Tag Archives: within

Drdo

DRDO corruption’s Heights that they even not leave the Knowledge Corner (Library)

1 Comment
To                                                                                                    3rd March 2014
Sh A K Antony.
Defence Minster,
Room -104, South Block,
New Delhi – 110011

Subject: DRDO corruption’s Heights that they even not leave the Knowledge Corner (Library)

Honorable Sir,

To enhance the knowledge of DRDO scientists and make them updated, Ministry of Defence provide library grant generously. Apart from this the pay commission has recommended special assistance for the purchasing of books/journals to individuals scientist.

The library budget of DRDO’s laboratory is a lucrative assignment for corrupt scientists. The scientist library in-charge has direct access to head of establishment.

The case of corruption in library procurement was first exposed at DIAT, Pune, where then In-charge Library Dr A K Tyagi, Sc ‘F’ did financial manipulation in Library. CVC has been found prima facie material against Dr A K Tyagi.  And Regular Disciplinary action was recommended on: 9/9/2013. Consequently DRDO Hqrs finally charge sheeted on 8th October 2013. Charge Sheet signed by Honorable Defence Minister, Sh A K Antony.

The case of Dr A K Tyagi, Sc ‘G’ is not an isolated case but DRDO labs in general have misusing the library grants and if serious enquiry is set up every lab will give foul smell.

The recent example of DMSRDE, Kanpur’s library procurement cases revealed the astonishing facts and figures of library procurement. The RTI helped to expose the corrupt practice prevailing in library procurements.

Enclosed case revealed that the DMSRDE officials are not following the DRDO Purchase Manual -2006. Even after cancellation of Supply Orders on 23 August 2012 the invoices dated 02 May 2012 were accepted while Supply Orders were placed on 27 April 2012. Thereby mischievously & fraudulently the supply of books were accepted in back date to get fatty commission from these vendors. This gross violation of rules & blunder took place even after cancellations of Supply Orders establish conspiracy against Government by Mr.  Jitendra Yadav and Dr. A.K. Saxena.

DRDO has become hub of corruption and honorable defence minister is requested to take a strong action to prevent further damage of moral and ethics.

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
Enclosed : Copy Complaint to CVC dated 3rd March 2014
 
To                                                                                                                                            3rd March 2014The Central Vigilance CommissionerCentral Vigilance CommissionSatarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INANew Delhi-110023SUBJECT: CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL BOOKS at DMSRDECOMPLAINT AGAINST Mr. JITENDRA YADAV, SCIENTIST ‘E’, Head, Technical Library and Dr. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR, DMSRDE, KANPURSir,

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT

 

  1. Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  2. Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and Mr. Jitendra Yadav, Scientist ‘E’ are posted in DMSRDE, Kanpur. Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena is Director, DMSRDE with effect from 01 January 2011.
  3. Complainant is retired Government servant from DRDO. Presently complainant is working as RTI activist and social worker to expose the Corruption in DRDO and other Government departments. Complainant is running a website corruptionindrdo.com for posting information related to Corruption and Financial irregularities in various establishments under DRDO.
  4. Technical Library, DMSRDE is having annual budget of about Rs. 1.50 crore for procurement of Printed Journals (Periodicals S&T – Rs. 1.10 crore), Online Science Direct e-Journals (Rs. 25 Lakh) and S&T Books (Rs. 15 Lakh).
  5. Mr. Jitendra Yadav, Scientist ‘E’ was appointed as Head, Technical Library in DMSRDE Kanpur vide Daily Order-I No. 29/AD dated 19.02.2012.
  6. An application under RTI Act 2005 was filed to Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’, Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur by complainant on 25th July 2013 regarding “Procurement of Scientific & Technical Books in Technical Library of DMSRDE”. Copy of the RTI dated 25th July 2013 is enclosed as Annexure-1.
  7. CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur replied by letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/Letter_2013 dated 26th August 2013. Copy of CPIO reply dated 26th   August 2013 is enclosed as Annexure-2. CPIO, DMSRDE provided partial information and it was informed by CPIO that fund expenditure in procurements of S&T Books in Technical Library in DMSRDE in respective years was as follows:

libtable1

8.     Complainant was not satisfied with reply of CPIO and First Appeal dated 07 Sep 2013 was filed to First Appellate Authority, DRDO. By Order No. RTI/02/2091/F/2013/0142 dated 14 Oct 2013, First Appellate Authority DRDO ordered CPIO, DMSRDE to provide full information sought in RTI dated 25th July 2013. Copy of First Appellate Authority Order dated 14 Oct 2013 is enclosed as Annexure-3

9.     CPIO, DMSRDE seek additional fee for information vide his letter dated 30 October 2013. Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure-4. Vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/FAR/2013/0013 dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO provided information in 60 pages and in covering letter CPIO informed that No supply Order has been placed in FY 2010-2011 and No tender was called during FY 2010-2011 and 2012-2013. Copy of the letter dated 14 Nov 2013 is enclosed as Annexure-5..

1o.   The figures in information provided by CPIO were found self-contradictory and false as evident from summary of the information provided by CPIO.

libtable211.    On perusal of the documents provided by CPIO, following noticeable information has been found. 

           a.     Seven invoices were found for the financial year 2009-2010 with following details: 
libtable3libtable4libtable5libtable6libtable7libtable8

         b.      Supply Orders were issued by Head, Technical Library in FY 2012-13 for Procurement of Scientific & Technical books with following details:

  1. Terms & Conditions of Supply Order as per DRDO Manual is enclosed as Annexure-13.
  2. libtable9libtable10libtable11
  3. c.       Supply Order-1, Supply Order-2, Supply Order-3 and Supply Order-4 dated 27 April 2012 as mentioned in point(b) above were cancelled after 117 days on 23 August 2012 by Mr. Jitendra Yadav, Head Technical Library due to non-supply of books within delivery period of 90 days. It was mentioned in Para (2) of Terms & Conditions of Supply Order “This supply order shall automatically stand cancelled w.e.f. the next day after the date of delivery mentioned in this order”. Therefore supply orders were automatically stand cancelled after 90 days from issue of Supply Order (27 April 2012) i.e. w.e.f.  27 July 2012. Copies of letters No. TL/0510/WBF-2012 dated 23rd August 2012 issued for cancellation of supply orders to four vendors are enclosed as Annexure-24 to Annexure-27.
  4. d.         Twenty two invoices were found for the financial year 2012-2013 with following details:libtable12libtable13libtable14libtable15
  5. e.  Books were supplied against four supply orders that were cancelled on 23 August 2012. The fake invoices were fabricated from back date but actual supplies of books were made after cancellation of supply order. This smack conspiracy, manipulation and tampering of records for Corruption.
  7. 12.      During the FY 2012-2013 the following irregularities, gross violations of rules, loss of public fund and Corruption took place in procurement of Books.

  8. MAJOR FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES & BLUNDERS IN PROCUREMENT OF BOOKS BY  MR. JITEDNRA YADAV, SCIENTIST ‘E’ & DR. A.K. SAXENA, DIRECTOR

    1)          DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries and TIC 1999 as amended and Purchase Management 2006 as amended are being used in DMSRDE, Kanpur for procurement of books & periodicals. Rule 4.2 of Chapter 4 (ACQUISITION) of Manual is applicable for procurement of Books & Monographs. Copy of relevant rules of chapter 4 are enclosed as Annexure-50.

    2)           As per Rule 4.2.2 of this Manual selection of vendors should be made on the basis of their past services provided to the library, distributorship of publishers and infrastructure available with them. In the years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 there was almost no supply of books and only three vendors get supply orders in 2009-2010 and supplied books. Also these vendors offered 30% discount on books (Foreign & Indian).

