Tag Archives: within

Nirmala Sitaraman gave more teeth to corrupt DRDO

Latest step taken to enhance financial powers of DRDO officials without fixing the accountbility and ignoring all the .corruption complaints, right from Dr V K Sarswat to various, C C R&D, DG, like Dr K D Nayak, Dr Selvamurthy, Dr Guru Prasad, Director s like  Dr.A K Saxena, Dr Lokendra Singh big Drama of Bio toilet, the list of very long

It seems Nirmala Sitaraman not having time to have a look at the piled up  files of CVO, MoD and Director Vigillang & Security, DRDO

Or is she repeating the history of Ministry of defence when Congress government replaced Sh Pranav Mukherji with Sh Antony with some unseen motives.

Jai ho

27-June-2018 16:10 IST
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Defence

To enhance efficiency and effectiveness of Defence Research establishments,
Raksha Mantri Smt Nirmala Sitharaman has decided to delegate greater
financial powers to various authorities. This wind of change in Defence
Research and Development (R&D) is intended to neutralise the ill-effects of
over-centralisation and facilitate quicker decision making. This is in line with
similar financial delegations made to Armed Forces in the last one year. The
delegated powers now stands enhanced as under:-
Powers of Secretary, Defence R&D to sanction projects and for
procurements enhanced from Rs. 75 Crore to Rs. 150 Crore and for the
Directors General (DG) enhanced from Rs. 50 Crore to Rs. 75 Crore
Enhancement of powers for Proprietary Article Certificate (PAC) cases
From Rs. 50 Crore. to Rs. 150 Crore for Secretary Defence (R&D);
From Rs. 25 Crore to Rs. 75 Crore to DGs;
From Rs. 2 Crore to Rs. 5 Crore for Lab Directors.
Enhancement of powers for Single Tender cases
From Rs. 50 Crore to Rs. 75 Crore for Secretary Defence (R&D);
From Rs. 25 Crore to Rs. 37.5 Crore for DGs;
From Rs. 1 Crore to Rs. 2.5 Crore for Lab Directors.
All Competent Financial Authority empowered to reallocate funds, reduce
and enhance costs of projects/programmes within their delegated powers.
The powers of Director General (DG) have been enhanced from Rs. 3
Crore to Rs. 5 Crore for sanctioning Research projects to Universities,
Technological Institutions and to Indigenous Defence Industry under the
Technology Development Fund Scheme of DRDO.
Powers of post-contract management and maintenance support in respect of
contracts for which CFA is the Ministry of Defence, have been delegated to
Directors General of DRDO in line with the delegations already made to
the Armed Forces.
Delegations for Hygiene and Maintenance Contracts, training expenses,
miscellaneous and contingent activities have been rationalized and
enhanced to ensure that sanctions are given at the Director and DG levels
with minimal flow of files to DRDO HQ.
Consequently, the powers for sanctioning of projects and for procurements that
were hitherto with the Secretary Defence R&D have now been delegated to the
Directors General of DRDO and the delegation to the Secretary, Defence R&D
has been doubled, A number of powers relating to day-to-day functioning that
were centralized at DRDO HQ have now been delegated to the DGs and Lab
Directors. The delegations also bring flexibility in Universities and by
indigenous defence industry. All the delegations that had been made in respect
of the services have also been extended to the DRDO.
The Director Generals of DRDO has expressed their satisfaction at this major
initiative by the Government and have opined that these forward-looking
measures would ensure that majority of the decisions relating to
implementation and functioning would largely be taken within the technology
clusters whereas policy issues would primarily come to the Government. Given
the geographically dispersed Clusters and Laboratories, this will be greatly
reduce file movements to and from the DRDO HQ at New Delhi and facilitate
faster decision-making.

 

DRDO whistle-blowers seek Sitharaman’s intervention

Abhinandan Mishra
May 26, 2018 – Sunday Guardian Live

Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

Arun Jaitley had ordered action against two senior scientists in a case in DRDO.

