, Expired July 1, 1999

Status:  Inactive/Closed

Name:  RLC Tech

Address:  1409 W. Woodcrest Avenue

Ownership:  Sole Proprietor

Owner:   Shail Kumari Thakur

Activity:  Mail Order

Applied:  July 17, 1998

A cross reference search by address, last name and Orange County Fictitious Business Name Statements did not confirm any other records associated to this entity or individual.

Jackie Barkley | Revenue Specialist

P 714/738-3313 | F 714/525-8071

Administrative Services Dept. | Business Registration Div.

City of Fullerton ■ 303 W. Commonwealth Ave ■ Fullerton, CA  92832

BusinessRegistration@ci.fullerton.ca.us | www.ci.fullerton.ca.us

Inspite of US sanction after Pokhran-II and the firm was officially closed on July 1, 1999 as per US official records, the firm participated in tenders afterwards also, as per DEAL procurement records in a TPC held on 18th Dec 1999 & subsequently 3rd March 2000 the firm bid was considered and the comment by TPC member “the tenders were invited from the 5 known firms in this field based on the records of DEAL and informations as available.”

  1. Wave Components & Systems Associates, 1409 W. Woodcrest Avenue, Fullertone, CA- 92833 –mail order firm – Residence of Mr.ManiKant Thakur as per US municipal records
  2. M/s SK Components   4804,W Asteria Street TORRANCE, California –90503 – not existed no record found by Business Registration TORRANCE ,California –90503 – Residence of Moti Kapur /Indra Kapur as per municipal records of Torrance
  3. M/s Ruby Electronics, 145 – Woodland Dr, Salem, IL – 62881 not existed no record found by Business Registration Salem, IL – 62881 Residence of Dr. Gautam Jha, MD and well known medical practitioner at Salem, USA
  4. M/s D & M Ferrite, Quasar, Russia – quoted only ferrite components and bagged the order
  5. M/S Bit & Bytes, Bangalore – not quoted

Above mail order firm Wave Components & Systems Associates was created for supply the items to DEAL, DRDO only by friend of Dr A S Bains and supplied worth crores of rupees. It can be verify from DEAL’s procurement records during the period of Dr A S Bains’s directorship.

The firm bagged the order and transfers the order to M/S Wave Components System Associates (India) Ph – / fax -26225293, M-39 (LGF), Chitranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019 and again it is a flat of Dr A S Bains’ friend.

IB report revealed the facts reference letter no DVS/02/2020/M/1/20-A dated 05 September 2001 letter written by K V Shanker, Joint Director( Vigilance), MOD to Director (L&I), DRDO Hqrs

“ The other firm, M/s Wave Components and Systems associates, which is alleged to be a California based company, is not registered here. This firm is also not functioning from the address M-39, Chittaranjan Park, New Deihi. However, enquiries revealed that the house M-39, Chittaranjan Park New Delhi as well as the firm M/s Wave Components are also owned y Col Deepak Badhvar  from Dehradun. It is true that DEAL has been placing   orders with this company also.

It also transpired during enquiries that Col Badhwar and Dr AS are neighbors in Dehradun and   have a good relation with each other. It is possible that both these firms have been floated with the ulterior object of meeting the government requirement of securing tenders while effecting purchase.”

Further the RTI reply from customs department has been revealed that the M/S Wave Components System Associates (India) Ph – / fax -26225293, M-39 (LGF), Chitranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019 never import any material.  (Copy enclosed RTI request and RTI Reply)

Now the question arises from where the item arranged and supplied to DEAL and who were the beneficiaries.

The scientist of DEAL, DRDO who supported Dr A S Bains for his all illegal acts are rewarded by fast promotions as in DRDO the promotion is solely/ wholly depended upon Directors of labs. The reason of growing incompetency, frustrations resulted un-productivity of DRDO. This is the ground reality of increasing numbers of CAT cases/ court cases / representations / complaints to President / Prime Minister / Defence Minister in this premier defence organisation.

