Tag Archives: The Indian Express

Drdo

Denied seminars abroad, DRDO scientist moves CAT

8 Comments

Written by Pranav Kulkarni | New Delhi | Published on:April 6, 2015 12:00 am – The Indian Express

A DRDO Scientist has alleged the lab denied him permission to visit other countries to attend conferences and seminars
A DRDO Scientist has alleged the lab denied him permission to visit other countries to attend conferences and seminars

A scientist has moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) after his integrity was questioned by the DRDO laboratory where he works.
In his complaint, Gausal Khan, a scientist at the Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Science (DIPAS), Timarpur, has alleged the laboratory denied him permission to visit Japan, China, the Netherlands, and other countries to attend conferences and seminars.
It all started in 2011, when Khan was denied permission to visit Japan. The DIPAS, however, said he did not seek permission in time and despite being denied nod to visit Japan, he went ahead with the trip. The laboratory later filed a complaint with the police.
After working abroad, according to Khan, he in 2010 joined the DIPAS where he was part of the Hematology Group of Research. Khan, a grade ‘D’ scientist, was assigned to submit a project along with two other scientists.
In his petition, Khan said the director of the laboratory, Dr Shashi Bala Singh, denied him permission to visit Japan in February 2011 after he was selected for one “Developing World Scientist” award for the same project.
While Khan alleged the director “kept mum” on issuing him a no-objection certificate till the last date of submission of the project synopsis, the laboratory said Khan did not seek permission for going abroad in time — a claim denied by the scientist.
A chargesheet based on the laboratory’s complaint against Khan was filed in the court in April 2014. It accused Khan of entering into correspondence with “foreign universities/institutions without obtaining prior permission” as required by the government’s policy.
According to the chargesheet, he received USD 1,500 as travel award and represented one “Sinha Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology” at the conference, an allegation denied by Khan.
After the incident, Khan claimed he was denied permission to attend several other seminars and conferences abroad. The DRDO and the Ministry of Defence did not respond to the development when contacted.

 

Drdo

Another top DRDO scientist denied extension by Modi government

12 Comments

by Pranav Kulkarni | New Delhi | Published on:April 1, 2015 1:49 am – The Indian Express
Two months after it sacked Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) chief Avinash Chander, the government has denied extension to a top DRDO scientist. Bikash Bhattacharya, who was on his first extension as the director of Pune-based High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), retired Tuesday. Besides him, the government in the past six months has denied extension to at least three top DRDO scientists.
While Chander was sacked unceremoniously citing the need for appointing younger scientists, the Modi government has on several platforms made public its intentions to streamline DRDO.
Sources in DRDO said the HEMRL director’s extension was recommended by Chander and was considered by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC). It was, however, rejected by the government “about 10 days ago”. Bhattacharya was formerly associated with ISRO.
Bhattacharya, 62, who took over as director, HEMRL on September 11, 2011 was already on one extension after he completed 60 years on March 23, 2013. As per DRDO’s existing promotion policy, two extensions are permitted for a tenure of two years after the scientist completes 60 years, the retirement age.
Bhattacharya is the fourth scientist to have been denied extension by the Modi government in the past six months. Others who were denied extension are directors of Defence Research & Development Establishment (DRDE), Defence Bioengineering and Electromedical Laboratory (DEBEL) and Electronics & Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) — M P Kaushik, V C Padaki and Venkatnarayana Raju, respectively.
The denial of extensions by the Modi government has reversed the trend of the UPA government which was criticised for making extensions a “norm” instead of an “exception”. In 2012 for instance, 11 top scientists were on extension at various laboratories across the country.

Uncategorized

IGNOU has no authority to recognize regular colleges, rules HC

Leave a comment

PTI : New Delhi, Tue Jul 23 2013, 20:17 hrs – The Indian Express
In a significant verdict, the Delhi High Court today ruled that Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) has no “legal authority” either to set up or accord recognition to an institution or college to impart “face-to-face” regular education. IGNOU, set up in 1985 to promote distance education, was dragged to court by various institutions, including Hindustan Aviation Academy, which were first allowed by the University to run B Tech and Diploma programme courses in the area of Aerospace Engineering. However, IGNOU later noticed that its approval to run “face-to-face” programme did not not meet legal requirements and asked the approved institutes to keep the admission process at abeyance.