Whistle-blowers and scientists working with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) have written to Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, seeking her intervention in an alleged corruption case within the DRDO. Sitharaman’s predecessor Arun Jaitley had ordered disciplinary action against two senior scientists in this case, but no action has been taken yet. This newspaper is in possession of a correspondence that was shared by the whistle-blower with the Defence Minister. As per this correspondence, R.K. Jain (Director, Joint Cipher Bureau of the DRDO) and A.K. Singh (Director, Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences) were allegedly found to have been involved in “wasting” government money by conducting interviews for the promotion of scientists in DRDO, despite statutory rules barring such interviews. The DRDO had later stated that even though Rs 1 crore had been spent on calling 255 scientists for the interview, the results of the interview were not used to decide the promotions.

At the time of the interviews in 2011, R.K. Jain was the director of DRDO’s Recruitment and Assessment Centre (which takes care of recruitment and promotions), while A.K. Singh was the director of Directorate of Human Resource Development.

As per DRDO’s own admission, the amount spent on conducting similar interviews in subsequent years (2012 and 2013) was far less than what had been spent in 2011, though a greater number of scientists were interviewed—333 in 2012 and 376 in 2013. When contacted, Manish Bhardwaj, the spokesperson of DRDO, sought some time to respond and told this newspaper on 17 May: “The matter is being examined by a committee on the direction of Hon’ble Raksha Mantri. The committee shall submit the report in 3-4 days. After submission, DRDO would be in a position to provide the information sought by you.” However, no further information regarding the submission of the said report was shared by the spokesperson with this newspaper.

Official sources within the DRDO stated that no such committee was ever constituted in the matter.

The entire incident had come to light when a whistle-blower from DRDO first wrote to the Defence Minister and the Chief Vigilance Officer in July 2014, detailing how public money was wasted and that the whole process was used by the individuals concerned to indulge in alleged corruption.

“Instead of taking action against the two officials for their deliberate misconduct, DRDO rewarded them by awarding R.K. Jain with ‘Best techno managerial services/popular science communication award for his performance in 2011. A.K. Singh was promoted from the grade of Scientist F to the grade of Scientist G in 2011,” reads the latest communication to Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. In June 2017, the then Defence Minister Arun Jaitley had ordered disciplinary action against Jain and Singh for causing a loss of Rs 1 crore to Government of India. “DRDO is known for using delaying tactics to shield officers. It deliberately sits on disciplinary orders of defence ministers to make sure that the officials in question retire without facing any punishment. They did this when Jaitley was the Defence Minister and are doing the same under Nirmala Sitharaman,” one of the whistle-blowers said.

ALL IS NOT WELL WITH DRDO FUNCTIONING

Wednesday, 09 May 2018 | PNS | Dehradun 
In a big goof up which puts up a question mark over the functioning of country’s premier institute involved in research in the field of defence, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), an official posted as Estate Manager in Dehradun has been transferred to a position which doesn’t even exits. In an order dated April 27, the directorate of personnel, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi transferred Estate Manager, Maintenance, Dehradun, D P Singh to Project office, Dehradun along with 12 other officials. As per the order his place in Dehradun would be taken over by the Estate Manager, Hyderabad, William Paul. The transfer order bears signature of personnel director Gopal Bhushan.

The order clearly states that the transfers would be applicable from May 1 and the transferred personnel should take new charge assigned to them within 30 days of the issue of the order. The order has however created a piquant situation in Dehradun as there is no project office here as depicted in the order. When contacted the Director ITM,(DRDO) Sanjay Tandon said, “ The order has come from headquarters so one should inquire about it from there only. It could be a typographical error or there could be a plan to set up new office here.”

It is pertinent to mention here that D P Singh has been working on the post of Estate Manager from last 12 years. He was looking after the task of appointment of contract workers in all three institutes of DRDO in Dehradun, the Defence Electronic Application Laboratory (DEAL), Instruments Research and Development Establishment (IRDE) and Institute of Technology Management (IMT).

