Tag Archives: Scientist ‘D’

Drdo

Dr Vijay Veer and Dr AK Singh two gems of DRDO

7 Comments

Dr Vijay Veer, Director, DRL, Tezpur and Dr AK Singh, DOP, DRDO Hqrs have taken a joint project in DRL on not giving transfer even after completion of tenure. They are trying their best to fulfil their ego even when Honourable CAT, Guwahati has ordered the same. Both are putting all efforts to harass their fellow colleagues. Had they even ask their conscience regarding that? I think the answer is no. From the history we know that there is always a rise and fall of dynasties. We do not know what will be the future of them.

This CAT, Guwahati Bench order no. 317/2014 is another example of their joint venture.  In this connection, I would like to draw your kind attention another CAT, Guwahati Bench order no. 49/2010.

Kindly see the point 9 and 10 of CAT, Guwahati Bench order no. 49/2010. It is very important judgement.

CENTRAL ADMINISRATIVE TRIBUNAL

GUWAHATI BENCH

Original Application No. 49 of 2010

Date of Decision: This, the 15th day of March, 2010.

HONBLE SHRI MADAN KUMAR CHATURVEDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Shri R.Periasamy
Sub-Divisional Engineer
Meghna Division
Central Water Commission
Silchar-788 006
Dist: Cachar, Assam.

Applicant

By Advocate: Mrs. U.Dutta

-Versus-

  1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary
Ministry of Water Resources
Govt. of India, Rafi Marg, Shram Shakti Bhawan
New Delhi – 110 001.
  1. The Chairman
Central Water Commission
Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram
New Delhi-110 066.
  1. The Member (WP&P)
Central Water Commission
Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram
New Delhi-110 066.
  1. The Chief Engineer (HRM)
Central Water Commission
Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram
New Delhi-110 066.
.. Respondents

* * * * * * * *

O R D E R (ORAL)

MADAN KUMAR CHATURVEDI, MEMBER (A):

Applicant is aggrieved against letter dated 06.07.2009 which

reads as under :-

To
The Superintending Engineer (C)
Office of the Chief Engineer B&BBO4/16/2014 Untitled Page
http://judis.nic.in/judis_cat/detail.aspx 2/4
Central Water Commission
Rebekka Ville, Barik Point
Temple Road, Lower Lachumiere
Shillong.

Sub: Representation for transfer of Shri B.Jayakumar,SDE reg.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter o.1/4/(G)/2006-BBB/1972 73, dated 4-6-2009 on the above mentioned subject and to say that after careful consideration of the same the competent authority has not agreed to the requests of S/Shri B.Jayakumar, R.Shankarpandian & R.Periasamy, Sub Divisional Engineers for their transfer from B&BBO, Shillong to C&SRO, Coimbatore.

  1. Adverting to the facts I find that applicant initially joined as Junior Engineer under Central Water Commission on 25.01.1979. After serving at different places, he was eventually transferred from Chennai to Meghna Division, Silchar on 04.07.2007 and has since been continuing in the same station.
  2. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance vide its O.M. No.20014/3/83-E.IV, dated 14.12.1983 granted some incentives to various categories of Central Government employees for serving in North Eastern States of India. Said O.M. provides, inter alia, that there will be fixed tenure of posting of 3 years at a time for officers with 10 years service or less and 2 years at a time for officers with more than 10 years. Officials on completion of fixed tenure of service may be considered for posting of their choice as far as possible. Applicant has completed more than 20 years of service for respondents organization. He joined at Silchar (Assam) on 04.07.2007 and completed prescribed tenure of 2 years in N.E.Region on 04.07.2009. As such he became entitled to his choice place of posting.On 17.01.2009 applicant has given choice place of posting as under:-

By Advocate: Mrs. U.Dutta

-Versus-

  1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources

Govt. of India, Rafi Marg, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001.

  1. The Chairman Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110 066.
  2. The Member (WP&P),Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110 066.
  3. The Chief Engineer (HRM), Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110 066.

.. Respondents

* * * * * * * *

O R D E R (ORAL)

MADAN KUMAR CHATURVEDI, MEMBER (A):

Applicant is aggrieved against letter dated 06.07.2009 which reads as under :-

To
The Superintending Engineer (C)
Office of the Chief Engineer B&BBO4/16/2014 Untitled Page
http://judis.nic.in/judis_cat/detail.aspx 2/4
Central Water Commission
Rebekka Ville, Barik Point
Temple Road, Lower Lachumiere
Shillong.

Sub: Representation for transfer of Shri B.Jayakumar, SDE reg.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter o.1/4/(G)/2006-BBB/1972 73, dated 4-6-2009 on the above mentioned subject and to say that after careful consideration of the same the competent authority has not agreed to the requests of S/Shri B.Jayakumar, R.Shankarpandian & R.Periasamy, Sub Divisional Engineers for their transfer from B&BBO, Shillong to C&SRO, Coimbatore.

  1. Adverting to the facts I find that applicant initially joined as Junior Engineer under Central Water Commission on 25.01.1979. After serving at different places, he was eventually transferred from Chennai to Meghna Division, Silchar on 04.07.2007 and has since been continuing in the same station.
  2. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance vide its O.M. No.20014/3/83-E.IV, dated 14.12.1983 granted some incentives to various categories of Central Government employees for serving in North Eastern States of India. Said O.M. provides, inter alia, that there will be fixed tenure of posting of 3 years at a time for officers with 10 years service or less and 2 years at a time for officers with more than 10 years. Officials on completion of fixed tenure of service may be considered for posting of their choice as far as possible. Applicant has completed more than 20 years of service for respondents organization. He joined at Silchar (Assam) on 04.07.2007 and completed prescribed tenure of 2 years in N.E.Region on 04.07.2009. As such he became entitled to his choice place of posting.

On 17.01.2009 applicant has given choice place of posting as under:-

  1. OPTED STATIONS/REGIONS:-

3). Delta Sub Division-Karikkal under C&SR Region-Coimbatore To buttress the claim following reasons were adduced:-

1). My 75 years old mother staying with my family. She needs constant medical care. Hence my

presence is required at Chennai.

2). I have 27 years Son & 23 years Daughter at Chennai, to fix suitable alliance, as a father my presence is very essential.

  1. It is palpable from the perusal of impugned letter dated 06.07.2009 that request made by applicant was turned down without assigning any cogent reason. Mrs.U.Dutta, learned counsel for applicant strongly relied on the decision of this Bench rendered in the case of Sanjay Garg vs. Union of India in O.A. No.175 of 2009 dated 04..02.2010. Relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced below:-
  2. We have heard the rival submissions. It is stipulated in the office memorandum dated 14.12.1983 that officers on completion of the fixed tenure of service in the State or Union Territories of North East Region may be considered for posting to a station of their choice as far as possible. May is an auxiliary verb qualifying the meaning of another verb by expressing ability, competency, liberty, permission, possibility, probability or contingency. Regardless of the instrument however, whether Constitution, statute, deed contract or whatever, Courts not infrequently construe may as shall or must to the end that justice may not be the slave of grammar. However, as a general rule, the word may will not be treated as a word of command unless there is something in context or subject matter of act to indicate that it was used in such sense. It appears that to attract competent officers to serve in the North East Region the provision for choice transfer was made. Right to give a choice was bestowed on the employees. Once a right is created it cannot be disturbed without any legal justification. Jurisprudentially, speaking right is an interest, protected under the law. The justification which is given by the respondents qua, the non consideration of choice is correct in the context of normal transfer rules but when it is stipulated that officer on completion of fixed tenure of service at North East

Region may be considered for posting to a station of their choice, it is incumbent on the authorities concerned to accommodate the officer at the place of his choice as far as possible. However, for some reasons, if such posting is not possible, opportunity of being heard, must be provided and detailed order should be passed stating the reasons as to why the concerned officer could not be accommodated at the place of his choice.

  1. Transfer can uproot a family, cause irreparable loss to an employee and drive him into desperation. It disrupts education of his children and leads to numerous other complication and problems and cause hardship and demoralization. It therefore follows that policy of transfer should be reasonable and fair and should apply to everybody equally. It cannot be gain said that transfer is an exigency of service and may be ordered for administrative reason and the employer is the best judge in this regard. In a Welfare State to maintain the rule of law attempt should be made to ensure fairness and equality of treatment, arbitrariness should be avoided at all cost. The proposition that who will be posted where is within the discretion of the authorities in control of the matter, is not absolute. It is subject to the limits of law. By serving in the North East Region applicant gained right of consideration for posting to a station of his choice. This fact was not correctly appreciated by the respondents.