IGNOU also noticed that the necessary prior approval from AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) for running such courses was also not taken. Disposing of a bunch of petitions of institutions, Justice V K Jain said, “(since) IGNOU had no legal authority to set up or recognise institutions/colleges on the lines of regular colleges where education is imparted by way of face-to-face programmes, requiring students to mandatorily attend classes, the petitioners’ institutes cannot be said to be institutions, constituent colleges, units or affiliated colleges of IGNOU, nor can they be said the ‘study centres’ within the meaning of the IGNOU Act.”

The court also rapped IGNOU for not informing students about its decision to suspend admission for academic years 2012-13. It also said that the university also did not follow the principles of natural justice while restraining institutes from taking admissions as no show cause notice was served on them in this regard. The court, in its 37-page judgement, said, “The respondent university is clearly guilty of gross negligence and inaction. No attempt was taken by it to ensure that students who in the absence of public notice from the university, could not be expected to be aware of its decision to suspend admission for the academic years 2012-13, did not pay fees to petitioners’ institutes and did not take admission.”

Drdo

CAG pulls up DRDO for irregularities in new projects

Leave a comment

Agencies : New Delhi, Thu Nov 29 2012, 20:41 hrs The Indian Express

The CAG has pulled up the DRDO pointing out “deficiencies” and “procedural irregularities” committed by it in taking up new projects and splitting sanctions for them to bring it within financial powers of the organisation head.

“Scrutiny of project sanctions issued by DRDO revealed procedural irregularities relating to misleading nomenclature of sanction issuing authorities, absence of data base of sanctions and splitting of sanctions,” the CAG said in its report tabled in the Parliament today.

“The above audit findings underscore that the efforts of the Ministry of Defence to bring in transparency and objectivity in functioning of its departments remain unachieved as of now,” the report said.

The CAG noted that financial powers of Director General, DRDO and Secretary, Defence Research and Development were enhanced to the range of Rs 25 crore to 50 crore and Rs 60 crore to 75 crore respectively and both these offices are held by one person only.

“Audit of sanctions revealed non-adherence with established norms and procedures for issue, circulation and recording of sanctions authorising expenditure out of public funds for various purposes,” the report said.

On the splitting of sanctions, the Government auditor said, “We observed that after the enhanced delegation of financial powers in July 2010, sanctions were spilt up to bring them within the delegated financial powers of the DG R and D (DRDO Chief) that is up to Rs 50 crore in consultation with the Integrated Financial Advisor.

” “DRDO splitting such sanctions is tantamount to selecting financial advisor which clearly erodes the integrity and independence of financial scrutiny of expenditure proposals,” the report said.

The CAG noted that in some cases, the cost of DRDO projects was brought down below Rs 50 crore by reducing the number of deliverables and curtailing its scope enabling the DG, DRDO to issue the sanction within his delegated powers.

“Clearly projects were being split up to keep the sanction below Rs 50 crore,” it said.

The report said, “instead of obtaining the revised sanction for existing projects by approaching the competent financial authority at the next higher level, fresh projects were sanctioned.”

The project cases cited by the CAG included the Project Akashdeep of DRDO for developing indigenous Aerostat radars and Project ADITYA for the vehicles mounted high power laser directed energy weapons.

The report said the enhancement of delegated financial powers has resulted in concentration of financial powers with the DRDO headquarters which has a “tendency to split projects to avoid reference to higher CFAs.

” The CAG also noted that the DRDO “did not maintain a control register of sanctions issued and there excited no mechanism to track the number and total amount of sanctions issued for projects.”

“In absence of minimum control records, the possibility of sanctions being issued in excess of funds, splitting of sanctions, issue of multiple projects for the same objective could neither be ruled out nor noticed in normal course,” the report observed.

In the recent past, an internal audit report of the Defence Ministry had made similar observations there which were refuted by the DRDO saying they were only preliminary in nature.

 

Drdo

Scientist Leaving DRDO — Why call Attrition?

Leave a comment

Dear friends while surfing I found the very sensible analysis of DRDO problems/solutions by Sh R C Chakraborty, Ex Director, DTRL, DRDO.

Prabhu Dandriyal

Scientist Leaving DRDO — Why call Attrition?