The transfer of D P Singh was long overdue and the way he was transferred from one office in Dehradun to another nonexistent office in Dehradun only has raised many an eyebrow in all three offices of DRDO located here.

 

Rustom-II takes to skies as mystery over transfer of its project director continues

By Pradip R. Sagar February 26, 2018 THE WEEK
Over a month after ‘unceremonious departure’ of the project director of Rustom-II drone A.P.V.S. Prasad, DRDO on Sunday carried out test flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in Challakere in Karnataka’s Chitradurga district.

After the test, DRDO came out with a statement that a medium-altitude long-endurance UAV was “successful”.

However, colleagues of Prasad—“scientist-G”who was made project director of the Rustom-II UAV programme of DRDO in 2015—are still curious to know the reason behind Prasad’s sudden transfer from the project, which he actually revived. Insiders claim that Prasad’s departure was linked to his objection to the lobby, which was pushing for a particular engine for the Rustom-II. Rustom was being developed with an Austrian engine, but a few people in the organisation wanted to replace it with the engine made by an Indian firm, despite the engine’s failure to meet the ‘technical parameters’ to be used in the UAV.

Sensing foul play, Scientists Association of Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE)—DRDO’s laboratory making the UAVs—has approached Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to look into the matter (copy of the letter is with The WEEK). Following the complaint, a discreet inquiry is being conducted by the intelligence agencies.

On January 16, 2018, DRDO’s headquarters issued an order for transfer of Prasad to an another DRDO lab on grounds of “public interest”. Incidentally, Prasad was honoured with the best scientist award in 2017.

According to the letter from the ADE association, Prasad, who was in the DRDO for over 30 years, was promoted as the programme director of coveted Rustom-II in 2015. He actually rejuvenating the project, which was lying in a pathetic condition, and within a year of taking over, he managed to carry out first test flight of Rustom-II, the letter reveals.

When contacted, DRDO spokesperson Manish Bhardwaj declined to comment on the issue saying “he was unaware of the internal developments”.

On Sunday, DRDO came out with a statement saying “DRDO successfully flew its Rustom 2 today at its Aeronautical Test Range (ATR) at Chalakere at Chitradurga. This flight assumes significance due to the fact that this is the first flight in user configuration with higher power engine.”

Unarmed drone Rustom-II is being developed to carry out surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) roles for the armed forces with an endurance of 24 hours, on the lines of Predator drone of the US forces.

According to the officials, Rustom-II is capable of carrying different combinations of payloads like synthetic aperture radar, electronic intelligence systems and situational awareness payloads.

DRDO testing drone falls in agricultural field in Karnataka’s Nayakanahatti

By Express News Service | Published: 21st February 2018
CHITRADURGA: A drone operated by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for surveillance crash-landed at an agriculture field belonging to Bangarappa of Doreyagalahatti village near Nayakanahatti of Chitradurga district on Wednesday morning.

The drone which was launched to test the capabilities of its surveillance from the Chitradurga Aeronautical Test Range (CATR) of Challakere taluk took off well from outer perimeter of the range, but fell in the field at around 8 am said Bangarappa. This is the first time a drone fell down during the testing in Chitradurga district.

Scientists Saravana, Shivabalasubramanyam and others visited the crash site and collected the drone and other equipment and took it back to their centre.

The 20 kg weighing drone lost connection with the radar immediately after taking off from the testing arena and fell within a radius of three kilometers from the range in a Ragi field. However, no problems, loss of valuables or life has been reported.

Palamma, an agricultural labourer who was working in the field was shocked when the drone fell on the field. Speaking to Express she questioned, ‘I am still in a state of shock, if it fell on me what might be my fate?’.

‘When I was watering the Ragi plants, the drone came down very fast, I feared to its speed and ran for my safety,” she added.