The obligation which emanated out of the assurance given to the employee for coming to North East Region was not properly discharged. The issue was not examined in the right perspective. The rule of audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard) was not followed. Taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case, we direct the respondents to accommodate the applicant at the place of his choice within four months from the date of this order. Meanwhile applicant be not disturbed from the place of his present posting.

I find that facts of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid ruling. In the present case also I find that obligation which emanated out of the assurance given to the employee for coming to North East Region was not properly discharged. The issue was not examined in right perspective. The rule of audi alteram parterm (no one should be condemned unheard) was not followed. Respondents did not assign any reason in rejecting the request for choice posting. Having regard to the facts, I direct the respondents to accommodate the applicant on the place of his choice within a period of four months from the date of receipt of order. Meanwhile, applicant be not disturbed from his present place of posting.

  1. In the result, O.A. stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

(MADAN KUMAR CHATURVEDI)

MEMBER (A)

/BB/

O.A.49 of 2010

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

GUWAHATI BENCH

Original Application No. 040/00317/2014

Date of Order: This, the 08th Day of September, 2014

THE HONBLE SMT. MANJULA DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER

THE HONBLE MOHD. HALEEM KHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Dr. C. Rajendran,
Scientist D,
Defence Research Laboratory,
Defence Research & Development Organization,
Post Box No.2, Tezpur,
Assam-784 001.

Applicant

By Advocates: Mrs.U.Dutta & Mr.C.S.Hazarika

-Versus-

  1. The Union of IndiaRepresented by the Secretaryto the Ministry of FinanceSouth Block, New Delhi-110001.
  1. The Director General,Defence Research & Development Organization,Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi 110 105.
 
  1. The Director,Directorate of Personnel,Defence Research & Development Organization, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi 110 105.
  1. The Director, Defence Research Laboratory, Defence Research & Development Organization, Post Box No.2, Tezpur, Assam-784 001. Respondents

Advocate:

O R D E R (ORAL)

MANJULA DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

By this O.A., applicant makes a prayer to direct the respondent to consider his choice posting in any of the stations of his choices, namely Coimbatore, Chennai, Mysore or Gwalior.

  1. Mrs. U.Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that applicant has joined as Scientist B for the post Parasitology (Microbiology) in Defence Research Laboratory, Tezpur on 07.01.2004. He was promoted to the grade of Scientist C from 01.07.2007 and further to the grade of Scientist D on 01.07.2014 and he has been continuing at Tezpur as such.
  1. According to the learned counsel, applicant is a permanent resident of village Chathirappatti, Thanjvur district of11/15/2014 Untitled Page http://judis.nic.in/judis_cat/CaseNo_Cat_Result.aspx 2/3 Tamilnadu and he has completed his fixed tenure of 3 (three) years in the N.E. Region way back in 2007 and on completion of his fixed tenure of posting at N.E. Region, he is entitled to any of his choice place of posting. To buttress her argument, learned counsel has drawn our attention to Clause (i) of the O.M. dated 14.12.1983 which reads as under:-

(i) Tenure of posting/deputation:

There will be a fixed tenure of posting of 3 years at a time for officers with service of 10 years or less and of 2 years at a time for officers with more than 10 years of service. Periods of leave, training, etc. in excess of 15 days per year will be excluded in counting the tenure period of 2/3 years. Officers, on completion of the fixed tenure of service mentioned above, may be considered for posting to a station of their choice as far as possible. The period of deputation of the Central Government employees to the States/Union Territories of the North Eastern Region will generally be for 3 years which can be extended in exceptional cases in exigencies of public service as well as when the employee concerned is prepared to stay longer. The admissible deputation allowance will also continue to be paid during the period of deputation so extended.

According to the learned counsel, aforesaid beneficial provision was subsequently extended by the O.M.s dated 01.12.1988 and 22.07.1998.

  1. According to the learned counsel, applicant’s mother who is a widow is staying alone in his native village and has been suffering from various heart related problems since several years and there is no one to look after her. Applicant being the eldest son in his family has not been unable to look after her in her need as applicant is posted far off place. That apart, according to the learned counsel during his stay at Tezpur, applicant, his wife and son had developed certain ailments due to extreme weather and climate do not suited them.
  1. According to the learned counsel, due to the aforesaid compelling reasons applicant submitted various representations before the respondents i.e., on 07.04.2008, 12.06.2008, 02.05.2011, 12.09.2012, 13.05.2013, 02.07.2013, 11.07.2013, 23.07.2013 and 24.07.2014 seeking posting in any of the choice places, namely Gwalior, Coimbatore, Chennai or Mysore upon completion of his fixed tenure in N.E.Region, but the respondents have not considered any of his representations till date.
  1. Learned counsel further submitted that as many as five Scientists, namely Dr. Mehbuba Begum, Shri Y V S Rao, Dr.Jubilee Purkayastha, Dr. Anurag Pandey and Dr. Gaurav Agnihotri, who have jointed at DRL, Tezpur much later than the applicant, have been transferred out to their choices out of N E Region, but in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner the respondents, the respondents have not yet transferred the applicant to any of his choice places despite completion of his tenure at N.E. Region.
  1. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and material placed before us.
  1. Clause (i) of the OM dated 14th December 1983 prescribes that there will be a fixed tenure of posting of 3 years at a time for officers with service of 10 years or less and of 2 years at a time11/15/2014 Untitled Page http://judis.nic.in/judis_cat/CaseNo_Cat_Result.aspx 3/3 for officers with more than 10 years of service. It was further prescribed therein that – officers, on completion of the fixed tenure of service mentioned above, may be considered for posting to a station of their choice as far as possible. The said OM confers a right upon the applicant to be considered for being posted at his place of posting as far as possible. Applicant has completed his tenure of three years in 2007 at DLR, Tezpur. Upon completion of his fixed tenure in N.E.Region, applicant has opted for 4 choice places of posing, namely, Gwalior, Coimbatore, Chennai or Mysore in his representations, the respondents ought to have considered his request, inasmuch as applicant has been continuing at DLR, Tezpur for more than 7 years even after the completion of his tenure.
  1. In the case of Union of India vs. Dr. Umesh Kr. Mishra WA No. (SH) 17/2012, Honble Gauhati High Court has held that Fairness requires that if a policy has been laid down, the same may be deviated from only if there is any reason to do so. If no reason is forthcoming, the exercise of power of transfer in violation of a laid down policy may be held to be arbitrary. This Tribunal in its decisions rendered in the cases of S K Garg v. UOI & Ors (OA.179/2009 and R.Periasamy v. UOI & Ors (OA.49/2010) held that it was incumbent on the authorities to accommodate the officer at the place of his choice after completion of his fixed tenure and if such posting is not possible opportunity of being heard must be provided and detailed order should be passed stating the reasons as to why the concerned officer could not be accommodated at his place of choice.

Therefore, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the applicant for his posting at any of his 4 choices after completion of his tenure at N. E. Region and in the event of their inability to accommodate him at any of his places of choice; reasoned order ought to have been passed after affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Such steps having not taken, it is a fit case to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for his posting in any of his 4 choices.

  1. For the reasons, narrated above, we direct the respondents to consider his transfer to any of his choice places, namely, Gwalior, Coimbatore, Chennai or Mysore subject to the availability of vacancy in the light of the aforesaid OMs as well as the observation made hereinabove, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this order.
  1. O.A. stands disposed of accordingly at the admission stage. No order as to costs.

(MOHD. HALEEM KHAN) (MANJULA DAS) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Drdo

RTI Reply is mere formality for Ministry of HRD

1 Comment

My RTI Request for expose Fake Experience Certificate issued to Ms Geetha, Scientist ‘D’ , DIPAS, DRDO  Daughter of Ex- CC R&D, DRDO  Dr W Selvamurthy by Professor Vani Brahmachari, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Center for Biomedical Research, University of Delhi North campus.

RTI requested to know about action taken by honorable minister Smt. Smriti Zubin Irani.

Please the request and reply

Request

1. Certified Copy of remark/note by Minister Smt. Smriti Zubin Irani
2.Present status of representation/complaint
3.Certified Copy of reply received from Delhi University on subject matter.
4.Certified Copy of any other action by HRD on subject matter

Reply against these request by Sh R K Sinha, U/Secy & CPIO, HRD

Reply of Sh R K Sinha, CPIO & U/S, HRD
Reply of Sh R K Sinha, CPIO & U/S, HRD

Fresh RTI with hope that some one can rethink that his son or daughter can also deprive to get fare opportunity by these corrupt practices.

To,                                                                                           9th September 2014
Sh R K Sinha,
CPIO,Under Secretary, Room No. 503-B
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
SHASTRI BHAWAN, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI – 110 001

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect my RTI application No. DOHED/R/2014/64019 dated 26.08.2014 and your reply vide F.No.63-6/2014- Desk (U).