The above money making example is tip of the ice-berg of prevailing corruption, the authorities / agencies receiving lot of complaints but in the shadow of secrecy DRDO somehow managing the show.

But the question is up to how long people of India will wait for government about setting accountability on DRDO?

Thanking you 

Regards     

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com,  prabhu@dandriyal.com Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
Enclosed –
 1. RTI Request to Custom Department
2. RTI reply from Custom Department
To                                                                                                                    14th May 2010
The CPIO, US (Custom-III)
R.No.227B, North Block,
New Delhi- 110 001  
011-2309 4282 uscusiiivi@nic.in

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

  1.   The copy of Import/Export license of following firms.
    1.  The copies of custom duty exemption certificate issued by DRDO (Defence Research Development Organization) for supplies of items to DEAL (Defence Electronics Application Laboratory), Dehradun were used between April 2000 to March 2004 by following firms.

I.          M/S Wave Components System Associates (India), M-39 (LGF), Chitranjan Park, New Delhi -19

II.          M/S Celestia Impex Pvt. Ltd , 557, Tower-III , Kailash Apartment  New Delhi- 110065

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.

Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order 60E034435

Regards,

 

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879, e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com

 RTI reply from Custom Department

RTI reply from Custom Department

 

Drdo

Meeting on Objectionable Informations on www.corruptionindrdo.com at the IT Ministry

6 Comments

Website received a call for a meeting on Objectionable Informations on www.corruptionindrdo.com from IT Ministry on 9th December, 2011 afternoon.

The meeting conducted in Dr Gulshan Rai’s room no 4067, 4th floor, Department of Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,New Delhi – 110003

The Meeting Chaired by Dr. Gulshan Rai, Director General, I-CERT and GC (Cyber Laws Group Formulation & Enforcement Division)

Members were – Joint Secretary Home, (Internal Security)

Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law

Director, I-CERT

Sh Prafful a Kumar, Director IT Ministry

DRDO was represented by – Dr W Selvamurthy,  DS & CC R&D (LS & IC) along with seven  DRDO officials from GMIST

www.corruptionindrdo.com – Prabhu Dandriyal – Web administrator

Dr Rajiv Chauhan, Advocate, Social worker

Sh Santosh Joshi, IT expert & Social worker from Uttarakhand

The committee first took statements of DRDO for approximately one hour. Then they heard our point of view and about our mission seriously for one hour and viewed some evidences related to corruption of DRDO officials.

Our written reply on subject matter was submitted on 12th December, 2011 by Fax and by Speed post to the Chairman, Dr Gulshan Rai.

Same letter is being uploaded for the honest, dedicated countrymen who are fighting against corruption, which is a main hurdle for our country’s overall development.

 

Call for Meeting

 

To                                                                                                                                           12-12-2011                                                                                                                              
Dr. Gulshan Rai,
Director General
I-CERT and GC (Cyber Laws Group Formulation & Enforcement Division)
Department of Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110003

Subject: Objectionable Informations on www.corruptionindrdo.com

Reference: Our meeting on 9th December 2011 at your office on above subject

Respected Sir,

With reference to our meeting held at your good office on 9th December 2011, I would like to submit following as per committee’s advice.

  1. I have put the website www.corruptionindrdo.com  on abeyance till committee’s final decision, which I am supposed to receive at the earliest, so that our mission to expose corruption/nepotism / favoritism prevailing in DRDO for sake of national interest will continue.
  2. I would like to again assure Govt. of India that the website is working to support the Government agencies who are working towards the eradication of corrupt practices by public servants and if anywhere Government of India feels that the website may harm/hinder the national security, as an honest Indian citizen, I am ready to close the website on the committee’s verdict.
  3.  However, as some points were raised on the website’s articles by committee, like the name of DRDO’s establishments whose address DRDO thinks is not available in public domain or some equipment names like the only available EMP Hardened Satcom Terminal. I am enclosing some references for your kind perusal and observations.

