Tag Archives: selection

BEL Senior Officers Conversations Regarding Corruption in Prestigious Air Force IACCS Project

www.corruptionindrdo.com,  however, cannot independently verify the authenticity of audio. Received from anonymous source. 

www.corruptionindrdo.com  has forwarded government agencies for further investigation.

Here is a conversation between Mr. D.K. Chatterjee and Mr. M.M. Pandey wherein Mr. Pandey is exposing the BEL corruption Modus Operandi  observed in ordering of civil contracts in IACCS.  

Mr. D.K. Chatterjee an IIT Kanpur Graduate of 1983 batch had worked in many indigenously developed products related to communications and radars. He is presently in the R&D group in-charge of the Radar Data processing. He is an engineer of par excellence in his field and through his in-house research and development he has saved a huge amount of foreign exchange for the country.

He has been targeted by the BEL management and his career has been stalled since he does not fit into the BEL model of going for foreign ToTs and with big corporate / private vendors to provide the defence forces equipment at very high cost and ensure kickbacks leading to corruption where persons at highest level BEL are involved. In the IACCS project the biggest challenge was to integrate the legacy Radars of Indian Air force and Army with the IACCS system since the output protocol of these old Radars was not compatible with input requirement for IACCS system.

Mr. D.K. Chatterjee and Mr. M.M. Pandey wherein Mr. Pandey is discussing the discrepancies which have been observed in ordering of civil contracts in IACCS. In turn Mr. Chatterjee tells about his experience wherein as a part of IACCS project he had worked on creating the interface (Radar Data Processing hardware and software) between the old legacy Radars and IACCS system. He was forced to use hardware which were pre-defined and at a very high cost.

As per him even with the high cost of hardware (since the software was written in-house) the cost of one system came to just about Rs 25 lacs. After the systems were proven he was unceremoniously removed from the project and the systems were subsequently outsourced and bought at a huge cost of about Rs 2.5 Crores each. With so many legacy Radars which were integrated to the IACCS the amount of money which has been misappropriated by the top management of BEL would run into hundreds of Crores.

This is again a case where an intelligent IIT graduate Electronics Engineer who did not compromise on corruption and worked for giving the Defence Forces the best at the least cost was harassed and removed from the main stream and made to suffer in his career. This is again in line with what has been brought out in the case of ordering of DDS software where a software worth not more than Rs 20 Crores was being bought at Rs 320 Crores and when one of the Managers in R&D became a whistle blower to stop this from happening he was harassed and bullied to the extent that he was forced to resign.

The Vigilance report which brought out this corruption had also noted that all the original team which worked on software related to IACCS (first phase wherein five nodes were established by BEL) was dismantled and engineers were either transferred out of the Unit or outside the project. Hence the modus operandi is the same in BEL for all persons who stand against corruption. They are harassed, side tracked, given punishment postings or suspended and terminated.   

It can be understood that if one or two persons are targeted but in the project IACCS it is clearly brought out at various stages that persons have been targeted whenever they have spoken about the rampart corruption which is being monitored by the highest level of management in BEL.

If proper investigation is carried out by external government agencies it will clearly come out that in this project from the beginning itself at all stages and in all systems (software, hardware, civil contracts, sub-systems for hardened underground buildings) organized and planned corruption has taken place through a mafia (which may be external to BEL) and with full support from persons sitting at the highest level of BEL.

Some of the conversations of Mr. D.K. Chatterjee are as follows:

• I have talked to Shri Ajay Singh who is involved in the civil works of IACCS. He has also said that there are lots of discrepancies in the civil contracts.

• I was part of IACCS group who interacted with Air Force persons during the initial phase of the project. I was working in Radar Data Processing (RDP) and when we were interfacing with Air Force personnel they also told us that there was something very wrong going on in the project.

• The amount of corruption which is there in the project it does not look that CMD would have any control. If the loot is of the order of Rs 1000 to 2000 Crores, I think a very small part of it would have gone to BEL persons. Persons facilitating this loot in BEL would just get few foreign trips and perhaps some GM promotions. The very fact that Air Force has given BEL the job of civil construction on underground buildings is itself questionable since DRDO already had expertise in this and Air Force could have done this job ( directly through some private vendor) with DRDO help (this shows that the plan was to do all the corruption by just front ending BEL).