  1. Provide the date of receipt of my RTI application No. DOHED/R/2014/64019 dated 26.08.2014
  2. Provide the copy of note sheet of initiated on RTI application no. DOHED/R/2014/64019
  3. Provide the copy of forwarding letter for appropriate action to Delhi University as mentioned in your above mentioned RTI reply.
  4. Provide the copy of if any reply received from Delhi University on subject matter.

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008 
0135- 2787750,   9411114879,  
prabhudoon@gmail.com    www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number     DOHED/R/2014/64230

 

Drdo

INTENT FOR CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT UNDER SECTION 13(1)(d) of PC ACT 1988 in PROCUREMENT OF FUME HOOD AT DMSRDE KANPUR BY DIRECTOR, DMSRDE, KANPUR

Leave a comment
To
Dr D C Pande,
Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist
For DS up gradation list 2014 seniority no 10
Chairman 2nd Fact finding Committee constituted for DMSRDE corruption
LRDE, DRDO, Bangalore   

Subject – Intent for corruption & criminal misconduct u/s 13(1)(d)of PC Act 1988 by Director, DMSRDE

Reference – Complaint to CVC – DMSRDE FUME HOOD PROCUREMENT CASE dated 22 January 2014 on the subject “Corruption in procurement of Fume Hoods in DMSRDE Kanpur officers involved in procurement”.

Sir,

For your kind attention on the complaint under reference on the subject cited above. In this procurement case Scientists of DMSRDE, DRDO were involved.

DGR&D, DRDO is trying to protect the corrupt Scientists of DMSRDE who involved in Corruption by means of illegal FFIC. In this series he constituted two FFIC which made investigation on 13-14 March 2014 and 9-10 July 2014. First FFIC gave clean chit to Dr. AK Saxena and beyond their constitutional rights recommended two scientists transfers as penalty. This is the example case in government department where fact finding committee chairman acts as judge or DRDO Hqrs’s top management used him for unconstitutional act. This brilliant idea was came from the Dr. W Selvamurty’s great चेला ( who is running DRDO administration because everyone knows that our DRDO, DG is always busy with cooking, out of the way promotion and directorships for his ………….., so he leaves all the conspiracy acts to his administrative man like his predecessor did. Beside the whole organization witnessed the exemplary result of Dr. Arun Kumar, the predecessor’s  Great चेला .

It is not new for DRDO, DRDO never take lessons from the failure of projects, that’s why Hon’ PM said on 19th August 2014 to DRDO’s so called ऋषि  leave the “चलताहै ” attitude.

The report of second FFIC is still awaited, GOD knows what will Pande ji do, it is very interesting to see his report outcome and maybe you are waiting for DS list.

Bye they way please go through some astonishing facts of only one case as a example which establish how tampering of evidences and fabrication of documents took place in DMSRDE.

Under the various guidelines of CVC, Hon’ble Supreme Court & High Court Judgments, the intent/intention for criminal misconduct is sufficient ground for section 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988.

The DMSRDE scientists are involved in Criminal Misconduct under section 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 which is established by following facts.

  1. Supply Order of Rs. 45,76,005.00 was issued to KAN-THT (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vide SO No. 14AT0089 dated 19 November 2013.(Copy Enclosed)
  2. Original Delivery Period (ODP) was 28 Feb 2014.
  3. Complaint was made to CVC on 22 January 2014.
  4. Supply Order was cancelled by Director, DMSRDE under planned conspiracy between Director, DMSRDE and KAN-THT India, Delhi.
  5. Commercial Invoice No.  BIOBASE20140123IN dated 22 and 23 January 2014 was issued from JINAN BIOBASE BIOTECH CO. LTD., CHINA to KAN-THT in the name of DMSRDE, Kanpur, I don’t think corrupt official of DMSRDE even know about this. (Copy of the Invoice is enclosed.
  6. From Invoice of Biobase, China it is quite evident that KAN-THTwas mediator in whole procurement deal and SO was issued to KAN-THT not to Biobase, China. Since SO was issued to KAN-THT India, Delhi then how Biobase, China issued Commercial Invoice of the Fume Hoods on name of DMSRDE, Kanpur.
  7. The price of 14 No.  of Fume Hood 1200C as per invoice dated 22 and 23 January 2014 is total $ 35000.00 as per conversion rate of one $ = 62 Rs. 2170000.00 (Rupees Twenty one Lakh Seventy thousand only)
  8.  The cost of supply order for 14 No. of Fume Hood 1200C as per SO dated 19 November 2013 in INR is Rs. 45,76,005.00(Rupees Forty five lakh seventy six thousand and five only).
  9. Therefore the difference in prices of Supply Order and Invoice is Rs. 24,06,005.00 (Rs. 4576005.00 – Rs. 2170000.00). The difference of amount of Rs. 24,06,005.00 was not justify, if you plus other expenses like transport/installation/profits etc not come more than 30 to 40%  the nexus between, DMSRDE officials and KAN-THT India, Delhi can clearly establish.
  10. The supply order was cancelled under exposure of deal & pressure of my complaint to CVC on subject matter. Cancellation of supply order itself shows that there was no need of Fume Hoods in DMSRDE and procurement was initiated just to get fatty commission by corrupt officials of DMSRDE. Therefore total amount of Rs. 4576005.00 of public money was going in wastage and major part of this, more than 50% was going in pocket of DMSRDE corrupt officer
  11. Mere cancelation of Supply Order cannot dilute their crime under section 13(1)(d) PC Act 1988 and their involvement in criminal misconduct. It is very clear that Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE was having intent for corruption of Rs. 26,14,815.00 and involved in criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct along with Mr. Ajitendra Singh Parihar, Scientist ‘D’(The Indenter). Mr. Shielendra Kumar, Scientist ‘F’ (Head Estate & Work Division and MMG) and Mr. Ajay Chandel, Head of KAN-THT India, Delhi.
  12. Till date no action has been initiated by Sri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE despite he is fully aware of the real facts and truth of the case.

The crux of above case is how DRDO purchase manual manipulated in this case

  1. As per invoice of Biobase, China the billing address is DMSRDE and shipping address is also DMSRDE, it means Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE very well knows that if they ask CDC from CC R&D, DRDO who is suppose to issue CDC in the case of domestic suppliers will ask the copy of purchase order placed by domestic supplier to foreign supplier as well as the copy of invoice issued by foreign supplier to domestic suppliers and it is clear mandate that the more than 30% of the invoice cost are not allowed.
  2. If the billing and shipping is direct to DMSRDE or any establishment than Director is suppose to issue CDC.
  3. In this case as per Biobase, China invoice custom can made party for damrage charges to DMSRDE and DRDO lose its credentials.
  4. This the mechanism to fooling the CDA and Government of India after making so many rules and precautions DRDO officials busy in research to fix the poor tax payers money.

In light of aforesaid facts, I kindly request you to submit your true findings& recommendations in FFIC report and leave the DS promotion list to almighty GOD’s disposalas these corrupt top DRDO officials could not write your faith.

Although as per DOPT Guidelines for FFI, you should call me for personal hearing but you make that technical lapse, still I again like to inform you that there are several trump cards that has not been revealed till so far as your FFIC did not gave personal hearing to me.

Besides this I would also remind you very humbly that like your Bigboss Sri Avinash Chander, you will not submit false report to protect Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur as Sri Avinash Chander submitted false report to protect his friend Dr. Arun Kumar. That everybody knows the effort of Bigboss was failed and Dr. Arun Kumar was treated properly by Hon’ble Defence Minister Sri AK Antony.

Hope you will listen your heart’s voice “अब  कितने  दिन  बाकि  है  वैसे भी  लगता  है  मोदी  जी   ने    एक्सटेंशन  बंद करने  का  मन बना  लिया  19 अगस्त को  जैसा  की  उन्होंने  कहा  की  मुझे  5 लैब्स  ऐसी  चाहिए  कि   जिसमे  35  वर्ष  से ऊपर   कोई   नहीं  हो”  समझने  वालो  के  लिए  इशारा  ही  काफी  होता।

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

Enclosed

  1. Supply order details
  2. Specifications
  3. Copy of Invoice of Jinan Bio Base Biotech Co Ltd,  China

Copy to

  1. CVC,  CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, Satarkata Bhavan , A-Block, GPO Complex , INA, New Delhi – 110 023
  2. CVO, MOD, Room No 340, Office of Director of Vigilance, B- Wing Sena Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105

Supply order detailsfume supply order

SpecificationsFumeHood specification

Copy of Invoice of Jinan Bio Base Biotech Co. Ltd,  ChinaFumeHood invoiceFumeHood stand invoice

Some more facts

DMSRDE raised demand under works headfume demand

Quotation received for same Fume hood Model FH 1200 from Jinan Bio Base Biotech Co. Ltd,  Chinafume quotation

Tender inquiry for Fume Hoodfume tender

Drdo

Implementation of Flexible Complimenting Scheme (FCS) Rules with letter and spirit

Leave a comment
To                                                                                                         12th April 2014
Sh A K Antony
Defence Minister
Room -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

Subject:  Implementation of Flexible Complimenting Scheme (FCS) Rules with letter and spirit  

Honorable Sir,

DRDO has misused, manipulated and override the Flexible Complimenting Scheme (FCS) guide lines issued by DoPT, GOI.

