Tag Archives: vehicle

Drdo

DRDO drone crash-lands on farmer’s land in Karnakata

1 Comment

TNN | Updated: Feb 22, 2018,


                                                                   

 

 

 

 

 

NEW DELHI: An unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) being tested by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) crash-landed on an agricultural plot in Nayakanahatti, near Challakere in Chitradurga district, about 200km away from the state capital.
The drone, which had a camera attached to it, was launched to keep a watch on the outer perimeter of the Chitradurga Aeronautical Test Range (CATR).
Sources said the aircraft took off from the facility and later lost contact with the command centre. No injury or damage was reported.

Drdo

Extension for Nirbhay, panel to identify flaws

Leave a comment

By Hemant Kumar Rout | Express News Service | Published: 07th January 2017
BHUBANESWAR: India’s own cruise missile project Nirbhay has got an extension of 18 months amid speculations over the weapon system’s operational capabilities. Launched in 2004, the projected date of completion for the prestigious project was December 31 last.

At a recent review meeting, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar gave green signal for the extension. Ministry of Defence sources said the Nirbhay team has been asked to deliver their best by June, 2018.

Under developmental trial since 2013, the missile is yet to perform as per the expectations. Of four tests in as many years, the indigenously developed weapon had failed three times though it could cover the intended range once in 2014.

Meanwhile, an independent technical committee has been formed to identify faults in the system that led to failure of the missile during its fourth trial on December 21.

The probe committee led by founder director of ISRO Inertial Systems Unit Dr Nagarajan Vedachalam will not only ascertain the faults but also recommend possible measures to make the system robust.

Like in its maiden trial and third test, the missile had veered off the trajectory minutes after take off during the last launch and the mission had to be aborted mid-air.

An official associated with the project, however, informed that the blame game between two laboratories of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) cost the project more than the faults in the system.

While Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), which has designed the missile, has been blaming Research Centre Imarat (RCI) for supplying defective hardware, the latter points fingers at ADE-developed software for recurring failure of the missile.

‘’The probe committee will ascertain which is defective, the software or hardware. It may also inspect metallurgical deficiencies,’’ the sources said.

Having a strike range of around 1,000 km, Nirbhay is first homegrown subsonic cruise missile project. According to DRDO, the missile can challenge weapons of its class.

Nirbhay blasts off like a rocket and unlike a missile, it turns into a vehicle akin an aircraft. Flying at tree-top level, it can deceive enemy radars making it difficult to be detected. Unlike other ballistic missiles, this cruise missile has wings and distinct tail fins. After reaching near the target area, it can hover around, hitting at its will from any direction.

Drdo

DRDO Scientist using Army Havaldars as Bonded Labour

1 Comment

To,                                                                                           26th August 2016
Shri Manohar Parrikar,
Defence Minister,
Room No -104 South Block,
New Delhi-110011

Subject:  DRDO Scientist using Army Havaldars as Bonded Labour

Sir,

You will be surprise to know that it is fashion in DRDO that scientists using Army Jawan specially drivers in their official as well as personal car. Earlier DRDO witnessed the Project vehicle  used Dr K Tamilmani, DG, Aero, DRDO and that time he engaged the Army Havaldar  driver so no one question for duty timings.

Please find some pictures of Army jawans performing duty for private vehicles. EMU, DRDO Dehradun engaged a private Scorpio in contract since few years. The vehicle is fully painted with Bharat Sarkar, Raksha Mantralay, EMU, DRDO etc. Vehicle registered in the name of KHUSHAL SINGH, UK07AR0900 [RISHIKESH ARTO, UK].

The vehicle is driven by Army Jawans but it was observed that vehicle is used for suspicious covert operation by private parties, like today morning at 07:43 vehicle reached at Mr D L Uniyal, Uniyal Nivas, Danda, Dharampur, Dehradun. The vehicle Driver was Hav Rakesh Sharma, posted at EMU, DRDO, Dehradun. He picked Mr Uniyal at 07:46 and moved out to Dehradun. Vehicle crossed Uttarakhand border 08:17 and stopped at Dat Kali Mandir. Antother vehicle Tata Maza driving by CHM Tajindra Singh joined and moved 08:30. As per sources both vehicle going to parental village (Muzaffar nagar, UP) of Dr D P Singh, Scientist ‘G’ who is heading EMU, DRDO, Dehradun since 10 Years. Both vehicles full of relative and friends of Dr D P Singh, Scientist ‘G’.

Sir, this not the first occasion as Army Jawans he is using these Army personal in all his family and his friends, relative assignment without seeing the time.

I want to know why our tax money will utilized by these lecherous DRDO scientist and over to this they are using our respected Jawans as bonded labours.