Thanking you

Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
DEHRADUN-248008
prabhudoon@gmail.com
www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed  – 14 Pages of References

Before the Committee of I-CERT and GC (Cyber Laws Group Formulation & Enforcement Division)
Department of Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110003
 

Regarding the Objectionable Information on www.corruptionindrdo.com

In reference of DIT letter no. 6(16)/2011-CLFE dt. 30-11-2011 for examining the request for blocking of information on above noted site, here by put up over clarification as under –

  1. That main objective of this site has been fighting against the practices of corruption in Defence Research Development Organisation.
  2. That a lot of visitors use this site to put up their views regarding the corrupt practices in DRDO, which after examination on the point of corruption are forwarded to the higher authorities and published  on  the website. Thus this is a work in the interest of the security of the state.
  3. That nothing is affecting security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states,  public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence, sovereignty and integrity of India.
  4. That freedom of speech and expression entitles a person to speak without any censorship or restriction. On the website there is already a DISCLAIMER: “The comments submitted by users on this website do not necessarily reflect my opinion. While I believe that everyone should be allowed to express his thoughts and views freely through this online platform, it does not mean that I endorse them in any manner. The information against corruption in DRDO uploaded on this website by me is backed up by appropriate documents, letters and evidences gathered through the Right to Information Act. If anybody wishes to challenge the authenticity of this information, they are welcome to contact me to seek further details. They can also seek direct clarifications from relevant authorities about these evidences. The whole and sole objective of this website is to expose the corrupt elements in DRDO and protect national security interests of the country. Exposing such elements does not mean that it is an effort to malign any individual or party for some personal reason or motive. My campaign is against a corrupt system and if this system is rectified, I will believe that the objective has been achieved and there is no need to take this up further.”
  5. That if anybody finds evidence against the viewers’ views, they are free to send their views / criticism/objections to us and we always welcome a free discussion on that issue / topic put up in this website.
  6. That our viewers who have a lot of evidences against the corrupt practices in  DRDO and they are regularly sending this information to the higher authorities as well as to us, but this information is not taken by the senior DRDO officers, because they are already involved in these malpractices. So we publish these issues on our web site. A lot of information is collected by IB/CBI/Police/ Other investigation agencies from us as well as from our viewers.
  7. That DRDO is failing to comply RTI-2005-4(1)b. so that nobody is accountable and responsible for his duties.
  8. That a lot of corruption evidences is available to open an investigations by CBI/ any investigation agency.
  9. That drdocorruption.com published those matters on the website which is related with the corruption and exempted from scheduled -2 list of the RTI Act-2005- 24(1)- “ Provided that the information pertaining to the allegation of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub – section” .
  10. That drdocorruption.com published those matters on the website which is related with the corruption and available publicly. i.e web page / research papers / conferences and seminars / court cases / Tenders published by the DRDO on international bases.
  11. That the DRDO and Senior Scientists important confidential and secret research information’s put in before the public through the web page / research papers / conferences and seminars / court cases / Tenders published by the DRDO on international bases. We hereby put up very important research information’s already available in the web pages as under—

References

SF Jagdalpur – Company Profile SPECTROCHEM INSTRUMENTS PVT.LTD.