• I have also been a part of IACCS project from the very beginning (although I was looking after a very small portion related to RDP) but I also found something strange happening in the project. When I was doing the RDP I was asked by Mr. Anil Pant (the AGM in-charge of IACCS who was indicted by the Vigilance report dated 16th Nov’16 for manipulations in the ordering of DDS software but was subsequently promoted as General Manager) to choose the hardware from a particular vendor (on a single tender basis and at a very high cost from what was available in the market). As per Mr. Pant it was customers requirement to go with a particular vendor (how can customer dictate the vendor).

• Even taking the hardware at a higher cost I was able to make the system in-house at a cost of Rs 25 lacs. The same system they were getting from vendors at almost Rs 2.5 Crores (ten times the in-house cost).

• Although I was doing a very small part of the project the attitude which was there in the

overall project got reflected in this also (as in overall IACCS project they have been going for single tenders for ordering on pre-fixed vendors at much higher costs than available in the market).

• Everyone looked at me as if I have done a very big mistake by developing the system inhouse (maybe because I came on the way of persons making money out of outsourcing the same to pre-fixed vendors). Everyone (including the end user) tried to dissuade me from taking up the in-house development by telling me that the system is required urgently within six months thinking that I will raise my hands due to the impossible time lines set for me for development. Everyone was saying that RDP cannot be made in-house but like a fool I accepted the challenge and when I successfully demonstrated it, I was unceremoniously thrown out of the project.

• It is quite obvious that there is some serious misappropriation going on in the project at the highest level.

It is obvious that since after developing the system at a cost of Rs 25 lacs Mr. D.K. Chatterjee was thrown out of the project the required systems would have been bought at inflated cost (almost ten times) from pre-fixed vendors. This has been the modus operandi in the IACCS project wherein persons who had originally been part of the project and were instrumental in development of software and selection of hardware were unceremoniously removed from the project and a bunch of persons who had nothing to do with the project were placed at the positions where they manipulated the ordering in connivance with the persons at the highest level at BEL for personal gains.

How a CAG report exposed DRDO’s mishandling of AEW&CS programme

The CAG report showed irregularities in the selection of aircraft for the programme

By Pradip R Sagar August 29, 2018

Indian Air Force’s indigenous AEW&CS in action during ‘Exercise Iron Fist’ in Pokhran | PTI

THE WEEK

As the indigenous Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AEW&CS)—aircraft fitted with a radar system—flew over the Rajpath during the 2017 Republic Day parade, India joined an elite group of five countries that had this capability. But, before it could be formally inducted into the Air Force fleet, the ‘Eye in the Sky’ has flown into turbulence.

A report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which was recently tabled in Parliament, has made startling observations about the programme, on which the Defence Research and Development Organisation has spent more than Rs 2,500 crore.

The CAG report showed irregularities in the selection of aircraft for the programme. The auditor slammed the DRDO for the cost overrun—the initial cost was Rs 1,800 crore—and its claims about indigenousness. Moreover, preferred vendors were selected to benefit certain companies, said the report. Though the Air Force had accepted the AEW&CS last year, it is yet to get the final operational clearance.
The AEW&CS is a moving surveillance platform, making it difficult for the enemy to locate the exact position of the aircraft. With its long range and detection capabilities, it gives a 360 degree view of the sky and can track many aircraft simultaneously.

China currently has 20 such airborne warning systems, while Pakistan has eight. The Indian Air Force has only three—Israeli Phalcon radar systems mounted on Russian IL-76 aircraft. India had bought the radar systems from Israel in 2004. According to experts, India currently does not have the capability to cover its entire airspace during a war.

A programme to develop an indigenous early warning system was taken up in 1994, but was shut down after a fatal crash. Subsequently, the defence ministry in 1999 approved the import of three airborne warning systems (the ones from Israel) and decided to meet further requirement through indigenous development.

In October 2004, the cabinet committee on security approved indigenous development of AEW&CS at a cost of Rs 1,800 crore. The deadline was April 2011. Under the project, two AEW&CS were to be supplied to the Air Force. DRDO’s Bengaluru-based laboratory, Centre for Air Borne Systems (CABS), was the nodal agency for design and development.

Considering the operational importance of this project, the CAG carried out an audit to know whether the system had everything that was promised. K. Subramaniam, principal director of audit, Air Force, recently sent the classified report to Dr S. Christopher, the then secretary of the Department of Defence Research and Development—which found serious irregularities in the programme.

