To 25th July 2013The CPIORecruitment & Assessment CentreLucknow Road, TimarpurDelhi- 110054
Subject: Transfer of Application AR No 0178 dated 10 July 2013
Sir,
My RTI application to CPIO, DoPT dated 27th May 2013 was transferred to Shri Rajiv Singh, CPIO, & Under Secretary, MoD, South Block vide letter no AB14017/4/2013-Estt (RR)(03074/RTIC/13) dated 28/6/2013. The CPIO, MoD transferred my RTI request to CPIO, DRDO vide letter no Mof D ID No 21(3)2013(1083)/D(RTI) dated 5/7/2013.
Subsequently I have received information of my RTI request point 2 from DoPT vide their letter no F.No.29/38/2013-EO(SM-II) dated 15th July 2013.
The CPIO, DRDO Hq transferred my RTI request vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0178 dated 18th July 2013 to your office for information of point 1 of my RTI request.
As per my previous experiences regarding RTI requests all DRDO establishments 99% replied with their fix quote –
“DRDO is an organisation which is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 and is therefore, exempted from disclosures of information under Section 24(1) except information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations.”
Therefore, it is requested that the information is pertaining to the allegations of corruption. Sh R K Agarwal’s promotion case is totally based on corruption & nepotism.
I would like to submit some evidences of nepotism of Sh. R. C. Aggarwal, Director, DEAL, DRDO.
Sh. R. C. Aggarwal after taking charge as Director, DEAL put all scientists/staff of his community in important positions. You can verify with Departmental Part orders.
He supported Sh. R K Agarwal for his false claim of work in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).
Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14
Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.
The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to Sh Surendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.
The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II
“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty”
After 1942 it become clear that India will become independent and the national leaders started carving various developmental plans and knowing fully well that the day British goes the kitty will be empty.
However, Tata, Birla and many financially sound business tycoons came forward to rebuild India. Tata institute of Sciences, BITS Pilani, Visvesvaraya Technological University, etc. were to execute the task in land.
In 1948, though it was minor war we used equipment/arm ammunitions left out by British and fortunately both the parties across the border used the same equipment and arms ammunitions.
In 1962 we were an infant but had to fight the Chinese war in which we imported some equipment and arms ammunitions.
Successively in 1965 & 1971 once again we depended upon imported Russian equipment and some equipment given to India on goodwill.
In 1999, Kargil we were 52 years old with scientific and technological achievements on papers with lot of rewards awards like Scientist of the year, young scientist, PATH BREAKING RESEARCH AND OUTSTANDING TECHNOLOGY, AGNI AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN SELF-RELIANCE, DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY SPIN-OFF AWARD, BEST INNOVATION/FUTURISTIC DEVELOPMENT AWARD, Silicon Trophy, TITANIUM TROPHY and the list is very long.
We fought the war with imported arms & equipment. The statement of 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 radar. “Delivery delayed is delivery denied,” said Defence Minister A.K. Antony.
The best part is that in Kargil war both parties imported same communications equipment from same suppliers of same country and history was repeated. Because of the terrain condition across the border same problems were faced by both the armies and suppliers sent engineers to rectify the problem.
Interestingly, the scientific achievement after 52 years of independence was the same.
In the Government of India, almost all the ministries have spent thousands and thousands of crores and achieved frontline technology but compared to defence R&D is far behind.
Why?
When DRDO used to have one CC R&D it delivered some output. After special powers were granted to project directors the incompetency took the fore front with the blessing of the recruiters that “position makes a man.” With this principle incompetent over powered. The bluffers became achievers.
Congrats to Dr. W. Selvamurthy one such achiever of DRDO, for assuming charge as President of Amity University, Noida.
Dr W.Selvamurthy, as CC R&D, visited DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun in a function when all the past directors were invited for felicitation. Dr E Bhagirath Rao, Sh V P Sandlas, Sh Ashok Sen were present in the function. Ex CC R&D Sh V P Sandlas then was Director General at Amity University and Dr W.Selvamurthy in his address said “the so called Director General of Amity University Sh V P sandlas” with his crooked famous smile on his face.
Amity University is same and today same Dr W.Selvamurthy has joined Amity University without obtaining the mandatory NOC from government of India (copy of RTI reply from DRDO enclosed)
But I must congratulate him that so far he has distributed crores and crores of rupees to his beloved south bound private universities via Life science board of DRDO, as per DRDO culture now he will access his past office and be able to manage funds for Amity University.
So almost private institutions are having same practice to oblige those who had helped them to provide funds (poor tax payers’ money) in the name of projects and individuals are getting interests or kickbacks by mutual understanding.
Only GOD knows when the government of India, GOM, Defence Standing Committee will realize this out flow of precious money. Since there is no accountability, these senior scientists and technocrats are fooling the nation and helping and nurturing the incompetency in the field of science and technology. This growing incompetency is a major obstacle of our self-reliance.
To, 29th June 2013Shri. Sameer Kumar Khare,Joint Secretary (Estt.) and Public Grievances & CVO,Ministry of Defence, of India,97, South Block, New Delhi -110 105.
Subject: Request to investigate the complaint against Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Scientist’F’,DRDO, Ministry of Defence.
Reference: Vide CVC letter No 011/DEF/018-121962 date 17/03/2011 complaint forwarded to CVO, Ministry of Defence, South Block.
Sir,
A complaint sent to CVC against Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, DRDO Hqrs Scientist’F’, DRDO, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi on 10th Nov 2010, Copy enclosed for your ready reference.
The CVC registered the case vide complain no 569/11/9 and further sent to CVO, Ministry of Defence, South Block vide CVC letter No 011/DEF/018-121962 date 15/03/2011(Copy enclosed)
Further in between I have sent an RTI request to DIAT, DRDO, Pune to get more input on the subject matter. (Copy enclosed)
I have received information that was enough to prove the irregularities in procurement and payment to vendors. (Copy enclosed)
Further Mr. Rajiv Chauhan, Advocate filed one more RTI and requested the details, after CIC intervention DIAT, DRDO provide the some documents for inspection related to procurement of online magazine costing around 22 lakhs plus. Copy of RTI and related information which we received from DIAT DRDO are enclosed herewith as evidences.
DRDO’s procurement practices are the most illogical and in the name secrecy DRDO is fooling the whole nation and in this act CDA is also equally responsible, in some cases knowingly, or in some cases unknowingly, because in the name of technology DRDO scientists are easily able to fool them.
This is a very small case of few lakhs or nearly 1.5 crores but it will show you the mechanism of how DRDO scientists are making money and fooling the system.
The ink signed order copy is not available in the department and the payment of more than 22 lakhs was done.