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India http://hyderabad.indiabizclub.com/profile/2098976~spectrochem+instruments+pvt.ltd.~hyderabad_india

http://www.indiainfoline.com/Markets/News/Premier-Explosives-signs-contract-with-DRDO-SF-Complex-Jagdalpur/2711248848

http://www.indiainfoline.com/Markets/News/PrintNews.aspx?NewsId=2711248848

http://in.linkedin.com/pub/narahari-valigonda/42/aa7/84b

Premier Explosives signs contract with DRDO, SF Complex, Jagdalpur
Capital Market / 17:48 , Oct 27, 2009
For operation and maintenance of plant & equipment for 5 years
Premier Explosives has announced that the company have signed an Operation and Maintenance contact with DRDO, SF Complex, Jagdalpur. The contract is for operation and maintenance of Plant & Equipment for a period of 5 years at an annual value of Rs. 309 lacs (with price escalation on annual basis) to be commenced from 02 November 2009.

http://www.derivatives.capitaline.com/newsdetails.aspx?sno=348579&opt=RAN&secid=8&subsecid=0&SelDt=

http://www.isoi.in/Members/lm-new121_130.html

Admin Asst

DRDO, Girola

July 2004 – July 2005 (1 year 1 month) Girola, Jagdalpur, Chattisgarh

Handling the admin works and performing the role of personal assistant of Deputy General Manager.
The job responsibilities included the following :
1.Drafting letters, Inter Office Notes, Circulars of DGM.
2.Maintaining office documents/files
3.Arranging for calls/meetings for DGM and making minutes of meetings.
4.Assisting Admin in various admin works.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kanakaiah-budda/9/964/453

KANAKAIAH BUDDA’s Experience

scientist/engineer chemical

SF COMPLEX, DRDO

July 2001 – Present (10 years 6 month

http://bki.co.in/secunderabadproject.php (Pls see the photograph also)

http://www.elitmus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1981

http://www.cafestocks.com/newsDetails.do?newsId=9000060533

http://hemsichd.org/images/List%20of%20Poster%20Presentations%20Final%2021%20Oct).pdf

Deepika Verma’s Experience http://in.linkedin.com/pub/deepika-verma/31/856/866

COMPUTER

DRDO,Jagdalpur

Currently holds this position

SF Jagdalpur + Girola http://qa.linkedin.com/pub/abhilash-dash/22/15b/882

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/place-of-posting-30497.asp     (important)

Only available EMP hardened SATCOM terminal in the country-

Writ Petition of No -263 of 2003SB, Nanital High Court

Dr Krishna Kumar Jha Vs Union of India

Annexure -27 Representation of Dr K K Jha, Sc’E’, DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun addressed to Scientific Adviser to RM dated 3rd April 2003 Para – 1 (Copy enclosed)

Dr K K Jha's representation to SA to RM
Dr K K Jha's representation to SA to RM

 

Details of EMP Hardened SATCOM Terminal –

 International Electromagnetic Interference and science of Protection Mechanism – Paper published in Proceeding of INCEMIC-2003 (copy enclosed)

There are 9 papers publish referring the DEAL’s available EMP Hardened SATCOM Terminal in INCEMIC during 2000 -2008

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F9050%2F28703%2F01287798.pdf%3Farnumber%3D1287798&authDecision=-203

Intentional electromagnetic interference and science of protection mechanism

Kumar, V.  Jha, K.K.
Defence Electron. Applications Lab., Dehradun, India

This paper appears in: Electromagnetic Interference and Compatibility, 2003. INCEMIC 2003. 8th International Conference on
Issue Date: 18-19 Dec. 2003
On page(s): 155 – 158 

http://publications.drdo.gov.in/gsdl/collect/defences/index/assoc/HASH01c3/eb0f64a6.dir/doc.pdf

Project SARVADRISTA

http://www.myreaders.info/03-Artificial_Intelligence_technologies__CSN_-_2008__JIET.pdf             page 10

sarvadrista

Project SAMYUKTA – http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/02/project-samyukta-detailed.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samyukta_Electronic_Warfare_System

http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/20/stories/2004012001721300.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Research_and_Development_Organisation

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=samyukta.jsp

http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/lofiversion/index.php/t33772.html

http://mod.nic.in/samachar/march15-04/html/ch1.htm

http://www.cmcltd.com/news_events/press_reports/200404apr/20040407_DRDO_devlp_moblie.htm