    3)          In the FY 2009-2010 mode of tendering was limited tender of PM 2006 to get better discount and competition to save public money and this results 30% discount on books.

    4)          In FY 2012-2013 violations of rules and procedures of procurement of books were grossly violated to achieve fatty commission that results financial loss to exchequer. Supply Orders were issued to vendors without keeping in view the past services of the vendors. This results cancellation of all supply orders that took place on 27 April 2012. Hence these vendors should be blacklisted for further procurement of books in Library. But even after non-supply and automatic cancellation of supply orders after expiry of delivery period of 90 days, the supply orders were issued to same vendors on 17 August 2012.

    5)          Supply Orders were placed on single tender and 10% discount to pet vendors of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director and all vendors were from New Delhi only. Adopting the process of single tender with 10% discount without following previously adopted procedure of limited tender where vendors were offering discount of 35% – 40% on purchase of foreign books, resulted huge loss of public money and commission making by Mr. Jitendra Yadav and Dr. A.K. Saxena.

    6)          Even after cancellation of Supply Orders on 23 August 2012 the invoices dated 02 May 2012 were accepted while Supply Orders were placed on 27 April 2012. Thereby mischievously & fraudulently the supply of books were accepted in back date to get fatty commission from these vendors. This gross violation of rules & blunder took place even after cancellations of Supply Orders establish conspiracy against Government by Mr.  Jitendra Yadav and Dr. A.K. Saxena.

    7)          There was no procedure followed for selection of books. In fact there was no requirement of books from Scientists as no demands were made. There was no procurement of books in past two years and only Rs. 94833.00 was expenditure in purchase of books in FY 2009-2010.

    8)          It is crystal clear that Corruption took place in FY 2012-2013 where all of sudden books of Rs. 1467810.00 has been procured while in previous years it was “NIL” or very less Rs. 94833.00 only in 2009-10. Demand of books which was NIL (Zero) in 2010-11 and 2011-12 has increased all of sudden near about to the Rupees 15 Lakh. As compared to purchase of books in FY 2009-10 the hike in 2012-13 is about 15.5 times. This indicates that books were purchased without any need and requirement just to earn fatty commission.

    9)          DRDO is having very old manual issued on 11 January 1999 regarding Management of Library/TIC of DRDO. This manual is called as “DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres“. After issuance of Purchase Manual -2006 of DRDO this old Manual became ineffective & obsolete. Most of the DRDO Labs/Estt. are using Purchase Manual for procurement of books, Print Journal and Online E-Journals. DMSRDE is also using PM-2006 from last six years for procurement of books, Print  Journal and Online E-Journals as can be verified from records of Technical Library of DMSRDE, Kanpur. All of sudden making purchase of books on the basis of old manual smacks malafide intentions and leads corruption in purchase of books in FY 2012-2013. In fact in year 2012-2013 provisions of DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres has not been fully followed. Purchase procedures of DRDO Manual are for small & urgent procurement not for big procurements in tune of lakh or crores.

    10)      Fatty Commission in Procurement of books in FY 2012-2013: Books of Rs. 1467810.60 were purchased at discount of 10% only while in year 2009-2010 the discount on books was 30%. Even in FY 2011-2012 the offered discount by vendors were 35% and now days vendors are offering 40% discount on foreign books. Therefore books were purchased at very high prices on very low discount of 10% only with gross violation & spirit of Purchase Procedures to get maximum discount in open competition under limited tender to save public money. Therefore Rs. 440343.00 (30% of 1467810.00) had taken as fatty commission by Mr. Jitendra Yadav and Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE.

