Tag Archives: within

Drdo

BIO-TOILETS STINK AS COMMUTERS, AUTHORITIES PLAY BLAME GAME

7 Comments

By Rajendra B Aklekar, Mumbai Mirror | May 5, 2015, 12.05 AM IST
Bio-toilets that were fitted in train coaches amid much fanfare are already stinking, with some passengers complaining that the stench is so foul that it is unbearable for those sitting near the toilets.

biotoilet mumbai mirrorAccording to Central Railway’s (CR) official data, of the 4,000 coaches of the long-distance CR trains, 450 were fitted with bio-toilets. The project had gathered momentum after Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan and urged authorities to maintain cleanliness in trains and on tracks. A few coaches in the Rajdhani Express trains of Western Railway (WR) were also provided with bio-toilets.

Unlike traditional train toilets that discharge waste on the tracks, the new system treats the waste inside a tank with the help of bacteria and converts it into harmless gas and water. The Railways had signed MoU with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for the project, and the anaerobic bacteria were procured from Antarctica.

Commuters, however, are far from impressed. Nitin Parmar, secretary of Karjat Railway Passenger Association, said, “In most trains with bio-toilets, the stench is unbearable — not only near the toilet but also within the coaches. This is not a one-off thing. I have been observing this often. Biotoilets have been fitted in random coaches, and they all have this foul smell. Passengers sitting near the door have to keep their noses covered all the time. The activist travels between Mumbai and Pune regularly and has done a survey of trains with bio-toilets.

In fact, a maintenance worker to whom Mumbai Mirror spoke, also complained about the unbearable stench. “The technology is good but it is not being maintained the way it should be. There are a lot of processes to maintain but train coaches cannot be practically detained for such a long time as they are always scheduled for runs. If clean toilets are giving out foul smell, there must be something wrong,” he added, on the condition of anonymity.

Another staffer said, “If any foul smell is detected after the removal of waste and cleaning of the toilet, the tank has to be topped up with nearly 15 litres of bacteria. A check is conducted after a week and samples are the n sent for lab testing.”

A former member of the national railway passenger committee, Shailesh Goyal, said, “Bio-toilets are not a practical idea for trains. At many WR stations, the train is back on track within two hours. There is no time to clean the toilets. Also, bio-toilets require hi-end mechanism and a dedicated staff to keep them clean.”

Subhash Gupta, a member of the divisional railway users consultative committee, said he will raise the issue at the official railway forum next week.

While railway officials refused to speak on record, a senior official said, “Not only are all new coaches to be fitted with bio-toilets but the workshops are being instructed to fit in bio-toilets in old trains, taken up for maintenance, as well.” Another staffer said the biggest problem were the commuters themselves. “Many bio-toilets have become choked because passengers dump anything from water bottles to gutkha pouches and polythene in them. The bio-digester bins have turned into garbage bins. We will intensify awareness campaigns to avoid this,” said an official.

PMO

Anti-corruption law: Union Cabinet nod for raising max punishment to 7 yrs

3 Comments

By: Express News Service | New Delhi | Updated: April 30, 2015 9:23 am

no to corruption
To ensure speedy conclusion of corruption cases, a time limit of two years has also been proposed. (Source: Express Archive)

In an attempt to give the anti-corruption law more teeth, the Cabinet Wednesday cleared a proposal to move official amendments to the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013, paving the way for enhancement of both the minimum and the maximum punishment under the proposed law.

Under the amendments, the penal provisions have been substantially enhanced — the minimum punishment being raised from six months to three years imprisonment and the maximum punishment enhanced from five years to seven years imprisonment.
With the maximum punishment raised to seven years in jail, corruption now has been brought under the heinous crime category.
The amendments also propose to extend the protective umbrella of prior sanction for prosecution to public servants who have ceased to hold office due to retirement or resignation. “Further, prior sanction for inquiry and investigation shall be required from the Lokpal or Lokayukta, as the case may be, for investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties,” the government said.
Essentially aimed at laying down more stringent measures to tackle corruption, the proposed amendments provide for more stringent punishment for the offences of bribery, both for the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker.
With the average trial period of cases under the PC Act in the last four years having been above eight years, the new amendments have proposed to ensure speedy trial by providing a trial completion within two years.
The new amendments further state that “intentional enriching by public servants will be construed as criminal misconduct and possession of disproportionate assets as proof of such illicit enrichment”.

