Honorable Sir,

The government of India is putting all their honest effort to control corruption from all the government machineries. Today‘s the common man of our country is looking for strong Lokpal to restrict the corruption.

As citizen of India I have always raised my voice against corruption whenever I came across any information on corruption. In the 20 years of my service in DRDO, Ministry of Defence, I have witnessed a lot of corruption in my department. In the interest of my country I raised my voice and the fallout was that I am out from the service.

After RTI act, again the Government of India gave power to the common man to fight the evils of corruption and using the RTI I have pointed out several issues of corruption/nepotism/favoritism prevalent among the DRDO top officials. This is the major and sole reason of unproductivity and brain drain from DRDO.

DRDO is an organization which works under the cloud of secrecy and when the situation comes to face scenarios like the KARGIL WAR they simply cry for imported devices/ systems/ subsystems. This has been witnessed by the nation.  Former army chief V.P. Malik, who led the army during the 1999 Kargil war, has said casualties in the conflict could have been reduced had the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) “not come in the way” of acquiring weapon-locating radars.  “We had one or two incidents particularly on the weapon locating radar. If the DRDO had not come in the way we would have got them before the Kargil war and that would have definitely reduced our casualties,” he told CNN-IBN.

I have started a website www.corruptionindrdo.com with the aim to provide a platform to DRDO employees to give feedback about corruption prevailing in DRDO and to generate awareness regarding the power of RTI. With the help and support from different government agencies we will succeed in eradicating corruption from DRDO.

In last 18^th months of this mission our honorable defence minister acknowledged the issues and gave instruction for inquiries, CVC registered the cases; CIC also directed DRDO to provide information.

Result was –

1. The senior officials who were enjoying the DRDO guest house facilities were also simultaneously claiming HRA (It can be confirmed from service records and CDA payment bills).This was stopped and recovery instructions were placed (Huge amount).
2. The senior officials used government transportations in the name of projects and simultaneously claimed transport allowances (it can be confirmed from service records and CDA payment bills). The best part is that in some cases the vehicles was owned by DRDO officials and the bills were raised for more than Rs 40000- 52000 per month. This was stopped and recovery instructions were placed (amount in lakhs).
3. Most establishments are now starting precautions in procurement and allotting service contract where earlier they were ignoring all the norms laid down by the government. It is clearly visible in their procurement documents.
4. CBI is also looking into several issues of corruptions of DRDO.
5. IB also submitted several reports on these issues.

Some example of corruption/nepotism/favoritism of DRDO

1. Some DRDO top officials use their power and post to induct their wards by manipulating the laid down norms and deprive the available talent of the country. Example

a)    Ms. Swati Srivastava, D/o Dr. Arun Kumar, DOP,DRDO  was selected Scientist ‘B’  through RAC (Recruitment and assessment centre of DRDO)  Adv.no- 66 , item no 34 without having the required qualification for the post as published in the advertisement. The required qualification for the post was M.Sc – Biotechnology, where as the qualification of Swati Srivastava is M.Sc in Environmental Biology. Her father Dr. Arun Kumar, was the Addl. Director of the DRDO at that time. One RAC interview board external member of Ms. Swati Srivastava was her teacher.  (Enclosed finding in Details)

b)    Ms. Geetha D/o Dr W Silavamurthy, Chief Controller of Defence (R&D) o/o DRDO  was selected through RAC (Recruitment & Assessment Centre of DRDO) Advertisement no-64 item no-83 – Scientist –‘C’ without completing the required qualification for the post as published in the advertisement as under –

Ms. Geetha is M.Sc (Biochemistry) and submitted her Ph.D during the selection, while she was not awarded the Ph.D degree or not completed three year research experience which is must before the selection of Scientist ’C’.

Her father was the Director at DIPAS/DRDO who constituted / approved the screening / selection committee of JRF (junior research fellowship) and awarded Rs.8000/- per month during JRF to her daughter Ms. Geetha.

It is a clear rule of RAC/DRDO to select the scientist ‘C’:-Essential :-

(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 recruitment as under;

Post graduate degree in engineering – two years.

Doctorate degree in science or mathematics-three years.

Doctorate degree in engineering-four years. [ Encl- 1 ]

Note :- RAC web site 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 clarify that Ms. Gheeta was not awarded Ph..D till the closing date as given in the advertisement

2.           Some DRDO top officials using their position to help vendors. (Details already submitted to honorable minister and it was duly acknowledge vide letter No No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21^st March 2011 & No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20^th May 2011

3.             As per Dr W Silavamurthy, Chief Controller of Defence (R&D) DRDO distributing Rs 900 crores to various institutions government, private, deemed universities, NGO’s etc. there is clear feedback from DRDO officials that in some cases manipulations are going on. Ideally there should be a nodal agency that should do proper scrutiny of funds distributed by various research board of DRDO.

4.           Some DRDO top officials use their position and make money by giving false information like in case of HRA and transport allowances.

The big question is that why did the top officials at DRDO simply wait for 18 months to react against the website. They forget the constitutional rights of India which gives supreme power to the common man.

That main objective of this site has been to fight against the practices of corruption in Defence Research Development Organisation.

