Tag Archives: various

Drdo

RTI-RAC- Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘D’, DMSRDE, Kanpur

1 Comment
To,                                                                                                          30th December 2013
Central Public Information Officer
RAC, DRDO, Ministry of Defence
Delhi-110054                     

Hello,

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘D’, DMSRDE, Kanpur was directly recruited on post of Scientist ‘C’ from ISRO to DRDO in the year 2004. He was posted in SASE, Chandigarh in 2004 and transferred to DMSRDE Kanpur in 2009. Kindly provide the following information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Copy of advertisement published in Employment News/Newspapers/Website against which Mr. Arun Kumar Singh was recruited as Scientist ‘C’ in DRDO.
  2. Name of the establishment/lab of DRDO on the request of which RAC created vacancy and advertise the direct post of Scientist ‘C’.
  3. Provide the copy of letter of request sent by Director of that establishment/lab to Director, DHRD/Director, RAC /DOP for recruitment of Scientist ‘C’.
  4. Qualification & experience sought in advertisement against which Mr. Arun Kumar Singh was recruited as Scientist ‘C’ in DRDO.
  5.  Date, venue and list of board member for selection of candidate against that vacancy.
  6. List of candidates those appear in interview/exam for recruitment of Scientist ‘C’ against that vacancy along with their qualifications & experience.
  7. Whether Mr.  Arun Kumar Singh informed to RAC that he was already in service at ISRO and applied through proper channel. (Yes/No)
  8. If answer to point (7) is yes then provide the copy of the declaration submitted by Mr.  Arun Kumar Singh to RAC, DRDO in this respect.
  9. Project/Task against which said vacancy of Scientist ‘C’ was created by RAC.
  10. Whether the experienced Scientist with same qualification and experience as sought in said recruitment were available in DRDO. (Yes/No)

The information sought is pertaining to Establishment matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.

This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

Besides purchase and establishment matter the information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.

 

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/2013/61200

Drdo

SATYAMEV JAYATE -III – 30714/2013/ Vigilance 9 complaint has been sent to CVO MINISTRY OF DEFENCE for necessary action on 26th December 2013

2 Comments

Believe me fellow citizen, the culprits of deliberately creating hindrances in the opportunity and fundamental rights of the lakhs of the youth of this great nation for consideration for public employment in DRDO will be very soon brought to the book only with the active cooperation of the concerned youth candidates and their parents.

CVC Registered the complaint – vide 30714/2013/ Vigilance 9 on 25th November 2013
30714/2013/ Vigilance 9 complaint has been sent to CVO MINISTRY OF DEFENCE for necessary action on 26th December 2013

Appeal

I call upon all concerned youth members of the public of this great nation who either applied for various posts in CEPTAM 06. in DRDO And didn’t get call letters and who wanted to apply but couldn’t apply due to the deliberate bottleneck created in the form of mobile registration, concerned parents of those youth candidates and fellow honest citizens (which inter-alia includes honest employees and officers of DRDO also) to provide information of the following kinds of acts and omissions of deliberate corruption done in the form of sugar coated capsules (seemingly making believing the general public at large as if the culprits acted in public interest) containing only poison which turned out fatal to all those members of the youth who either applied against the various post under CEPTAM 06 in DRDO but could not get call letters or who could not succeed in applying just for want of mobile registration since after repeated attempts mobile registration couldn’t take place.

1. Corruption in the form of making mobile registration as mandatory for applying for the various posts

(a) Kindly provide the information of the attempts made by you and by your parents for mobile registration at mobile no. between to to complete the first mandatory step for applying for the various posts in DRDO against CEPTAM -06 .

(b) Kindly provide the information of the time period in which the website of CEPTAM Delhi remained un operational/un-accessible due to which you couldn’t apply online for the various posts in DRDO against CEPTAM-06.

2. Corruption in the form of non-issuance of call letters to the persons who applied online and also sent offline applications for direct recruitment of various posts in DRDO against CEPTAM-06

(a) Kindly send the print out of your online application form against which you did not get call letter.

(b) Kindly send photocopies of your offline application forms against which you did not get call letter.

(c) Kindly send photocopy of the counter foil of the Indian Postal Order which you have attached with your offline application form sent with the CEPTAM, Delhi under CEPTAM-06 in respect of which you didn’t get the call letter.

(d) Kindly intimate me the manner through which you submitted your offline applications form to CEPTAM, Delhi against which you did not get the call letter.

(e) Kindly intimate the efforts made by you to get issued call letters from CEPTAM (including the information of the phone number of CEPTAM Delhi on which you made your efforts) and the results of such efforts.

(f) Kindly intimate the name of the officials of CEPTAM whom you contacted personally or on official telephone of the CEPTAM, Delhi but still your grievance was not redressed.

3. Corruption in the form of issuing defective call letters.

(a) Kindly send photocopies of the online print out of your application from and the defective call letters issued to you due to which you could not appear in the exam of CEPTAM-06 of DRDO.