June 23, 2007, posted by rnyreaders http://myreaders.wordpress.com/,

R C Chakraborty,-rcchak@gmail.com

http://www.myreaders.info/02_Scientist__leaving__DRDO.pdf

The DRDO Directors’ Conference held on February, 21, 2007 was effective in a sense that media started reminding about DRDO functioning more frequently. For example, the dissatisfaction expressed by the Parliament’s standing committee on defence, the Minister A.K. Antony asking DRDO to answer for the huge delays in high profile projects, the concern expressed by Defence Services on DRDO projects and deliverables, the criticism of the individuals and an appreciation for the Government action in short listing private firms for granting the status of Rakshya Udyog Ratna. DRDO of course tried to read in between the lines, expressing — “High attrition rate of young scientists … The DRDO’s representation to the Pay Commission . . . proposals to increase salaries of its scientists to arrest the exodus ? . . . and so on “. Extracts from few such reporting are reproduced below for quick reference.

• Address at the DRDO Directors’ Conference, dated 21/02/2007, by the President Dr.A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, The Hindu, dated 22/02/2007, “Set goal for self-reliance in defence systems”: Kalam , by Special Correspondent. President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Defence Minister A.K. Antony on Wednesday asked defence scientists to bring about a change in their functioning to deliver on India’s requirements of futuristic weapon platforms. “When an organization functions; for over five decades …..A change in the organizational culture is required based on present-day technology and infrastructure . . . . Advising that the DRDO be reorganized after every five years based on the dynamics of organizational missions. Mr. Antony … asked them to be prepared to answer for the huge delays in some of the high profile projects……..

• Indian_Express_dated 14/06/2007: DRDO Scientists are leaving to the greener avenues available in the Private Sector. More than 300 Scientists and Technical staff have left DRDO in the year 2006.

• Tribune_Chandigarh dated 28/04.2007 : “During 2002-2006, . . . 1,007 scientists left DRDO due to increased opportunities available in the private sector,” DRDO is seeking a four-fold increase in salaries . . . from the Sixth Pay Commission.

• Citizen Journalism, citizenxpress.com dated 15/0612007 Because of better career prospects nearly 33% of people who loin DRDQ quit (attrition rate as BPO), nearly 20% use DRDQ as stepping stone, nearly 13% are having due to lack of professional challenge and 8% leave DRDO looking for advancement and additional qualifications.

• The Hindu dated 23/12/2007 Defence Minister, A K Antony said “concerns had been expressed in various quarters over the functioning or the DRDO. The time has come to look ‘toward and see whether the organization is tuning itself adequately, to the changing time.

• Hindustan Times, dated 17/06/2007: 1,007 DRDO scientists quit in five years.

  • DRDO criticized for huge time and cost overruns its multifarious projects, saw  1007 scientist quitting in the last five years, Parliament was informed Thursday
  • Earlier this week, Antony had served notice on DRDO to quickly rectify the defects in the Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) it has been developing since 1970s or the government would be wind up the project.
  • Indian Army refused to induct the tank citing 14 major technical defects.
  • A parliamentary panel, last month rapped the DRDO for failing to meet its import substitution targets by as much as 50 per cent, saying hue overruns in its big ticket projects -warranted a “thorough review” of its functioning.
  • Parliaments standing committee report on the DRDO: During the 10th Plan (2002- 07), targeted 70% indigenization, only 30-35% could be achieved. Even after 48 years of its formation has not achieved its targeted mission of self reliance. Urgent need for a thorough review’ of its functioning and organizational structure “to increase its efficiency”. Pointing delays in the MBT, LCA and its Kaveri engine, and integrated guided missile development programme (IGMDP). Noting “No scientific audit at any point of time of DRDO and its projects”, recommended that the organizations projects “must be audited by external and independent groups of experts approved by the government.

• Bharat Rakshak, Consortium of Indian Defence Website, dated 11/06/2007, India’s R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector, Times of India, 19/06/2007: Godrej has big plans for military hardware. The $1.7 billion Godrej Group plans to give a major push to its military equipment supply, creating private Sector in manufacturing defence hardware. Already in nuclear and space technology and now plan to vigorously pursue in defence. Group Chairman Adi Godrej said. . . supplier of airframe sections for the Brahrmos missile, supply o equipments for satellite launch, nuclear sector, and refineries. Government short listed 1,3 private firms for granting the status of Rakshya Udyog Retna. The list was handed over to Defence Minister A K Antony by Probir Sengupta, the chairman of the government-appointed selection committee, on June 6.

•The Indian Express dated 23/06/2007, “Just DRDO won’t do’, why India has MNCs in IT, pharma, telecom but not in defence research. by Milind Deora, 2 1/11/2006.