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/88008-india-self-sufficient-electronic-warfare-drdo-chief.html

http://encyclopedia.mitrasites.com/samyukta-electronic-warfare-system.html

http://defenceforumindia.com/indian-army/5641-project-samyuktha-detailed.html

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?t=3301&start=280

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20967582_ITM

http://www.network54.com/Forum/242808/thread/1213617455/1215474585/Samyukta+%26amp%3B+Samrat-+India%27s+integrated+EW+system

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/drdo-develops-mobile-electronic-warfare-system/103344/0

http://publications.drdo.gov.in/gsdl/collect/defences/index/assoc/HASH01c3/eb0f64a6.dir/doc.pdf

 

TEJAS- About 363,000 results (0.14 seconds) available in Google)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

http://www.lca-tejas.org/

http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/04/pakistans-jf-17-vs-indias-lca-tejas.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/99013-vietnam-get-20-lca-tejas.html

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/india-lca-tejas-by-2010-but-foreign-help-sought-with-engine-01901/

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tejas/

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-658218-1-1.html

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/homegrown-lca-tejas-gets-to-join-air-force/140034-3.html

MBT Arjun – About 190,000 results available in Google

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-mbt-arjun-isnt-part-of-armys.html

http://www.indian-military.org/tag/mbt%20arjun.html

http://www.defencejournal.com/nov98/arjun.htm

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/arjun.htm

AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System)+DRDO

About 16,200 results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRDO_AEW%26CS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_early_warning_and_control

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi/press_release/DRDO_press_release_AEW_C_1st_Flight_20111207.pdf

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/145391-successful-first-flight-drdo-made-awacs.html

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/12/successful-first-flight-on-indigenous.html

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Indian-AWACS-Moving-Forward-on-2-Fronts-04855/

http://iaf00.tripod.com/awacs.html

http://defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=909

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/50321/india-test-fly-awacs-2012.html

http://aeroindia.org/reports-3766

BFSR (Battle Field Surveillance Radar)

About 2,370 results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEL_Battle_Field_Surveillance_Radar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Research_and_Development_Organisation

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/LRDE/English/index.jsp?pg=achieve.jsp

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=battlefield.jsp

http://www.facebook.com/pages/BEL-Battle-Field-Surveillance-Radar/134523446580497

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3171

http://www.ovguide.com/bel-battle-field-surveillance-radar-9202a8c04000641f8000000008e8137d

http://books.google.co.in/books/about/Bel_Battle_Field_Surveillance_Radar.html?id=6hgfkgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/LRDE/English/index.jsp?pg=achieve.jsp

Sea Skimming Missiles+DRDO

About 25,800 results

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/LRDE/English/index.jsp?pg=achieve.jsp

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/Missiles/Trishul.htm

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories403.htm

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories1064.htm

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Aviation/Aircraft/123-HAL-Dhruv.html

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=4S3h8j_NEmkC&pg=PA578&lpg=PA578&dq=Sea+Skimmer+Missiles%2BDRDO&source=bl&ots=hITtNSV19Y&sig=Sa6xgqH7MLZFiYUvxxjjOqHLDV0&hl=en&ei=_qDjTpK8EovyrQee1OGqCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Sea

http://dilipkumar.in/india/int_missiles.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aoOk887bnvEC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=Sea+Skimmer+Missiles%2BDRDO&source=bl&ots=ILNuaCiICO&sig=9IVTlavUsM4JH8tu-XTcRFUFids&hl=en&ei=_qDjTpK8EovyrQee1OGqCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Sea%20Skimmer%20Missiles%2BDRDO&f=false

Focal Plane Array project+DRDO

About 3,860 results

http://www.ircc.iitb.ac.in/IRCC-Webpage/PDF/DRDO-DraftMinutes.pdf

http://www.celindia.co.in/r&d.asp

http://publications.drdo.gov.in/gsdl/collect/defences/index/assoc/HASH0156/4f770cdf.dir/doc.pdf