(b) Kindly send photo copies of your offline application forms and the defective call letters issued to you due to which you could not appear in the exam of CEPTAM-06 of DRDO.

4. Corruption in the form of allotting exam centre at far off places altering the choice given by the candidate.

(a) Kindly send photo copies of your online print application form and the call letter issued to you un which the centre of written exam was allotted at different far off place due to which you could not appear in the written exam.

(b) Kindly send photo copies of your offline print application form and the call letter issued to you in which the centre of written exam was allotted at different far off place due to which you could not appear in the written exam.

5. Corruption in the form of non-ensuring of the website of CEPTAM operational and functional just some days before the exam.

(a) Kindly intimate the date of your failed attempts when you wanted to access the website of CEPTAM to download the call letter but you could not open the website and hence you could not appear for the exam.

6. Corruption in the form of late sending the call letter to the candidates.

(a) Kindly send the photocopies of the call letters which you received late.

Drdo

RTI- SASE – DRDO

Leave a comment
To,
Central Public Information Officer
Snow & Avalanche Study Establishment (SASE),DRDO, Min of Def
Him Parisar, Sec 37-A
Chandigarh-160036                               

Hello,

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘C’ was posted to SASE, Chandigarh from the August 2004-Feb 2009. He was directly recruited at the post of Scientist ‘C’ in DRDO and posted at SASE, Chandigarh. Kindly provide the following information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide the following information in respect of procurement cases indented by Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘C’ at SASE during the period 2004-2009.
  2. Whether CAD Centre/Facility exists in SASE, Chandigarh. (Yes/No)
  3. If answer to point (2) is yes then provide the following information.
  1. Copies of all demands in form DRDO.MM.06 indented.
  2. Copies of Supply Orders issued by Director, SASE for all demands indented by Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘C’.
  3. Copies of RIN/Installation report for all items indented.
  1. Year of creation of CAD Centre/Facility.
  2. Total expenditure incurred upon creation of CAD Centre/Facility.
  3. Expenditure incurred towards civil work for creation of CAD Facility.
  4. Name of agency (MES/CCE (R&D)/Director SASE) that executed the civil works in creation of CAD Centre.
  5. Officer who indented the cases of civil work for creation of CAD facility.
  6. Details of Software, Workstations/Computers, Plotter, Printers etc equipment purchased in CAD Facility with item nomenclature and cost.

The information related to purchase, supply orders, bills etc. has already been allowed by FAA, DRDO vide his decision No. RTI/02/2091/F/2013/0142 dated 14 October 2013.

This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

Besides purchase and establishment matter the information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.

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/2013/61143

Drdo

SATYAMEV JAYATE

Leave a comment

BELIEVE ME FELLOW CITIZENS, DAYS OF CONTINUANCE OF THE SERVING CORRUPT OFFICERS OF DRDO IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE ARE VERY LIMITED AND THE COUNTDOWN HAS STARTED FOR THEIR REACHING TO THEIR RIGHTFUL PLACE OF BEHIND THE BAR PUBLIC NOTICE

All fellow honest citizens are called upon to provide information of corruption in DRDO so as to file a public interest litigation (PIL) to eradicate corruption from DRDO, Ministry of Defence.

This is a matter of great happiness to one and all that at least 10 (ten) prima-facie corrupt very senior retired scientists of DRDO are facing thorough investigation of the CBI on the approval of the Hon’ble honest Defence Minister Sh. A.K. Antony who is a beacon of hope to all honest fellow citizens. Now it has been decided by the likeminded retired and serving employees/officers of DRDO and by the interested honest fellow citizens to eradicate altogether every form of corruption from DRDO. So, I call upon all fellow honest citizens, retired and serving employees and officers of DRDO to kindly bring into the kind notice of me about the acts of corruption, criminal misconduct amounting to corruption, criminal conspiracy to commit criminal offences, breach of trust by the public servants of DRDO on the following aspects through whatever means suitable to them (i.e.through post, through email and through fax etc.).

1.      Corruption in Direct Recruitment for various posts in DRDO

(i)      Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of non-gazetted staff in admin & allied    cadre and in  DRTC cadre of DRDO.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist ‘B’ under DRDS cadre of DRDO through   scientist entry test (SET) scheme.

(iii)      Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist ‘B’ (for isolated posts) and  Scientist ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘F’,‘G’ & ‘H’ through lateral entry scheme.

(iv)     Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist under DRDS cadre through ROSA Scheme.

(v)      Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist under DRDS cadre through NRI Scheme.

(vi)     Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist under DRDS cadre through campus recruitment scheme.

(vii)   Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist under DRDS cadre by   making former teachers and guides of the candidates as members of the selection committees for direct recruitment of scientist.

(viii) Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment of Scientist under DRDS cadre by   misinterpreting true meaning of the concerned SROs and by violating the express provisions of the SROs.