Uncategorized

I smell malicious intention by DRDO officials, claims former Agni V programme director RK Gupta

Leave a comment

Pranay Upadhyay, CNN-IBN Feb 06, 2015 at 12:35pm IST
New Delhi: A day after the project director of nuclear-capable Agni 5 missile programme at DRDO RK Gupta was removed, a letter has surfaced in which he has claimed that he was targeted by former DRDO chief Avinash Chander.
“I feel dishonoured the way I was treated. I smell malicious intention. My whole family is undergoing mental agony. In case of any untoward incident or accident, I fix responsibility on Dr Avinash Chander and Dr VG Sekaran,” Gupta writes in his letter.
Gupta was removed as director of Agni V programme a day after a successful test. While DRDO sources termed the transfer as “routine”, the officer alleged that he was singled out by two senior officials within the organisation including former chief Avinash Chander, who demitted his office on January 31.

While DRDO sources termed the transfer as "routine", the officer alleged that he was singled out by two senior officials within the organisation including former chief Avinash Chander, who demitted his office on January 31.
While DRDO sources termed the transfer as “routine”, the officer alleged that he was singled out by two senior officials within the organisation including former chief Avinash Chander, who demitted his office on January 31.

Gupta has complained to the Defence Ministry that he received the letter, dated January 9, only on February 2 when he reached his office after the successful launch.
“With all humility and respect, I wish to bring to your notice that on February 2, I was relinquished from the post of project director Agni-V. I am shocked that such bad treatment is meted out to such a senior scientist with an excellent track record throughout service tenure,” he said in his letter to Defence Secretary RK Mathur, who is also holding the additional charge of DRDO.
Incidentally, Gupta’s name had come up in connection with the sudden termination of Chander’s contract by the government, 15 months ahead of his tenure.
It was then rumoured that one of the reasons for Chander’s removal was three complaints filed by individuals including by Gupta who has denied any such move.

Drdo

‘Sacking Not a Good Word to Hear After 42 Years’, India’s Agni Man Says

1 Comment

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/sacking-not-a-good-word-to-hear-after-42-years-india-s-agni-man-says/355104

Top scientist Avinash Chander, who was recently ousted as chief of the Defence Research and Development Organisation or DRDO has said the termination of his contract was “totally unexpected” and that he was taken by “surprise” by the swift move of the government. “Sacking is not a good word to hear after 42 years of service,” Mr Chander told NDTV, also saying that Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar was well within his rights to choose his team. The minister had said the government wanted younger scientists on the team.

 

Drdo

DRDO chief sacked within 2 months of new contract

4 Comments

Indiatoday.in PTI New Delhi, January 13, 2015 | UPDATED 21:48 IST     The government on Tuesday removed Chief of top defence research organisation Avinash Chander, 15 months before his contract was to end.

The Appointments Committee of Cabinet headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi “approved the termination” of the contract of Avinash Chander with effect from January 31, an official notification said.

Interestingly, Chander who was Secretary, Defence Research and Development cum Director General, DRDO and Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, had retired on November 30 last on attaining 64 years of age and he was given a contract for 18 months till May 31 next year.
The removal of Chander after being given a contract raises questions over the Government action.

Analysts believe that the action could have been taken against the backdrop of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comment that the ‘laid back’ attitude in the DRDO will not be tolerated during a visit last year.

Efforts to contact Chander did not fructify as he did not answer the calls made on his phone.

Chander joined DRDO in 1972 after completing graduation in Electrical Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi.

Chander is the chief architect of Agni series of ballistic missile systems.

