Tag Archives: Supreme Court

RTI BEL for Legal Expenditure on IACCS Exposes High Court and Supreme Court

To                                                                                                           20-11-2019 Mr. Udaya Shankara K S AGM (Marketing) Bharat Electronics Limited Corporate Office, Outer Ring Road, Nagavara, Bangalore – 560 045

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect  of  Legal fee expense made by BEL in  the cases in respect of Sh M.M. Pandey, General Manager (Product Support),  Sh  R.K. Goyal, Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), and Sh Sumit Krishna, Manager, (Product Support)

  1. Provide the Total Amount paid by BEL to various lawyers or law firms against their legal fee and other charges till date in respect of cases of Sh M.M. Pandey, General Manager (Product Support),  Sh  R.K. Goyal, Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), and Sh Sumit Krishna, Manager, (Product Support)
  2. Name of lawyers engaged by BEL in various court till date in respect of cases of Sh M.M. Pandey, General Manager (Product Support),  Sh  R.K. Goyal, Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), and Sh Sumit Krishna, Manager, (Product Support)
  3. Name of lawyer or law firm engaged in High Court and amount paid  in respect of case of Sh M.M. Pandey, General Manager (Product Support),  Sh  R.K. Goyal, Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), and Sh Sumit Krishna, Manager, (Product Support)
  4. Name of lawyer or law firm engaged by BEL for stay against order of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait  dated October 9, 2019. Provide the amount paid to lawyers or law firm in mentioned stay case.
  5. Name of lawyer or law firm engaged by BEL for appeal against order of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait  dated October 9, 2019. Provide the amount paid to lawyers or law firm.  

Regards

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

Enclosed – Delhi High Court Judgment

 Registration Number            BELBL/R/2019/50141

RTI BEL on Scam in IACCS, Project

To                                                                                                         10 June 2019

Mr. Udaya Shankara K S, AGM (Marketing),

Bharat Electronics Limited Corporate Office,

Outer Ring Road, Nagavara,

 Bangalore – 560 045

 

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect  of  recommendations of CVO, BEL 29.03/2019

  1. Whether CMD, BEL send recommendations of CVO, BEL ( matter enclosed) with observation as confirmed in  RTI reply no 17556/2019/RTI/CC/1795 dated 28 May 2019 to Ministry of Defence Production on IACCS Project.  Yes or No
  2. If yes, then certified copy of observations and copy of recommendations of CVO, BEL.
  3. Provide the measures taken by BEL authorities for protect the national security informations existing with M/s RD Konsultants and his associate related to AICCS project as M/s RD Konsultants declared the 95 manpower and numbers of computer and laptops
  4. Provide the action taken steps by BEL till date on M/s RD Konsultants the fraudulent transactions with M/s BEL as recommended by CVO, BEL.
  5. Provide the action taken steps till date on the committee members for violating company’s procedures & CVC guidelines and facilitated the selection of M/s RD Konsultants during evaluation of prequalification, without scrutinizing the submission of works experience, site visits and clearing the fake turn over documents of M/s RD Konsultants.
  6. Provide the action taken steps till date by BEL on Shri. Dibyendu Bidyanta, AGM (HR&A) and Shri. B.K. Pant, DGM (HR&A) who are involved and responsible for overlooked the criteria in Mr Manish Goyal appointment
  7. Provide the action taken steps till date by BEL on Mr Manish Goyal as CVO recommended suspension till departmental fair proceeding
  8.  Provide the action taken steps till date by BEL to maintain the CCTV and its record in all AICCS project sites as observed by CVO,BEL
  9. Certified copy of email complaint received at Corporate Vigilance, BEL on dated 31.09.2017 the complainant was Advocate of Supreme Court, Mr.Manish Aggarwal,  regarding scam in NCS unit of BEL Ghaziabad I construction sites of defefence project and irregularities in appointment of Mr Manish Goyal, Manager Civil

 

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,

Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number           BELBL/R/2019/50069

CBI carries out searches in Rs 500-crore land scam in Delhi

The CBI today carried out searches at seven locations, including the office and residential premises of an army officer, in an alleged land fraud worth Rs 500 crore.
By: PTI | New Delhi | Updated: May 15, 2017 9:17 PM

The case relates to alleged fraud by Lt Col M G Thimmaya, the then Estate Manager, DRDO, and a property developer N H Rustumji in filing a joint memo before the Supreme Court in a land dispute matter. (PTI)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The CBI today carried out searches at seven locations, including the office and residential premises of an army officer, in an alleged land fraud worth Rs 500 crore. The case relates to alleged fraud by Lt Col M G Thimmaya, the then Estate Manager, DRDO, and a property developer N H Rustumji in filing a joint memo before the Supreme Court in a land dispute matter.
Thimmaya allegedly gave the memo in the Supreme Court in the land dispute matter which was different from that cleared by the Defence Ministry.
“The allegation is related to criminal conspiracy between the accused during the year 2004-06, pursuant to which the officer abused his official position and cheated the Government through the transfer of 12 acres and one gunta of land in favour of a private person against the decision taken by the Ministry of Defence,” CBI Spokesperson said here today.
The agency today carried out searches at the residential permises and office of Thimmaya, now with Defence Ministry in Hyderabad, and Rustumji in Bengaluru.
The vigilance department of the Defence Ministry had pegged the alleged scam at Rs 500 crore.