(ix)    Acts and omissions of Corruption in direct recruitment to any post in DRDO (particularly to the post of Scientist) from the blood and marriage relatives of senior scientists of DRDO.

2.       Corruption in promotion for various posts in DRDO

(i)      Acts and omissions of Corruption in promotion given through Limited Departmental Competitive Exam (LDCE) method to DRTC personnel.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of Corruption in promotion given to the post of Scientist ‘B’ through LDCE  method to DRTC personnel.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of Corruption in promotion to the post of  Scientist C, D, E & F done through assessment boards of RAC by not creating the documents of the marks given by each member of the assessment board or by destroying such record or by not taking into cognizance the marks of individual members of the assessment boards.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of Corruption in promotion to the post of Scientist G & H (both outstanding scientists and distinguished scientists) through peer committee review method by rejecting the recommendation of the earlier committee or by nominating favorable members in the peer review committee or by taking into consideration the fake contribution mentioned by the candidates without ascertaining the correctness of the same.

(v)     Acts and omissions of Corruption in constitution of the assessment boards for promotion of scientist to the post of scientist C, D, E & F.

(vi)    Acts and omissions of Corruption in constitution of the members of peer committee for promotion to the post of Scientist G &H.

(vii)   Acts and omissions of Corruption in promotion done by CEPTAM through assessment to various non-gazetted and gazetted posts of DRTC cadre of DRDO.

(viii) Acts and omissions of Corruption in constitution of the assessment boards for promotion done by CEPTAM through assessment to various non-gazetted and gazetted posts of DRTC cadre of DRDO.

(ix)    Acts and omissions of Corruption in making promotion in Admin & allied cadre, DRTC cadre & DRDS cadre of DRDO by violating the express provisions of the concerned SROs.

3.       Corruption in permanent absorption of deputationist and service officers against various posts in DRDO

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption in permanently absorbing the deputationist against the various posts of DRDO

(ii)     Acts and omissions of corruption in permanently absorbing the service officers in the DRDS cadre of DRDO.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of corruption in permanently absorbing service officers on the higher posts in DRDS cadre of DRDO in comparison to last post held by them in Defence forces.

4.       Corruption in making compassionate appointment in DRDO

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption by giving false reports by the board of officers in favor of some candidates and in against to some candidates.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of corruption by taking into cognizance fake certificates of some candidates and ignoring genuine certificate of some candidates.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of corruption by appointing some candidates on impersonation basis.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of corruption in making appointment by twisting and distorting the extant government policy.

5.      Corruption in handling vigilance cases and matters

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption by not implementing the standing policy of DOP&T (fully endorsed by DRDO HQ) regarding transfer of personnel and officers of DRDO holding sensitive appointments at regular interval.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of corruption on the part of director of vigilance & security of DRDO HQ by not taking into custody the original concerned record of DRDO and not submitting the same to the CVO of MOD within a maximum period of one month pertaining to complaints of vigilance nature submitted to CVC under Public interest disclosure and protection of the informer (PIDPI) resolution (colloquially-whistle blowers complaints) and forwarded to the Director of Vigilance & Security of DRDO HQ through CVO of MOD.

(iii)    Acts and omission of corruption in the form of submitting false report by the custodians of the concerned record of DRDO to the Director of Vigilance & Security pertaining to PIDPI complaints forwarded by CVC to the Director of Vigilance & Security of DRDO HQ through CVO of MOD.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of not ascertaining the correctness of the report submitted by the custodians of the record of DRDO to the Director of Vigilance & Security of DRDO HQ by Director of Vigilance & Security of DRDO HQ and forwarding the same to the CVO of MOD leading to escape of the corrupt officers of the DRDO.

6.      Corruption in giving service extensions to the senior scientist of DRDO after attaining the age of superannuation

(i)      Acts and omissions of the corruption in the form of devising separate Performa in violation of the Performa prescribed by the DOP&T and submitting the proposal to the DOP&T in the tailor-made Performa for service extension of senior scientist in DRDO after attaining the age of superannuation.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of the corruption for initiating proposals for service extension of ineligible senior scientist as per the FR 56(D), processing and getting approval of such proposals from DOP&T and from appointment committee of cabinet.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of the corruption in the form of giving false comments and false appreciations and false contributions in favor of chosen retiring senior scientists in the concerned note sheets of the concerned files so as to extend illegal service extension to some chosen scientists by misrepresenting the material facts.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of the corruption by disregarding the complaints of vigilance angle pending against some of the retiring senior scientists and pushing forward proposal for service extension to them to do irreparable loss to public interest.