The both vehicle will return by today late night from Muzaffarnagar, UP. The Drivers having mobile phones

  1. CHM Tajendra Singh – 9411707233
  2. Hav Rakesh Sharma – 8954061889

Hope you will see the matter and these Jawans will get rid from DRDO’s slavery

 

Regards

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

Enclosed
                   1. Related Photographs

scorpio photo 1
EMU Contract Vehicle registered in the name of KHUSHAL SINGH, UK07AR0900 [RISHIKESH ARTO, UK]
scorpio photo 2
EMU Contract Vehicle registered in the name of KHUSHAL SINGH, UK07AR 0900 [RISHIKESH ARTO, UK]

vehicle waiiting for Mr Uniyal at his residence 7 43 AM 26 august 16
vehicle waiting for Mr D L Uniyal ( Dr D P Singh guest ) at his residence 7 : 43 AM 26 August 16
Hav Rakesh Sharma and Mr D L Uniyal
Hav Rakesh Sharma posted in EMU, DRDO and Mr D L Uniyal (Guest of Dr D P Singh, Scientist ‘G’, In-charge EMU, DRDO, Dehradun)
vehicle crossed uttarakhand border 8 17 26 aug 16
Vehicle crossed Uttarakhand border 8 :17 AM 26th August 16
Army Jawans in working as bonded labour at Dat Kali 8 27 26 Aug 16
Army Jawans( Hav Rakesh Sharma & CHM Tajendra Singh working as bonded labour at Dat Kali 8: 27 26 August 16

 

Drdo

DRDO officials think they are entitled to waste taxpayers’ money

4 Comments

To,                                                                                       23th July 2016
Shri ManoharParrikar,
Defence Minister,
Room No -104 South Block,
New Delhi-110011 

Subject: DRDO officials think they are entitled to waste tax payers’ money

Sir,

DRDO officials think they are entitled to waste taxpayers’ money and if Parrikar Sahib asks then they easily convince him in the name of defence preparedness, as they are in well practices in last ongoing cases.

But they don’t know the strength of honest team of DRDO, all are watching devotedly the acts and deeds of each and every corrupt official of DRDO, may be it take few time but everyone know that GOD can do wonder any time, like Parrikar Sahib got the responsibility of Defence..

As you aware  Sir, DRDO official having completion of purchasing latest vehicle for their personal use as staff car but GOI banned to purchase luxury vehicle for staff car. Here, in the name of project use for instrument and measurement equipment they manage to procure all available luxury vehicles worth corers of rupees. If you ask the list with photographs all such vehicles are decorated with red beacons and brass plate of designation of user official and they regularly use for their family ride also. Website already submitted lot of evidences, national papers also took the issues but unfortunately DRDO top officials were success to convince you this all done only in the name of defence preparedness of country.

Let see following case is perfect example of fooling the all laid down guidelines of GOI and all it is happening with help financial watch dogs PCDA (R&D). How they are closing their eyes on each and every violations of DRDO?

HEMRL, DRDO, Pune based lab used same tactics and procured an Innova vehicle in the name of  “Mobile Instrument Carrier”.Toyota Innova purchased against this tender from a firm “Ms Spar Enterprises, Mumbai“.

The vehicle prepared to use as staff car for Director, fitted red beacon, but unfortunately the matter is reported by Media and an RTI request was submitted by me through PMO.

The vehicle was grounded and the BA number is not even applied by HEMRL for this Toyota Innova.

Last 8th February 2016 the vehicle was taken out without BA number from HEMRL by Shri KPS Murthy, Sc. H,Director, HEMRL and proceeds to VRDE, Ahmednagar accompanied by Cmdr S K Patel, Director, QRS. The vehicle driver was M.B. Ramgude VO ‘C and the vehicle met with accident with MSRDC bus near Krutrim Reshim Paidas Kendra around 11:45 AM, location come under Khadki Police Station, In-charge – Sh. Sushil S Kadam (Senior Police Inspector) Mobile No. 9667977777, Police station Contact No. 020-25818659 / 26208423.

The matter was reported to you on 15th February 2016, here started the DRDO official confidence to fool the country by any means. HEMRL floated a tender for repairing the above road accidental Toyota Innova vehicle again using same name “Mobile Instrument Carrier”, in fact the vehicle never used for said purpose, because there was no such requirement at all, if it was there then why they put Red beacon on it and, why hide after paper and website publish the facts and overall why they not applied for BA number till date.

The according to DRDO Transport policy following are the procedure to procure special dedicated vehicle. But unfortunately HEMRL not followed a single step of above transport policy or neither CDA objected on purchase and as well as repairing case.

Interestingly the “Mobile Instrument Carrier”   used only once and two great instrument of DRDO was inside the special carrier. One Shri KPS Murthy, Sc. H & Director, HEMRL and other one Cmdr S K Patel, Director, QRS the husband famous DRDO Agniputri, Ms Tessy Thomas, Director, ASL & RCI, Hyderabad. See the weight of these two instruments.