Like online ‘Nature Magazine” subscription available online, all the procurement papers i.e. order copy and other related papers in files are scanned papers.
Main questions in Dr. A K Tyagi case
1. Where is the ink-signed order copy of Online Nature Magazine? 2. Without ink signed order copy of Online Nature Magazine, how JCDA, Pune released the payments? 3. Are any records in DIAT, Library available which can show how many persons logged with Online Nature Magazine? 4. The observations of DIAT, DRDO enquiry committee against Dr. A K Tyagi still unanswered?
i. To understand the existing procedure for procurement of Books by Library, it was necessary to go through basis of existing procedure, record and files to related to procurement. In absence of OI/C,IC&L very limited records made available by Library and after arrival of OI/C,IC&L access to information and records was totally denied to the Board of Officers. ii. Existing Procedure and Anomalies- the following is observed by Board of Officers.
i) OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation/negotiation followed. it is noted that as per terms and conditions no discounts have been asked.
ii) Order has been placed on single tender basis
iii. During limited observations it was seen that Books were accepted at higher prices than the order/approval price by the purchase committee. iv. No proof of price is being put up to the purchase Committee for approval. v. Firm Orders are being placed by OI/C,IC&L without bidding/negotiation vi. Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not registered. As per purchase procedure orders of only up to Rs 5000/- can be placed to unregistered vendors. This rule is not followed. vii. In our limited inquiry, we observed that large numbers of books were viii. Accepted at much higher price. We site few example-
a) Book ordered for Rs 6029.07 was procured for price Rs 81,936.00
b) Book ordered for Rs 13,156.00 was procured for price Rs 27,362.68
c) Book ordered for Rs 40,000.00 was procured for price Rs 3,60,00.00
d) Book ordered for Rs 3,292.24 was procured for price Rs 5,233.09
ix. We did not find any justification in orders or Terms & Conditions to accept such high billing prices for payment to vendors. x. OI/C,IC&L did not conduct independent investigation regarding over valued books supplied by the vendors for their correct price. xi. We found such number of cases where over payment was cleaned by OI/C, IC&L and Finance Officer without amendment or without bringing to notice of approving authority or VC xii. We did not find any power vested to OI/C,IC&L, Finance Officer to clear the over payment cases. xiii. Before payment to vendors, pre-auditing is mandatory (as per purchase procedure) No such pre auditing mechanism is found resulting in escaping the over payment cases from scrutiny and corrective action. We did not find any document or authority to exempt from pre –auditing. xiv. Functioning of Library in case Library procurement was found devoid of adequate check and balance and control mechanism. We can conclude that OI/C,IC&L and Finance Officer flouted the principle of FR-21
5. Who is saving the culprit?
As we are aware that now some cases of DRDO were taken up seriously with efforts, like Dr. Arun Kumar, Dr. S M Veerabhadrappa, etc.
We hope that you will take this matter seriously and personally because it was pending since 15/03/2011 in CVO, Ministry of Defence.
Copy of complaint sent to CVC against Dr A K Tyagi
Copy of CVC letter dated 15/03/2011
Copy of CVC Letter dated 17/03/2011
Copy of RTI to DIAT, DRDO, Pune
Copy of Reply of DIAT, DRDO, Pune
Copy of RTI request of Dr Rajiv Chauhan & CIC decision
Copy of procurement papers received during inspection at DIAT, DRDO, Pune
Copy of complaint sent to CVC against Dr A K Tyagi
Date -10th Nov 2010
To
The Chief Vigilance Commissioner
Satarkata Bhavan A-Block GPO Complex INA
New delhi : 110023
Complaint is being lodged against
Name – Dr.A K Tyagi, Tele 23007453
Designation- DRDO – Scientist ‘F’, CPIO, Head, RTI Cell, 314 A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110105
Dr. A.K.Tyagi, Scientist ‘F’, Head, RTI Cell, DRDO previously posted in Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, (DIAT), Deemed University. Defence Institute of Advanced (Deemed University) is a premier academic institute functioning under the aegis of Defence Research & Development Organization
Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT as O I/C(Officer In-Charge), IC&L(Information Center & Library) and Finance Officer during his posting.
He has violated the all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there Revised Edition 1999, DRDO manual of Procedure for Management of Library & Technical Information Centers. – DRDO Hqrs, Ministry of Defence.
Page No – 25 Para 4.2.3 No 4 Terms for procurement of books
Page No – 33 Para 4.3.4 Terms for procurement of periodical publication
Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself and as well as for his god fathers.
The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order.
There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher.
In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.
The God Father guide him to commit the corrupt practice and got protected by none other than Dr W Selvamurthy, CC R&D,DRDO.
With his blessing he purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs
Facts: Till date nobody from DIAT has seen the Nature Journal
The chairman for the Nature Journal procurement was Vigilance Officer of DIAT who approved this procurement from local vendor.
In other cases the books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds
The inquiry constituted to address this issue inspire of giving punishment the God Father Dr W Selvamurthy, CC R&D,DRDO than CC (HR) gave him safe passage and now DRDO Hqrs made him CPIO,DRDO Hqrs, Head RTI Cell and the best part of this
DRDO is exempted from RTI Act 2005 of Schedule-II only corruption & human right RTI entertained by DRDO so one can imagine the DRDO find most suitable corrupt official for the handling of RTI issues.
The finding of inquiry committee of DIAT (Board of Three Senior Officers)
1.Observations – To understand the existing procedure for procurement of Books by Library, it was necessary to go through basis of existing procedure, record and files to related to procurement. In absence of OI/C,IC&L very limited records made available by Library and after arrival of OI/C,IC&L access to information and records was totally denied to the Board of Officers.
2.Existing Procedure and Anomalies- the following is observed by Board of Officers.
i)OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation/negotiation followed. it is noted that as per terms and conditions no discounts have been asked.
ii)Order has been placed on single tender basis
iii)During limited observations it was seen that Books were accepted at higher prices than the order/approval price by the purchase committee.
iv)No proof of price is being put up to the purchase Committee for approval.
v)Firm Orders are being placed by OI/C,IC&L without bidding/negotiation
vi)Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not registered. As per purchase procedure orders of only up to Rs 5000/- can be placed to unregistered vendors. This rule is not followed.
vii)In our limited inquiry, we observed that large numbers of books were
accepted at much higher price. We site few example-
a) Book ordered for Rs 6029.07 was procured for price Rs 81,936.00
b) Book ordered for Rs 13,156.00 was procured for price Rs 27,362.68
c) Book ordered for Rs 40,000.00 was procured for price Rs 3,60,00.00
d) Book ordered for Rs 3,292.24 was procured for price Rs 5,233.09
viii)We did not find any justification in orders or Terms & Conditions to accept such high billing prices for payment to venors.