Development of Agni range of missiles under a highly-restrictive international control regimes was possible only out of his technology forecast, perspective planning and relentless efforts, DRDO officials said.

Drdo

After PM prodding, DRDO looks to set up new lab with scientists under 35

5 Comments

Manu Pubby New Delhi, December 22, 2014 | India Today. in

A few months after India’s premier defence research body DRDO was prodded by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to empower younger scientists, the organisation is planning to set up a new laboratory that will only have scientists under the age of 35.

While Modi had said that he wants to see five laboratories headed by scientists under the age of 35, DRDO is making a start by setting up a new lab within the Electronics and Communications Systems (ECS) cluster in Bangalore exclusively for young scientists.

The DRDO is currently scouting for scientists within its ranks under the age of 35 to join the lab and has sent out circulars to all its institutions for suggestions and recommendations. The new laboratory is likely to come up within the campus of the Bangalore-based Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE).

The new lab will focus on three specific areas – image processing, cognitive radio and waveforms for communication systems, a circular that has been sent to DRDO establishments across the nation says. It is however not clear yet when the new laboratory will be set up and whether it would have a special provision for career progression of young, talented scientists.

As reported by the India Today, the average age of DRDO scientists is creeping closer to 40 and an internal survey had found that most of its entry-level scientists are unhappy about their career prospects. Almost 57 per cent of all scientists who leave the organisation prematurely do so because of lack of professional satisfaction. Since 2008, nearly 500 entry and mid-level scientists have resigned or taken early retirement while intake of new scientists has barely kept pace. The DRDO’s annual intake of young scientists has dipped to 70 per year.

A deep review of the organisation by the Rama Rao Committee in 2008, had identified five labs working in critical fields such as solid state physics, metallurgy, cryptology and lasers for ’empowered’ status in order to give them the liberty to quickly induct young talent, bypassing the cumbersome selection process. The UPA government never fully implemented the recommendation.

Drdo

Supreme Court to examine DRDOs exclusion under section 24

Leave a comment

17 Aug, 2014- RTI Foundation of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drdo

FAA Cabinet regarding Sh Avinash Chander Contractual Appiontment

2 Comments
To,
Dr. Amarpreet Duggal
FirstAppellateAuthority
ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110011
 

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

Reference: F. No. CABST/R/2014/60302-RTI dated 29 August 2014

Sir,

Aggrieved by decision of Shri Rajesh Nagpal, Under Secretary & CPIO, under the provisions of Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005, First Appeal is submitted herewith foryourkind consideration and speaking orders.

  1. Details ofappellant:-
Name Prabhu Dandriyal
Address 21, Sunderwala,Raipur, Dehradun-248001,Uttarakhand

 Details of Central Public Information Officer(CPIO):-

Name & Design. Shri Rajesh Nagpal, Under Secretary & CPIO
Address ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat ,Rashtrapati Bhavan,New Delhi-110011

3.Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:- Letter F. No. CABST/R/2014/60302-RTI dated 29 August 2014 from CPIO, ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat.

 4. Brief facts leading to appeal:

(a)       An application under Section 6 of RTI Act 2005 was submitted online to Shri Rajesh Nagpal, Under Secretary & CPIO on 01 August 2014.  Copy of the RTI application dated 01 August 2014 is enclosed

(b)       CPIO ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat denied/refused for information sought vide his decision letter F. No. CABST/R/2014/60302-RTI dated 29 August 2014.

(c)       CPIO denied for information under the provisions of Section 24 of RTI Act 2005.

(d)       Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi has not been placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 by Government of India.

(e)       Appellant is deeply aggrieved by this decision of CPIO, ACC Cell and this leads to appellant to file first appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

  1. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal and Prayer/Relief:-

(a)     Information sought was related to Business & Charter of Appointment Committee of Cabinet, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. The information sought was regarding appointment of Secretary, Deptt. of Defence R&D(DRD), MOD by Appointment Committee of Cabinet, GOI.

(b)     Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi has not been placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 by Government of India.