The report has come down heavily on the programme over its claim of indigenousness. Despite the project being called home made, it was only 48 per cent indigenous. The DRDO had claimed it to be 81 per cent. And, the cost of foreign consultancy, about Rs 106 crore, was categorised as indigenous.

The CAG’s observations draw strength from the ongoing CBI investigation into alleged kickbacks in the process of selecting the aircraft. The Embraer EMB-145 aircraft from Brazil was shortlisted for the project in 2007. However, Brazilian media reported that Indian officials were bribed to swing the deal in Embraer’s favour. In 2016, the CBI registered a case against NRI arms dealer Vipin Khanna and two private companies based abroad. The case was about the alleged payment of more than $5.70 million as kickbacks to seal the deal for the aircraft.

The CAG report also pointed out inadequacies in management, which stretched the development period to 13 years. “And, the operational requirements, instead of being based on the functional needs of the Air Force, were being adjusted according to the aircraft that was ‘pre-selected’. It took seven years to finalise the operational requirements,” said the report.


During the design and development stage, some operational parameters were compromised because of the Embraer’s limitations. Also, there was no competitive bidding while selecting the aircraft. The Embraer was shortlisted through a nomination. Notably, several aircraft, such as the IL-76, and models from Gulfstream, Bombardier and Boeing were available at the time.

“The justification given for the selection of EMB-145 was not tenable,” the CAG observed. “No objective assessment of the merits and demerits of available options was done. The selection of EMB-145 was arbitrary and based on preconceived preference.”

Initial operational requirements stipulated that the system should be able to operate from high-altitude locations like Leh to have a much deeper view into the Chinese army’s activities. As the EMB-145 was incapable of doing so, claims the report, the Air Force had to drop this requirement in February 2006.

The report also said that the Air Force officials working with the DRDO reiterated that Embraer was not the suitable aircraft.

The CAG also criticised the project for the way the pilots were trained. “From the scrutiny of the expenditure on training, the audit found that the training commenced in June 2007. At this point, the procurement contract for EMB-145 was yet to be awarded and negotiations were underway between the CABS and M/s Embraer. Therefore, training of pilots on an aircraft even before finalising its purchase is highly unjustified,” CAG pointed out. Six pilots were trained abroad at a cost of Rs 23 crore.

Of the 18 requirements specified by the Air Force, AEW&CS could not fully achieve ten important ones. Despite this, the Air Force accepted the first system in February 2017.

“Since EMB-145 was selected, the weight of the mission system had to be adjusted to the optimum payload capacity of EMB-145, which was 3,000kg. The radar along with its associated systems, which was to be mounted on the fuselage, had to be limited to 1,500 kilos due to structural limitations,” the CAG said.

The probable date of completion was revised four times and the final date of completion was extended by over six years, said the report. The Air Force kept changing its requirements. In the middle of the programme, the Air Force demanded air-to-air refuelling and a de-icing system. It led to a delay of nearly two years.

Christopher, who was the head of CABS, said the repeated modifications in the operational requirement by the Air Force played a major role in the delay of the project. “It is all recorded in official documents and no one can find fault with me for it,” he said. “However, I believe that operational requirements is a prerogative of the user and you, as a developer of the equipment, cannot challenge it.”

Regarding the aircraft, he said, “Embraer was a well-proven aircraft. The decision to buy Embraer was taken in consultation with the then IAF chief S. Krishnaswamy. Four countries were using this platform as AWACS—the generic term for such a system. Moreover, the IAF decided that it has to be a turbo jet, not propellant. Turbo engine gives them the desired speed and efficiency.”

When contacted, Krishnaswamy said the selection of aircraft was purely DRDO’s decision. “The IAF was using Embraer for its VVIP fleet and thought of commonality if it is selected for AEW&CS. Since AEW&CS was DRDO’s project and budget was allocated to them, the final decision for selecting aircraft was DRDO’s only,” he said, adding that any modification in the operational requirements was a collective decision of the Air Force and the DRDO.

Anomaly claim in DIAT recruitment

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

toi-pune-oct-2016

Continuously Manipulations in recruitment of scientists in Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC), Ministry of Defence, (DRDO).