    11)      Fraudulent supply of books with fake invoices: In FY 2012-2013 four vendors   submitted invoices dated 02 May 2012 against the supply orders dated 27 April 2012 while these Supply orders were cancelled on 23 August 2012 by Mr. Jitednra Yadav, Scientist ‘E’ , Head, Technical Library. The supply on 02 May 2012 was impossible as it takes at least 5 days to reach speed post from DMSRDE dispatch section to the respective vendor. The details /entries of invoices shows that these invoices were not diarised at Director Office central registry and directly entertained by Head, Technical Library. Besides the verification records like receiving of invoices & books at Technical Library, envelops of invoices, CRV, payments by ACDA & records at Finance Division will disclose the whole conspiracy made in procurement of books in back date even after cancellation of supply orders.

    12)      Splitting of consolidated demand of books in four parts: Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena split the consolidated demand of books in four parts and misused his official position & powers so that he can get fatty commission from his pet vendors. The books should be procured in one consolidated demands with proper negotiations with vendors to get maximum discount offered in open market. Four supply orders were issued on 27 April 2012 to four vendors that were not made any supply in past four financial years in DMSRDE. This splitting of books demand leads loss to public fund and Corruption of Rs. 440343.00 by Mr. Jitendra Yadav and Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE. Sprit of Purchase Rules and CVC Guidelines is that “The proposals shall not be split merely to bring them within the delegated powers”.

    CHARGES ON DR. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR, DMSRDE

    1. Misuse of power & position for personal gain
    2. Splitting of demands of books in four parts to get fatty commission
    3. Planned conspiracy to accept supply even after cancellation of Supply Orders

    CHARGES ON MR. JITENDRA, SCIENTIST ‘E’, HEAD, TECHNICAL LIBRARY

    i.            Planned conspiracy for Corruption in procurement of books in FY 2012-2013 to earn fatty commission from vendors by issuing supply orders on only 10% discount

    ii.            Gross violation of rules in selection of vendors, splitting of demands

    iii.            Acceptance of supply even after cancellation of supply orders with tampering of records in back date

    iv.            Misconduct under Rule 3.(1) (iii) of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964

    Therefore, in light of the above mentioned facts and evidences, I may kindly request  you to issue order for inquiry and disciplinary action against Mr. Jitendra Yadav, Scientist‘E’ and Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE by CVO, Ministry of Defence.

    Regards

    Prabhu  Dandriyal,
    21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
    Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
    e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com
  9.  

 

 

Drdo

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

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

Hello,

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

INFORMATION SOUGHT

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

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

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

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

 

Regards

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

Registration Number  – MODEF/R/2013/61200

Drdo, Uncategorized

First Appeal – Private Cars Using Commercial Purpose – DMSRDE

2 Comments

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

To,
Dr Lokendra Singh,
OS & Sceintist ‘H’
First Appellate Authority, DRDO
RTI Cell, Room No. 314 – A/A,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110105

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

Reference:  Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14 Nov 2013 issued by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

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

1.       Details of appellant:-

Name           Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address       21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008, Uttarakhand                    

2.       Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-

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

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

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14th  Nov 2013 received by appellant on 24 November 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Facts & Grounds leading to appeal:

(a)  An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 23rd October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Private cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 using DMSRDE for commercial purpose”. Copy of the RTI Application dated 23rd 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/R/2013/0029 dated 14th November 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. However CPIO replied in the highly irresponsible manner which indicates the mismanagement and Corruption in DMSRDE.

(c)  It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 23rd 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. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010”.

(d)  In point d (1) of reply dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO provided false argument. As per Purchase Management 2006 it is the responsibility of Director, DMSRDE to hire the transport services from that vendor, the vehicles of which are registered under Taxi at RTO. How can RTO know that a private car vehicle is being used for transport services at DMSRDE?