(c)     The information sought or any part of it was not at all concerned with details of DRDO projects and therefore Section 24 does not apply on the information sought.

(d)     The custodian of information sought is ACC Cell, hence denial of information is illegal under RTI Act 2005.

(e)     The information was denied to conceal the facts related to irregularities & illegality in contractual appointment of Shri Avinash Chander, CC (R&D) as Secretary, DRD, MOD by ACC.

(f)      Under the provisions of Section 7 subsection(8) [Disposal of Request], reproduced for your ready reference:

Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the request,—

(i) the reasons for such rejection;

(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred;   and

(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.

The CPIO should provide the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred and particulars of the appellate authority but such information was not provided in his letter dated 29 August 2014. Thereby CPIO fails to perform his duties properly and violated the provisions of Section 7(8)(ii) &(iii) so that appellant could not file first appeal.

(g)     As a matter of fact, an another application under RTI Act 2005 was filed on 29th January 2014 to CPIO, DOPT by appellant regarding contractual appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, DRD, MOD. (Annexure FA3)

(h)     The same application under RTI Act 2005(Annexure FA3) was transferred by DOPT vide letter No. 39/3/2014-EO(SM-I) dated 16-04-2014 to CPIO, ACC Cabinet Secretariat. The information sought in the said application under RTI Act forwarded by DOPT to ACC, Cabinet Secretariat was provided to the appellant by Shri K.A. Avinash, US & Link CPIO, ACC vide letter No. F 12015/277/2014 dated 19 May 2014.(Annexure FA4)

(i)       It is very surprising that same nature of information was provided by one CPIO of ACC, Cabinet Secretariat vide letter dated 19 May 2014 but now the same nature of information was denied by another CPIO, ACC on false & illegal grounds.

(j)       The information sought is neither related to DRDO nor DRDO is custodian of the information sought, information sought is not at all related to charter & activities of DRDO, ACC is sole custodian of the information sought and information sought is pertaining to activities, charter & business of ACC under Allocation of Business Rules 1961.

(k)     The denial of information by misusing section 24 of RTI Act 2005 by CPIO, ACC is motivated to protect the interest of particular officer and to conceal irregularities committed by ACC in appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, DRD, MOD.

(l)       CPIO denied information on illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant.

  1. Prayer /relief sought for:-

Appellant sought information vide his application dated 01 August 2014 under RTI Act to CPIO, ACC, Cabinet Secretariat and the information sought was denied by CPIO, ACC. Therefore, it is kindly prayed to FAA, ACC, Cabinet Secretariat that the orders may kindly be issued to CPIO, ACC, Cabinet Secretariat to provide the information sought by appellant in RTI Application dated 01 August 2014 based on the grounds/reasons mentioned above in Para(5).

  1. Declaration:-

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

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

Registration Number            CABST/A/2014/60037

To                                                                                                                            1st August 2014
Shri Rajesh Nagpal,
Under Secretary & CPIO,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 004

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Para (2) of appointment letter No. I2/9/2013-EO (SM.I) dated 31st May 2013 regarding appointment of Shri Avinash Chander, Distinguished Scientist & Chief Controller Research & Development (Missiles &Strategic Systems), DRDO as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri for a period of three years. The appointment of Shri Avinash Chander beyond his date of retirement i.e. 30.1 1.2014, would be on contract basis with the same terms and conditions as he would be entitled to Secretary (DRD) before the date of retirement.(Copy Annexed)

1.Provide copy of Contract Agreement between Government of India and Shri Avinash Chander for the reemployment on contract basis during the period 01 Dec 2014 to 31 May 2016.
2. Provide provisions and rules of Government of India under which Shri Avinash Chander was appointed on contract basis as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri after his normal retirement and completion of two extensions up to the age of 64 Years.
3. Whether an official appointed on contract after retirement can function as Head of Office for all administrative & financial matters in the department.(Yes/No)
4.File noting for appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri.
5. Whether appointment after age of 64 years violates provisions of FR 56(d). (Yes/No)

Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun
Ph 0135 2787750, Mobile 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.comcabinet RTI reply

SA appointment order0001 (1)avanash chander recuirtment details

Drdo

RTI is only weapon to correct the mind of so called Dictators of DRDO

2 Comments

Dear friends of DRDO,

Following inputs being published for awareness of all DRDO officials. All of them are experiencing the arbitrariness of entire DRDO‘s Lab directors. Every year you all are silent spectators of this arbitrary conduct of the respective lab directors when DRDS or DRTC promotion’s results are declared.