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/2008/jun08.pdf

http://defenceforumindia.com/strategic-forces/4305-iai-drdo-barak-ii-missile-8.html

http://www.indiarightsonline.com/Sabrang/ethnic3.nsf/4bd19d316ee5cbbae5257713005d02c8/8b2a48b480dc882be5256d4e00242224?OpenDocument

http://www.suasnews.com/2011/11/9769/naval-air-warfare-center-aircraft-division-demonstrates-new-shadow-test-and-evaluation-system/

http://www.mtu.ac.in/web/guest/detailed-biodata

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/04/mf-star-deliveries-for-project-15a-ddgs_07.html

SDR +DRDO

About 46,600 results

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/DEAL/English/index.jsp?pg=Director.jsp

http://ece.iisc.ernet.in/events/pages/workshops/workshop-on-cognitive-radio-2007.php

http://www.efytimes.com/e1/63524/fullnews.htm

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=homebody.jsp

http://www.wirelessinnovation.org/assets/documents/news_404.pdf

http://www.mairec.org/IJRIM/June2011/6.pdf

http://rac.gov.in/nri_labs/deal.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_radio

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Five+New+Members+Join+SDR+Forum.-a0175054670

http://pcsemicon.blogspot.com/2011/05/mistral-to-offer-sdr-solutions-from.html

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/2009/main/21-DEAL.pdf

DRDO Project CODE

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-05-26/chennai/28207820_1_drdo-arjuns-development-organisation

http://www.8ak.in/8ak_india_defence_news/2009/05/drdo-launches-indigenisation-program-called-code.html

http://defenceforumindia.com/strategic-forces/55-research-drdo-psu-news-discussion-8.html

http://mightyindiapower.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/27/stories/2009052754590600.htm

Combat Identification of Friend or Foe (CIFF)  DRDO

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20081223/dun.htm#4

http://www.defencenow.com/news/139/drdo-developing-unmanned-combat-aerial-vehicle.html

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-11/india/29406216_1_ucavs-killer-drones-unarmed-shadow-drones

http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=NewsDetails&NewsID=15471

IGMDP

About 36,600 results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Guided_Missile_Development_Program

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/insa/ch31.pdf

http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=25

http://www.ipcs.org/article/military/drdos-integrated-guided-missile-development-programme-2480.html

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/igmdp-will-conclude-successfully-drdo_419044.html

http://www.facebook.com/pages/IGMDP/132133526822014

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/nl/2011/NL_Oct_2011_web.pdf

http://indianmavericks.blogspot.com/2008/01/igmdp-completed.html

 

Drdo

Dr Selvamurthy and his big team at Electronic Niketan

1 Comment

10th December 2011

Dear Dr Saraswat Ji Good Morning  

Yesterday I was astonished to see Dr Selvamurthy and his big team at Electronic Niketan during the meeting called by IT Ministry regarding the DRDO complaint about www.corruptionindrdo.com.

When you assumed the charge of Scientific Adviser to RM, I congratulated and expressed the hope of common people with DRDO as the wound   of KARGIL WAR is still very painful. Almost all the general had expressed the reluctance and incompetence of DRDO at different forums and this fact cannot be ignored by even the Defence Minister and Prime Minister.

Starting from 2001 till date whatever information related to corruption/ nepotism / favoritism was collected or received by me was sent to competent authorities of DRDO but it was thrown in to dustbin. All your courtiers suggested and advised you to ignore the truth and even somebody like Dr. Arun Kumar and Dr. Prahalada opined for stern action in open meeting stating “CBI raid, Income Tax raid, IB raid to be conducted on me.” Arun Kumar even said that, “What the hell this 8th pass will do to DRDO.”

Unfortunately, you felt that Prabhu Dandriyal is alone. However, all those who are honest and disciplined worker and have suffered by nepotism/favoritism are Prabhu Dandriyal. All those deserving and who do not get their due credit are behind this website.