(e)  In point d (2) of reply dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO gave false argument for not providing the information sought. Committee under Chairmanship of Dr. Ashok Ranjan, Scientist ‘F’ and four other members for identification of vendors did not perform their responsibilities properly. As per findings of the Committee 15 vendors were identified for hired transport services and out of which 10 vendors were qualified as per guidelines framed by the Committee. General terms and conditions were also framed on 18 points by Committee as Annexure II of proposal provided to vendors for seeking quotations for hired transport services. In point no. 8 of General terms & conditions framed by the Committee it was clearly mentioned that “The lowest quotation will be accepted. In case of more than one lowest quotation, the firm whose cars/vehicles registered at RTO for taxi will be preferred”. This indicates that it was responsibilities of DMSRDE to check the registration of taxies whether these were registered as taxies at RTO.

(f)   The arguments at point d (3) is again to put the responsibilities and accountability to minimize corruption in hiring of transport services , on the soldiers of local audit and test audit teams. In case both local & test audit teams were obliged by Director, DMSRDE   on cash & kind then how can they raise the objections on irregularities and corruptions in contract of hired transport. It is well known fact that hired vehicles are being provided to local audit personnel (ACDA officials) on 24×7 and one DMSRDE official is also posted at ACDA office to assist ACDA. These illegal obligations putted on ACDA by Director, DMSRDE establish Corruption in the whole process of contract of hired transport.

(g)  Contract given to M/s Super India Travels, Kanpur has been expired in July 2012 as contract was for only for one year and still now new contract has not been provided to any other vendor by the fresh tendering process as per Purchase Management 2006. One & half year extension to the same vendor smacks vested interest and leads Corruption.

(h) The vendor is not claiming service tax from DMSRDE; the vendor is not having service tax registration and not depositing service tax to Custom & Excise Department, Govt. of India. The issue of service tax registration is clearly mentioned in General terms and conditions framed by the committee so constituted by Director, DMSRDE. In point no. 17 of General terms & conditions framed by the committee it was clearly mentioned that “The rates quoted should be excluding the service tax. The service tax will be paid additionally only after receiving the proof of the service tax registration. No service tax will be paid if the operator fails to provide proof of valid service tax registration”.

(i)   Facts mentioned at above establish irregularities in giving contracts to M/s Super India Travels, Kanpur and further illegal extension since one and half year indicates Corruption at DMSRDE, Kanpur in the whole process.

5.       Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vides RTI Application dated 23 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 23rd  October 2013.

6.       Declaration:-

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

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                            
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                               
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                 
prabhudoon@gmail.com,  www.corruptionindrdo.com                                                                                                                                          

 Enclosure: Two

(1)      Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 14th  November 2013

(2)      RTI Application dated 23 October 2013

 
 RTI Application dated 23 October 2013
 
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,
Central Public Information Officer,
DMSRDE, GT Road,
Kanpur-208013             

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Hello,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given thereof in these decisions.

  1. File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO)Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.
  2. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

CIC in its above mentioned 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.

In light of the above decisions of CIC, Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Total No.  of transport/vehicles available in MT Division DMSRDE.
  2. Provide following information in respect of all vehicles available in DMSRDE.
  1. Type of vehicle, Brand name, Manufacturer
  2. Date of Purchase, purchase cost and source of fund(Build up/Project etc)
  3. Present depreciated cost as on 31.10.2013
  4. Average distance run /traveled by each vehicle in the year 2012-2013 separately for
  5. each vehicle.
  6. Total expenditure on maintenance of each vehicle separately in the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

3.      How many CMTD /MTD are posted in MT Division?
4.      Mode of tendering for selection of vendors for hired vehicles (Local Board/Single                  Tender/Limited Tender/Open Tender/Repeat Order) for the following years.