Bangarappa said, “Falling of drone in my field has created a fear psychosis in me and my neighbouring fields. DRDO without consulting farmers is conducting drone testing programmes nearby the fields. They should consult farmers in future to avoid such accidents.”

If any casualties would have taken place during the accident who would have been responsible, he asked.

According to a scientist, the drone was fitted with a camera and was being tested to conduct surveillance on the borders to ensure that no intruders enter into the Indian territories. Immediately on knowing the failure of the drone, scientists and officials of the CATR arrived at the crash spot and collected the drone from the spot. Nayakanahatti police are investigating the incident.

SC Suspends All Engineering Degrees Obtained Between 2001 & 2005 Through Distance Courses From 3 Universities; Those After 2005 Cancelled

BY: APOORVA MANDHANI NOVEMBER 3, 2017 4:05 PM LIVE LAW. IN
The Supreme Court has suspended the Engineering degrees granted between 2001 and 2005 to all graduates through distance learning by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan (JRN), Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Rajasthan (IASE) and Allahabad(AAI)

The Bench comprising Justice A.K. Goel and Justice U.U. Lalit ruled that the degrees would remain suspended till the students pass an examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC. It further added that “every single advantage” on the basis of the degree would also stand suspended till then.
For this purpose, the Court has directed the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) to conduct appropriate written and practical tests for the concerned students. The entire expenditure for conducting the tests has been directed to be recovered from the concerned Universities.
The students would get only two chances to pass the exam, failing which their degrees will stand recalled and cancelled. Further, in case the students do not wish to appear in such tests, the Court directed refund of the money deposited by them towards tuition and other charges. The students have been given time till 15 January to exercise the option to take the tests.
The degrees obtained after the year 2005, for courses through distance learning have, however, been cancelled. The Court clarified, “Any benefit which a candidate has secured as a result of such degrees in Engineering in the nature of promotion or advancement in career shall also stand recalled. However, if any monetary benefit was derived by such candidates that monetary benefit or advantage will not be recovered by the concerned departments or employers.”
The entire amount paid by such students has been directed to be refunded by 31 May, 2018. The decision was rendered after the Court found that the three Universities had, before 2005, imparted education in technical fields through distance learning without obtaining approval from the concerned authorities. Further, while ex-postfacto permission was obtained after 2005, this permission was declared illegal by the Court, for lack of adherence to the principles laid down in this regard.
For those who had enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005, the Court noted that since 2004, the UGC Guidelines gave liberty to the concerned Universities to apply for the ex-postfacto approval and observed, “the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001- 2005 is protected”.
This ‘sympathy’ was, however, not shown to those who had enrolled after 2005, observing that the “Policy Statements as well as warnings issued from time to time were absolutely clear” with regard to the lack of sanction to such Courses.

Factual matrix

The Court was hearing two groups of Appeals– one arising from a judgment passed by Orissa High Court and the other arising from a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The litigation began when the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (OLIC) refused promotion to an in-service graduate Engineer, contending that the degrees obtained by the concerned candidates through distance education from JRN were not recognized degrees. It had, therefore, contended that they could not be considered Graduate Engineers eligible for the benefits. The Orissa High Court had, however, disagreed with OLIC, directing it to consider the candidates as in-service Engineers.
The Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court had sought a direction that degrees in Engineering obtained through distance education from certain Universities including JRN be declared invalid for the purpose of obtaining Government jobs in the State. The prayer was allowed by the Court.
The two High Courts had, therefore, rendered conflicting judgments, prompting the Supreme Court to take up the matters together.
Examine whether Deemed Universities can offer such distance education programs, the Court took note of the notifications, circulars and guidelines issued in this regard and observed that the Deemed Universities in the case at hand had sought ex-postfacto approval for their distance courses. None of these Universities had taken any prior permission from the University Grants Commission (UGC), AICTE and Distance Education Council (DEC).
While the approval was granted by the DEC, the Court ruled that the DEC was not empowered to grant such permissions without consulting the AICTE. It ruled that not only did the DEC lack jurisdiction to grant the approval, but that it had also granted the same without any inspection.
“This leads us to conclude that the permissions granted by DEC in the first instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities in question to introduce courses leading to the award of degrees in engineering were illegal and opposed to Law,” the Court ruled.
It, thereafter, went on to accept the view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court and set aside the judgment rendered by the Orissa High Court.
Directives:
In the 118 page judgment, the Apex Court lamented the commercialization of education and highlighted the need for an oversight and regulatory mechanism for distance education degrees, especially those relating to technical education.
It then reiterated its directions, summarizing them as follows:

I. 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not justified in introducing any new courses in Technical Education without the approval of AICTE.
II  Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside.
III Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities stand suspended.
IV The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above. The option be given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by 15.01.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in accordance with the directions in Para 47 above. Students be given not more than two chances to clear test/tests and if they do not successfully clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in Paras 46 and 47 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018.
V Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and other charges within one month of the exercise of such option. Needless to say their degrees shall stand cancelled and all advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in Para 47.
VI If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully.
VII As regards students who were admitted after the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in Para 48 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.05.2018, as indicated in Para 48.
VIII By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be Universities shall refund the sums indicated above in VII and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter.
IX We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions who abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such investigation.
X The UGC shall also consider whether the Deemed to be University status enjoyed by JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF calls for any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 30.06.2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above are not refunded to the concerned students that factor shall be taken into account while conducting such exercise.
XI We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session 2018- 2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permission are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus Centres/Study Centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals have to be course specific.
XII The UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be Universities from using the word ‘University’ within one month from today.
XIII The Union of India may constitute a three members Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the Deemed to be Universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before August 312018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11.09.2018.”

SC cancels engineering degrees given by deemed universities through correspondence course

Amit Anand Choudhary | TIMESOFINDIA.COM | Updated: Nov 3, 2017, 16:26 IST
HIGHLIGHTS
The apex court restrained educational institutions from providing courses in subjects like engineering, in the distance education mode
With its ruling, the SC affirmed the findings of the Punjab and Haryana high court on the issue
Also with its ruling, the SC set aside a verdict by the Odisha high court, which allowed technical education by correspondence
NEW DELHI: Engineering degrees of hundreds of students who pursued education through correspondence course from four deemed Universities — JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education in Rajasthan, Allahabad Agricultural Institute and Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation in Tamil Nadu from year 2001 on wards have been quashed by the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit, however, allowed students of 2001-05 batch to get their degree by appearing in the examination to be conducted by AICTE but it cancelled the degrees of students of subsequent batches as the deemed university had not got approval from authorities for the course.
“As regards students who were admitted after the academic sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in engineering awarded by the concerned deemed to be universities through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned deemed to be universities towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the concerned deemed to be universities,” the bench said.
The apex court also restrained deemed universities from offering correspondence courses without getting approval from AICTE. “We restrain all “deemed to be universities” to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the academic session 2018- 2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus centres/study centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the concerned statutory authorities. The approvals have to be course specific,” the bench said.
The court also directed CBI inquiry to catch the government officials who had allowed deemed universities to offer the distance learning courses which was not allowed. The court asked the government to constitute a high-level committee to examine the functioning of deemed universities.
We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions who abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally.
“The Union of India may constitute a three members Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the Deemed to be Universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before August 31, 2018” it said.

DRDO sets timeline for fixing grievances to discourage direct complaint to PM Modi

By Pradip R. Sagar 14 September 2016 The New Indian Express
modi_afp-14-sept-16

NEW DELHI: As scientists involved in defence research continue to write to Prime Minister Narendra Modi with their grievances, DRDO headquarters has asked all its department heads to take timely action on these complaints to avoid direct communication with PM or Defence minister.