That a lot of visitors use this site to put up their views regarding the corrupt practices in DRDO, which after examination on the point of corruption are forwarded to the higher authorities and published  on  the website. Thus this is a work in the interest of the security of the state.

That nothing is affecting security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states,  public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence, sovereignty and integrity of India.

That freedom of speech and expression entitles a person to speak without any censorship or restriction. On the website there is already a DISCLAIMER: “The comments submitted by users on this website do not necessarily reflect my opinion. While I believe that everyone should be allowed to express his thoughts and views freely through this online platform, it does not mean that I endorse them in any manner. The information against corruption in DRDO uploaded on this website by me is backed up by appropriate documents, letters and evidences gathered through the Right to Information Act. If anybody wishes to challenge the authenticity of this information, they are welcome to contact me to seek further details. They can also seek direct clarifications from relevant authorities about these evidences. The whole and sole objective of this website is to expose the corrupt elements in DRDO and protect national security interests of the country. Exposing such elements does not mean that it is an effort to malign any individual or party for some personal reason or motive. My campaign is against a corrupt system and if this system is rectified, I will believe that the objective has been achieved and there is no need to take this up further.”

Fallout

1. Several FIRs were registered against me by DRDO officials.
2. To close the website by any means they lodged the complaint against www.corruptionindrdo.com and alleged that the site is publishing classified informations. The committee headed by Dr Gulshan Rai     Director General, I-CERT and GC (Cyber Laws Group Formulation & Enforcement Division),Department of Information Technology (Husband of Mrs Puja Tenaja Rai, Scientist ‘F’ DIC, DRDO Hqrs.)

Request

1. As an honest citizen and whistle blower I am requesting you sir please examine all the enclosed documents thoroughly and provide necessary protection to me as laid down for whistle blowers and RTI activist.
2. Sir, like a disciplined soldier I am ready to give supreme sacrifice for fighting these corrupt DRDO official who are eating the country’s premier organization like termite.
3. I hope matter will be treated in priority to save the organisation as well as the honest people of India.

Thanking you

Enclosed

1. Documentary evidences of manipulations in recruitment cases of Dr Arun Kumar’s daughter, Dr W Selvamurthy’s daughter etc.
2. Procurement cases documentary evidences, DEAL,DLRL,ITR,HEMRL, DIAT etc
3. Inputs of agencies
4. Other corruption/nepotism/favoritism relate documentary evidences
5. News clips about website

Copy for Information and action please

1. Dr V K Saraswat, Scientific Adviser to RM & DG, DRDO, Room No 531, DRDO Hqrs, Rajaji Marg , New Delhi

Ex-DRDO man plots revenge by online slur – by Raj Shekhar, TNN | Dec 14, 2011, 01.13AM IST

DRDO official files complaint Dec 14, 2011 – JEHANGIR ALI | Age Corespondent New Delhi

Amar Ujala 15th December 2011 

Sakaal Times

Court notice to six top DRDO officials

Mubarak Ansari , Thursday, June 23, 2011 AT 12:12 PM (IST)

PUNE: A local court has issued process against six officers of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for illegally dismissing a high ranking officer working with city-based High Energy Materials Research Laboratory HEMRL). Now, they have to be present before the court as accused and defend their action.

All the accused are attached to DRDO’s Directorate of Personnel (DOP), New Delhi.

Dr Rohidas Gopinath Taware (54) of Aundh had filed the criminal complaint in this regard. The accused have been identified as DOP’s Director Dr Arun Kumar, Associate Director VP Pande, Joint Director IB Arora, Joint Director BB Sharma, Deputy Director SB Yadav and Deputy Director Abhinavjeet Ojha. Surprisingly, except for the post of director, no other designation held by the other accused exists in DOP.

Taware, a gazetted group ‘A’ officer, was Technical Officer ‘B’ at HEMRL. “He joined service in 1983 and was illegally suspended on August 24, 2009, and then illegally dismissed on December 30 last year. His entire service period is spotless,’ states the complaint. It further added, “The DOP is the highest office which deals with the personal matters of central government servants in DRDO. But, the DOP is not the disciplinary authority of the complainant (Taware). As per the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the disciplinary authority of gazetted group ‘A’ officer like the complainant is the Director General Research and Development, New Delhi .”

“Dr Arun Kumar suspended Taware under Rule 10 (1) of the CCS (CCA). But, as per the said rule, Kumar is not competent to sign the suspension order as only DGR&D is competent to suspend or take disciplinary action. Kumar had accepted this fact in his deposition as a defence witness in the inquiry proceedings against

Taware. A copy of the said deposition is on record. Prima facie, it makes out the case against all the accused punishable u/s 167 (Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury) and 170 (personating a public servant) of the IPC,” observed JMFC PK Deshpande in his order dated June 13.

The other accused issued memo, penalty order, etc illegally. Taware’s counsel BR Barge said that Taware was dismissed as he had filed civil and criminal cases against his superiors. “In 2008, Taware had filed a civil suit for compensation due to inaction of his superiors who had allegedly erred in their duties. During deposition before a court, his superiors made defamatory allegations. Hence, we filed a criminal case for defamation. Both the cases are pending. A day before the defamation case was to come up for hearing, Taware was suspended for his alleged anti-department activities. His promotion was also put on hold and finally dismissed,” said Barge. The next hearing is on July 22.