 

Sachin Tendulkar sought favours from defence minister Manohar Parrikar: Report

July 19, 2016, International Business Times
By S V Krishnamachari

Sachin Tendulkar sought favours from defence minister Manohar Parrikar: Report Sachin Tendulkar, cricket player and Rajya Sabha member, reportedly sought favours from defence minister over a holiday retreat that was in a dispute with DRDO. In Picture: Tendulkar (C) speaks to the media after taking oath at the Indian parliament in New Delhi June 4, 2012 (Representational image).Reuters file
Sachin Tendulkar sought favours from defence minister Manohar Parrikar: Report
Sachin Tendulkar, cricket player and Rajya Sabha member, reportedly sought favours from defence minister over a holiday retreat that was in a dispute with DRDO. In Picture: Tendulkar (C) speaks to the media after taking oath at the Indian parliament in New Delhi June 4, 2012 (Representational image).Reuters file

Cricket star and MP Sachin Tendulkar apparently lobbied with Defence minister Manohar Parrikar last year to settle a dispute between his friend’s retreat in Mussoorie and a defence institute over an ‘illegal’ construction.

Parrikar however declined to intervene in the matter, reports The Economic Times.
The urgency of the matter could be gauged from the fact that Tendulkar had to advance his return to India from Australia to take up the matter with the minister, the daily said, citing defence ministry officials.

The holiday retreat — Dahlia Bank in the Landour cantonment area — had allegedly violated the 50-foot, no-construction zone next to the Institute of Technology Management, a sensitive DRDO establishment, the daily said.

Tendulkar had been trying to meet the minister and an appointment was set up. He spoke at length about the property case, which was heard out. However, no action was taken on the request put forward,” ET quoted a senior defence ministry official as saying.
The dispute arose over Tendulkar’s business partner Sanjay Narang constructing buildings, despite having sought and obtained approval to construct a tennis court in the restricted, high-security zone.
The Dahlia Bank controversy was in the news even in 2014, when Ajit B Reddy, CEO of Landour Cantonment, referred to the construction activities at the retreat as “unauthorised,” according to a Hindustan Times report in December 2014.

Tendulkar’s friend Sanjay Narang approached the Supreme Court to appeal against an Uttaranchal High Court order that ruled against him.

In February 2015, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision. An SC bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Gosh and Ranjan Gogi, termed the construction work as “illegal,” The Tribune had reported on Feb. 25, 2015, referring to the February 17 judgment.
The Institute of Technology Management was set up in 1962 to train defence personnel.

Tendulkar has multiple sports and business interests. He is a mentor of the IPL team, Mumbai Indians, co-promoter of Smaaash Entertainment, and co-owner of ISL team Kerala Blasters.

Section 66(A) Scrapped: Meet Shreya Singhal, Petitioner Who Fought for Net Freedom

Salute to Shreya Singhal – www.corruptionindrdo.com

All India | Edited by Deepshikha Ghosh | Updated: March 24, 2015 14:22 IST

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/section-66-a-scrapped-meet-shreya-singhal-petitioner-who-fought-for-net-freedom/360955?#t=0

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/section-66-a-scrapped-meet-shreya-singhal-petitioner-who-fought-for-net-freedom/360955
NEW DELHI: The end of Section 66A, the controversial law that allowed arrests for offensive content online, marks a big victory for Shreya Singhal, the young law student who was among the first to challenge it in the Supreme Court.

“I am ecstatic. It was grossly offensive to our rights, our freedom of speech and expression and today the Supreme Court has upheld that,” Shreya told NDTV moments after the court scrapped the law, agreeing that it is unconstitutional and violates the rights of citizens.

“Nobody should have fear of putting up something because of the fear of going to prison. The court has upheld the rights of all citizens today,” she added.

Shreya comes from a family of lawyers; her mother is a Supreme Court lawyer and her grandmother was a judge.

She was 21 when she filed a petition in 2012, after two young women were arrested for posting comments critical of the total shutdown in Mumbai after the death of Bal Thackeray, the Shiv Sena chief.