Following series of complaints, the DRDO’s vigilance department has now fixed a deadline to complete probe into any grievance within in ten days of receipt of complaint.

Days after assuming office, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had asked government officials to give their suggestions directly to his office. But, within months, the PMO’s desk handling grievances was flooded with hundreds of representations. To address complaints, Cabinet Secretary P K Sinha, in August 2015 issued an instruction that writing directly to the PMO by violating the prescribed channel of communication has to be viewed ‘seriously’ and is liable for ‘disciplinary action’.

But, despite strict instructions from the Cabinet Secretariat, several scientists have been continuously approaching prime minister’s office and defence minister.

“In absence of appropriate action to be taken on such complaints, the complainant addresses his grievances to various authorities including the Raksha Mantri (defence minister) and Prime Minister’s Office,” according to an stinker from the vigilance department head of the DRDO, Dr. JP Singh, Director, Vigilance and security writes..

“It has been noted with concern that neither any timely action is taken by the head of Clusters or establishment on complaints which are addressed to them, nor any action taken report is forwarded by them headquarters,”

Vigilance department believe that because of in-action by concerned Clusters or Establishments in the DRDO, ‘copious correspondence among various government agencies take place as all the complaints were processed as per extant of guidelines of the DoPT.

“All heads of Clusters/ Laboratories/ Establishments and Units are requested to take timely action on complaint directly addressed to them and forward Action Taken Report to the Chief Comptroller with ten days of the receipt of complaint,” Dr. JP Singh, Director, Vigilance and security writes.

Citing a Cabinet Secretary note on official communication channel, the DRDO headquarters in August last year, had issued detailed instructions to all its laboratories for strict compliance regarding representations being sent directly to higher authorities bypassing the prescribed channel of communication.14-sept-16-the-new-indian-express

India-Embraer jet deal under scanner for graft, Defence Ministry seeks firm’s reply within 15 days

Jugal R Purohit, New Delhi, September 10, 2016 – Indiatoday.in

“We are as surprised as anyone else. If there was an investigation, they should have informed us. This is mentioned in the contract,” said a senior Defence Ministry source.

embraer-story_647_091016015848
Rocked by allegations of corruption in its deal with Brazilian aviation firm Embraer, which is under investigation in Brazil and USA, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) responded by saying it had asked for an explanation from the firm over the matter.
“We are as surprised as anyone else. If there was an investigation, they should have informed us. This is mentioned in the contract,” said a senior source.
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar who was in Goa following his tour to the US had been briefed over the matter and with his concurrence, a communication was being sent at the time of writing this piece. “Within 15 days, they are to respond,” said the source.
On its side, the DRDO and MoD will begin re-examining their files for anomalies it was informed.
WHAT HAPPENED
The Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) System is under-development by the Bengaluru based Centre for Air Borne Systems (CABS) for the Indian Air Force. As a part of the deal, the Brazilian aircraft manufacturer modified its jet aircraft, EMB-145 to carry the Active Array Antenna Unit (AAAU), developed by the DRDO, on the aircraft’s fuselage. A total of three modified EMB-145 aircraft had been developed under this agreement.
The various sub-systems of the AEW&C Mission system were integrated into the ‘modified green’ aircraft by DRDO and the full-fledged EMB-145 based AEW&C tested from 2012. The AEW&C system comprises many sub-systems like Radar and communication links that are being designed and developed by DRDO.
WHAT IS AIRBORNE EARLY WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM
As the name suggests, this is a mobile, aerial platform to keep an eye on the enemy for any missile launches or fighter plane launches taking place and responding accordingly. It can also be used as a communications platform to direct own planes and missiles, in response.

As per reports which appeared in the Brazilian press, government agencies in Brazil and USA were looking into Embraer’s business deals. It was reported that the firm had hired the services of a UK-based agent for the Indian sale of EMB 145 plane, an arrangement which is disallowed as per the MoD rules.