ix)OI/C,IC&L did not conduct independent investigation regarding over valued books supplied by the vendors for their correct price.
x)We found such number of cases where over payment was cleaned by OI/C, IC&L and Finance Officer without amendment or without bringing to notice of approving authority or VC
xi) We did not find any power vested to OI/C,IC&L, Finance Officer to clear the over payment cases.
xii) Before payment to vendors, pre-auditing is mandatory (as per purchase procedure) No such pre auditing mechanism is found resulting in escaping the over payment cases from scrutiny and corrective action. We did not find any document or authority to exempt from pre –auditing.
xiii) Functioning of Library in case Library procurement was found devoid of adequate check and balance and control mechanism. We can conclude that OI/C,IC&L and Finance Officer flouted the principle of FR-21
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, RaipurDehradun-248008UttarakhandCell No- 9411114879, Landline- 0135-2787750e-mail-prabhu@dandriyal.comCopy of CVC letter dated 15/03/2011CVC letter dated 15/03/2011
Copy of CVC letter dated 17/03/2011
CVC letter dated 17/03/2011
Copy of RTI to DIAT, DRDO, Pune
To Date 15th February 2011 The CPIO No RTI/DIAT/HARASS/14/2/2011 Defence Institute of Armment Technology (DIAT) Simhagad Road, Girinagar Pune-411 025
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In respect of online subscription of Nature magazine by DIAT, Pune
The copy of order of online subscription for NATURE magazine. With terms & condition
The copy of demand initiative for Nature magazine if any.
Copy of recommendation if any by approval committee of library.
Copy of renewal of subscription if any
Present status of subscription.
Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II
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 provision 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 above request, where I may require file first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am the 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 expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.
Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No 60E 172113
Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com
website – www.corruptionindrdo.com Copy of Reply of DIAT, DRDO, PuneDIAT, DRDO, Pune Reply page1DIAT,DRDO,Pune RTI Reply page 2
Copy of RTI request of Dr Rajiv Chauhan & CIC decision
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001219
Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan Public Authority DRDO Date of hearing 09.08.2012 Date of decision 09.08.2012
Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’
2. The appellant had filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2011 seeking information
about the purchase of certain books and other materials by the Defence Institute of Armament Technology, Pune. This information was denied to him on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organisation. During the hearing, the appellant submits that he will be satisfied if he is given inspection of the file/files relating to the order placed by Dr. A.K. Tyagi, the then Library Incharge, DIAT, Pune, for online subscription of ‘Nature Magzine’ against payment of about Rs. 25 lacs
3. The appellant also produces a copy of the letter dated 14.3.2011 of Dr. S.S.Sirurmath, University Librarian, in which he had informed the appellant that copy of order and terms and conditions of Nature Magazine(on line) were not available. He expresses surprise at this response in as much as an order of Rs. 25 lacs could not have been placed without due processing in the file.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that CPIO may give inspection of all records relating to the online subscription to the appellant or his representative in 05 weeks time.
Sd/- ( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.
( K.L. Das ) Deputy Registrar
Address of parties :- 1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell, 314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi-110105.
2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.
IMPORTANT NOTE :-
The RTI information is related with the corruption of the CPIO of RTI Dr.A.K.TYAGI during the office-in charge ,information centre/ library & finance officer of DIAT (Defense institute of Advanced technology). So that the decision on my RTI decision given by- Deepak Mishra , Addl.Director, RTI Cell, DRDO BHAWAN , NEW DELHI-110105
3. Details of First Appellate Authority [FAA]:
3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: Dr. ARUN KUMAR
3.2 Full Address of FAA: OS & DIRECTOR; DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL;
ROOM NO- 217, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105
4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:
4.1 To CPIO — 29 OCT 2011
4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011
5. Particulars of Decisions:
5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-
22nd NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0283; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI
6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-
6.1 CPIO— 28 NOV2011
6.2 FAA: — 17 JAN 2012
7. Details of information sought:-
Kindly inform to you that Dr.A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi. He has violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself .The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order. There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher.
In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.
He purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs
Facts : Till date nobody from DIAT has seen the Nature Journal
This journal was not useful for DIAT as the same deals with life sciences and DIAT area is ARMAMENT ENGINEERING, APPLIED MATHEMATICS, METALLURGY, COMPUTER ENGINEERING, APPLIED PHYSICS, AEROSPACE ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, EXPLOSIVES & APPLIED CHEMISTRY, ELECTRONICS The chairman for the Nature Journal procurement was Vigilance Officer of DIAT who approved this procurement from local vendor.
In other cases the books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds
The finding of inquiry committee of DIAT (Board of Three Senior Officers)
1. Observations – To understand the existing procedure for procurement of Books by Library, it was necessary to go through basis of existing procedure, record and files to related to procurement. In absence of OI/C,IC&L very limited records made available by Library and after arrival of OI/C,IC&L access to information and records was totally denied to the Board of Officers. 2. Existing Procedure and Anomalies- the following is observed by Board of Officers. i) OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation/negotiation followed. it is noted that as per terms and conditions no discounts have been asked. ii) Order has been placed on single tender basis iii) During limited observations it was seen that Books were accepted at higher prices than the order/approval price by the purchase committee. iv) No proof of price is being put up to the purchase Committee for approval. v) Firm Orders are being placed by OI/C,IC&L without bidding/negotiation vi) Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not registered. As per purchase procedure orders of only up to Rs 5000/- can be placed to unregistered vendors. This rule is not followed. vii) In our limited inquiry, we observed that large numbers of books were accepted at much higher price. We site few example- a) Book ordered for Rs 6029.07 was procured for price Rs 81,936.00 b) Book ordered for Rs 13,156.00 was procured for price Rs 27,362.68 c) Book ordered for Rs 40,000.00 was procured for price Rs 3,60,00.00 d) Book ordered for Rs 3,292.24 was procured for price Rs 5,233.09 viii) We did not find any justification in orders or Terms & Conditions to accept such high billing prices for payment to venors. ix) OI/C,IC&L did not conduct independent investigation regarding over valued books supplied by the vendors for their correct price. x) We found such number of cases where over payment was cleaned by OI/C, IC&L and Finance Officer without amendment or without bringing to notice of approving authority or VC xi) We did not find any power vested to OI/C,IC&L, Finance Officer to clear the over payment cases. xii) Before payment to vendors, pre-auditing is mandatory (as per purchase procedure) No such pre auditing mechanism is found resulting in escaping the over payment cases from scrutiny and corrective action. We did not find any document or authority to exempt from pre –auditing. xiii) Functioning of Library in case Library procurement was found devoid of adequate check and balance and control mechanism. We can conclude that OI/C,IC&L and Finance Officer flouted the principle of FR-21
This is a case of the corruption so that the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before high power investigating officer / commission / higher courts in the interest of law and justice .