Guidelines – DOPT after 5th,CPC issued comprehensive instructions on FCS in OM No.2/41/97-PIC dated 9.11.98. These have been further reviewed in the light of 6th CPC instructions and modified FCS guidelines issued in OM NO. AB 14017/37/2008-Estt.(RR) dated l0th September, 2010

OM No. AB-14017/36/2011-Estt(RR) dated 21st September 2012 – “FCS should be rigorous with due emphasis on evaluation of scientific and technical knowledge so that only scientists who have to their credit demonstrable achievements or higher level of technical merit are recommended for promotion.”

DRDO Hqrs, however, manipulated the forgoing rules and cleared/ recommended as outstanding to several scientists who are totally engaged in administrative/managerial /sundry tasks/ jobs/ assignments and due to proximity of top officials.

The ultimate looser is the real scientist who are giving their 100% time and efforts, the organization and the poor tax payers of India. This has further encouraged the growing incompetency and real talent leave the organization.

The Key post holder Dr A K Singh, DOP,DRDO is the leading example of violation of  Flexible Complimenting Scheme (FCS) guide lines.  He joined as scientist ‘B’ in 1988 and did science upto 2004 got two promotion in average time.  Since 2004 he is out of scientific work and due to proximity with CC R&D HR as staff officer ( 2004- 2006) managed out of turn promotion superseded lot of devotional scientists. He also managed the post of Director CEPTAM (Non technical assignment) 2007-2010. Then got post Director HRD(2010 – 2013) again  (Non technical assignment) and managed out of turn promotion superseded hundreds  of devotional scientists who deserves as per FCS and has credit demonstrable achievements or higher level of technical merit. But DRDO top bosses are great and override the Flexible Complimenting Scheme (FCS) guide lines issued by DoPT, GOI and blessed and honored Dr A K Singh with Scientist ‘G’ post. He is now working as DOP,DRDO  again  (Full time non technical assignment) and sure about to get scientist ‘H’ promotion  with hope to supersede 283 scientists as his current seniority roll no is 284.

Similarly one more example of violation of  Flexible Complimenting Scheme (FCS) guide lines in mid level Sh Ashok Sharma, Scientist ‘D’ of INMAS, DRDO working as works officer (full time non technical assignment) got outstanding call for promotion of scientist ‘E’ in only three years and ready to superseded 962 scientists as his seniority number is 963.

This is the tip of ice berg and such anti national activity encourage in DRDO has enhance the growing incompetence and has derailed the real goal of DRDO to support and strengthen the defence preparedness of India.

I request you to kindly give appropriate directives to DG DRDO for Implementation of Flexible Complimenting Scheme (FCS) Rules with letter and spirit.  

Thanking you

With warm regards

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

RTI – LRSAM – CDA(R&D), Hyderabad

Leave a comment
To                                                                             27th March 2014
Shri T.Rambabu,
IDAS, Addl CDA(R&D),
Opposite to DRDL Gate,
Kanchanbagh Post Office,
Hyderabad-500058.

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of LRSAM Project, DRDL’s demand of  Design, Manufacturing, Supply, Erection and Commissioning of Detachable Integrated Logistics Store Enclosure vide Demand No. DRDL/LRS/26/98P/13/049 Demand Dated 31/12/13. Demand raised by Sh. V. Venkateswarlu , Scientist – D , LRSAM Project, DRDL. The Erection and Commissioning is already started in first week of February 2014 by M/s Trinetra Constructions, 17-1-388/77/B, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Saidabad, HYDERABAD – 500059 without supply order and much before TEC & TPC. The case initiated in limited tender mode and cost finalized  at Rs.  28500000.00 Sales Tax (VAT) 5.00% Tax Value   Rs. 1425000.00 SO Value with TAX  Rs.  29925000.00. The Bank Guarantee of Rs 2850000.00 (10% of order value) vide Bank Guarantee No 35214IGPER0004 dated 13/03/2104 of Andhra Bank. The Supply order S.O. No. DRDL/LRS/26/98P/13/049/8500 not yet placed but the above was the proposed serial no 8500. In this case it seems that Defence Purchase Manual 2009 was totally ignored.

  1. Name and designation of CDA (R&D), Hyderabad Rep attends TPC of above case.
  2. Certified copy of noting and recommendation of CDA (R&D), Hyderabad rep on above case.
  3. Sh Vedveer Arya , IDAS ( Indian defence Accountant services  1997 batch officer ), finance officer, missile complex, Hyderabad is member of approval committee in respect of above case. Yes/No
  4. If yes the copy of his noting and recommendation of Sh Vedveer Arya on the above said file.

Note : Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) as a proof the photos of above said   Detachable Integrated Logistics Store Enclosure are enclosed.

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

Enclosed – Photos of construction in different stages

Registration Number            MODEF/R/2014/60600

Drdo

Wife of DRDO scientist murdered in quarters

Leave a comment

Bangalore Mirror Bureau | Mar 11, 2014, 02.00 AM IST
Rajabala was alone at home in heavily-guarded premises

The wife of a scientist with the Defence Research and Organisation Development (DRDO) was found murdered in her residence in the heavily-guarded DRDO quarters in Byappanahalli on Monday. Police say Rajani Rajabala, 49, the wife of A Packia Dhas, scientist ‘D’ with the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) of DRDO, was killed between 11 am and 11.30 am on Monday.

The incident came to light when neighbours found the victim lying in a pool of blood. Her throat has been slit and she had also suffered stab injuries to the neck, police said.

Rajabala was staying on the third floor of an apartment in ‘F’ wing in Block No. 22 of the DRDO quarters. She was alone at home. Her husband had gone for work and daughter, a first year engineering student, had left for college. The family is from Kanyakumari, but have been staying in the city for the last six years. Her son studies engineering in Chennai.

Police found no evidence of forced entry and suspect the killer fled by jumping from one of the floors to the ground. Salva Kumari, a resident of the ground floor of the same building, told police that at around the time of the crime, she heard the sound of something falling from a top floor and had rushed out. She found an unidentified man sitting on the ground near the building. The man later got up and walked away.

Along with Karthika Devi, another neighbour, Kumari climbed to the top to find out what had fallen. The door to Rajabala’s apartment was open and they entered to find their neighbour lying in a pool of blood. Byappanahalli police, who are investigating the crime, say the killer may have taken something from the house.

“Dhas and his daughter are still in shock and did not speak to us,” said K V Sharat Chandra, joint commissioner of police (East, law and order). “Once we speak to them and find out what’s missing, we will know if it was murder for gain or for personal rivalry. There is huge security for the quarters, but security staffs don’t do much checking in the morning. It is only after 8 pm when security is tight. There were no CCTV cameras installed.”

Drdo

Complaint to CVC – DMSRDE FUME HOOD PROCUREMENT CASE

12 Comments
To                                                                                                          
Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023
 

SUBJECT: Corruption in procurement of Fume Hoods in DMSRDE Kanpur Officers involved in Procurement