Unless immediate action taken on culprits, this will go the way of case of Rustom2 Innova misuse by Dr K Tamilmani and his cohorts. Tamilmani after getting pension, now, happily spending life in US, while DFA M Shankar is on deputation to ISRO, and other culprit P Srikumar is in hiding. All escaped and PGD of Rustom2 Sh APVS Prasad is struggling to rectify others misuse. Hence, in HEMRL case, an exemplary action is solicited from honorable RM

So as usual hope for some exemplary action from Parrikar sahib’s office, or DRDO official again success to convince Parrikar sahib this case was done for defence preparedness of country.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,

21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008

Phone 0135-2787750, Mobile 9411114879

Email prabhudoon@gmail.com website-www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

Enclosed

  1. Copy of Latest tender for repairing of Toyota Innova alias “Mobile Instrument Carrier”
  2. Photo of Vehicle fitted with Red Beacon
  3. Accident details
  4. Copy Tender of purchase
  5. Transport policy points

HEMRL floated a limited tender for repairing of“Mobile Instrument Carrier” and not put in CPP, inquiry sent to

1. Elevyan Automation and system Pune –
2. Raja Industries Pune
3. Hi-Tech Service Pune
4. Hydroflex Engineering Company Pune
5. Devendra Automobiles Pune
6. V.M. Motor
7. K.M.Motor
8. DSK. Motor

Hemrl innova reparing tender page 1innova purchased by hemrl as mobile instrument carrieraccident detailHEMRL_Inviotender for mobile instrument carriertender for mobile instrument carrier specificationmobile instrument carrier instrument trolly

 

 

 

 

Drdo

Rustom-II UAV to be tested in Chitradurga

Leave a comment

Kalyan Ray, New Delhi, Jul 11, 2016, DHNS
dh 11The first flight of India’s new combat-capable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) Rustom-II is scheduled to be held by the end of July in Chitradurga test flight range.

Scientists at the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) would move to the test range later this week for the trial as an window between July 28 and August 2 would be kept open for the flight in the presence of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar.

Once ready, the medium-altitude, long-endurance (Male) UAV is likely to be an asset for the military not only for its surveillance capability, but also for its ability to be used as an unmanned armed combat vehicle in the line of the US’s Predator that New Delhi is interested to buy.

“Rustom-II is a very big platform with a range of 250 km. However, for the first flight we will be flying it up to a distance of 50-100 km,” said a source associated with the UAV’s development.

Compared to Rustom-I that was test flown for the first time in November 2009, Rustom-II will be having Electronic Intelligence, Communication Intelligence, Medium and Long-Range Electro-optic Payloads and Synthetic Aperture Radar that will enable it to see through the clouds.

“Rustom-I is a primitive vehicle with minimal capabilities. Rustom-II, on the other hand, has several capabilities, including the ability to carry weapons,” G Satheesh Reddy, Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri, told DH.

Once fully ready, Rustom UAVs are meant to replace Israeli Heron unmanned aerial vehicles being used by the air force and the navy. The aircraft is named after former Indian Institute of Science professor Rustom Damania, who pioneered aviation research in India in the 1980s.

Addressing a seminar on UAV in Delhi last November, an ADE official stated that the three services initially projected a requirement of 76 of these platforms.

However, like many other defence research and development organisation (DRDO) projects, Rustom-II is also facing time overrun as the production schedule, first fixed for 2016, has now been pushed to 2017 with the possibility that it may get further delayed.

The biggest challenge faced by the scientists is the excess weight of the airframe. The airframe had a weight of about 2,400 kg by 2015 end, which ADE scientists would have to bring down to about 1,700 kg in the final version for accommodating every sensor package.

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and Bharat Electronics Ltd partners DRDO in the development of Rustom-II and has committed several hundred crores as financial support.

Drdo

RTI-PMO-GTRE -DRDO

3 Comments

To                                                                                                                    Date – 9th April 2015 Shri Syed Ekram Rizwi,                                                                                                                   Director & Central Public Information Officer,                                                                         Prime Minister’s Office, South Block,                                                                                           New Delhi – 110011

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of DRDO. It is observed that DRDO RTI cell is not providing any information in spite of providing corruption evidences.

Dr Tamilmani, DG(Aero), DRDO was used Rustom II project vehicle Toyota Innova  bearing No  # 14B 113597Y. The vehicle was procured for Project Rustom in the name of Remote Video Terminal Vehicle. Vide letter No DRDO/02/333/P/2/Vol-II-394/D/R&D date 23/02/2011.

After complaint to Hon Prime Minister on dated 26th February 2015, the vehicle returned to project premises ADE, Bangalore.

GTRE, Bangalore purchased two Toyota Innova vehicle against project one vehicle is using by Director, GTRE, Dr.CP Ramanarayanan,  surprisingly the another  Toyota Innova vehicle bearing no ↑15B 115897Y was provided on 11th March 2015 by GTRE, Bangalore to Dr Tamilmani, DG (Aero) against his demand dated 10th March 2015

  1. Provide the sanction letter of DHRD with financial concurrence of Ministry of Finance for purchasing two Toyota Innova vehicles by GTRE, Bangalore.
  2. As per DRDO transport policy the project vehicles should use dedicatedly for project work, provide the DRDO hqrs approval for transfer the vehicle to Dr Tamilmani.
  3. If Director, GTRE not obtained the permission for transferring the vehicle then provide the DRDO provisions for mishandling the project property without prior approval.
  4. Copy of letter of DG (Aero)/Sectt/TSO/1/018 dated 10 March 2015 addressed to Director, GTRE for transfer the vehicle.

Note: The matter is related with corruption allegation that misuse of government funds and mislead to government. The return of vehicle itself proves that DRDO officials are openly wasted the public funds for their enjoyment.