I want the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Is it true that Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi ?
Yes/No
2. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation / negotiation followed ? Yes/No
3. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L has been placed orders on single tender basis? Yes/No
4. Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not
registered?
Yes/ No
5. Book cost was approved by library committee in US dollor 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds ?
Yes/No
6. Order copy and term, conditions for the nature Magazine is not available. So the order place by Dr. A.K.Tyagi for Nature Magazine verbally or in written? Pl. provide suitable reply with authentic documents.
I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request to you please provide me the information by the speed post.
8. Brief facts of the case:-
I submitted my RTI application before the CPIO, DRDO, New Delhi on dt.29-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office by Dr.A.K.Tyagi . He violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself .The book purchase in DRDO the approval of library committee is obtain which selects the useful book/journals and then the normal purchasing procedure is followed the quotations are called and the lowest bidder gets the order. There are few publisher are whose books/journals have standard price and when order is placed it goes directly to publisher. In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs. He purchased Nature journal, nature publishing group, 4 Crinan Street, London, United Kingdom via local vendor for Rs 25 Lakhs
CPIO reply is not satisfactory and not as per the law because the RTI is related with the allegation of the corruption and not exempted under section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.
In Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454 clearly mentioned that- “37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.
The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”
I was not satisfied with the reply of CPIO,DRDO HQ, New Delhi, after that I submitted an appeal before FAA to take the information but the FAA of DRDO dismissed the appeal and failed to provide the information with the ref. of second schedule of the RTI Act & section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.
9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:-
1- That the RTI application is related with the public information because the tenders generally published in news paper / internet for the purchasing of the books as per the DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication.
2- That this information is directly related with the corruption and misuse of the office and not come under section 24(1) of the RTI Act because the books/journals orders were recommended in dollars but Dr.A K Tyagi made payment in Pounds/Euro for the same procurement and bill was raised by with the help local vendors. Example – if book cost was approved by library committee in $ 360but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds
3- In Dr A K Tyagi cases most of orders were placed to local vendors in single tender basis. When the purchases of books by violating the all the rules Dr A K Tyagi surpassed the all the records and the budget limit was crossed five times( 30 Laks to 1.5 Corers). This action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. The committee constituted by then Vice Chancellor a senior officer as chairman and two officer as board member,. When the committee starts the investigation most of the documents were denied by Dr A K Tyagi, somehow, the inquiry committee submitted its report. The amount of corruption was good enough to punish the official but as usual God father culture prevailing in DRDO helped him and gave him safe passage by transferring to DRDO Hqrs.
4- That the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice.
10. Any other information in support of appeal:-
1- This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the purchasing of the books / periodical publication.
2- Dr.A.K.Tyagi violated all procurement norms laid by DRDO authority vide there revised edition 1999,DRDO manual of Procedure for management of library & Technical Information Centers.-DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defense .Page no-25 para 4.2.3 no 4 terms for procurement of books; page no-33 para 4.3.4 terms for procurement of periodical publication. Above procedure were violated by Dr A.K Tyagi in his all procurements and misappropriate the government funds and misinterpreted the government rules for minting money for himself.
3- That this action was noticed by all the DIAT officials and an inquiry committee was framed. This committee was put up an adverse report to the authorities.
11. Prayer/relief sought for:-
I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Is it true that Dr. A.K.Tyagi worked in DIAT (Defense Institute of Advanced Technology) as OI(office in charge),IC&L(Information centre & library) and Finance officer during his posting. Presently the CPIO at DRDO HQ, New Delhi ?
Yes/No
2. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L places demand directly to vendors after approval by Library Committee. There is no procedure of quotation / negotiation followed ? Yes/No
3. Dr A K Tyagi OI/C,IC&L has been placed orders on single tender basis? Yes/No
4. Vendors to whom orders are being placed are not
registered?
Yes/ No
5. Book cost was approved by library committee in US dollor 360 but when the payment was done that is 360 Pounds ?
Yes/No
6. Order copy and term, conditions for the nature Magazine is not available. So the order place by Dr. A.K.Tyagi for Nature Magazine verbally or in written? Pl. provide suitable reply with authentic documents.
I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the information’s by the speed post.
(2)- I request your honor to pass an order in favor of the applicant as deemed fit as an any relief .
Personal Presence at hearing:- — YES
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 this commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
Place: MEERUT
Date: —————-
Signature of appellant
Copy of procurement papers received during inspection at DIAT, DRDO, Pune
To 27th May 2013CPIO, DRDO HQ Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105
Hello,
Recently after superannuation Dr. W Selvamurthy- Former Chief Controller R&D for Life Sciences, DRDO joins Amity University, Sector-125, Noida – 201313 (UP) as President – Amity Science, Technology and Innovation Foundation.
As per government of India Office Memorandum No 27012/52000-Estt(A) Dated 5th December 2006.
Procedure for grant of permission to the pensioners for commercial employment after retirement.
And this practice is very well being followed by DRDO, Please refer
Your letter no DVS/01/0326/M/04 dated 16th March 2011 – Lt Gen Dilip Bhardwaj
Your letter no DOP/04/47009/M/01 dated 5th Oct 2011 – Lt Gen R K Karwal
Your letter no DOP/04/40078/P/01 dated 23rd Feb 2012
Office Memorandum No 27012/52000-Estt(A) Dated 5th December 2006.
Para (a) Permission will be required for post-retirement commercial employment of a retired officer who was a member of a Group ‘A’ Central Civil Service or held a Group ‘A’ post if the commercial employment is to be taken up within one year of retirement.
Para d) Before an application of the retired officer is considered, an undertaking from the retired officer is to be taken in the form of an affidavit that the factors mentioned in clauses (b) to (f) of the amended sub-rule (3)of Rule 10 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, do not come in the way of considering his application.
As per “The Gazette of India” Extraordinary No 568 dated 23rd November 2006 Part – II, Section-3, Sub section (i)
Para 3 (a) Whether a” No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment has been obtained from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer retired.
(c) Whether there is conflict of interest between the policies of the office he has held in the last 14three years and the interest represented of work undertaken by the organization he proposed to join.
(e) Whether service record of the officer is clear, particularly with respect of integrityand dealings with non- Government Organizations.
With reference to above kindly provide me the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Copy of permission letter of Dr. W Selvamurthy, Former Chief Controller R&D for Life Sciences, DRDO before joining Amity University, Sector-125, Noida – 201313 (UP).