To                                                                                                          24th  March 2015

Hon’ble Shri Manohar Parrikar,                                                                                                      Defence Minister,                                                                                                                              Room No -104, South Block,                                                                                                            New Delhi-110011

Subject: Continuously Manipulations in recruitment of scientists in Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC), Ministry of Defence, (DRDO).
Sir,

  1. Since last 10 years lot of complaints were received by defence ministry regarding the manipulation, nepotism, recruitment of incompetent candidates by RAC, DRDO
  2. Country already witnessed the degradation of DRDO output in several field including Kargil War and one of the major reason of downfall is below standard recruitments done by RAC.
  3. After intervention of Ex Defence Minister 2 scientists recruitment was annulled by DRDO and more are in queue, same time minister also recommended vide Diary No. 14320 dated 24/102013 for CBI enquiry against 10 senior top scientists including two Ex SA to RM and also advice to rethink recruitment through UPSC to avoid all nonsense activities doing by RAC.
  4. Dr. RK Jain, when he was mere Sc F, appointed Director, RAC, w.e.f. 1 March 2009. Without doing science he was promoted Sc ‘G then Sc H in 2013 ignoring GOI order of FCS.
  5. RK Jain’s expertise are utilizing by most of Directors for nepotism and for other vested interest.
  6. Recently Dr S C Sati, Director, ADRDE, Agra pushing a privilege to his loyal multidimensional, multitalented, supporting  Ade Sh Vikas B Thakre, Sc F by helping him to recruit his wife Dr. Vandana V Thakre for the post of scientist E in DRDO.
  7. A tailor made post was advertised with help of great manipulator Dr R K Jain for Dr. Vandana V Thakre, Interview is already completed, as per sources the selection was finalized within day or two it will be declare by RAC.
  8. Presently Dr. Vandana V Thakre is working as associate professor in Madhav Institute of Technology and Science, Gwalior and Dr Sc Sati’s son Akshat is perusing his engineering in her guidance.
  9. I think Sh Vikas B Thakre, Sc F inspired by Dr A K Sikdar, Sceitist G, HEMRL, Pune that his involved in writing/reviewing of his own wife Dr.Nirmla Sikdar, Scientist F and reporting her husband since last five years. Anything can happen in DRDO
  10. These all involved scientists are not learn a lesson from Dr Arun Kumar, Ex DOP’s last minute suspension, his daughter;s 10 year service annulling, Dr. S M Veerabhadrappa, Director, DTRL charge sheeted and facing Departmental proceeding, Mrs T Chandrabanu, Sc F service annulled, Ms S Geetha, Sc D, DIPAS and Ms Dolly Bansal both are in queue, any time their service will be terminated. The queue is very long.
  11. I would like to congratulate through you to Dr Vandana V Thakre, Sh Vikas B Thakre, Dr S C Sati and Dr R K Jain follow the footsteps of great corrupt Dr Arun Kumar, Dr W Selvamurthy etc.

Sir, we feel that in Modi ji era and your special selection as defence minister everyone in country start hopping that now the corruption/nepotism/favoritism will be end. The two major steps like termination of Sh Avinash Chander, and order for review and hold his last moment orders are giving us  some light rays.

With great expectations of corrective measures.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                                21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun- 248001                                                                               Ph   0135 2787750, Mobile 9411114879,

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

Army Tramples on Faulty DRDO Study on Siachen Deployment

By Pradip R Sagar
Published: 02nd Nov 2014 06:06:55 AM The New Indian Express – The Sunday Standard

Vigilant Indian soldier - Siachen
Vigilant Indian soldier – Siachen

NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s surprise visit this Diwali to the world’s highest battlefield, Siachen, to applaud the Indian army troops deployed there again brought into national focus the difficulty of operating under such adverse climatic conditions.

A study by Defence Research and Development Organisation, India’s premier defence research institute, to find solutions and shorten the acclimatization period has been junked by the Army.

Keeping unforeseen events in mind, the Army wanted to reduce the pre-acclimatisation training period to faster deploy its troops to high-altitude locations in cases of emergency. And for this, the DRDO was mandated to carry out a study on how to reduce the pre-acclimatisation training period in May 2009 with budget of over `3 crore. Delhi-based Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences (DIPAS), a wing of DRDO, carried out the study for which they selected 210 soldiers. In order to study the soldiers’ physiology changes, they were asked to stay in a make-shift chamber filled with nitrogen for intermittent periods. But the Army has rubbished the study report and criticised the methods adopted by the DIPAS scientists.

In a strongly worded four-page letter to DIPAS on 10 September, the office of the Director General Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS) has raised serious objections and sought explanation on various key points related to the study including selection of troops for the study, use of multiple investigators to collect data, use of master step test as an indicator of exercise performance for high altitude and disparity in heart rate date from the same cohort at different points of the report.