Enclosed: Photograph of Rustom II project vehicle Toyota Innova bearing No  ↑ 14B 113597Y with Brass Plate DG(Aero)

Regards

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

Registration Number     PMOIN/R/2015/60878Rustom car as DG staff car

Drdo

डीआरडीओ के वैज्ञानिकों द्वारा सरकार के नियमो को धता बता कर प्रोजेक्ट्स के नाम पर तकनीकी शब्दावली का प्रयोग कर महंगी गाड़िया खरीद कर उनका निजी उपयोग कर रहे है।

36 Comments
माननीय श्री नरेंद्र मोदी जी                                                                      दिनाक 27 फरवरी 2015
प्रधानमंत्री, भारत सरकार
कक्षसंख्या  152 पीएमओ
साउथ ब्लाक  नईदिल्ली -110011

विषय : डीआरडीओ के वैज्ञानिकों द्वारा सरकार के नियमो को धता बता कर प्रोजेक्ट्स के नाम पर तकनीकी शब्दावली का प्रयोग कर महंगी गाड़िया खरीद कर उनका निजी उपयोग कर रहे है।

आदरणीय मोदी जी

यह बहुत ही खेद का विषय है की जिन  डीआरडीओ के वैज्ञानिकों की तुलना आपने 20 अगस्त 2014 को पुरस्कार वितरण करते हुए ऋषि मुनियो से की थी उनमे सबसे सीनियर डायरेक्टर जनरल, ऐरो,  डॉ के तमिलमणि द्वारा सरकार के सारे नियमो का मजाक बनाते हुए प्रोजेक्ट  की गाड़ी का न केवल दुर्प्रयोग कर रहे अपितु औरो को भी गाड़ियों के दुर्पयोग के लिए सहयोग कर रहे है।

डीआरडीओ के संस्थान ए डी इ, बैंगलोर  में प्रोजेक्ट रुस्तम – 2 के अंतरगर्त एक संस्वीकृति संख्या DRDO/02/333/P/2/Vol-II-394/D/R&D  दिनाक  23/02/2011 द्वारा  5 गाड़ियां  रिमोट वीडियो टर्मिनल (आर वी टी) (टोयटा  इन्नोवा समतुल्य)  77 लाख में खरीदने  की स्वीकृति प्रदान की गयी। (सैंक्शन डिटेल संलग्न है)

एक इन्नोवा डायरेक्टर जनरल, ऐरो,  डॉ के तमिलमणि द्वारा  इस्तेमाल की जा रही है।  गाड़ी में डीजी  ऐरो का बोर्ड लगा है।  ड्राइवर आर्मी का एक हवालदार नियुक्त है।  गाड़ी को देख कर कोई नहीं कह सकता की गाड़ी का इस्तेमाल प्रोजेक्ट रुस्तम – 2 में रिमोट वीडियो टर्मिनल (आर वी टी) में हो रहा है। (चित्र संलग्न है )

डॉ के तमिलमणि द्वारा भारत सरकार के नियम विरुद्ध ट्रांसपोर्ट अलाउंस लाभ भी लिया जा रहा है। (जनवरी की  सैलरी स्लिप संलग्न है)

डॉ के तमिलमणि को सरकार ने सेकंड सेवा विस्तार 62-64 वर्ष भी दिया है जोकि मई 2016 तक है। परन्तु केवल भगवान ही जानता है कि डॉ  तमिलमणि  द्वारा देश व् डीआरडीओ को क्या प्रदान किया है।  क्योंकि देश की साइंटिफिक  क्षेत्र में उनके योगदान का कोई चिन्ह नजर नहीं आता है केवल डीआरडीओ के स्वयं प्रयोजित  पुरस्कार ही उनके खाते में हैं जिनकी कंही भी मान्यता नहीं है। डॉक्ट्रेट की उपाधि का भी अभी अभी प्रबंध किया।

रिमोट वीडियो टर्मिनल (आर वी टी) नाम से ली गयी दूसरी गाड़ी एडीइ निदेशक द्वारा तथा तीसरी गाड़ी प्रोजेक्ट डायरेक्टर रुस्तम -२ द्वारा और सूत्रों के अनुसार बाकि की दो गाड़ियों का कोई सुराग नहीं है।

इसी प्रकार से डीआरडीओ के पुणे स्थित संस्थान एच इ एम आर एल के निदेशक श्री विकास भट्टाचार्य द्वारा  भी इसी प्रकार से एक इन्नोवा मोबाइल इन्ट्रूमेंट कैरियर नाम से खरीद कर अपने इस्तेमाल में ली जा रही है।  टेंडर, फर्म्स, गाड़ी का लाल बत्ती लगा चित्र, सप्लाई आर्डर संख्या आदि संलग्न है।

इन उपरोक्त तथ्यों से यह लगता है कि रक्षा लेखा विभाग का जैसे डीआरडीओ के अधिकारीयों   द्वारा अपहरण कर दिया है।  क्या उन्हे वार्षिक ऑडिट में यह सब दिखाई नहीं देता या रक्षा लेखा अधिकारियो ने आँख बंद कर रखी है ?