2.Copy of ” No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment has been obtained by Dr. W Selvamurthy, Former Chief Controller R&D for Life Sciences, DRDO from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer retired.
3.Copy of vigilance clearance from the competent authority.
Note –above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II
It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II. This RTI request is directly related with corruption. Dr. W Selvamurthy was involved in manipulation of recruitment of Mrs T Chandrabanu, Scientist ‘F’. He was also involved in illegal recruitment of his daughter Mrs Geetha in the post of Scientist ‘C’ without having proper eligibility for the post and submitted fake experience certificate. To prove the matter is related to corruption I am enclosing the fake certificate and RTI reply of Delhi University. Second the copy of letter of CVC to DRDO for fixing the responsibility of recruitment case of Mrs T Chandrabanu.
You are also aware of the recruitment of Mrs T Chandrabanu, Scientist ‘F’’ case is also in inquiry process and Dr. S M Veerabhadrappa, Director, DTRL also received charge sheet from MoD on his involvement in this controversial appointment.
As per investigation of MoD Vigilence “She does not possess the requisite experience in relevant field as prescribed under the rules”…”we have commented about not following of the DRDS rules by DRDO in the recruitment for this post”
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.
1.Ex14perience certificate submitted by Ms Geetha (daughter of Dr. W Selvamurthy)
2.Copy of RTI reply by Delhi University
3.Copy of RTI reply Bhartiar Universit14y (Ph D was not completed at the time of appointment)
Experience certificate submitted by Ms Geetha (daughter of Dr. W Selvamurthy) Copy of RTI reply by Delhi UniversityCopy of RTI reply Bhartiar Universit14y (Ph D was not completed at the time of appointment)
It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II. This RTI request will reveal the policy of DRDO in which DRDO official stated that they give reply of all RTI requests but not to give the requested information.
DRDO RTI cell is always lead by corrupt official, like Dr. Prahalada who held the position of appellate authority very long time. He is a corrupt person did a lot of corruption in DRDO and is still doing corruption sitting as Vice Chancellor of DIAT, DRDO.
One CIC decision exposed his corrupt practice that year of years he claimed the HRA from the government and simultaneously enjoyed the government accommodation. Although as per DRDO RTI reply that he refunded a few lakh but no administrative action was taken against him for his corrupt practice.
Dr. Arun Kumar is facing suspension and disciplinary action against him after intervention of Honorable Defence Minister, was also holding the position of appellate authority for long time in DRDO.
Present CPIO, DRDO Dr A K Tyagi also faced numerous enquiry and transfers due to his involvement in corruption.
Following RTI of Bangalore, CPIO, ADE and Dr Prahalada then appellate authority provide wrong/false information to applicant.
To Date 25th February 2013 The CPIO No RTI//CEPTAM/25/2/2013 Centre for Personnel Talent Management Defence Research and Development Organisation MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Metcalfe House Complex, DELHI-110054
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
1. Provide the number of experts called for Assessment Boards constituted in the year 2012.
(a) Numbers of Experts from DRDO –
(b) Numbers of Experts from outside DRDO –
(c) Numbers of Experts from outside DRDO who are not from the Interview city –
(d) Numbers of Experts from outside DRDO who are related with CEPTAM officials –
2. Name, subject of expertise, designation of experts from outside DRDO.
3. Copy of If any policy/direction/guidelines available in CEPTAM for constitution of assessment board for different locations.
4. Total expenditure made for outside experts for the year of 2012 assessment boards.
5. Provide the names of CEPTAM officials if any who are related with outside experts.
Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II
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 provision 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 above request, where I may require file first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am the 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 expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.
To Date 5th January 2013 CPIO, 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 of the following meeting.
A meeting was chaired by Dr. Prahlada, then Appellate Authority, CC R&D, Mr.S.Ravi, then CPIO, DRDO Hqrs, Dr. Arun Kumar, then DOP, DRDO, One Joint Director, DRDO, Director DEAL, Dehradun with his three representatives, Mr.YV Ratna Prasad, DMS, DRDL, Hyderabad, Mr. Narsimha Reddy, Consultant, DRDL, Hyderabad, on 16th June 2010 at Dr Prahlada’s good office.
The agenda of the meeting was how to stop Prabhu Dandriyal’s RTI requests. It was not a general RTI issue meeting because the officials who were called to the meeting were directly involved in tackling the issues which I had raised through RTIs.
Name and designation of officials who were present in above meeting.
Copy of meeting agenda if any.
Copy of minutes/proceeding
Total amount of TA/DA expenditure of out station officials.
The temporary duty reports of out station officials who attended the above mentioned meeting. Mainly Mr.YV Ratna Prasad, DMS, DRDL, Hyderabad and Sh K K Mishra, Joint Director, DEAL, DRDO. After completion of any temporary duty DRDO officials always submits the TD reports to his parent department stated what the purpose of visit was and what the outcome of visit was, etc.
DRDO is already aware that this matter is related to exposing corruption prevailing in the organization. Dr. Arun Kumar, then DOP, DRDO already suspended on 30th November 2012 by MOD due to his involvement in corrupt activities in the organization. It is requested that you please furnish the above information in prescribed period of RTI Act because this matter is directly related to corruption the evidences are enclosed herewith for your ready reference. The Chairman of the meeting was Dr. Prahlada, then Appellate Authority, CC R&D, Mr.S.Ravi, then CPIO, DRDO Hqrs, Dr. Arun Kumar, then DOP, DRDO are now exposed through RTIs for their corrupt activities.
Dr. Prahlada, then FAA, CC R&D , – Illegal drawn HRA – Enclosed RTI reply
Mr.S.Ravi, then CPIO, DRDO Hqrs, – Illegal drawn HRA -Enclosed RTI reply
Dr. Arun Kumar, then DOP,DRDO – Suspended by Vigilance MOD – copy CVC advise
Note –
It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II. This RTI request will reveal the policy of DRDO in which DRDO official stated that they give reply of all RTI requests but not to give request information.
Requested information is directly related to me and not any kind of defense strategy
Requested information is related to liberty and threat to life, as safety measure I am requesting for the information in which DRDO officials are planning to ruin my life as I am trying to expose their corrupt activities.
Para wise reply pertaining to years 2009 and 2010 is as under:
(a) Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest House at Delhi —105
(b) DRDO officials availing DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station — 17
(c) Sh. S Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 10 Jul 2009 to 10 Sep 2010.
(d) Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 26 Mar 2010 to 20 Mar 2011. – False Information
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001190
Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan Public Authority DRDO Date of hearing 09.08.2012 Date of decision 09.08.2012
Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.