  1. Sh. A.S. Parihar, Scientist ‘D’ – Indenter
  2. Sh. Shielendra Kumar, Scientist ‘E’ Head Estate & Work Division and also MMG division both.
  3. Dr. AK Saxena, Director & CFA
  1. Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  2. DRDO’s Director Material Management distributed to all Labs & Establishments a manual named “DRDO Purchase Management -2006” which was duly approved by President of India and with the concurrence of Ministry of Defence (Fin/R&D) vide their ID No 752/IF (R&D) dated 20 March 2006.
  3. “DRDO Purchase Management -2006”  page no 12,  para 4.5.2 stated     Directors of Labs/Estts will observe adequate caution while working out detailed specifications of an intended procurement that these are not tailor made to suit a particular brand of product. Broad coverage of the functional performance and environmental parameters will be spelled out in the specifications to allow competition. For this purpose a computer-based data bank of similar products, along with broad specifications will be maintained and updated frequently so as to facilitate fair competition in purchases.
  4. The following case of procurement of Fume Hoods is totally violated procurement rules laid down by DRDO.
    • Tailor made specification was made and brand name as well as model number mentioned in tender inquiry.
    • Make cannot be mentioned in demand only item can be purchased whichever is having lowest prise. So he can purchase a branded item of particular firm unless it is propitiatory item. Bio base is Chinese Company so how they decided to purchase that brand when several manufactures and brands of Fume Hood were available in the Market
    • Item was purchased by Estate & Works Division, This division cannot indent & purchase Fume hood as this division is only for maintenance of Buildings & Govt accommodation.
    • Purchased qty 14 because the total price comes under fifty lakh which was within the limit of Director’s purchase power. Purchase Rules was violated as case was so designed that cost remain below 50 Lakhs (the Financial Power of Director)
    • Purchased exorbitant price because the same item is available in open market @ 1350 $ and dollar rate of date of supply order (19 November 2013) was Rs 62.26.
    • Open Market cost of  Fume Hood Chamber (Make- Biobase, Shandong Model- FH-1200 C) $1350 X 62.26 ( Dollar Rate on 19 Nov 2013 ) = Rs 84051.00
    • Fume Hood Chamber (Make- Biobase, Shandong Model- FH-1200 C) was purchased @ 290540.00 and Quantity 14 was purchased total amount Rs. 45,76,005.00. (With Tax)
    •  Actual cost of 14 no of Fume Hood Chamber (Make- Biobase, Shandong Model- FH-1200 C) Rs 84051.00 X 14 = Rs. 1176714.00
    •  Purchased exorbitant price by DMSRDE – Rs 290540.00 x 14 = Rs 4067560.00
    •  Total loss of poor tax payers Rs 4067560.00 – Rs. 1176714 = Rs 2890846.00 

FUME HOOD PROCUREMENT CASE

DMSRDE Fume Hood Demands Detailsfume demand   Demand Under worksfume demand under works DMSRDE, Kanpur Tender Details fume tender  DMSRDE, Kanpur placed Supply Order to KAN-THT (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi to procure the item  details of which given below.fume supply order 5.   The facts stated above, it is amply crystal clear that prima facie material regarding Abuse of Authority by arrogant and corrupt administrator Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director DMSRDE exists.

6.    In view of the above mentioned facts and evidences it is earnestly requested that an order for through investigation of all procurement done by Dr. Arvind Kumar  Saxena after assuming charge as Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur to stop further corruption and wastage of poor tax payers money.

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                   22 January 2014
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                              
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879
Email-prabhudoon@gmail.com,  www.corruptionindrdo.com
 

 

Annexure  – 1. Quotation  of  Fume Hood Chamber (Make- Biobase, Shandong Model- FH-1200 C)fume quotation
 
Drdo

CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF ANALYTICAL WEIGHING BALANCE AT DMSRDE KANPUR

3 Comments

           

To
Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023

SUBJECT: SCAM TAINTED PROCUREMENT OF ANALYTICAL WEIGHING BALANCE IN DMSRDE, KANPUR 

 COMPLAINT AGAINST

  1. MR. AMIT SARAIYA, SCIENTIST ‘D’, HEAD MATERIALS MANAGEMENT GROUP (2011-2013),
  2. MR. SHIELANDRA KUMAR  SCIENTIST ‘E’, HEAD MATERIALS MANAGEMENT GROUP (2013),
  3. MR.R K JAIN, SCIENTIST ‘E’ CHAIRMAN, ‘VENDOR REGISTRATION COMMITTEE’
  4. DR. D. N. TRIPATHI, CHAIRMAN, ‘TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE’(TEC)
  5. DR. T. C. SHAMI, CHAIRMAN, ‘STORES PRUCHASE COMMITTEE’(SPC)
  6. DR. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR & CFA, DMSRDE, KANPUR

Sir,

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT 

  1. Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  1. Purchase Management 2006 is applicable for procurement of store items in DRDO. Gross irregularities and violation of Purchase Management 2006 was made in procurement of Analytical Weighing Balance in year 2012-2013 when the cases were indented by officers of Material Management Group under illegal orders of Head MMG & Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE.
  1. Dr. A K Saxena Director is an incompetent, arrogant and corrupt administrator who has not only violated but also subverted all rules and regulations of purchase.  In earlier complaints pending with Central Vigilance Commissioner at New Delhi and now in the present case, it becomes amply clear that he is the not only the ‘CENTRE OF GRAVITY’ but also ‘PATRON-IN-CHIEF’ of corruption menace in DMSRDE.  Relevant rules and regulation of DRDO PURCHASE MANUAL-2006 for the execution of procurement are a mentioned below:
  • Para 4.6.2 of DRDO purchase manual 2006 Corrigendum 03 clearly  states: 4.6.2 For demands for stores above Rs 5 lakh, the level for initiation for putting up to SPC/DRDO HQrs/ various committees with delegated powers under various programmes and projects will be as under: (a) Above Rs 5 lakh to Rs 25 lakh: initiation by Scientist ‘C’/ TO ‘C’ and above, countersigned by project or group head. (b) Above Rs 25 lakh to Rs 50 lakh: initiation by Scientist ‘D’/ TO ‘D’ and above, countersigned by project or group head. (c) Above Rs 100 lakh and above: initiation by Scientist ‘E’ and above, countersigned by project or group head.
  • Para 5.1.1 of DRDO PURCHASE MANUAL 2006 clearly states that  following cautions shall be observed for purchasing stores:
  • Bulk purchases will normally fetch quantity discount. This should, however, not lead to over-stocking resulting in expiry of shelf life or redundancy due to obsolescence.
  • Purchase orders will not be split-up to avoid the necessity for obtaining sanction of the higher authorities.
  • Open tendering should be adopted to ensure fair competition, unless it is considered expedient to follow other modes of tendering due to urgency. Purchases will be made from the lowest acceptable tenderer. Adequate care would be exercised to ensure that delivery from the vendor is within the specified time schedule.
  • Para  7.6 Corrigendum 02 of DRDO PURCHASE MANUAL 2006 clearly states: LIMITED TENDERS: This mode of tendering may be chosen when estimated value of goods to be procured is up to Rs. 25 lakh (Rupees Twenty five lakh).  Purchase through Limited Tender Enquiry may also be adopted even where the estimated value of the procurement is more than Rs 25 lakh, in the following circumstances as per the delegated financial powers in vogue.

(a)  When the sources of supply are definitely known and are limited.

(b)  When it is not in the public interest to call for open tenders due to reasons of security or when superior authorities have issued specific instructions in this regard.

(c)  When Government policies designate specific agencies.

(d)  When open tender system adopted during previous one year has established sufficient and assured sources of supply at competitive rates.

(e)  When the requirement of stores is urgent and the desired delivery schedule cannot be met if open tenders are invited, the indenting officer must place on record, the nature of the urgency and why the demand could not be anticipated earlier. Urgency of such cases will be specifically monitored till the placement of order.

(f)   EPC approval issued by DMM in all cases shall include the names of the vendors to whom the Tender enquiries must necessarily be sent in addition to others.

  • Para 7.6.3 of DRDO purchase manual 2006 clearly  states: “The limited tender enquiries will be floated to all registered firms with a minimum of seven such firms for the concerned item(s). In a case where the number of registered firms is less than seven, these enquiries will be issued to all known firms dealing with the stores and efforts made in this regard will be recorded on the file”. Corrigendum 03 clearly  states: “Add: at the end of the para 7.6.3:  Vendor selection for the purpose of Limited Tender enquiries must be done with utmost diligence so as to give fair opportunity to all known vendors who are willing and eligible for consideration. The enlistment and delisting of registered vendors should be based on clearly laid down criteria and the existing provision for buildup followed rigorously  by periodically referring to vendors registered with R&D Labs/ Estt., DGS&D, NSIC, other Government  Departments and to the firms of national repute who will be registered before their bid is considered.”
  • Para 7.13.3 of DRDO purchase manual 2006 clearly  states: Scrapping of tenders will be resorted to in the following cases with the approval of the Director:
    • Change in basic specifications governing supplies after opening of tenders.
    • Non-receipt of offers as per specifications laid down.
    • Sudden downward market trend.
    • Prices quoted being very high/unreasonable.
    • Large/manifold variation in tendered prices.
    • Para 3.2 of DRDO purchase manual 2006 clearly  states: REGISTRATION OF VENDORS: The vendors will be registered by Labs/Estts for different categories of stores, e.g., raw materials, chemicals, machine tools, instruments, electronics and electrical items, timber, fabrication jobs and other general stores etc. The credentials of firms seeking registration will be verified to ascertain their credibility with regard to financial standing i.e. annual accounts, capacity, reliability, bonafides (income-tax returns sales tax No. etc.) and past performance, etc. For this purpose, specialists from the respective fields will be included in the Vendor Registration Committee while examining the applications of vendors seeking registration. The registration committee will be appointed for one financial year. The constitution of the vendor registration committee will be as follows:

1. Scientist- F Chairman

2. Scientist- D/E Member

3. Head MMG or Rep Member Secy.

The Chairman can co-opt specialist members if considered necessary.