7.      Corruption in making buildings and infrastructure facilities and equipping such facilities with the necessary store      items in DRDO

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption in awarding contract to particular contractors (having cartel or having an existing fake firms) for supply of stores and hiring of services for purely or mainly administrative nature of function of DRDO.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of involvement of blood and marriage relatives of high officials of DRDO as owners, as board of directors or acting as partners in the firms or contractors to whom DRDO has been giving regular supply orders.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of corruption of any kind in tendering procedures for supply of stores and hiring of services and manpower in DRDO.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of submitting inflated bills, of the store item purchased or the services hired, to the offices of DCDA (R&D).

(v)     Acts and omissions of corruption involving the colorable exercise of authority to abuse and misuse the authority vested in the capacity of senior government functionary for vested interests with regard to purchase of stores and hiring of services and manpower.

(vi)    Acts and omissions of corruption involving the cases of corruption in the form of misplaced sense of economy in purchasing stores and hiring services and manpower in DRDO.

(vii)   Acts and omissions of corruption involving any other kind of financial impropriety.

(viii) Acts and omissions of corruption by dismantling some portion of the newly constructed official buildings without actual need and to get the same renovated lavishly.

8.      Corruption in purchase of stores and in hiring of the services in DRDO exclusively or mainly on administrative nature of jobs

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption in procurement of stores and hiring of services for purely or mainly administrative nature of function of DRDO.

(jj)     Acts and omissions of corruption in awarding contract to particular contractors (having cartel or having an existing fake firms) for supply of stores and hiring of services for purely or mainly administrative nature of function of DRDO.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of involvement of blood and marriage relatives of high officials of DRDO as owners, as board of directors or acting as partners in the firms or contractors to whom DRDO has been giving regular supply orders.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of corruption of any kind in tendering procedures for supply of stores and hiring of services and manpower in DRDO.

(v)     Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of submitting inflated bills, of the store item purchased or the services hired, to the offices of DCDA (R&D).

(vi)    Acts and omissions of corruption involving the colorable exercise of authority to abuse and misuse the authority vested in the capacity of senior government functionary for vested interests with regard to
purchase of stores and hiring of services and manpower.

(vii)   Acts and omissions of corruption involving the cases of corruption in the form of misplaced sense of economy in purchasing stores and hiring services and manpower in DRDO.

(viii) Acts and omissions of corruption involving any other kind of financial impropriety.

9.      Corruption in awarding DRDO chair, chairman of the boards of DRDO and DRDO fellow

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption for initiating processing and approving the proposal for awarding DRDO chair, chairmanship of the various boards of DRDO and DRDO fellowship to undeserving candidates by misrepresenting material facts.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of corruption done by the serving senior scientists of DRDO HQ in the form of quid-pro-quo to those retired scientists in the form of awarding DRDO chair, chairmanship of the various boards and DRDO fellowship who gave clean chit in the corruption cases against the serving senior scientists.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of corruption for initiating proposals to remove the age limit of 70 years for DRDO chair to give undue advantage to chosen retired scientists like SK Salwan.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of giving DRDO chair to those retired chairman of RAC who was involved in rule making activity illegally for assessment of scientist F for promotion to the post of scientist G in 2011.

10.     Corruption in the form of misleading the parliament of India

(i)      Acts and omissions of the corruption in the form of false report submitted to either house of parliament about the successfulness of the particular project which was actually not successful.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of the corruption in the form of giving false report to either house of the parliament with regard to involvement and entrusting of Admin & allied cadre responsibilities to the scientist and technical manpower of DRDO.

11.     Miscellaneous nature of corruption in DRDO

(i)      Acts and omissions of corruption in the nature of disobeying the direction of law by the senior officer of DRDO while acting in official capacity.

(ii)     Acts and omissions of corruption in the nature of breaching the trust of public in the capacity of public servants by senior scientist of DRDO violating their official capacity.

(iii)    Acts and omissions of corruption and criminal conspiracy to breach the trust of public in the capacity of public servant and to commit other criminal offences with common intention to do so.

(iv)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the nature of joining those private educational or commercial concerns by the retired senior scientist of DRDO within 01 year from retirement to whom DRDO have given funds and acted in collaboration with them.

(v)     Acts and omissions of corruption in the nature of embezzlement of govt. money in DRDO in whatever manner possible.

(vi)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of misappropriation of govt. money by twisting the material facts and acting in collusion.

(vii)   Acts and omissions of corruption in the nature of false claim of TA/DA and LTC by using flyer points and charging from the govt. exchequer in the name of LTC.

(viii) Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of drawing HRA illegally while residing in govt. guest houses by the very senior functionaries of DRDO.

(ix)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of using govt. vehicle for personal uses & showing them as official usage.

(x)     Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of weekly visiting native places situated at Hyderabad and Bangalore in the pretext of official duty and charging huge amount as air fare by the very senior scientist of DRDO HQ.

(ix)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of showing false expenses in other heads of accounts for actual expenses of lakhs of rupees incurred for liquor parties and lavish dance parties arranged every year and directors’ conference in Metcalfe House, Delhi and at Development Enclave, Delhi.