The deal was concluded in July 2008. A DRDO release from then stated, “A few EMB-145 based AEW&C/AWACS versions are already in operation with Air Forces of Brazil, Mexico and Greece”.

IMPACT OF ALLEGATION

  1. Surprised, Defence Ministry asks Brazilian firm to explain.
  2. Critical project, IAF is awaiting delivery of three planes from DRDO.
  3. DRDO was keen to export this plane with own radar systems to friendly countries.
  4. No action till Embraer explains.
  5. If blacklisted, could curtail India’s options.
  6. India unable to build planes, relies on imports.
  7. IAF uses Embraer for VVIP travel also

Uncertainty dogs a leaderless DRDO

Ajai Shukla | New Delhi May 4, 2015 Last Updated at 00:38 IST – Business Standard 
A sense of drift is palpable within the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), which has been without a leader for three months since the ouster of its widely respected chief, Avinash Chander, on January 31.

On that day, Defence Secretary R K Mathur was given additional charge of Chander’s post of Secretary, Defence R&D, for three months. That period expired on Thursday.

Mathur had held charge of only one of the three posts that Chander occupied – that of Secretary Defence R&D. The other two posts – Director General, DRDO, and Scientific Advisor to the Raksha Mantri – have lain vacant for three months.

The defence ministry is not alone in having key positions without incumbents. There has been no Chief Information Commissioner since August 22, and no Chief Vigilance Commissioner since September 28.

Without a chief, there are problems in coordinating between the DRDO’s seven technology clusters, each relating to a specific subject – e.g. aeronautics, missiles or naval systems. While cluster heads. called directors general, can function independently within their clusters, major development projects involve several clusters.

Among the programmes suffering from this lack of leadership is the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project. While the DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Agency oversees the Tejas project, it has no authority over the four technology clusters that feed into the LCA project. That coordination was always facilitated by the DRDO chief, who personally oversaw the LCA programme.

Another problem, say senior DRDO scientists, is professional insecurity caused by Chander’s unceremonious removal. On November 28, the defence ministry had granted him an 18-month service extension to head the DRDO till May 31, 2016. Forty-five days later, that extension was withdrawn.

The insecurity is most obvious among junior scientists, most of whom looked to Chander as an icon of the DRDO’s successful missile programme. “With such an accomplished scientist removed so arbitrarily, what job security do we have?” wonders a young scientist bitterly. Nor is there any clarity about who might succeed Chander. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had said while removing Chander, he wanted someone good from the DRDO who has the urge for development. Parrikar also stated he wanted a younger scientist to head DRDO.buisness  standard 4 may 2015With almost all the DRDO’s top scientists already on extension, or nearing the retirement age of 60, 11 of the DRDO’s 12 top scientists might soon retire.

Of these 12 “distinguished scientists”, the DRDO’s top rank, equivalent to a lieutenant general, six have already crossed 60 years and are serving on extensions. Another five are 59 years of age, knocking on the doors of retirement.

The only candidate who fits Parrikar’s twin conditions – being from the DRDO, and also young – is Satheesh Reddy, the highly regarded chief of Research Centre Imarat, a missile technology laboratory outside Hyderabad. Reddy is just 52 years old.

Even so, MoD sources do not rule out bringing in an outsider, possibly from the Atomic Energy Agency, to head the DRDO.

There is also speculation that the three hats the DRDO chief traditionally wore might be split into two or more posts. Opinion on this is divided. The Rama Rao Committee, which proposed reorganising the DRDO, recommended the three posts remain vested in a single person. The subsequent Naresh Chandra Committee recommended separation, though not trifurcation.

The departments of space and atomic energy, which are often held up as models the DRDO could emulate, centralise powers in a single chief. The chairman of the Space Commission also heads the Indian Space Research Organisation, while simultaneously advising the prime minister on space matters.