4.    Mr. Aneesh  Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘C’,  Mr. Amit Sarriya,  Head Material Management Group, Mr. R.K. Jain, Scientist ‘E’ Chairman Vendor Registration Committee Dr. D. N. Tripathi, Scientist ‘F’ Chairman TEC, and Dr. T. C. Shami, Scientist ‘F’, Chairman SPC(above Rs 10 lakh) for    possibly under heavy pressure entered into a criminal conspiracy with Dr. A K Saxena, Director  & CFA of splitting requirement of the same items to fabricate store demands violating  DRDO purchase manual 2006, details of which are mentioned below:

5.    PROCUREMENT IRREGULARITIES OF Analytical Weighing Balance

Central Procurement of Analytical Weighing Balances worth total estimated cost Rs. 52.8 lakh on limited tender basis by splitting requirement into

  • 02 demands raised by Mr. Aneesh Kumar Singh, Scientist C of Material Management Group along with Mr. Amit Sarriya Head MMG, on same date 20th Feb 2013 with exactly same list of pet vendors of Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director , DMSRDE.
  • the 02 demands were cleared by the SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases above Rs. 10.0 lakh, headed by  Dr.  T C Shami, Scientist ‘F’,  as Chairman of SPC 2012,
  • Technical evaluation of Techno Commercial Bid  in case of Analytical Weighing Balance was done by a TEC comprising of  Dr. D. N. Tripathi, Scientist ‘F’ Chairman TEC, Mr. A. K. Dixit Scientist ‘E’ (Expert Member),  Mr. Aneesh Kumar Singh, Scientist C(User Member) and Mr. A. K. Mishra Technical Officer ‘C’(Member Secretary). Queries were asked from Vendors vide letter dated 19 June 2013 Kawach Instruments & Chem Tex Noida & Abhigyan Traders, Kanpur was  technically disqualified in TEC report for case at Sl. No.01.
  • Respective   supply orders placed during Sep 2013 to Oct 2013.
  • Point to be noted that
    • requirement of “Analytical Weighing Balance” received from various user divisions in response to MMG ION (Annexure-I) was  deliberately split into two demands below Rs. 50.0 Lakh to keep it within the lab director CFA power so as to avoid DRDO HQrs  concurrence. These demands were cleared in same SPC meeting held on 07-Mar-2013 and limited tender enquiries were issued on same date 03-Apr-2013 to exactly similar vendors as shown in Table-I below.
    • Only 06 pet vendors are given tender enquiry whereas  as per para 7.6.3 DRDO purchase manual 2006 the limited tender enquiries will be floated to all registered firms with a minimum of seven such firms for the concerned item(s). Further vendors should be selected in accordance to Para 7.6.3-Corrigendum 03 to DRDO purchase manual 2006.
    • Further vendors selection  for the two demands  at Sl.No.01& 02 is improper as:
      • M/s Nav Jyoti Scientific Sales Corporation Lucknow (Reg. No. DMSRDE_013/01C/19_10L for Chemicals, Instruments) and M/s Kawach Instruments & Chem Tex Noida (Reg. No. DMSRDE_012/03C/073_10L for Chemicals, Instruments, Textiles,) were registered in 2013  for supply orders limited up to Rs 10.lakh then how these vendors were selected for tender inquiry for cases costing above  Rs. 10 Lakh
      • M/s Abhigyan Traders, Kanpur (Reg. No. DMSRDE_07/03C/044 for Chemicals) and M/s National Industrial Corporation (NIC) Kanpur (Reg. No. DMSRDE_11/03C/61 for Chemicals) are registered in DMSRDE only for Chemicals supply then how they were selected for tender inquiry for Scientific Equipment.
      • Demand for such specialized equipment is raised by Material Management Group centrally based on requirements submitted  by user divisions under pressure of Dr. A K Saxena, the Director,  in response to the ION issued by Material Management Group(Annexure-I)  despite no demand was raised from user divisions.
      • there is no requirement for this store in such a huge quantity in DMSRDE as it may be  sufficient to provided such costly and specialized equipment in Central Analytical Facility which is equipped with various special purpose sophisticated costly equipment. This is an attempt to create redundant facilities leading to underutilization of the equipment and this can be treated as wastage of poor tax payers money.

 6.    Point to be noted that

Dr. A. K. Saxena, the Director, has got registered more than fifty of his pet vendors in year 2013 through formulation of an illegal Vendor Registration committee with his pet man Mr. R.K. Jain Scientist ‘E’ as Chairman despite the fact that there are more competent and honest Scientist’s ‘F’ available in DMSRDE who are not only underutilized but not even acknowledged.. This  is a clear cut violation of para3.2 of DRDO purchase manual 2006 by Dr AK Saxena, for placement of the supply  order on limited tender to known vendors clearly exhibit his vested interest through manipulation  in prices, quality etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms.

  • Details are as show in Table-1

  • Table-Itable2

Point to be noted

  • For Analytical weighing balance at Sl.no.01
    • As per Para 4.6.2 DRDO purchase manual 2006 Corrigendum 03 Scientist ‘C’ can raise demand up to Rs.  25.0 lakh.
    • This limited tender above Rs 25 lakh violates Para 7.6 DRDO purchase manual 2006 Corrigendum 02.
    • Placement of supply order worth Rs. 30.92 (costing  close to  estimated cost Rs 33.6 lakh) on limited tender basis  to known local/pet vendor M/s Nav Jyoti Scientific Sales Corporation Lucknow, clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation  in prices, quality etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms
  • For Analytical weighing balance at Sl.no.02
    • The Demand for Dual Range High Precision Semi Micro Balance with Density Determination Kit is exorbitantly estimated at the rate of Rs 6.4 Lakh (i.e. Total cost for 03 No. Rs 19.2 Lakh ) as:
  • Similar Semi Micro Dual Range High Precision Analytical Balance with Density Determination Kit was procured by a user division vide demand dated in 08-Aug-11 and supply order dated 19-Dec-2011 at the rate of Rs 1.6 lakh from M/s P.D. Scientific Industries, Kanpur.
  • For a demand estimated Rs.19.2 lakh the supply order costing Rs 9.7 lakh at the rate Rs 3.3 lakh only was placed to lowest bidder M/s Kawach Instruments & Chem Tex Noida.
  • Point to be noted that M/s Kawach Instruments & Chem Tex Noida could not be technically disqualified in this case by the TEC otherwise this supply order also might be costing close to estimated cost Rs 19 lakh as in first case above.  It appears that the first case is exorbitantly estimated too.
    • Item nomenclature is slight changed by changing the location of “Semi Micro” at Sl. No. 02 & 03 with a view to create a differentiation.  
    • M/s P.D. Scientific Industries Kanpur was not considered for the said tender enquiry otherwise prices might have lowered further in order of case at Sl. No. 03.
    • Scrapping of tenders should be considered in case of sudden downward market trend or Large/manifold variation in tendered prices as per DRDO purchase manual 2006 Para 7.13.3 .

9.      Despite all above placement of the supply  order on limited tender to known vendors clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation  in prices, quality etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms

10.       From the facts stated above, it is amply crystal clear that prima facie material regarding ‘ABUSE OF AUTHORITY’, ‘DICTATORIAL TRAITS ’, ‘PATRONIZATION OF CORRUPTION’ as regards to arrogant and corrupt Dr. Arvind Kumar  Saxena, Director DMSRDE exists.

That he has created a robust cobweb of corruption system’ killed proven departments / institutions in DMSRDE to hold system to ransom. This is evident from the fact that sequentially right from the indenter, head of the Division, whole Stores Purchase Committee including its CHAIRMAN and lastly HEAD MMG have fallen under tremendous pressure into criminal conspiracy to cheat DRDO and exchequer’s money.

In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy,  Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, present Head MMG, and Mr. A. K. Singh, Technical Staff Officer of Director, DMSRDE are tampering with evidence / documents that shall be prejudice to fair trial, investigation, trial or any inquiry.

11.      In view of the above mentioned facts and evidences it is earnestly requested that an order for through investigation of all procurement done by Dr.  A. K. Saxena after assuming charge as Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur to stop further corruption and wastage of poor tax payers money.