(x)     Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of acquiring and amassing disproportionate movable and immovable assets by the very senior scientists contrary to their known sources of income.

(xi)    Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of posting and retaining unauthorized Gazetted and non-Gazetted manpower of AFHQ cadre in DRDO HQ.

(xii)   Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of illegally posting AFHQ cadre officers in the labs of DRDO at Delhi.

(xiii) Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of creation of illegal and unauthorized designations in DRDO HQ and in the labs of DRDO without the authority/approval of Finance Ministry.

(xiv) Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of willful distraction and non-maintenance of the concerned record as per the provisions of public record act 1993 so as to avoid fixation of responsibility against the illegal acts of the very senior scientists of DRDO.

(xv)   Acts and omissions of corruption in the form of allotting govt. accommodation to non-eligible persons in DRDO’s own accommodation by the Estate Managers of the EMU of DRDO.

Don’t be afraid of anything, be bold and be knowledgeable in the sense that whoever has committed criminal offences of criminal conspiracy for committing breach of trust and using and issuing fake certificate or tampering in govt. records or indulging in criminal misconduct amounting to corruption for committing any kind of criminal offences can be caught and brought to the book at any time as per the provisions of IPC 1860, Cr. PC 1973 and prevention of corruption act 1988. There is no bar of limitation act in initiating criminal case by any person for committing criminal offences by the high serving and retired functionaries of DRDO. The only thing is important is that whatever information you provide to me should be verifiable from some independent govt. document whether in your custody or not and wherever available. Don’t think that particular case of corruption in DRDO in your knowledge is some 15 years or 20 years old. Documentary evidences created during ordinary transaction of official work in DRDO are like the guided missiles in which very senior scientist of DRDO are very expert. Don’t forget that the responsibility to eradicate corruption from DRDO lies on shoulders of every stakeholder. Please do contribute in this effort of nation building for which next progeny of ours will always remember us. Fellow honest citizens of this great country are the biggest stakeholder to eradicate corruption from DRDO.

JAIHIND

Drdo

India-Israel joint venture to manufacture missiles fails to take off

Leave a comment

Jatinder Kaur Tur, TNN Nov 14, 2013, 12.01PM IST

HYDERABAD: The joint venture between India’s Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and Israeli Aerospace Industry to manufacture Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LR SAM) and Medium Range Surface-to-Air Missile (MR-SAM) has turned out to be a non-starter.

The long range missiles were to have been delivered to the Indian Navy by 2012 while the medium range missiles should be in the Indian Air Force weaponry by 2017. However, both the delivery schedules are way behind schedule and show no signs of meeting them even in the near future.DRDO officials are blaming the lack of progress in the joint venture due to lack of transparency and non-transfer of technology by their Israeli counterparts. And the recent trials that were conducted by the Indian defence organization failed to meet the standards of both the IAF and the Indian Navy. The entire cost of Rs 12,500 crore of the joint venture is being funded by India and the inordinate delay and lack of progress in the project has turned into a big cause of worry in the defence ministry.

According to sources, the LR-SAMs project was commissioned in 2006 and the delivery of the missiles to the Indian Navy should have happened by 2012. Similarly, the MR-SAM venture was signed in 2009 and the missiles are to be delivered to the Indian Air Force by 2017. Both both the projects are way behind schedule and show no signs of making progress.

“Frankly speaking, right now, not much is going on in the joint venture due to various issues between the two sides. Expecting Israel to share its technology with India is unfair. But such things should have been clarified before the joint venture was entered into,” said an official.

DRDO is maintaining that it is because of the lack of transfer of technology that the trials conducted so far have ended up as failures. “Industries are merely getting the drawings as to how to produce certain systems and such things are leading to deviations from the laid down specifications because the knowledge to develop the systems is not being imparted,” said sources.

DRDO officials are also attributing the delay to a complicated and long procedure involving shuttling between India and Israel for various stages of development of a system etc. The Hyderabad-based Indian defence organization also reportedly found itself helpless on problems in propulsion system and other related issues while a significant number of parts or systems are yet to be tested following a delay in manufacturing.

However, when quizzed on the issue, DRDO Director General Avinash Chander told the TOI that nothing was amiss. “Everything is going on as per the plan and development trials are on. We shall be able to deliver the MR-SAMs as per schedule. Right now, the contribution from India in the joint venture project is about 20% and would ultimately reach 80% in the final stages.” Regarding the already delayed LR-SAM, DRDO officials declined to come on record.

MR-SAM, one of the major demands of the forces, is to have a range of 70 kms or so, and the IAF is banking on replacing its ageing Soviet-made Pechora SAM missiles with the MR-SAMs. But nobody is sure how long the wait is going to be, and whether the delivery will take place at all.