I request you, as a true Indian national, at least think about your country first, Peoples’ aspirations are very high.

Dr. V. K. Saraswat should shine like the sun in the sky. He should not vanish like his predecessors, in the dense darkness.

Kalam is honest and puts all his efforts for the nation. The others however, respect their bank balance and country’s interest is lost.

I request you for implement immediate corrective measures in respect of corruption/nepotism/favoritism prevailing in DRDO. Stop the growing incompetency in all levels. The  idea behind this website shall be accomplished and it won’t be required anymore. A scientist B sidelined today after twenty years may prove fatal.

Thanking you

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun 248008
Phone – 0135-2787750, Mobile 9411114879
E-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com/

Drdo

DRDO – Revenue and Build up

1 Comment

14th November 2011

To
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

Reference: a)  Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21st March 2011
                       b)  Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th May 2011

Honorable Sir,

During UPA-I you assured the nation to fixing accountability on DRDO an organisation which has never been questioned since its inception in 1958.

Sir, until 1980 the cost of projects were few crores but due to the visionary thought of then Prime Minister late Smt. Indira Gandhi the projects/programs were planned for self reliance in south east Asia and in particular in the Indian sub continent. The neighbors Pakistan and China were supporting each other to keep their upper hand but nothing deterred Smt. Gandhi to take decisions which may culminate to self reliance in the defence sector.

Initially the projects were planned collecting inputs from the literature available elsewhere. The proposals worked out where the cost benefit ration never assessed.

The changing technology was constraint and therefore projects/ programs during 90’s were given extensions time repeatedly, in some cases without enhancing the cost, where the cost was enhanced with proper justification were made. The examples are LCA, MBT, SAMYUKTA (EW) etc.

Easy methods were worked out under the guys defence secret to persue the projects beyond sanctioned time, without financial implications. Today in the last ten years the projects/ programs for which PDC extended did not consume more than 7000 crores rupees an amount equal to the annual budget of DRDO.

What is the fall out?

The revenue and buildup money sanctioned for running the projects were diverted to meet the day to day expenses of the projects the projects/ programs, which were running on PDC extensions. The manpower, the infra structure, the electricity bills, the salary, the TA/DA expenses were more than the cost of build up.

This imbalance between revenue and buildup was supposed to be checked by finance ministry.

Without active project and constant engagement of manpower in dead project resulted in to growing incompetency of laboratories.

What to talk about the Scientist ‘G’, Scientist ‘B’ were started giving justifications for the failures and compared the annual expenditure of DRDO as the expenditure meet to counter the natural calamity like earth quake.

Then the top brass of DRDO says 100 crores projects is not a big amount for DRDO. Indian Air Force is losing every alternate day on a MIG-21.

Let SA to RM justify the extensions of services to his beloved/blue eyed boys.

Sir, there are hope of Indian people with you please fix accountability on DRDO.

At least the finance ministry should cross check the equal flow of money in revenue and build up.

Thanking you 

Regards     
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com,  prabhu@dandriyal.com Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
Copy to
1.       Prime Minister, PMO, south Block, New Delhi – 110011
2.       Finance Minister, North Block, New Delhi – 110011
3.       Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, United Progressive Alliance  Fax no.23018651
Drdo

A letter from Letter of Dr S R Vadera, Sc ‘G’, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur

3 Comments

Dear Friends

I have received a legal notice from Dr S R Vadera, Science ‘G’, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur, regarding the letter which I have received by post in his name and the matter was related to the environment of Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur and posted on the website on 12th July 2011 and as you all are aware the website was hacked on 25th August 2011 and the same matter was not uploaded again.

In his legal notice he stated that some unknown person wrote a fake letter to Sh A K Anthony, Honorable Minister of Defence, GOI, 104, South Block by presenting himself as Dr Vadera and marked forged signature of Dr S R Vadera at the end of this fake/forged letter dared 05-06-2011.