Few days’ frustration looks are seen on the faces of few but again they indulge in the same cycle. If you seriously observe the health condition of DRDO scientists, this time every year a bitter sip of humiliation distorted the life and health conditions of each one.

It is not because of their failure in assessment. It is because of the success of those incompetent / working on non-scientific assignments.

Earlier in days of beginning of 90’s this kind of push pull was not done openly or in a big way. One or two cases were seen in entire DRDO, but nowadays Directors, New born DG’s, DRDO Hqrs beloved boys are fully creating dadagiri and clearing/helping incompetent and ignoring all those who are seriously involved in scientific research and development.

Although the exodus ratio dropout because of two reasons. One, the world economic recession and two, the VIth pay commission hike in pay package of scientists, but this frustration directly affected their output and as well as their daily life. The enthusiasm of young scientists is lost in DRDO and now they are involved to mint money in all means. An example would be like the LTC 80 scam of Metcalf house is a clear signal of the mindset of the new generation of DRDO team.

The following papers are the example of dadagiri of DRDO lab directors. Sh. M R Gupta, TO ‘C’ was joined DRDO in 9 Nov 1979 as JSA – II, subsequently transferred IRDE in 1981 and in 1987 in DEAL, he is IETE graduate (1987), presently he is working as TO ‘C’ in DEAL since 2008. As per normal conditions he is supposed to get a promotion in 2001.

Sh. M R Gupta rested his ACR/APAR through RTI in 2013 from 1987 to 2013 after a long battle CIC ordered to supply all ACR to DRDO on 4th March 2014 vide File No.CIC/LS/A/2013/001815/RM dated 2014 “DECISION – The Commission directed the CPIO to provide copies of ACRs for the period 1987-2007 as sought by the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, free of cost”

Now see in followin enclosed document, Sh M R Gupta shocked to see that his two year ACR/ APAR of 1995 and 96 was blank and in 2004 ACR/APAR was reviewed by Sh Y P Sehgal, Ex Sc ‘G’ illegally as Sh M R Gupta was never worked with him and put adverse remark “ One disciplinary case is with DRDO Hqrs”  and remark was duly approved by the Director, Sh Ashok Sen and best part of this RTI revealed that it was not even communicated to Sh M R Gupta.

This illegal unethical act done by Sh. Ashok Sen, then Director, DEAL was perfect example of DRDO work atmosphere, which proves that the absolute power made DRDO Lab’s director became autocratic/dictator/tyrant, etc.

This is not the only case you will find this kind of act in the entire DRDO. RTI’s also revealed that in several cases white fluid applied in ACR/APAR, tempering of marks in any stage even after in final stage at DRDO Hqrs.

It is requested to all suffering DRDO officials to please file RTIs with reference to supreme court order of Justice Markandey Katju, in Devi dutt Vs Union of India  (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7631 OF 2002) to confirm your ACR/APAR marks and comments.

One more important observation is that these DRDO Lab’s director also authenticating false claim of work to their beloved incompetent scientists.

Hope with the following example you all will review your promotion profile and analyze the possible flaw in the process of DRDO’s promotion mechanism.