आपसे अनुरोध है की आपकी  लाल किले  की प्रतिज्ञा “न खायंगे न खाने देंगे” का कुछ तो असर इन  तथाकित डीआरडीओ के वैज्ञानिकों पर डालने की कृपा करे अन्यथा ये इस देश के करदाताओं से मिले बहुमूल्य पैसो को अपने मजे के लिए उड़ा देंगे।

आपसे यह भी अनुरोध है कि संलग्न शिकायती पत्र को सीवीसी  व् सीविओ (रक्षा मंत्रालय) को तत्काल प्रभाव से जाँच करने के आदेश के साथ अग्रसारित करने का  कष्ट करें।

धन्यवाद

प्रभु डंडरियाल
21-सुंदरवाला, रायपुर, देहरादून
फ़ोन  0135- 2787750, मोबाइल – 9411114879,
e-मेल   prabhudoon@gmail.com  वेबसाइट  www.corruptionindrdo.com

संलग्न

  1. सैंक्शन डिटेल की प्रतिलिपि
  2. डॉ के तमिलमणि द्वारा इस्तेमाल की जा रही रिमोट वीडियो टर्मिनल (आर वी टी) का चित्र
  3. डॉ के तमिलमणि की जनवरी की सैलरी स्लिप की प्रतिलिपि
  4. एच इ एम आर एल के निदेशक श्री विकास भट्टाचार्य द्वारा इस्तेमाल की जा रही इन्नोवा मोबाइल इन्ट्रूमेंट कैरियर का चित्र
  5. मोबाइल इन्ट्रूमेंट कैरियर की टेंडर, फर्म्स, व् अन्य डिटेल्स

To                                                                                    27th February 2015
Chief Vigilance Commissioner,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkata Bhawan, A Block, GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi – 110004

To
The Joint Secretary (Estt.) and Public Grievances & CVO,
Ministry of Defence, of India,
97, South Block,
New Delhi -110 105.

Subject: Complaint regarding misuse of Government funds fooling the country & government by using technical gimmicks.

Sir,

  1. K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore using Toyota Innova vehicle bearing No 14B 113597Y, it seems that vehicle procured under sanction of Project Rustom –II in the name of Remote Video Terminal Vehicle.
  2. According the sanction letter No DRDO/02/333/P/2/Vol-II-394/D/R&D date 23/02/2011. The 5 no of Toyota Innova sanction for Rs 77 Lakhs in the name of Remote Video Terminal Vehicle was sanctioned as per file No DHRD/76682/ ADE(Proj)(Misc) /VEH/ C /P/01dated 27 June 2013
  3. The letter no DHRD/76682/ADE/(Proj)(Misc)/VEH/P/01 date 27 Jun 2013 signed by Dr Hina A Gokhle, Director, HRD, DRDO Hqrs in its para 4 “This letter issue with special concurrence of Ministry of Finance/Deptt of Expenditure in exemption of the extent ban vide their ID Note No 18(2)/E.Coord)/2013(84982) dated 28/05/213)”. It is clear evidence that DRDO senior scientists try to fooling country system. They are taking extraordinary sanction of vehicle by showing its utility in project by putting name “Remote Video Terminal Vehicle”. The vehicle simply using by Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), as luxury staff car.
  4. At the same time Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore availing the transport allowance of Rs 14490/- which attracts severe disciplinary action against under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, False claims on the Government like T.A claims reimbursement claims, etc. False claims on the Government like T.A claims reimbursement claims, etc, Obtaining or attempting to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without consideration or for a consideration which is not adequate. (Salary slip of month of January 2015 enclosed)
  5. Three vehicles are using by Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), Director, ADE & Program Director Rustom – II, and rest not traceable.
  6. K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore violated the Motor Vehicle Act by putting DG Name plate in front of Toyota Innova.
  7. It is requested that please register case against Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore for maneuvering of Government funds under the provision of prevention of corruption act section 13(2), or any other applicable acts of GOI.
  8. As per DRDO TRANSPORT POLICY- CUM – PROCEDURE 1998

PROCUREMENT OF VEHICLES

4.2         The requirement of vehicles from the procurement point of view, fall under the following three broad categories:-

(a) Service Pattern Vehicles.

(b) Trade Pattern Vehicles.

(c) Specialist / Dedicated Vehicles.

4.8       PRQCUEMENT OF Specialist / Dedicated Vehicles:

The procedure for procurement of the basic vehicle i.e. chassis and engines will be the same as for the Service Pattern/Trade Vehicles i.e, from Army Sources, DGS&E) rate contract or Trade. Modifications/ fabrications base vehicles will be based on the guidelines laid dawn in CWR. These modifications, if cannot be under taken by the selected suppliers / manufacturers will be assigned, under a development / fabrication contract following the DRDO procedures in vogue for such contracts. The expenditure involved will be met from the project for which such vehicles are required.