Shreya says her family encouraged her. “I am also a law student so through my studies also I knew that you can approach the Supreme Court directly,” she said, aware that she has achieved, even before becoming a lawyer, what many veterans in the profession haven’t.

She spent three years studying astrophysics in the UK before returning to India to apply to law schools. Her attention was drawn to several high-profile arrests of people under Section 66A.

“It is being misused by BJP governments, Congress governments… all over the country. Even when the Congress was in power, it was being misused. Governments have their own political agenda; a law has to be for the people,” Shreya said.

The court today had strong words in support of that sentiment as it said, “Governments come and go. We can’t act on assurance that Section 66A will not be misused.”

Poor Tax payer money wasted to save corrupt DRDO officials – RTI – MOD (Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO, (DOB 1-Jan-1951Retiring on 31st December )(Supreme Court Stay Order)

To                                                                                            30th September 2014
Sh A. M. Manichan,
Under Secretary (IC-IV), CPIO,
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence,
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi

 

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh.G MALAKONDIAH, CC (R&D), DRDO  held guilty for civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and   punished with Simple Imprisonment for a period of three weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ by Honorable Madras High Court on 24.09.2014. Subsequently Sh.G MALAKONDIAHfiled   an appeal   in      SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 25th September 2014 and got stay on Madras High Court order of 24th September 2014. In Supreme Court there are four advocates were present for appellant Sh.G MALAKONDIAH  

For Appellant(s)      Mr.   Mukul Rohtagi, AG
                                    Mr.   R. Bala, Adv.
                                    Mr.   R.K. Verma, Adv.
                                    Mr.   B. V. Balaram Das, Adv.
  1. Provide the Ministry of Defence rule position for providing advocates to government servant.
  2. Number of advocates
  3. Limit of fees
  4. The criteria for providing advocates
  5. In case of Sh.G MALAKONDIAH provide the total expenditure done by Ministry of Defence.
  6. Provide the advocate fee given to each one for Sh.G MALAKONDIAH case.

   

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com                                                      Registration Number            MODEF/R/2014/61806 

 

ITEM NO.56                              COURT NO.4               SECTION XII

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal Diary No(s).                 31977/2014

 G MALAKONDIAH                                                                Appellant(s)

VERSUS

  S. JOSEPH RAJ AND ORS                                              

Respondent(s)

(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and permission to file appeal. And office report)

WITH C.A. D 31978/2014

(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the impugned order and appln.(s) for permission to file appeal. and Office Report)

Date : 26/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT

 

For Appellant(s)                  Mr.   Mukul Rohtagi, AG
                                    Mr.   R. Bala, Adv.
                                    Mr.   R.K. Verma, Adv.
                                    Mr.   B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.
  For Respondent(s)                 Mr. V. Balaji,Adv.
                                    Mr. Asai Thambi, Adv.
                                    Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Permission to file appeal is granted.Perused the photocopy of the certified copy of the order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Signature Not Verified Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711 of 2012.

Digitally signed by

Rajni Mukhi

Date: 2014.09.29

12:12:10 IST

Reason: Petitioner is allowed two weeks’ time to file affidavit enclosing the copy of the said order.

Notice be issued on respondents returnable within four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1.   He may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder   Affidavit, if any, be filed   within a week thereafter.

In the meantime, the order dated 24 th September, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 1711/2012 arising out of Writ Petition No. 13067/2005 and sub Application No. 602 of 2012 shall remain stayed.

(Rajni Mukhi)                                    (H.S. Parasher)

Sr. P.A.                                                       Court Master

Two top DRDO scientists awarded jail term by Madras high court for contempt of court

A Subramani,TNN | Sep 25, 2014, 02.00 PM IST

CHENNAI: While the science community behind Mangalyaan’s success is still basking in glory, the Madras high court on Thursday awarded a three-week jail term to the nation’s two top scientists for contempt of court. The court also imposed a fine on them and directed the Centre to initiate stringent action against the duo.

V K Saraswat, scientific adviser to the minister of defence and director general of research & development, DRDO, and G Malakondaiah, director of Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL) in Hyderabad, have to surrender to police in a week and start their three-week jail stint. If they fail to do so, an arrest warrant shall be issued to get them under custody, ruled an irate division bench of the high court.

“The government is directed to take appropriate departmental action against them for the reckless negligence and wilful disobedience of the orders of this court,” said the bench of Justice S Rajeswaran and Justice P N Prakash on Thursday.

The two DRDO officers were found guilty of civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. They were sentenced to a simple imprisonment for three weeks and directed to pay a fine of Rs 2,000 each.