Drdo

First Appeal – Procurement of Scientific & Technical Books in Technical Library of DMSRDE

1 Comment

FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005

To,
 Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS,
First Appellate Authority, DRDO
 RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
 New Delhi-110011

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005

Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE , Kanpur. I hereby submit  this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1.    Details of appellant:-

Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com

2.    Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-

Name &Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE,GT Road,Kanpur-208013

3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013. Copy enclosed as  Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)         An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 25 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Book Procurement at Technical Library, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Copy of the RTI application dated 25 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)       Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c)       PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 25 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

(d)      Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

  1. 5.    Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.

(a)    Under the provisions of section 24(1)  of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.

(b)    Appellant submitted an application dated 25 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 25 July 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(c)    Information was denied by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.

(d)    The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 25 July 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO.

(e)  Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with mala fide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.

(f)   PIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO(notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.

(g)  Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.

6.    Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vide RTI Application dated 25 July 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 25 July 2013.

7.    Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1.      CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

(i)        CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

(ii)       CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.

(iii)      These decisions of CIC are binding on  all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.

(iv)     In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.

  1. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
  2. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  5. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  6. CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
  7. CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
  8. CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
  9. CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  10. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  11. CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)

(v)      In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.

  1. Subject/nature of information sought is related to procurement of books in Library. This information is pertaining to Estt. Matter and it has been decided  by PIO, DMSRDE that the information sought is not exempted then PIO should provide complete information as sought in application dated 25 July 2013 but PIO did not provided complete information rather it appears that he concealed the information so that corruption in procurement of books could not be exposed.

3.      Information sought is related to Estt. Matter & procurement of books. Information related to purchase of books & periodicals has been allowed by CIC in various cases like case No. CIC/LS/A/2012/001219 dated 9.8.2012 Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”.

4.      Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 25 July 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is quite evident from the reply of PIO that corruption was made in procurement of books by misusing the DRDO Rules for Purchase.

  1. In reply dated 26 Aug 2013 at point (4), PIO informed “Protected Govt. Documents” for Supply orders of books. Purchase related any document from indent to supply order & bills etc are not protected documents as claimed by PIO. As per various CIC decisions the purchase related files were allowed for inspection of records and all information related to purchase were allowed as purchase have angle of corruption. These were denied so that the corruption in procurement of books could not come out as it will discloses the discount percentage provided by suppliers in two different financial years. In fact in the FY 2010-2011 the maximum discount offered was 35% while in 2012-2013 the discount offered was 10%. This establish that 25% of total purchase i.e. Rs. 366952.00 was taken as commission by the concerned officers & authorities responsible for purchase of books on low discount.
COMPARISON OF PROCUREMENT OF BOOKS IN DMSRDE
SN Year Fund Exp. Mode of procurement Rules applied Director
1. 2009-10 NIL – – Dr KUB Rao
2. 2010-11 Rs. 94833 Limited PM-2006 “
3. 2011-12 NIL – – Dr AK Saxena
4. 2012-13 Rs. 1467810 No tendering, directly issue supply order DRDO Lib. Manual,1999 Dr AK Saxena
  1. By comparison of data provided by PIO in point(1) of his reply dated 26 August 2013 regarding fund expenditure in various financial years it is crystal clear that corruption took place in FY 2012-2013 where all of sudden books of Rs. 1467810.00 has been procured while in previous years it was “NIL” or very less Rs. 94833.00 only in 2010-11.
  2. Data in above table indicates that demand of books which was NIL (Zero) in 2009-10 and 2011-12 has increased all of sudden near about to the Rupees 15 Lakh. As compared to purchase of books in FY 2010-11 the hike in 2012-13 is about 15.5 times. This indicates that books were purchased without any need and requirement in 2012-2013 and this amount huge loss to public money. Where the 25% discount on Rs. 1467810.00 i.e. Rs. 366952.00 has gone?
  3. DRDO is having very old manual issued on 11 January 1999  regarding Management of Library/TIC of DRDO. This manual is called as “DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres“. After issuance of Purchase Manual -2006 of DRDO this old Manual became ineffective & obsolete. Most of the DRDO Labs/Estt. are using Purchase Manual for procurement of books, Print  Journal and Online E-Journals. DMSRDE is also using PM-2006 from last six years for procurement of books, Print  Journal and Online E-Journals as can be verified from records of Technical Library of DMSRDE, Kanpur. All of sudden making purchase of books on the basis of old manual smacks malafide intentions and leads corruption in purchase of books in FY 2012-2013. In fact in year 2012-2013 provisions of  DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres has not been fully followed. Purchase procedure of DRDO Manual are for small & urgent procurement not for big procurements in tune of lakh or crores.
    1. 8.    Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                                
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879
Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com
Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com   

 Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DMSRDE/2013/05

Date: 07th September, 2013

Enclosure: two 

(1)  Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013

(2)  RTI Application dated 25 July 2013.dmarde reply20001

To,                                                                                                                 25th July 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’
CPIO, DMSRDE
GT Road, Kanpur-208013