Dr S R Vadera, Sc ‘G’ now wants to put his view regarding environment of Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur. The legal notice enclosed a letter which Dr S R Vadera, Sc ‘G’ sent to SA to RM and asked to publish that on the website

He also asked my regret regarding this episode.

Friends, you have already showed your faith in this website with your encouragement, comments and number of visits as well as your valuable suggestion and inputs.

I have received mails from almost every part of India and also received letter from Honorable Defence Minister, I am also in touch with all enforcement agencies related to corruption/ nepotism issues lying in DRDO.

The aim of object of this website is to help DRDO management improve the atmosphere and remove the corruption/ nepotism/ harassment prevailing in DRDO. There is no any intention to defame or harm the prestige of any individual.

In case of   Dr S R Vadera, Sc ‘G’, I am sorry that his name was used by some unknown person and same was published on my website. The inconvenience and pain caused by this act is highly and sincerely regret/apology from my side.

The letter of Dr S R Vadera, Sc ‘G’, view in respect of environment of Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur is publish herewith. Most of my reader viewers are from DRDO and they know the real scenario and will understand the situation and will continue their blessing to me for fighting the cause.

Thanking you

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun 248008
Phone – 0135-2787750, Mobile,  9411114879
E-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com/

Enclosed

1- Letter of Dr S R Vadera, Sc ‘G’, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur

2- Letters from Honorable Defence Minister

Letter of Dr S R Vadera, Sc ‘G’, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur page 1
Letter of Dr S R Vadera, Sc ‘G’, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur page 2

Letters from Honorable Defence Minister

Letters from Honorable Defence Minister

 

Drdo

Recovery of HRA – RTI Success Story -1

7 Comments

To                                                                                                       15th September2011
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

Reference: a)  Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21st March 2011
                       b)  Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th May 2011

 Honorable Sir,

To expose the corrupt practices of DRDO top brasses I sought under RTI Act -2005 several informations and as I have already reported you few cases to you , where DRDO took the shelter under schedule-II exemption and did not gave the information. I approached the appellate authority but he also outright dismisses my requests which were asked in larger public interest.

Finally when I appealed to CIC (Chief Information commissioner) and CIC ordered DRDO authority to furnish the information to applicant.

Now DRDO compelled to issue a letter seeking recovery of HRA (House Rent Allowances) from those scientist/ officers who have stayed/staying in guest houses and also claimed/ claiming the HRA (House Rent Allowances)

The enclosed letter No DOP/03/3100/M/05 dated 17th August 2011 is meaningless until the HRA  (House Rent Allowances) recovered with interest from guilty scientist/ officers

DRDO top officers are enjoying this corrupt practice since early 1990.

In this connection an interesting case is that a senior top officer was posted to DRDO Hqrs was stayed in guest house and in the same time he was allotted Type IV/V Government accommodation, which he was rented to private person and collected approx Rs 30000 /month even after his retirement from DRDO. He was continued hold that house almost 5 years after retirement. This is the one of the famous case of DRDO and SA to RM knows it very well. It can happen in only in DRDO.

To stop this corrupt practice permanently from DRDO, Sir, you are requested to consider following and pass the appropriate order to Defence Secretary on this subject matter.

All those scientist/ officers who are staying/or stayed in guest house and claiming or claimed HRA (House Rent Allowances) should refund the amount with interest as per CCS (CCA) rules.

This deliberated attempt to fool the system and generate the illegal money should appropriately deal as per CCS (CCA) rules and to be reflected in their service book.

Thanking you

Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com,  prabhu@dandriyal.com 
Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com 

Enclosed

  1. Letter No DOP/03/3100/M/05 dated 17th August 2011

Copy to

  1. Defence Secretary, Room No 101, South Block, New Delhi -110011
  2. Scientific Adviser to RM, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110105

    Recovery of HRA