Regards

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

Enclosed

  1. Toyota Innova 14B 113597Y with name plate DG, Aero
  2. Sanction Details No DRDO/02/333/P/2/Vol-II-394/D/R&D date 23/02/2011
  3. Salary slip January 2015 of Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero)
The vehicle was procured for Project Rustom in the name of Remote Video Terminal Vehicle. Vide letter No DRDO/02/333/P/2/Vol-II-394/D/R&D date 23/02/2011.
The vehicle was procured for Project Rustom in the name of Remote Video Terminal Vehicle. Vide letter No DRDO/02/333/P/2/Vol-II-394/D/R&D date 23/02/2011.
Rustom - II Project car as DG staff car
Dr. K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore using Toyota Innova vehicle bearing No 14B 113597Y. The vehicle was procured for Project Rustom -II in the name of Remote Video Terminal Vehicle
Director ADE Toyota Innova
Director, ADE, Bangalore  using Toyota Innova procured for Project Rustom-II in the name of Remote Video Terminal Vehicle

 

Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore availing the transport allowance Rs 14490. Please see his January pay slip
Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore availing the transport allowance Rs 14490. Please see his January pay slip

HEMRL Toyota Innova case

Supply Order No.HEMRL/AT052/D16/LP dt.20.12.2014
Delivery Challan No.SE/11/14-15 dt.31.12.2014
Supply order place to Spar Enterprises Pune
Tender Enquiry place to Spar Enterprises Mumbai

Filel Reference No: HEMRL/MMD/3044/SRP/14-15/249/D-3
Tender Enquiry No.: HEMRL/15ATT097ILP dt.03.11.2014
Tender Opening Date & Time 16-Nov-2014, 1500 hrs

Sh Vikas Bhattacharya, Director, Using this Toyota Innova, The Red beacon is proof
Sh Bikas Bhattacharya, Director, HEMRL, Pune Using this Toyota Innova, The Red beacon is proof
Toyota Innova Details
Toyota Innova Details
hemrl tender1
Tender Inquiry
hemrl tender6
Instrument Mobile Carrier Drawing

 

Drdo

Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore using Toyota Innova vehicle as Staff Car

40 Comments

Dear DRDO friends,

Most of Lab Directors/ CC&D/DG etc are using official vehicle not only for themselves but for family members also.

VI th pay commission increased hefty transport allowance, most of these DRDO corrupt officials start managing transport via project vehicle.

Earlier you all witnessed the taxi hiring bills in the tune of Rs 9000 -10000 per week by DLRL scientists,

Please the enclose case of Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore using Toyota Innova vehicle bearing No #14B 113597Y. The Driver is one Army Hawldar, Why army personal because without OT he can use this gentleman, Other reason is he can share the visits of Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), with vendors/suppliers to any ADE employees,

The vehicle was procured for Project Rustom in the name of Remote Video Terminal Vehicle. Vide letter No DRDO/02/333/P/2/Vol-II-394/D/R&D date 23/02/2011.

modi ji & Tamilmani
मोदी जी आपके हाथो से ईमानदारी की एक वेव भी डॉ के तमिलमणि के अंदर नहीं गयी लगता है तमिलमणि को एक जादू की झप्पी चाहिये

Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore availing the transport allowance Rs 14490. Please see his January payslip.

I have sent all these input to Bangalore based journalist Sh Sharan Poovanna, Senior Correspondent with the New Indian Express. He tried his best to get Dr K Tamilmani’s view but Dr K Tamilmani just walked away without giving any explanation.

Dr K Tamilmani is public servant he cannot escape from responsibility; he is bound to give answer about misusing the poor tax payer’s money.

Today, Dr. K Tamilmani, DG-Aero has come in his own vehicle, but driven by military Havaldar. Interestingly, even ADE office cannot have a military Havaldar posting; Dr. K Tamilmani has managed his posting to ADE and using him as driver.

It is requested and appeal to all DRDO friends just keep your eye open help the government to clean mission.

Jai Hind

Rustom car as DG staff car
.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore using Toyota Innova vehicle bearing No 14B 113597Y. The vehicle was procured for Project Rustom in the name of Remote Video Terminal Vehicle
The vehicle was procured for Project Rustom in the name of Remote Video Terminal Vehicle. Vide letter No DRDO/02/333/P/2/Vol-II-394/D/R&D date 23/02/2011.
The vehicle was procured for Project Rustom in the name of Remote Video Terminal Vehicle. Vide letter No DRDO/02/333/P/2/Vol-II-394/D/R&D date 23/02/2011.
Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore availing the transport allowance Rs 14490. Please see his January pay slip
Dr.K Tamilmani, DG (Aero), DRDO, Bangalore availing the transport allowance Rs 14490. Please see his January pay slip

 

Now Ms Munjula enjoying the post of Director, DARE with blessing of Shri S S Sundaram, Director General, DRDO
Now Ms Munjula enjoying the post of Director, DARE with blessing of Shri S S Sundaram, Director General, DRDO
Drdo

First Appeal – Parking – DMSRDE

1 Comment

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

To,
  Shri Suranjan 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/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 issued by CPIO, 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:-applicant2.   Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-cpio kanpur

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

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 received by appellant on 04 November 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)          An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 04 October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Parking“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 04 October 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)          Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of Corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c)          It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 04 October 2013 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”.

(d)          In point (c) (1) of reply dated 29 October, 2013 CPIO informed that “Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur has not ordered for construction of any vehicle parking stand inside DMSRDE not being constructed”. It was also mentioned “Other information related to vehicle stand are also irrelevant and not applicable”.