2. The appellant submits that there are a large number of senior scientists who have lived or are living in Government guest houses and yet claiming House Rent Allowance which is contrary to the rules. Thus, they are defrauding the Government. He provides a list of such scientists which is as follows :-
1. Dr. Prahlada, Chief Controller(R&D);
2. Sh. S. Sundaresh, Chief Controller(R&D);
3. Dr. K. Sekhar, Chief Controller(R&D);
4. Dr. r. Sreehari Rao, Chief Controller(R&D);
5. Dr. K.D. Nayak, Chief Controller(R&D);
6. Shri Ravi, Scientist ‘G’, CPIO;
7. Shri S. Sankaran, Director, ER&IPR;
8. Sh. H.V. Ssrinivasa Rao, Director, ISSA;
9. Sh. Ajay Ssingh, Chief Executive;
10. Sh. S. Shanker, Director, DCV&E;
11. Shri R.C. Katoch, Chief Tech Examiner;
12. Sh. B. Choubey, CCE and
13. Sh. Abhay Kumar, CCE.
3. He also produces a copy of the letter dated 17.8.2011 of Dr. Arun Kumar, Director of Personnel, wherein orders for recovery were made. The said letter, addressed to the Directors of all Labs/Establishments for recovery of HRA is reproduced below :-
4. “1. It has been observed that some officers posted to a Lab have stayed/are
staying in DRDO transit facilities/Guest house from the date of their reporting to that station Officers, if have stayed/staying in the DRDO transit facilities/Guest house for more than a month and have simultaneously claimed /claiming HRA for the said period of stay, is against govt. orders/regulations.
2. In view of the above, officers posted at any station who have stayed/staying in
DRDO transit facilities/Guest house for a month or more from their date of reporting and also have claimed/claiming HRA for the said period are required to refund the amount of HRA wrongly claimed forthwith by 15 Sep 2011 through MRO under intimation to the undersigned.
4. This has the approval of the competent authority.
5. The contents of this letter may please be communicated to all concerned.” He wishes to know as to why no recoveries have been effected so far.
6. To this, Shri Mishra would respond that recoveries have been made from all of the scientists.
7. In my opinion, this does not mitigate the irregularity committed in claiming HRA by the above named scientists. Even so, it is to be noted that recoveries have been made from all concerned. If so, the appellant may be informed accordingly in 03 weeks.
Sd/- ( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
This is old one after Quashing this advice by CAT, DRDO received another advice from CVC
Gautam Datt | MAIL TODAY | New Delhi, October 25, 2012
P.S. Krishnan and Avinash Chander.
Dozens of top scientists at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) are working on extended tenures despite the government disfavouring the policy of retaining officers or specialists after their retirement.
According to guidelines, tenures can be extended only in “exceptional circumstances”. The DRDO, however, justifies the extensions, saying only valued experts whose replacements are not easy to find are given the privilege.
In response to an RTI query, sought by Rajeev Chauhan of Meerut, the DRDO released a list of 37 scientists – 12 of them in the distinguished category – who are working on extended tenures. This was disclosed only after the intervention of the chief information commissioner following an appeal.
Defence scientists retire at the age of 60. The department of personnel and training (DoPT) rules for extension of specialists in the medical and scientific fields mention the problems in giving such experts extra tenure.
Oldies of DRDO
“Not only does the next man miss promotion but often several people miss consequential promotions all along the hierarchy,” the department noted.
Keeping this in mind, procedures were evolved to ensure that extensions to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances, the guidelines said.
The main conditions are that the “retiring specialist should not just be one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest, or the other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the job”. The DRDO, however, claims that while it largely adheres to the DoPT rules, they are not strictly applicable to the strategic community which also includes ISRO and atomic energy.
Sources said the DRDO has 7,000 scientists out of which extension to 37-odd experts is “minuscule”. The DRDO follows merit- based flexible complementing scheme for promotions which is not linked to availability of vacancies, they said. They feel that most people at 60 are still active and gain substantial wealth of experience in highly specialised areas that needs to be tapped.
Some big names are on extended terms and are vital to the success of their respective programmes.
Topping the list is Avinash Chander, chief controller of missiles and strategic system, who is steering the long range strategic missiles programme.
The list of 37 scientists includes 12 distinguished scientists, 13 scientists âHâ and remaining 12 scientists “G”. While detractors allege that extensions indicate a system of favouritism, the DRDO says every case passes through two expert panels which approve the move.
According to govt guidelines, tenures can be extended only in exceptional circumstances.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001209
Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan Public Authority DRDO Date of hearing 09.08.2012 Date of decision 09.08.2012
Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.
2. It is the appellant’s contention that Ms. Geeta, daughter of Dr. W. Silvamurthy, former Director, DIPAS, DRDO, New Delhi, was selected as Scientist ‘c’ in 2004. It is his allegation that said Ms. Geeta was not qualified to be selected as Scientist ‘E’ as she did not hold the Ph.D degree at that time. He also alleges that she obtained the Ph.D. Degree from Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, in an irregular manner. In this connection, vide RTI application dated 7.10.2011, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras. This was responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated 2.11.2011 wherein he refused to disclose any information on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organisation.
3. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Shri Mishra submits that he has not received a copy of the appeal memo and, therefore, it is not possible for him to respond to it off-hand. Besides, he also submits that Chairman, RAC, had conducted an inquiry into the matter and in report dated 24.12.2010 had held that the process of recruitment was in order. The Commission cannot comment on the validity of allegations made by the appellant. Even so, in my opinion, the requested information cannot be denied to the appellant only for the reason that DRDO is an exempted organisation. In fact, transparency demands that the records relating to the inquiry conducted by Chairman, RAC, are allowed to be inspected by the appellant or his representative. I order accordingly.
5. This order may be complied with in 04 weeks time.
Sd/- ( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.
( K.L. Das ) Deputy Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell, 314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi-110105.
2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.
3. Details of First Appellate Authority [FAA]:
3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: Dr. ARUN KUMAR
3.2 Full Address of FAA: OS & DIRECTOR; DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL;
ROOM NO- 217, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105
4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:
4.1 To CPIO — 07 OCT 2011
4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011
5. Particulars of Decisions:
5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-
02 NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0256; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI
5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:-
10 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/112;
6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-
6.1 CPIO— 07 NOV2011
6.2 FAA: — 17 JAN 2012
7. Details of information sought:-
Kindly inform to you that Ms. Geeta D/o of Dr W Silavamurthy, Chief Controller of Defense (R&D) o/o DRDO New Delhi was selected Scientist”C’ through RAC(Recruitment and assessment centre of DRDO) Adv.no-64 item no83-scientist-C without completing the required qualification for the post as published in the advertisement as under- 1- That Ms Geeta is M.Sc (Biochemistry) and submitted his Ph.D during the selection, but she was not awarded the Ph.d degree or nor completed three year research experience which is must before the selection of scientist-C.