Regards

mr gupta ACR1-2004mr gupta ACR2-2004

mr gupta ACR3-2004

To,                                                                                                           5th May 2014
Dr. Sangeeta Khare, CPIO
DEAL, DRDO
Raipur Road, DEHRADUN-248001             

Madam,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to my ACR/APAR of year 2004. Recently on 11th April 2014 CPIO, CEPTAM send me ACR/APAR from 1987 -2007. In 2014 ACR/APAR assessing officer was Sh K Siva Kumar, Sc ‘F’ and reviewing officer Sh Y P Sehgal, Sc ‘G’(copy enclosed). Sh Y P Sehgal, Sc ‘G’ reviewing officer put adverse remark in para 5 –“one disciplinary case is with DRDO Hqrs”.

  1. Provide the certified copy of disciplinary case which was pending in DRDO Hqrs against me as mentioned by RO, Sh Y P Sehgal, Sc ‘G’.
  2. Present status of disciplinary case which was mentioned by RO Sh Y P Sehgal, Sc ‘G’.
  3. Provide the certified copy of communication letter of above adverse remark.
  4. Provide the DO part order/ION on the basis RO mentioned in APAR/ACR para 2 that I have served under him form 1st June 2004 to 31st December 2004.

Note. The information sought for concerns related to my life and health condition. I am in mental agony, my health is deteriorating day by day, and necessary medical certificates from Fortis & Max Hospital are enclosed for your ready reference. It is requested the information should be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request, so that my health will improve sharply.

Enclosed:-

  1. Photocopy of APAR/ACR of 2004
  2. Medical Certificate of Fortis Hospital, Chandigarh
  3. Medical Certificate of Max Hospital, Dehradun

Thanking You

(M. R. Gupta)
             T O ‘C’
21- Bank Colony, Adhoiwala
Raipur Road, DEHRADUN – 2248001
 
Rs 10 fee is deposited cashmr gupta rti DEAL reply
Drdo

Bangalore: Ex-DRDO technical officer’s son held for killing scientist’s wife

Leave a comment

Express
Bangalore, Mar 12: Byappanahalli police arrested the alleged murderer of a home-alone woman within six hours of the crime on Monday.
The victim Rajani Rajabala (60) was married to Amrit Packia Dhas, a senior scientist at DRDO.
The accused Vijayan(33) is the son of Ramanirutam, a retired technical officer at Electronics and Radar Development Establishment. Police said Vijayan, employed as a helper at an NGO, had incurred debts and was finding it difficult to provide for his family. He planned to sell Rajabala’s ornaments to raise some money.
Vijayan was acquainted with the Dhas family as he stayed at the DRDO residential complex in the quarters his father was allotted. An SSLC dropout, Vijayan later married a Manipuri woman against his parents’ wishes and was living separately with his wife and two children in a rented house at Agara near Horamavu, from where he was nabbed.
Murder for Gain
Police said in the last 10 days, Vijayan visited Rajabala twice and asked for `2 lakh but she refused to give him the money. He then demanded `60,000 a week ago to pay his credit card dues. As Rajabala refused to budge, he hatched a plan to kill her and steal her jewellery.
Vijayan planned the murder well in advance and purchased a knife before heading to Rajabala’s house Monday on the pretext of taking her help for a documentary. He told her that he was directing a documentary and one of the scenes was that of a woman ending her life over differences with her husband.
Police said Vijayan convinced Rajabala to write a death note in this regard and she wrote it in Tamil. He then blackmailed her using that note, threatening to kill her if she did not give him the money. He told her no one would suspect his role behind her death as she wrote the death note, police explained. However, Rajabala did not heed his threats and Vijayan slit her throat. Neighbours who heard Rajabala scream rang the door-bell. In his hurry to escape, Vijayan dropped the suicide note and stole her two gold chains, before jumping from the balcony on the third floor, police said.
Though he was injured, Vijayan managed to walk till the main road and took an auto and reached home. He told his wife he met with an accident and after changing his clothes, went to a nearby clinic. He gave the doctor the same explanation.
However, in his haste to flee, Vijayan left his two-wheeler at the DRDO residential complex as he lost its keys at the spot. Based on the vehicle’s details, the police traced Vijayan. He was taken to a hospital as he sustained multiple injuries, including damage to his spinal cord, while jumping off from the third floor of the building.