Date: 12th January 2014

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                          
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                              
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                 
prabhudoon@gmail.com , www.corruptionindrdo.com

Annexure- ION Bulk Purchasing of Items – File No TPO/Gen/09/N-8Dated 7/9/2012  table3

 

Drdo

CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF DYNEEMA FABRIC AT DMSRDE KANPUR

3 Comments
To                                                                                                          
Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023

SUBJECT: SCAM AND ASTRONOMICAL CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF DYNEEMA FABRIC IN DMSRDE KANPUR 

COMPLAINT AGAINST

  1. MR. AMIT SARAIYA, SCIENTIST ‘D’, HEAD MATERIALS MANAGEMENT GROUP (2011-2012),
  2. MR. SHIELANDRA KUMAR  SCIENTIST ‘E’, HEAD MATERIALS MANAGEMENT GROUP (2013),
  3. DR. R. K. TIWARI, SCIENTIST, ‘F’, HEAD LIGHT ENGINEERING DIVISION (LED)
  4. DR. D. N. TRIPHATI, ‘F’, HEAD RUBBER AND ADHESIVE DIVISION
  5. MR. AK, SCIENTIST ‘D’ COMPOSITE MATERIAL DIVISION
  6. MR. ARUN KUMAR SINGH, SCIENTIST ‘D’ COMPOSITE MATERIAL DIVISION & TECHNICAL STAFF OFFICER TO DIRECTOR
  7. DR. DARSHAN LAL, CHAIRMAN, ‘STORES PURCHASE COMMITTEE’(SPC)
  8. DR. DARSHAN LAL, CHAIRMAN

Sir,

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT

  1. Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  2. Purchase Management 2006 is applicable for procurement of store items in DRDO. Gross irregularities and violation of Purchase Management 2006 was made in procurement of Dyneema Fabric in year 2011-2013 when the cases were indented by officers of Composite Materials Divisions  under illegal orders of Head, LED & Composite Division, Head MMG & Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE.
  3. Dr. A K Saxena Director is an incompetent, arrogant and corrupt administrator who has violated all the rules and regulations of purchase.  In earlier complaints pending with Central Vigilance Commissioner at New Delhi and now in the present case, it becomes amply clear that he is the ‘CENTRE OF GRAVITY’ of corruption menace in DMSRDE.  Para 5.1.1 of DRDO PURCHASE MANUAL 2006 clearly states that  following cautions shall be observed for purchasing stores:
  • Bulk purchases will normally fetch quantity discount. This should, however, not lead to over-stocking resulting in expiry of shelf life or redundancy due to obsolescence.
  • Purchase orders will not be split-up to avoid the necessity for obtaining sanction of the higher authorities.
  • Open tendering should be adopted to ensure fair competition, unless it is considered expedient to follow other modes of tendering due to urgency. Purchases will be made from the lowest acceptable tenderer. Adequate care would be exercised to ensure that delivery from the vendor is within the specified time schedule.
  1. Mr. R. K Tiwari,  Head Composite Division and also Head Light Engineering Division, Dr. D N. Triphati, Head Rubber and Adhesive Division, Mr. Amit Sariaya, Head MMG (2011-2012), Mr. Shielendra Kumar Accordingly Head MMG (2013), Mr. AK, Scientist ‘D’ and Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘D’ possibly under heavy pressure entered into a criminal conspiracy with Dr. A K Saxena, Director  & CFA of splitting demands of the same items, details of which are mentioned below:
  2. PROCUREMENT IRREGULARITIES OF DYNEEMA

Dyneema worth total estimated cost of Rs. 1.05 Crore was procured on limited tender basis by splitting requirement

  • 11 demands below Rs.10 lakh (to avoid TPC) were raised during 16 months period (from May 2011 to Sep 2012) which were cleared by the SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases below Rs. 10.0 lakh, headed by  Dr.  Ashok Ranjan, Joint Director and Mr. Darshan Lal, Joint Director,  as Chairman of SPC 2011 and SPC 2012, Respective   supply orders placed during Aug 2011 to  Aug 2012.
  • One demand raised by Mr. A. S. Parihar and Dr. D.N. Tripathi, Joint Director in Apr 2013 for which supply order is placed on Manglam Traders in July 2013 worth Rs 7.06 Lakh. One demand raised by Mr. Arun Kumar Singh and Dr R. K. Tiwari, Joint Director, in Feb 2013 for which supply order is  placed on SMPP Pvt. Ltd. in Nov 2013 worth Rs 25.8 Lakh.
  • Point to be noted that there is no requirement for this store in such a huge quantity as there is no running project work on Bullet Proof Jacket with DMSRDE.
  • Details are as show in table-1

Table-1ak10

  • Points to be noted that
    • The requirement split into demands below Rs. 10.0 Lakh to avoid TPC and open tender which would have fetched better quality at discounted prices.
    • Further 02 Supply Orders worth Rs 13.5 Lakhs were placed on a pet vendor Mangalam Traders, Kanpur. 02 Supply Orders worth Rs 12.5 Lakhs were placed on a pet vendor Shahi Traders, Kanpur 01 Supply Orders worth Rs 7 Lakhs were placed on a pet vendor Pee Cee Textile Stores Kanpur.
    •  06 supply orders worth Rs 58.5 Lakhs were placed on a pet vendor S M Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd, a  manufacturer of molded pulp products, protective packaging, presentation packaging and Industrial packaging which turned to an Armour manufacturer over a period of two years  by adding  the armor division through buildup of technical knowhow in the strategic field while working with scientists of DMSRDE Kanpur on development of Bulletproof Jacket.(pls refer website http://smgroupindia.com/pulp-molded-packaging.htm).  SMPP Pvt Ltd was not registered vendor at DMSRDE from 01.01.2011 to July 2013, when the vendor supplied the Dyneema in DMSRDE.. It is interesting to see that BPJ developed by DMSRDE Kanpur is still waiting for a customer where as S M Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd are established supplier for the same as they claim in the website that there BPJ is certified by HP White USA and TBRL Chandigarh a nodal agency of DRDO for ballistic testing.
    • Further 02 Supply Orders worth Rs 13.5 Lakhs were placed on a pet vendor Mangalam Traders, Kanpur. 02 Supply Orders worth Rs 12.5 Lakhs were placed on a pet vendor Shahi Traders, Kanpur 01 Supply Orders worth Rs 7 Lakhs were placed on a pet vendor Pee Cee Textile Stores Kanpur
    • Placement of these orders on limited tender to non-registered, known/ local vendors clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation  in prices, quality etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms
  • Further interesting statistics out of above is as under
    • 04 demands worth Rs. 25.5 Lakhs were raised on 15th Sep 2011 by Mr. Amit Kumar, posted in Composite Material Division, and Dr. R. K. Tiwari, Joint Director, through Light Engineering Division (LED) with a deliberate attempt to bypass Group Director of Composite Material Division, an honest person Dr. D. K. Setua for the reason that splitting of demand is not permissible as per the guide lines of DRDO’s Purchase Manual 2006.It is important to note that Mr. AK, Scientist ‘D’ is not a part of Light Engineering Division (LED). He is posted in Composite Material Division. How he can indent the cases of LED?
    • Further these demands were cleared in SPC meeting held on 28th Sep 2011 and their tender enquiry was issued on same date 03rd Oct 2011 and very magically all   the 04 No. Supply orders worth Rs. 28.5 Lakhs were fetched by the same firm M/s SMPP Pvt. Ltd. on same date  11th Nov 2011.
    • Placement of these orders on limited tender to M/s SMPP Pvt. Ltd.  clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation in prices, quality, quantity etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms. SMPP Pvt Ltd was not registered vendor of DMSRDE during 2011-2013.
  • In a nutshell point is that out of  Rs 1.05 crore only 02 supply order worth Rs. 16 lakhs were placed on OEM M/s DSM Dyneema BV.  Dyneema is a proprietary item of OEM M/s DSM Dyneema BV and procurement from OEM might have saved around 35% of the cost paid in form of custom duty, local dealer profit and other overheads which comes to Rs 25 to 30 lakhs of loss of poor tax payer’s money.

6.  From the facts stated above, it is amply crystal clear that prima facie material regarding Abuse of Authority by arrogant and corrupt administrator Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director DMSRDE exists.

  • That he has created a robust cobweb of corruption system and that he entered into criminal conspiracy with Chairman’s of two successive SPC committee, Head Composite Division, Head Light Engineering, Head Finance Division  with an intention to cheat DRDO and exchequer’s money.
  • In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy,  Dr. A K Saxena, Director, present Head MMG,  and Mr. A K Singh, Technical Staff Officer of Director DMSRDE are tampering with evidence / documents that shall be prejudice to fair trial, investigation, trial or any inquiry.

7.    In view of the above mentioned facts and evidences it is earnestly requested that an order for through investigation of all procurement done by Dr. Arvind Kumar  Saxena after assuming charge as Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur to stop further corruption and wastage of poor tax payers money.