Hello,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  1. Fund expenditure for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year
  2. 2009-2010                ii.         2010-2011                   iii.       2012-2013
  3. 2009-2010                ii.         2010-2011                   iii.       2012-2013
  4. Mode of tendering for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year viz (Single Tender, Limited Tender/Open Tender)
  5. If mode of tendering in any Financial Year  from years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 was limited tender then provide the copies of CST(Comparative Statement of prices of books with discount %  offered by suppliers) approved by Library Committee and Director for that particular year.
  6. Copies of supply orders placed for supply of Scientific and Technical books in Technical Library in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
  7. Discount offered by various suppliers on procurement of Indian and Foreign books with name of suppliers and discount  offered by them, when mode of tendering was Single Tender or Limited Tender.
  8. Copies of bills submitted by suppliers for getting payment against supply of books in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.

This is relevant to mentioned here that the information sought is related to establishment matters (Purchase) and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act.

Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

However the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.

Enclosed-      Rs 10 Postal order 12F 470729

Regards,

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

DMSRDE – RTI -3

Leave a comment

 

To,                                                                                                                 25th July 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’
CPIO, DMSRDE
GT Road, Kanpur-208013

Hello,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  1. Fund expenditure for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year
  1. 2009-2010                ii.         2010-2011                   iii.       2012-2013
  2. 2009-2010                ii.         2010-2011                   iii.       2012-2013
  1. Mode of tendering for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year viz (Single Tender, Limited Tender/Open Tender)
  1. If mode of tendering in any Financial Year  from years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 was limited tender then provide the copies of CST(Comparative Statement of prices of books with discount %  offered by suppliers) approved by Library Committee and Director for that particular year.
  2. Copies of supply orders placed for supply of Scientific and Technical books in Technical Library in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
  3. Discount offered by various suppliers on procurement of Indian and Foreign books with name of suppliers and discount  offered by them, when mode of tendering was Single Tender or Limited Tender.
  4. Copies of bills submitted by suppliers for getting payment against supply of books in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.

This is relevant to mentioned here that the information sought is related to establishment matters (Purchase) and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act.

Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

However the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.

Enclosed-      Rs 10 Postal order 12F 470729

 

Regards,

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

Hurting DRDO’s autonomy

Leave a comment

R SUNDARAM The Hindu Business Line

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is in the news. First, the good news. It successfully test-fired nuclear-capable Agni III long range missile with a strike range of 3,000 km from the Wheeler Islands off the coast of Odisha, recently. This is a major achievement both for the DRDO and the country’s defence capability.

Now, for the bad news. DRDO’s financial and administrative powers have been whittled down or taken away. This is a blow for science and technology efforts in India.

SUDDEN ABOUT-TURN

Only two years ago, in 2010 to be precise, the delegation of powers to the DRDO was considerably liberalised. It seemed as though the government was, for once, serious about freeing scientific establishment from the proverbial red tape.

It allowed DRDO the discretion to spend up to Rs 50 crore with the concurrence of its financial advisor. It appears that a recent action of the DRDO, of approving a design and development project of Rs 49.82 crore for optical sensors to be used in unmanned aerial vehicles and airborne platforms without involving the Ministry, irked the authorities. So, the MOD has “clipped the wings” of the DRDO by re-imposing old controls.

This is a retrograde step engineered by the combined heavy hands of the entrenched babus in administration and accounts, blessed by an unenlightened and short-sighted political leadership. This flies in the face of various pronouncements of the Prime Minister during his various addresses to the scientific community.

In February 2012, Manmohan Singh in an interview to the Science magazine stated that “we need to do much more to change the face of science in India”.

I do not know if this is the change he wanted — imposing more rigorous accounting controls and stifling administrative procedures, so that DRDO becomes yet another run-of-the-mill government organisation.

Recently, the Prime Minister wanted Indian scientists “to seek newer frontiers of research, match capabilities of peers around the world and help India leapfrog”, even as one of his Cabinet ministers was busy belittling the scientific community under his watch.

COMPETENT AUTHORITY

From whatever can be gleaned from news reports, it appears that the recent decisions are based on a special audit conducted by the Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) as ordered by the Minister. It is not clear as to how the CGDA can be considered competent to evaluate R&D activities. There are any number of forums to evaluate programmes and priorities, including peer group assessments, the Standing Committees and Consultative Committees of Parliament on defence.

Only a few years ago, we had the Rama Rao committee going into aspects of revamping defence research and development. So far, no one knows what the recommendations are, and how far these have been implemented.

Time and again, the government, particularly the MOD, tends to shoot itself in the foot by demoralising and insulting both military and civilian organisations under its fold.

(The author is former Member, Ordnance Factories)

(This article was published on October 1, 2012)

Drdo

‘Death Of The Internet As We Know It’ – Outlook BY SUNDEEP DOUGAL ON DEC 15, 2011 AT 22:55 IST

Leave a comment

http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&pid=2673

SUNDEEP DOUGAL

‘Death Of The Internet As We Know It’

In their various pronouncements since the censorship controversy broke, Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr Sachin Pilot, the minister and minister of state respectively in the ministry of communications and information technology, have been vocally insisting that the government does not want to resort to censorship and believes in the constitutional right of free speech.