DIPAS had used intermittent hypoxia study at sea level before dispatching soldiers to high-altitude locations. Explaining the terminology, a DRDO scientist said that Intermittent Hypoxic Training (IHT) is a test protocol usually given to the individual with reduced oxygen concentration as prevailed in high altitude for pre-acclimatising them at sea level in a normobaric hypoxic chamber, before they are deployed for high mountain warfare.

On the basis the outcome of the study, two costly normobaric hypoxic chambers were planned to be set up in Chandigarh to cater northern command and Sukhna for eastern command troops with a cost of over `10 lakh.

Reacting strongly to the samples of troops taken, that had men who had already served in high-altitude postings, the DGAFMS raised concerns on the validity of conclusions drawn from the data presented. While seeking justification for the selection of re-inductees as study subjects, the Army has said, “Current knowledge on the phenomenon of de-acclimatisation is limited. It is accepted by many experts in the field that certain physiological changes induces on exposure on high altitude may persist beyond one month of return to sea level.”

“Hence the choice of re-inductees as study subjects raises questions about the validity of date being presented, especially since the aim of the project is to extrapolate the findings to healthy soldiers being rapidly inducted to high altitude, in all probability, for the first time,” DGAFMC said in his detailed response to DIPAS study.

When contacted, DRDO spokesperson Ravi Gupta refused to comment as it is a classified matter.

Role model and an inspiration for women scientist’s husband appointment case

DRDO advertised RAC Advt No. 110, December 2012 for the post of Scientist ‘G’ specially to accommodate CMDR S K Patel Husband of Ms Tessy Thomas but unfortunately due to lot of  resistance from DRDO senior scientists Sh Avinash Chander could not succeeded to obliged ? as he was not the big boss that time and Dr V K Sarswat turned down the case and thus RAC Advt No. 110 for Scientist ‘G’ mere wasted.

DRDO advertised RAC Advt No. 112/ October 2013 for the post of Scientist ‘G, this time  Sh Avinash Chander was boss and ignoring 485 available scientists G, CMDR(Retd.) S K Patel husband of Ms Tessy Thomas was selected and he joined DRDO as Scientist ‘G’ on 27 March 2014. He was appointed as Director in Directorate of QRS(DQRS) on 31 March 2014″ at DQ, DQRS as Director. The all eligible and more experienced DRDO scientists who are grown with DRDO Missile program now blowing the trumpet – Mera Kya, Mujhe Kya

 
To,                                                                                                  12th September 2014
Dr. RB Sharma,
Scientist ‘F’ & Central Public Information Officer
DRDO HQ,
Room No. 314-A, RTI Cell
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011                 

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

  1. RAC Advt No. 110, December 2012 under direct recruitment scheme for recruitment of 01 Scientist G (Lab: DRDO, Subject: Mechanical Engineering, Essential Qualification: At least first class Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized University or equivalent, Experience / Specialisation: Experience in the field of Quality, Reliability and Safety management of weapons and Armament Systems with involvement during development/ production/ induction and life cycle management. Knowledge of guided weapons is also desirable) and
  2. RAC Advt No. 112/ October 2013 under direct recruitment scheme for recruitment of 01 Scientist G (Lab: DQRS,DRDO, Essential Qualification: At least First class Bachelors Degree in Engg./Technology in Mechanical Engg./Aeronautical Engg./ Electrical Engg./Electronics & Communication Engg. only; from a recognized University, Experience / Specialization: At least 15 years experience in areas of quality planning, quality assurance, quality control, and quality improvements related to weapons/sensors/combat vehicles/armaments).

Kindly provide following information under Section 6 of RTI Act 2005.

I.            With reference to RAC Advt No. 110/December 2012

  1. The name of candidate/scientist selected as Scientist G.
  2. The list of candidates with credentials that shortlisted and appeared in Interview.
  3. The list of chairman & members of selection board for Interview.
  4. Name of the Lab/Estt where the said recruited Scientist G was posted.
  1. With reference to RAC Advt No. 112/October 2013
  2. The name of candidate/scientist selected as Scientist G.
  3. The list of candidates with credentials that shortlisted and appeared in Interview.
  4. The list of chairman & members of selection board for Interview.
  5. Name of the Lab/Estt where the said recruited Scientist G was posted

The abuse/misuse of power for personal gain is corruption. The information sought in this RTI Application pertains to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act 2005.