Date: 09th January 2014

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                             
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                              
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                 

prabhudoon@gmail.com,   www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

Drdo

CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF CHEMICALS AT DMSRDE KANPUR

6 Comments
To                                                                                                          
Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Central Vigilance Commission,
SatarktaBhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023

SUBJECT:      MULTI-CRORE SCAM CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF CHEMICALS IN DMSRDE KANPUR COMPLAINT AGAINST

  1. MR. AMIT SARAIYA, SCIENTIST ‘D’, HEAD MATERIALS MANAGEMENT GROUP (MMG),
  2. DR. DARSHAN LAL, CHAIRMAN ‘STORES PRUCHASE COMMITTEE’  
  3. Dr. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR, DMSRDE, KANPUR

Sir,

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT

  1. Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  2. Purchase Management 2006 is applicable for procurement of store items in DRDO.  Gross irregularities and violation of Purchase Management 2006 was made in procurement of Chemicals in year 2012 when the cases were indented by officers of MMG under threat illegal orders of Head ‘Materials Management Group’ (MMG)& Dr. A K Saxena Director DMSRDE
  3.  Dr. A K Saxena Director is an incompetent, arrogant and corrupt administrator who has violated all the rules and regulations of purchase. In the year 2012 while chairing ‘Head of Divisions’ (HOD) meeting, he directed that all HOD’s shall ensure that all demands of chemicals what-so-ever should be immediately forwarded to Head MMG. Head MMG shall consolidate all the requirements and one order shall be placed to get maximum discount from the suppliers
  4. Accordingly Head MMG circulated a memo requesting for the details of chemicals as per the enclosed format. Now here is where criminal conspiracy starts and instead of placing one consolidated demand, Head MMG & Dr. A K Saxena, Director  & CFA split the orders of various chemicals to the tune of Rs. 2.2 Crores.
  5. Procurement of CHEMICALS

Chemicals worth total estimated cost of Rs.2,19,19,074/-were procured centrally by a single division i.e. Material Management Group on limited tender basis splitting total demand against requirements received from various divisions of lab

  • into 30 cases below Rs.10 lakh(to avoid TPC) during 10 months period(from 12 Oct 2011 to 31 July 2012)
  • these demands were cleared by the same SPC (Store Procurement Committee)  Chairman Darshan Lal Joint Director, and
  • issuing more than 40 supply orders during Apr 2012 to  Dec 2012
  • Point to be noted that only in Month of Oct 2011   22 Demands worth total estimated cost of Rs. 15333034.00 were raised out of which 16 Demands worth total estimated cost of Rs 11471067.00 were cleared in one SPC meeting held on 16th Nov 2011 by SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases costing less than Rs 10 lakh headedby Chairman Darshan Lal Joint Director. Further it has bypassed the expert higher level SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases costing more than Rs 10 lakh headed by an honest officer Chairman Dr. DK Setua, Addl. Director having expertise with chemical background who might have not permitted splitting of cases in this manner.
  1. These 30 No. Cases for which at least details up to supply order date(which confirms that supply order is prepared) are mentioned in following tables

Table-1

  • For Sl. 01-03 total estimated cost  is Rs. 2832300.00 and total value of 08 Supply orders is Rs. 2635059.00
  • Point to be noted that
    • These Demand are raised on Limited Tender basis by same indenter officer, on same date 31-Jul-12 ,
    • SPC conducted on 22nd Aug 2012,
    • CFA approval accorded on 05-Sep-12, Tender Enquiry issued on the same date 05-Sep-12, and
    • 08 No Supply orders worth Rs. 2635059.00 are placed on same date 4-Dec-2012.
    • Demands of chemicals vide DMSRDE/13MMG042 & DMSRDE/13MMG041 at Sl.No. 01 and 02 reflect same chemical “Ethylene Di Chloride AR Make: Rankem/SD fine /Qualigens /SRL Each Pack of 2.5 ltr”
    • The requirement of chemicals was split into demands below Rs. 10.0 Lakh to avoid TPC and open tender.
    • DRDO Chemical Rate Contract exists w.e.f. 17th Sep 2012 and placement of these supply orders under the RC would have fetched better quality at discounted prices.
    • Placement of these orders on limited tender to known local vendors ignoring DRDO Chemical RC  clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation  in prices, quality, pack size etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms.chem table1

Table-2

  • For Sl. 04-08 total estimated cost  is Rs. 3422198.00
    • These Demand are raised on Limited Tender basis in December 2011 from 02nd to 31st Dec2011,
    • These Demand are cleared in 05 SPC meetings  conducted over a period of 45 days from  21st Dec 2011 to 02nd Feb 2012
    • CFA approval accorded and Tender Enquiry issued over a period of 45 days from  26th Dec 2011 to 14th Feb 2012, and
    • Supply orders prepared over a month period from 17th Apr 2012 to 22nd May 2012.
  • Point to be noted that
  • The requirement of chemicals was split into demands below Rs. 10.0 Lakh to avoid TPC and open tender which would have fetched better quality at discounted prices. Further it has bypassed the expert higher level SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases costing more than Rs 10 lakh.

Placement of these orders on limited tender to known local vendors clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation  in prices, quality, pack size etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms.chem table2

Table-3

  • For Sl. 09-17 total estimated cost  is Rs. 6272502.00
    • From Sl No.09-15 Demand worth total estimated cost   Rs. 51.00 lakh are raised on Limited Tender basis on 31st Oct 2011  and Sl No 16,17 on 24,25th Oct 2011
    • These Demand are cleared in one  SPC meeting  conducted on   16th Nov 2011
    • CFA approval accorded and Tender Enquiry issued over a period of 15 days from  8th Dec 2011 to 21st Dec 2011, and
    • Supply orders prepared over six months period from  14th Jan 2012 to 22nd Jun 2012 (i.e. there appears no urgency).
  • Point to be noted that
  • The requirement of chemicals was split into demands below Rs. 10.0 Lakh to avoid TPC and open tender which would have fetched better quality at discounted prices. Further it has bypassed the expert higher level SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases costing more than Rs. 10 lakh headed by an honest officer Chairman Dr. DK Setua. Addl. Director having expertise with chemical background who might have not permitted splitting of cases in this manner.
  • Placement of these orders on limited tender to known local vendors clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation  in prices, quality, pack size etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms.chem table3

Table-4

  • For Sl. 18-30 total estimated cost  is Rs. 9060532.00
    • From Sl No.09-15 Demand are raised on Limited Tender basis over a period of 10 days from12th Oct 2011  to  21st Oct 2011
    • Out of these Demand most are cleared in one SPC meeting conducted on   16th Nov 2011 and only four demands were cleared in SPC meetings held on 8th Dec 2011 (01),  06th Jan 2012 (02 ) and 02nd Feb 2012 (01).
    • CFA approval accorded and Tender Enquiry issued over a period of 45 days from  29th Nov 2011 to 14th Feb 2012, and
    • Supply orders prepared over two and half months periodfrom  18th May 2012 to 30th  July2012.
  • Point to be noted that
    • The requirement of chemicals was split into demands below Rs. 10.0 Lakh to avoid TPC and open tender which would have fetched better quality at discounted prices. Further it has bypassed the expert higher level SPC (Store Procurement Committee) dealing cases costing more than Rs 10 lakh headed by an honest officer Chairman Dr. DK Setua, Addl. Director having expertise with chemical background who might have not permitted splitting of cases in this manner.
    • Placement of these orders on limited tender to known local vendors clearly exhibit vested interest through manipulation  in prices, quality, pack size etc so as to fetch financial benefits hence indicates financial corruption/ corrupt practices of giving business/ benefits to own firms.chem table4

From the facts stated above, it is amply crystal clear that prima facie material regarding Abuse of Authority by arrogant and corrupt administrator Dr. A K Saxena, Director DMSRDE exists.

    • That he entered into criminal conspiracy with Mr. Darshan Lal, Joint Director, Chairman SPC and Head MMG with an intention to cheat DRDO and exchequer’s money.
    • In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy,  Dr. A K Saxena, Director and Mr. A K Singh, Technical Staff Officer of Director DMSRDE are tampering with evidence / documents that shall be prejudice to fair trial, investigation, trial or any inquiry.

In view of the above mentioned facts and evidences it is earnestly requested that an order for through investigation of all procurement done by Dr A K Saxena after assuming charge as Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur to stop further corruption and wastage of poor tax payers money.

 

Date: 07th January 2014

 

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                             
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                              
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                 
prabhudoon@gmail.com,  www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

Annexure -1 – ION DATED 12.12.2012 ISSUED BY MR. AMIT SARAIYA, HEAD MMG chem ion