These pieties were once again repeated today by the two ministers after meeting representatives of social media companies, including Google, Facebook and Twitter, for what is now being spun as an “open dialogue to empower individuals and citizens” while reliable sources also reveal that their ministry “is mulling forming an inter-ministerial group to work out a mechanism to monitor and avoid uploading of any defamatory material on Internet.”

At the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) blog, Pranesh Prakash points to the government’s patent insincerity because this sudden talk of ‘transparency’ and ‘dialogue’ came only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies.

He also underlines the clandestine manner in which the government wants Internet companies to ‘self-regulate’ user-uploaded content. One of the reasons for this arm-twisting is to prevent the sort of embarrassment caused by the Google Transparency Report which had demolished the government claims of wanting to curb “hate speech” or that affecting “religious sensitivities” as it tabulated that out that as many as 255 (71%) of the 358 complaints made to Google in the last six months, were about ‘government criticism’ and only 8, or 2.23% were about “hate speech”.

With self-censorship, there would be no need for these requests for removal in the first place, nor will sites have to be blocked officially using the IT Act.

In the article we carried yesterday, Who Plays Judge, Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama provided a reasonable hypothesis about Mr Kapil Sibal’s recent actions:

one of my fears is that something as draconian as pre-censorship may actually be used to make the IT Rules look justifiable, like something of a rollback. People will be furious about suggestions to pre-censor the web, but in comparison, perhaps be willing to accept arbitrary and opaque post-censorship, which is what the the IT Rules allow. The IT Rules need to be amended as well.

The CIS blog by Pranesh Prakash once again underlines what is wrong with these rules:

These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is ‘disparaging’, ‘relating to… gambling’, ‘harm minors in any way’, to which the user ‘does not have rights’.  When was the last time you checked wither you had ‘rights’ to a joke before forwarding it?  Did you share a Twitter message containing the term “#IdiotKapilSibal”, as thousands of people did a few days ago?  Well, that is ‘disparaging’, and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content.  The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online.  As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse.  Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.

CIs’s draft report on the Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011 looks at these rules critically. For the purposes of this study, takedown notices were sent to a sample comprising of 7 intermediaries and their response to the notices was documented.

The results of the paper clearly demonstrate that the Rules indeed have a chilling effect on free expression. Specifically, the Rules create uncertainty in the criteria and procedure for administering the takedown thereby inducing the intermediary to err on the side of caution and over-comply with takedown notices to suppress legitimate expressions. Additionally, the Rules do not establish sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the takedown process to suppress legitimate expressions.

Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them. From the responses to the takedown notices, it can be reasonably presumed that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression. Even if such intermediary has sufficient legal competence, it has a tendency to prioritise the allocation of legal resources according to its perceived importance of the expressions.

Further, if such subjective determination is required to be done in a limited timeframe and in the absence of adequate facts and circumstances, the intermediary mechanically complies (without application of mind) with the takedown notice.

The results also demonstrate that the Rules are procedurally flawed as they ignore all elements of natural justice. The third party provider of information whose expression is censored is not informed about the takedown, let alone given an opportunity to be heard before or after the takedown. There is no recourse for the third party provider of information to have the removed information restored or put back if it does come to his knowledge. The intermediary is under no obligation to provide a reasoned decision for rejecting or accepting a takedown notice. There is also no requirement for disclosure or transparency in the takedown process.

These Rules and all this recent talk of ‘self-regulation’ are of a piece with the government’s overall paranoia of the power of the internet and various whistleblower websites that are coming up (eg, consider the recent case involvingcorruptionindrdo.com). Because there are constitutional safe-guards against censorship, surreptitious measures are being adopted in a number of ways. As Prakash points out:

Mr. Sibal’s latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright.  The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious.  The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn’t remove the content that has been complained about.  The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed.  Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content.  The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any ‘due process’ or fair procedure.  Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power.

POSTED BY SUNDEEP ON DEC 15, 2011 AT 22:55 IST

 

Drdo

Letter to Honorable Prime Minister

14 Comments
To                                                                                                            19th December 2011
The Prime Minister
PMO, South Block, New Delhi – 110011
 
1.         Shri A K Antony, Defence Minister
           Room No -104, South Block, New Delhi – 110011
 
2.         Shri.P.CHIDAMBARAM, HOME MINISTER,
             R.No -104, North Block, New Delhi-110011
 
3.         The Central Vigilance Commissioner
             CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, SATARKTA BHAWAN,
             GPO COMPLEX, BLOCK-A, INA, NEW DELHI – 110023.

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 18th 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 21st March 2011 & No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th 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

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

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 |  

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.