  • In 1958, the DARPA was set up by USA, Dept of Defense and same year India established the RDO. While DARPA has been a huge success DRDO still hasn’t been able to achieve its vision — everything that really matters in the Indian military is stilt imported.
  • A special CAG review in 2000 of found: almost 50 per cent of the DRDO’s budget was spent on salaries; present ratio of scientists to other support personals is 1:5 in DRDO compared 1: 0.7 to DARPA.
  • World -class scientists are acquired from private sector and universities, Supporting personals are temporary, hired from other agencies so that DARPA doesn’t have to support them on a permanent basis.
  • US defence budget is almost 25 times larger than that of India, but then DARPA’s annual budget is only twice that of DRDO’s, because DARPA is focused on high-end technologies, leaving other- systems to industry. This has enabled it to stay lean.
  • For Arjun MBT and Akash missile, DRDO needs to follow better management practices to deliver indigenous technologies to the military. The production of juices and insect repellants are other instance where the DRDO urgently needs to rethink is focus.
  • DROD labs should avoid any kind of overlap and duplication. The organization must, draw up a list of future technologies based on certain criteria and go after them aggressively.

— First strategic  technology that no  country may sell to India— e.g., nuclear weapons, surveillance and communications  satellites and long range cruise missiles.

–       Second, technologies which are heading towards a global monopoly like conventional submarines  presently being sold at very, high price.

–     Third, future technologies on drawing boards all over the world — like unmanned  combat  aerial vehicles (UCAV5), unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and robot soldiers.

  • If our other scientific and research organizations can make the world’s most competitive satellite launch vehicles, we can surely do the same for defence technologies.

• intent Blog, http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2OO6/12/how India .can s.hgj, dated 14/12/2006, How India Can Stop Subsidizing Russia And Israel by Milind Deora, India can build strong indigenous capabilities while creating competitive benchmarks for DRDO through the active participation of the private sector. . . If India has built world- class multinationals in sectors such as information technology and pharmaceuticals, both of which are knowledge-driven industries, we could easily create a handful of defence multinationals in less than a decade. . . A small nation like Israel accounts for a 10th of world defence sales and approximately a 5th of its exports are defence- related. While India had an annual import bill of around $5 billion last year, we exported a paltry $47 million worth of arms. Pakistan, which lacks industrial base, exported nearly twice as much. . . In addition to reforming the DRDO, the viability of select DPSUs, especially those not dealing with core areas like the production of missiles and warheads, should also be re-examined and certain products like food products should ether he scrapped or outsourced to lower-cost vendors.

Expressing such dissatisfaction, criticism or concern about DRDO accomplishment is not new. After the Kargil war (1999) DRDO activities were subjected to some scrutiny and a few reforms were suggested, but Not much was done on those recommendations (The Indian Express, 23/06/2007). Also, commenting on the DRDO in isolation, without looking at the higher defence management framework within which it is placed, would perhaps lead to incomplete or even flawed deductions,

Assuming that what all is said is correct, then DRDO must be 1ooking for alternatives to its failures, which means DRDO is preparing to take few “hard decisions”.

Some hard decisions I have in my mind which I would like to share are.

1. GET RID OF THE STUFF DRDO SHOULD GO WITHOUT.

2. All System Development projects and programs should be taken out of DRDC, because of very little R&D opportunity. The R&D element is just 10% while 90% is engineering design, fabrication, testing, integration, field trials, acceptance and management. Each of these better done elsewhere and not by R&D mind. The implementation responsibility would also he oti those who do these 90c/o work and finally on a Board. DRDO contribution, claim, responsibility, budget allocation, manpower, infrastructure, and management should relate to that 10% only.

3. Further, the Most Technology Demonstration projects should also be take ii out of DRDD. The reason is same said above. The R&D elements in these TD projects are just 40% or less. Indian industries, particularly the private sectors, offer better compensation and therefore have better human resources. They would better absorb this 40% R&D elements along with rest 60% activity.

4. Lastly, a few Technology Demonstration projects where R&D elements are 40% or more and all the S&T projects where R&D elements are 100%, there DRDO has it primary role that is : “Convert scientific know- how into usable technologies. Here also DRDO need to evolve partnership with the academic institutions, funded by government or privately managed. All such projects are identified as (a) Basic Research that produces new knowledge in scientific or technology areas of interest to the military and (b) Applied Research that supports the exploratory development of new technologies for specific military applications or further development of existing technology for new military applications. The procedures followed by DARPA can be adopted to ensue transparence, equal opportunity, accountability, quality and most importantly revealing what followed next.

My best regards to friends in DRDO, a great organization that helped me to grow over a period of 30 years