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

  Registration Number  MODEF/R/2014/61666

Scientist G tailor made advertisement for CMDR S K Patel (Ms Tessy Thomas's Husband)
Scientist G tailor made advertisement for CMDR S K Patel (Ms Tessy Thomas’s Husband)

51 Scientist ‘B’ recently recruited through campus selection – RTI

To                                                                                         Date 22th November 2013

The 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 to 51 scientist ‘B’ recently recruited through campus selection from various institutions.

1. Please provide the list of Institutes where these campus selections were conducted.

2. Name of DRDO officials who were in the committee of above campus selections.

3. Provide the names from the list of 51 scientists ‘B’ recently recruited whose father/mother is working in DRDO and their post in the organization.

4. Provide the names from the list of 51 scientists ‘B’ recently recruited who are having immediate relatives working in DRDO, name of relative, the relation with newly recruited scientist and their post in the organization. If it is not available then please collect the same from the individual.

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given in these decisions.
File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far.

Note: – Above required information is directly related to corruption and does not come under schedule II. As you  are aware recently Defence Minister recommended CBI inquiry to probe recruitment done by RAC.

Regards

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

Registration Number: MODEF/R/2013/60932

List of new recruited Scientist ‘B’ through campus selection

Appeal to DRDO honest officials please provide information to clean the nepotism and corruption from DRDO. As you all are aware that Sh AK Antony is also giving his support by taking action against corrupt officials of DRDO.

51 scientist ‘B’ recently recruited through campus selection
51 scientist ‘B’ recently recruited through campus selection

 

ANTONY RECOMMENDS CBI PROBE INTO DRDO RECRUITMENT SCAM

the pioneer

Monday, 18 November 2013 | PNS | New Delhi

Defence Minister AK Antony has recommended a CBI probe into an alleged recruitment scam in Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) where some senior officers — including two of its former chiefs — violated rules while giving jobs to their kin in violation of rules. The CBI probe was recommended after the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) favoured action against officials.

The Defence Minister recommended the CBI probe into the recruitment scam after the vigilance wing of the Ministry carried out a probe for more than a year after the allegations surfaced, officials said here on Sunday. The DRDO officials under the scanner included two former chiefs and a former Chief Controller of the organisation.

Recently, a Director-rank officer of the DRDO was probed for his alleged role in an appointment made against the laid down procedures and was suspended hours before his retirement from service in May. The official, a senior scientist, was suspended by the department as an inquiry was pending against him in a recruitment-related case where he allegedly recruited his own daughter in the organisation.

The matter had come to light after the CVC recommended action against two DRDO officials for their alleged role in the case. The suspended official was allegedly involved in promotion and selection of scientists in the organisation.

Under scanner DRDO official suspended hours before retirement

Press Trust of India / New Delhi November 30, 2012, 20:15 –

Business Standard

A senior DRDO official, who is under scanner for his alleged role in an appointment made against the laid down procedures, was suspended hours before his retirement from service today.

The official, a senior scientist, has been suspended by the department as an inquiry is pending against him in a recruitment-related case where he allegedly recruited his own daughter in the organisation, sources said here.

“The case is sub-judice,” DRDO spokesperson Ravi Gupta said when asked about the details.
The matter had come to light after the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) recommended action against two DRDO officials for their alleged role in the case.
Following the CVC inquiry, DRDO chief V K Saraswat had sought an explanation from the officials.

The official suspended was involved in promotion and selection of scientists in the organisation.

CVC had also recommended review of the appointment of the scientist’s daughter who is now working in DRDO as a ‘Scientist C’.

CIC Decision on DRDO Corruption & Nepotism – 2

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. Shri Rajiv Chauhan,
1053/3, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut-250005.

The Right to Information Act, 2005

Appeal before the Central Information Commission;

Appeal No. ———————– Dated ————————
As I am aggrieved by decision of Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate

Authority, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
1. Details of appellant:

1.1 Full Name: – RAJIV CHAUHAN

1.2. Full Address: R/O-1053/3, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT (U.P)-250005

1.3 Phone/Cell No.: 09412628314 ; 09258045938 ; 0121-4009512;

4 Email ID: rajivchauhan89@yahoo.co.in

2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):

2.1 Name/Designation: Dr.A.K.TYAGI ; SCIENTIST “F’ , CPIO, DRDO HQ;

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

Date: —————-
Signature of appellant