2- She was taken the junior / senior research fellowship for her Ph.D from DIPAS (defense institute of psychology & allied sciences, new delhi ) where her father was the
director at that time. Her father constituted / approved the screening / selection committee of JRF (junior research fellowship) and award 8000/- per month during JRF.
It is clear rule of RAC/DRDO to select the scientist ‘C’-
(i)- At least First class Master Degree in science subject, mathematics or psychology or
first class degree in engineering or technology or metallurgy from a recognized university
or equivalent.
(ii)- Three year experience in research or design or development production in the
Required area.
(iii)-Weightage for higher qualification to be equated as research experience for lateral
requirement as under –
Post graduate degree in engineering-two years.
Doctorate degree in Science.-three years.
Doctorate degree in engineering-four years.
NOTE ;- RAC website clarify that the candidate’s Ph.D degree should be awarded up to
the closing date as given in the advertisement for scientist ‘C’post.
Here I want to clear you that Ms. Geetha Ph.D was not awarded till closing date as given
in the advertisement.However Ms.Geetha did not fulfill the minimum eligibility
qualification and experience as published, since after that she was selected with the
criminal conspiracy of her father with board members of the RAC/DRDO. who
dishonestly and cheated all the participants applied for the post and forged the official
documents to select as a scientist.
Ms. Geeta did not obtained his Ph.D then how selection
committee consider this research period as an three year experience ?
Her father constituted / approved the screening / selection committee of JRF (junior
research fellowship) as Director of the DIPAS and awarded 8000/- per month
scholarship and violet the Prevention of the corruption act-1988 – 13(d)- ii. I here by enclose all related documents to prove the corruption during the selection
as an Interview letter / Ph.D submission detail. Her Ph.D was not awarded till time up to
the application submission date for the scientist-C post as per the RAC rules.
I want the following information’s as under- S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY 1. Did Ms.Geetha’s father / Director of DIPAS/ drdo Rr. W.Silvamurthy constituted / approved the screening / selection committee of JRF and awarded @ Rs.8000/- per month during JRF to her daughter? Yes/No 2. Ph.D degree should be awarded up to the closing date as
given in the advertisement for scientist’C’ post. Or Three
year experience in research or design or development
production in the required area is essential? Yes/No 3. Was Ph.D degree awarded to Ms.Geetha up to the closing date as given in the advertisement for scientist ‘C’ post. Yes/No 4. Have Ms. Geetha completed essential qualification for scientist ‘C’ post at the time up to the closing date as given in the advertisement? Yes/ No 5. Provide the photocopy of the application form filled by Ms. Geetha for the scientist’C’ post against the advertisement published. Provide the photocopy of required application form filled by Ms. Geetha.
I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request to you please provide me the information by the speed post.
8. Brief facts of the case:-
I submitted my RTI application before the CPIO, DRDO, New Delhi on dt.07-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office during the selection of the scientist. CPIO reply is not satisfactory and not as per the law because the RTI is related with the allegation of the corruption and not exempted under section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005. However in this Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454,clearly mentioned that- “37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”
I was not satisfied with the reply of CPIO,DRDO HQ, New Delhi, after that I submitted an appeal before FAA to take the information but the FAA of DRDO dismissed the appeal and failed to provide the information with the ref. of second schedule of the RTI Act & section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.
9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:-
1- That the RTI application is related with the public information because many participant were applied for the above mentioned scientist post after the publication of the advertisement in employment news paper . 2- That this information is directly related with the corruption and misuse of the office and not come under section 24(1) of the RTI Act . 3- That the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice.
10. Any other information in support of appeal:-
This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the selection. Secondly, In a RTI reply of the Bharathiar University vide his letter no COE/Ph.D/RTI Act/2011/2173 dt.20/12/11 Ms Geetha Ph.D awarded date clearly showing that , she was not completing minimum eligibility qualification during the submission of the application form for the scientist – C post.[encl]. Thirdly Central Vigilance Commission investigate the case and I wants clear evidence to put up before him through this RTI. 11. Prayer/relief sought for:- I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the following information’s as under- S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY 1. Did Ms.Geetha’s father / Director of DIPAS/ drdo Rr. W.Silvamurthy constituted / approved the screening / selection committee of JRF and awarded @ Rs.8000/- per month during JRF to her daughter? Yes/No 2. Ph.D degree should be awarded up to the closing date as
given in the advertisement for scientist’C’ post. Or Three
year experience in research or design or development
production in the required area is essential? Yes/No 3. Was Ph.D degree awarded to Ms.Geetha up to the closing date as given in the advertisement for scientist ‘C’ post. Yes/No 4. Have Ms. Geetha completed essential qualification for scientist ‘C’ post at the time up to the closing date as given in the advertisement? Yes/ No 5. Provide the photocopy of the application form filled by Ms. Geetha for the scientist’C’ post against the advertisement published. Provide the photocopy of required application form filled by Ms. Geetha. I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the information’s by the speed post. (2)- I request your honor to pass an order in favor of the applicant as deemed fit as an any relief .
Personal Presence at hearing:- — YES 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 this commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
Place: MEERUT
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001207 Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan Public Authority DRDO Date of hearing 09.08.2012 Date of decision 09.08.2012
Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.
2. It is noticed that in the RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras about the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava. The CPIO had refused todisclose any information vide letter dated 2.11.2011 on the ground that the DRDO is an exempted organisation.
3. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the DRDO had advertised posts of Scientists ‘B’ in 2004 for which qualification was M.Sc. Bio Technology. Ms. Srivastava was M.Sc. in Environmental Biology. Thus, she was not qualified for the job. Yet due to the influence of his father Dr. Arun Kumar, who was then Deputy Director in DRDO, she was fraudulently selected as Scientist ‘B’
4. Shri Mishra submits that there is no one single file relating to this selection. In fact, there were about ten thousand candidates and to cull out Ms. Swati Srivastava’s record would be a herculean task. Further, the record is ten year old.
5. No doubt, DRDO is an exempted organisation, yet in my opinion, there is no harm if the appellant or his representative is given inspection of the entire records relating to the selection of Ms. Swati Srivastava as Scientist ‘B’. As regards the difficulty expressed by Shri Mishra in tracing out the relevant record, I appreciate the same and yet I expect him to cull out the record for appellant’s inspection.
6. This order may be complied with in 05 weeks time.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.
( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.
2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.