(e)          In point (d)(2) of reply dated 29 October, 2013 CPIO informed that “Regarding CSD Canteen, its functioning has started from 21st April 1977 and running continuously. The other information asked has no relevance with the allegations of Corruption. It is a social welfare activity and run in authorized manner with manually agreed terms & conditions of DMSRDE and MES office of, DMSRDE, Kanpur”.

(f)           CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 04 October 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide 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 CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on CPIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

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 04 October 2013 under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 04 October 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(c)        Information was denied by CPIO, 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 04 October 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 as information sought is related to Establishment Matter and allegations of Corruption.

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

(f)         CPIO 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 CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.

6.   Prayer /relief sought for:-

  1. Information sought vides RTI Application dated 04 October 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 04 October 2013.
  2. Direction may kindly be issued to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions.
    1. 7.   Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
    2. 1.     CIC decisions on notified organizations 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)     Information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 was pertaining to Establishment Matter

(v)      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)

(vi)     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“.

2.     Nature of information sought is not  related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

Information sought is related to “Parking”. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

3.     Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature is permissible & allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.

4.     Information sought is also related to allegations of Corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 04 October 2013. Information sought is 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 CPIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. In case the prima facie evidences of Corruption are available the appellant will approach to CVC/CBI not file RTI to get information pertaining to allegations of Corruption?

                  i.        It is alleged that Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE misused his powers to construct/erect the parking shade near CSD Canteen. It has been accepted by Director, DMSRDE vide Minute Sheet No.  AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 issued by Dr. D.N. Tripathi, Addl. Director (Admin).  Vide this order “all officers & employees of DMSRDE were ordered to park their vehicles in parking area/shades near CSD Canteen with effect from 01 October 2013”. Again Chief Security Officer issued ION dated 03.10.2013 on behalf of Director regarding Car-Parking near Admin. Building. Again an ION was issued by Dr. DN Tripathi, Addl. Director(Admin) regarding parking area near CSD Canteen.

                ii.        This parking shade/vehicle stand was not constructed by MES or CCE (R&D) North. It was constructed by Director, DMSRDE using private contractor of his favor M/s Gupta Constructions, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur. Thereby CPIO provided false information vides his letter dated 29 October 2013.

              iii.        MES(Military Engineering Services) and CCE(R&D) are the only agencies authorize for any construction of buildings , to execute minor & major work in buildings, construction /erect of shades/parking area etc. in Technical & Residential area of DMSRDE.

               iv.        The source of fund used to erect two shades was from one project fund and not from build-up fund. Project fund cannot be used for construction work. Hence Dr. AK Saxena, Director misused his powers to illegal and unauthorized construction of two parking shades near CSD Canteen inside the Technical Area of DMSRDE, to give undue advantage to M/s Gupta Construction, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur with vested interest.

                 v.        All supply orders for purchase of material used to erect the parking shades were issued to M/s Gupta Constructions who is neighbor to Dr. AK Saxena residence at Gandhi Gram, Kanpur.

               vi.        Misuse of powers for personal gains, unauthorized construction and misuse of funds is clear case of Corruption. Documents are available in records with DMSRDE which can be verified by FAA.

             vii.        It is quite evident from Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 that there exists building of CSD Canteen in DMSRDE near newly constructed parking area/shade.

            viii.        The nomenclature of building in which CSD canteen is running is CHEM STORE, as per MES record. Director, DMSRDE is using this building in unauthorized manner to run CSD Canteen in this building. CSD Canteen is a profitable URC under CSD hence it should pay rent as well as electrical charges to MES. In this connection MES also issued notice to CSD Canteen for payment of electrical charges and recently cut down the power of CSD  for fifteen days, thereby CSD was closed for about fifteen days.

               ix.        Information sought is related to “Parking”. This information is not related to any scientific/technical/strategic matter. Therefore information related to contract, supply order, purchase, construction and manufacturing etc. is disclosable under RTI Act, CIC decisions mentioned above and even by FAA, DRDO.

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
Uttarakhand

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DMSRDE/2013/Parking

Date: 08 November, 2013                                          

 Enclosure: Two 

(1)  Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 29 October 2013.

(2)  RTI Application dated 04 October 2013.

 

Drdo

Chinks in the Armour – What ail DRDO, India’s Premier Defence Organigation?

Leave a comment

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- I

‘How long should we wait?’

George Iype

DRDO is responsible for indigenising and constantly upgrading the country’s weapons and equipment inventory and related supplies. But the dilemma has always been to determine the correct balance between make or buy.
The Kargil Review Committee Report
Make. Or buy?

That has been a longstanding issue between the DRDO and the Services. The former complains that the armed forces make impossible demands. The Forces say the DRDO has failed to develop the frontiers of defence technology. And that its claim to produce anything and everything has virtually strangulated critical defence exports.

Experts say it was in fact the collapse of the Soviet Union that drove home the urgency to reduce dependence on external suppliers and rely on indigenous defence production. “Thus over the years, the DRDO has been volunteering to produce virtually anything for the Indian forces. The result is that it has now accumulated nearly 1,000 projects. The DRDO does not have the capability to accomplish some of these,” says Rajendra Mohan, an independent defence analyst in Hyderabad.