“We are aware that they are occupying very high positions in the government, but ensconced in a pedestal, their vision became blurred when it came to the travails of an ordinary employee who was suddenly thrown out of employment, for no fault of his. Even during the course of the contempt proceedings, there was no tinge of remorse or an attempt to correct the mistake,” the court said.

On August 13, 1985, Joseph Raj was appointed clerk-cum-store keeper initially on an ad hoc basis in the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) under the ministry of defence. He acquired his B.Com and master of library and information science degrees later, and when a librarian post fell vacant in the school, he was selected on merits. CVRDE School, started at Avadi here in 1978, was sought to be closed in 2001 and staff members were issued termination notices.

Since then, Joseph Raj won several rounds of litigations in the administrative tribunal, the high court and then in the Supreme Court as well. As he was not reinstated or given job in another unit, he then filed the present contempt of court proceedings, pointing out that the authorities had misled even the apex court.

Narrating the travails of Joseph Raj in detail and convinced that the two officers had done everything to deny him employment for more than a decade, the judges directed the Centre to give a job to Joseph Raj according to the 2004 judgment that favoured him.

It also rapped the two top DRDO officers quoting the Supreme Court’s words: “Non-acceptance of a mistake is not a heroic deed. On the contrary, it reflects flawed devotion to obstinacy. The pink of perfection really blossoms in acceptance.”

Supreme Court to examine DRDOs exclusion under section 24

17 Aug, 2014- RTI Foundation of India

On a petition filed by Dr. Neelam Bhalla, a scientist at DRDO, a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V. Gopala Gowda of the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre and the DRDO. The petitioner was transferred to a different unit and she filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the reasons for her transfer.

Her application was turned down by the DRDO and her second appeal was rejected by the Central Information Commission. On failure to get any relief from the Delhi High Court, she moved the apex court contending that only that information which directly affected and correlated to “intelligence and security” could be exempted and the information which were general in nature should not be denied.

She has demanded that records relating to their services should be provided. Bhalla has challenged the interpretation of section 24 of the Right to Information Act in the context of the exclusion of exempted organisations listed in schedule II such as the DRDO.

The petition says that wilful disclosure of incorrect or false or misleading information relating to routine matters such as transfer not only to the petitioner but also to higher authorities, namely the Minister of Defence and the National Commission for Women, to justify their actions, was an offence under the newly enacted Whistle Blowers Protection Act.

Bhalla has alleged that she was a victim of gender discrimination and humiliation at the hands of senior scientists. When she filed a complaint before the NCW against the alleged nepotism and lapses in the policy of recruitment, the task for the recruitment of scientists ‘B’ was selectively taken away from her.

She has sought directions to disclose the reasons for her transfer through the Apex Court. Now the matter would be heard by the SC to decide whether the defence organisations such as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) can withhold information regarding transfer of an employee, claiming exemption under section 24 of the Right to Information Act. Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 is reproduced below:

– 24. Act not to apply in certain organizations.-

(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before the State Legislature.

Sharply increasing the number of Court Cases in DRDO

To                                                                                                       1st September 2014
Sh Arun Jaietly Ji,
Defence Minister,
Room No 104, South Block,
New Delhi – 110011

Subject:  Sharply increasing the number of Court Cases in DRDO

Sir,

The DRDO top officials are not bothering the increasing numbers of court cases. It is not linear increase but it is in multifold, from CAT to High Court followed to Supreme Court.

As a learned lawyer you can very well understand the clients mental status when someone involve in court. Scientists or technical official who are engaged in court business than expectation of product output from them is futile.

If you ask your scientific adviser the figure of court cases and court expenses of last five years along with solicitor general’s advices or legal cell advices in which they deny for further move but the ego of DRDO’s top brass are very high.

Sir, you have check the payments to lawyers some time DRDO using project funds illegally and the scientists are also involved to attend court cases in the name of technical discussion in nearby DRDO or other establishment.

In RTI, DRDO will not provide the number of cases running in various courts across the country but certainly you will able to get data of cases and number of scientist and technical officials are involved. Number is alarming i.e. in thousand.

For example one simple case of tenure transfer of scientist is enclosed. In which you can understand the level of ego of senior DRDO officials compel to scientist go to the court and waste his hard earn money and suffer unnecessary. Dr. Vijay Veer, Director, DRL, Tezpur’s ego and his incompetency resulted to this CAT case.

As our Prime Minster said in his 15th August speech that he observed that in ministries department running as their own jagir and this clear cut accurately fit with DRDO working.

With great hope that you will certainly look into the matter and asked to correct this court business in DRDO.

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

Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter
Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter

Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter
Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter

Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter
Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter

Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter
Order of CAT Bench Guhwati in DRDO matter

Dr. A K Singh’s not able to handle DOP matter this is another failure in his part

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

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