3. Details of First Appellate Authority [FAA]:
3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: Dr. ARUN KUMAR
3.2 Full Address of FAA: OS & DIRECTOR; DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL;
ROOM NO- 217, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105
IMPORTANT NOTE :-
The RTI information is related with the corruption of the First Appellate Authority of RTI Dr. Arun Kumar & her daughter during the selection as a scientist “B’, so that the decision on my RTI first appeal decision given by-
Dr. S. SUNDARESH, CC R&D(ACE), SI&DS; TRANSPARENCY OFFICER, DRDO,
DRDO BHAWAN , NEW DELHI-110105
4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:
4.1 To CPIO — 03 OCT 2011
4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011
5. Particulars of Decisions:
5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-
02 NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0250; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI
5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:-
11 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/113; CC R& D (ACE), SI&DS;
TRANSPARENCY OFFICER;DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI
6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-
6.1 CPIO— 07 NOV2011
6.2 FAA: — 17 JAN 2012
7. Details of information sought:-
Kindly inform to you that Ms. Swati Srivastava,D/o Dr. Arun Kumar,Director DRDO Bhawan,Rajajimarg,New Delhi was selected Scientist”B’ through RAC(Recruitment and assessment centre of DRDO) Adv.no, item no34 without having the required qualification for the post as published in the advertisement. The required qualification for the post was M.Sc- Biotechnology, where as the qualification of Swati Srivastava is M.Sc in Environmental Biology. Her father Dr. Arun Kumar ,was the Addl.Director of the DRDO at that time. One RAC interview board external member of Ms. Swati Srivastava was her teacher. However Ms. Swati Srivastava was not completing the minimum eligibility qualification as published, then also she was selected with the criminal conspiracy of her father with board members of the RAC. Ms. Swati Srivastava, Dr. Arun Kumar and RAC board Chairman and Members did dishonesty and cheated all the participants who applied for the post and forged the official documents to select as a Scientist “B” to Ms. Swati Srivastava.
In the Director, DRDO fax message 03/8/2004 for RAC Adv.No.66,item.34, eligibility subject showing Biotechnology. RAC,DRDO document of assessment sheet dt. 26/9/2004 for adv.66 subject of Ms. Swati Srivastava forgely filled in Biotechnology list. However , as per the DRDO letter RTI/01/2091/p/2011-12/005 dt. 6/4/11, Ms.Swati Srivastava subject is environment biology. Therfore Ms. Swati Srivastava without fulfill the eligibility qualification got the scientist “B” post in DRDO on forged documents of the RAC. (Recruitment and assessment centre of DRDO)
Secondly, In the seniority list for promotion of scientist “C” as published on july 2010 page no.45 of DRDO official document again dishonestly changed Ms. Swati Srivastava qualification belive to be a forged M.Sc-Biotechnology instead of M.Sc in Environmental Biology. I hereby enclosed all related documents for your consideration and action. I want the following information’s as under- S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Is Ms.Swati Srivastava, Scientist “B”,DIPAS the daughter of Director DRDO, Mr.Arun Kumar ? Yes/No
2. What was the eligibility subject of RAC Adv. No.66, item 34 ? Biotechnology/Environmental Biology – Yes/No
3. What was the subject qualification of Ms. Swati Srivastava in her M.Sc ? Biotechnology/Environmental Biology – Yes/No
4. Did RAC – DRDO,ADV.NO-66 Assessment sheet mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms.Swati Srivastava ? –Yes/ No 5. Did promotion list of the DRDO mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms. Swati Srivastava ? – Yes/No
I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request to you please provide me the information by the speed post.
8. Brief facts of the case:- I submitted my RTI application before the CPIO, DRDO, New Delhi on dt.03-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office during the selection of the scientist. CPIO reply is not satisfactory and not as per the law because the RTI is related with the allegation of the corruption and not exempted under section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005. In his reply CPIO mislead to me with the reference of Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454. However in this Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454,clearly mentioned that- “37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”
I was not satisfied with the reply of CPIO,DRDO HQ, New Delhi, after that I submitted an appeal before FAA to take the information but the FAA / Transparency officer of DRDO dismissed the appeal and failed to provide the information with the ref. of second schedule of the RTI Act & section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.
9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:- 1- That the RTI application is related with the public information because 63 participant were applied for the above mentioned scientist post after the publication of the advertisement in employment news paper .
Encl- (a)- List of the 63 participant applied for the post. (b)-Employment advertisement no-66; dt-2/4/2004
2- That this information is directly related with the corruption and misuse of the office and not come under section 24(1) of the RTI Act because the required qualification for the post was M.Sc- Biotechnology, where as the qualification of Swati Srivastava is M.Sc in Environmental Biology. Her father Dr. Arun Kumar ,was the Addl.Director of the DRDO at that time. One RAC interview board external member of Ms. Swati Srivastava was her teacher. However Ms. Swati Srivastava was not completing the minimum eligibility qualification as published, then also she was selected with the criminal conspiracy of her father with board members of the RAC. Ms. Swati Srivastava, Dr. Arun Kumar and RAC board Chairman and Members did dishonesty and cheated all the participants who applied for the post and forged the official documents to select as a Scientist “B” to Ms. Swati Srivastava.
3- That the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice.
10. Any other information in support of appeal:- This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the selection. Secondly, In a RTI reply of the CPIO, DRDO HQ vide his letter no rti/01/2091/p/2011-12/005 dt 6/4/11 Ms Swati subject is environment biology however as per the seniority list for promotion as published on july 2010 page no.45 of DRDO official document Ms. Swati subject is M.Sc- Biotechnology.
Encl- (a)- RTI reply vide letter no-o rti/01/2091/p/2011-12/005 dt 6/4/11 Ms Swati subject is environment biology.
(2)- seniority list for promotion as published on july 2010 page no.45 of DRDO official document Ms. Swati subject is M.Sc- Biotechnology.
11. Prayer/relief sought for:-
I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Is Ms.Swati Srivastava, Scientist “B”,DIPAS the daughter of Director DRDO, Mr.Arun Kumar ?
Yes/No
2. What was the eligibility subject of RAC Adv. No.66, item 34 ? Biotechnology/
Environmental Biology
3. What was the subject qualification of Ms. Swati Srivastava in her M.Sc ? Biotechnology/
Environmental Biology
4. Did RAC – DRDO,ADV.NO-66 Assessment sheet mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms.Swati Srivastava ?
Yes/ No
5. Did promotion list of the DRDO mentioned Biotechnology subject with the name of Ms. Swati Srivastava ?
Yes/No
I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the information’s by the speed post.
(2)- I request your honor to pass an order in favor of the applicant as deemed fit as an any relief .
Personal Presence at hearing:- — YES
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 this commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
Place: MEERUT
Date: —————-
Signature of appellant
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