According to Mohan, the DRDO promises to make anything for the Forces simply to keep many of its laboratories running. “Or else, some of the labs would have already been shut,” he points out.

Experts like Mohan argue that the very method of calculating the indigenisation content of defence development and production is a matter of debate. Over the years, the government has set up 10 committees under the Department of Defence Production to identify the scope of items such as aircraft, electronics warfare systems and armament. Based on their reports, the government had been claiming for more than a decade that the self-reliance and indigenisation content will be brought up to 70 per cent before 2000.

The core point as per this plan is minimising imports and inducting indigenously designed and manufactured systems. The stress was on increased research and development and the DRDO was the agency to implement it.

But last year, the government — after a thorough review of the DRDO — admitted that the indigenisation level still remained at only 30 per cent. It then quickly created a Self Reliance Implementation Council, chaired by then DRDO chief and now scientific advisor to the prime minister, Dr Abdul Kalam. The Council’s aim is to take indigenisation to 70 per cent by 2005. But many believe like all other DRDO targets, this deadline would also slip.

DRDO scientists claim they have made significant achievements on indigenisation and in their efforts to meet the requirements of the armed forces. They include flight simulators for aircraft, 68mm reusable rocket pod, brake parachute for fighter aircraft, mini remotely-piloted vehicle, light field gun, a new family of light weight small arms systems, charge line mine-clearing vehicle for safe passage of vehicles in the battlefield, and illuminated ammunitions for enhancing night fighting capabilities in their list of achievements.

The DRDO has also developed a cluster weapon system for fighter aircraft, naval mines, next generation bombs for high speed aircraft, low-level tracking radars Indra-I and II for the army and air force, light field artillery radar, battlefield surveillance radar, advanced ship sonar systems and torpedo launchers.

“Our biggest success and pioneering work has been the testing five nuclear devices during May 11-13, 1998 in the Pokhran range,” claims a DRDO scientist.

In collaboration with the Department of Atomic Energy, DRDO in fact designed, tested and produced advanced detonators, ruggedised high volt trigger systems, interface engineering, systems engineering and systems integration to military specifications for the nuclear blast.

“Like the nuclear bomb project, several high-technology projects are in various stages of design and development. Therefore, it is ridiculous to allege that we are a useless bunch of scientists for the armed forces,” the scientist adds.

Indeed, the problem is that for years DRDO has been enmeshed in several high-technology projects that no one really knows when the armed forces will be able to induct.

“DRDO has been acting like a dog in the manger. The agency has considerably torpedoed our efforts to import state of the art equipment because it has been boasting to make every available defence equipment that we demand,” an army officer says angrily.

For instance, he says, though the defence ministry sanctioned competence build-up projects for the multi-barrel rocket launcher Pinaka in the 1980s, DRDO is nowhere near accomplishing the target. The delay has forced the army to continue to depend upon their existing outdated system, whose range is much less compared to that envisaged for Pinaka.

Concerned about terrible delays in some of the vital projects, the army, the air force and the navy are these days asking just one question: “How long should we wait?”

For the Forces, these projects are lifelines. They include India’s indigenously built surface-to-air missiles Trishul and Akash which were to have replaced the Russian-supplied OSA-AK and Kvadrat systems in 1990. Then there is the most ambitious multi-role fighter, the light combat aircraft, the indigenous production of which DRDO has been grappling with in the last 17 years.

The main battle tank Arjun, incorporating state-of-art tank technologies with superior fire power, high mobility and excellent protection has been developed by DRDO. But the army is unhappy with its performance.

There are growing concerns among the Forces, and politicians and defence experts about the terrible delays of the DRDO and its ability to keep promises. For at stake is not just the concept of indigenisation, but a huge investment of more than Rs 150 billion that the government has made for the last two decades on various projects. Would the money be completely wasted?

“Weapon systems face obsolescence very fast. So the DRDO will have to either give up some projects or reorient its functioning,” says Mohan.

Yet, DRDO has been mouthing the political platitude of indigenisation by postponing the deadlines of LCA, Pinaka, Trishul, Akash, nuclear submarines and several types of electronics warfare systems for the army, air force and navy.

The Kargil conflict last year exposed the chinks in DRDO’s armour. None other than Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee echoed the Forces’s worries when he told DRDO directors on August 6, 1999: “Technology needed for mountain warfare is to be given the highest priority.”
But the biggest worry for DRDO is not the bureaucratic delays and sanctions, but the Indian air force. Faced with diminishing number of its ageing fleet, the IAF holds DRDO responsible for promising to deliver the LCA before year 2,000, thereby considerably upsetting many of its aircraft acquisition plans.

Suspecting that DRDO will never deliver the LCA, the IAF has now embarked on an ambitious project to upgrade 100 MiG-21 aircraft.

Despite the heavy odds, DRDO still remains confident that it will roll out the country’s first indigenous aircraft before 2002.

“We will induct 200 LCAs into the Indian Air Force between 2003 and 2010,” Dr Abdul Kalam told a group of aeronautical scientists before he handed over DRDO’s charges to Dr Vasudev K Aatre.

But there aren’t many who believe that promise will be fulfilled.