  1. 2010-2011
  2. 2011-2012
  3. 2012-2013
  4. 2013-2014

5.     Total budget of MT Division years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
6.     Total expenditure and payment made for hired vehicles/transport for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13 along with name of vendor to whom the payment made.
7.      Provide expenditure incurred on various heads for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
8.      Provide information about vendor/firm which got contract for hired vehicles and amount paid to these vendors in following format

9.      Amount of Service Tax that has been paid by DMSRDE to Vendor as reflected in bills submitted by vendor for depositing in Custom, Excise & Service Tax Department in

following format

  1. Provide copies of CST (Comparative Statement) after opening of quotations duly approved by competent authority for the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 for giving contract to vendors for hired vehicles services in DMSRDE.
  2. Provide copy of supply order placed for hiring private vehicles/transport for the FY   2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in DMSRDE.
  3. Copy of contract with terms & condition and rate (usage charges) for the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
  4. Whether any extension of contract for hired vehicle has been given to any vendor for during the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. (Yes/No)
  5. If answer to point (13) is yes then provide copy of rules under PM 2006 by which extension for contract of hired vehicle services (Repeat Order) could be given to vendor without going in fresh bidding.
  6. Details about maintenance of vehicles/transport available in DMSRDE for each vehicle/transport in following format
  1.  Status of vehicle (operational/Non operational) available in DMSRDE when services of hired vehicles were utilized.
  2. Whether hired vehicles provided by vendor Super India Travels, Rama Devi, Kanpur with following registration number are registered at RTO, Kanpur under category of Taxi for commercial purposes. Registration & Details of vehicles are

(a)   UP78 BS 1144 ( Indica Car White Color with white number plate)

(b)   UP78 CP 6510 (Indigo CS White Car with white number plate)

  1. If answer to point (17) is Yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by RTO Kanpur for said vehicles under Taxi for Commercial purpose.
  2. If answer to point (17) is No then provide the grounds on which vendor not having proper registration under Taxi from RTO, Kanpur was allowed to provide services in DMSDRE.
  3. The details of Vendor Registration Committee at DMSRDE with name & designation of Chairman and members.

The color of the number plates used in cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 provided by vendor for hired services are not Yellow. The color of these no. plates are White. It establishes that cars used for hired transport in DMSRDE are not registered under TAXI FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. Also the said vendor is not registered at Custom & Excise Department under Service Tax category and not depositing any Service Tax for hired vehicles services at DMSRDE.

Therefore the Information Sought is pertaining to Allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549289) is annexed as Annexure-1.

 
 
(Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal)           Date: 23 October, 2013                                                       
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand                    

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.   17F 549289   as application Fee.dmsrde rti reply car
Drdo

RTI- SASE – DRDO

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

Hello,

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

INFORMATION SOUGHT

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

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

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

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

Regards

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

Registration Number MODEF/R/2013/61143

Drdo

RTI – TBRL

1 Comment
To,
Central Public Information Officer
Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL), DRDO
Min of Defence
Sector 30
Chandigarh – 160003

Hello,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given thereof in these decisions.

  1. File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.
  2. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO), CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO) and CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

In its various decisions CIC 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.

In light of the above decisions of CIC, Kindly provide the following information under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005. 

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Whether Mr. Suresh Chand, Chief Admin Officer (CAO) was an employee of TBRL, Chandigarh. (Yes/No)
  2. If answer to point (1) is yes then provide the following information.

      i.            The date on which Mr. Suresh Chand was retired from TBRL.

    ii.            Whether a lady other than his wife claimed on his retirement pensionery benefits on the day of  his retirement.(Yes/No)

  iii.            Whether pension of Mr. Suresh Chand was withhold.(Yes/No)

  iv.            If answer to point (iii) is yes then provide the reasons for withholding of his pension.

    v.            Was the case of withholding of his pension and reasons thereof was referred to DRDO HQ/Vigilance for inquiry?(Yes/No)

  vi.            If answer to point (v) is yes then what is the status of his pension and retirement benefits?

vii.             Whether his pension & retirement benefits has been restored partially after inquiry/ non enquiry. (Yes/No)

viii             Whether Director, TBRL refer the case of Mr. Suresh Chand to CVC besides DGR&D, DRDO for information under new  Transparency Law of Govt of India.(Yes/No)

3.              Please refer to Rule 21 of The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964: RESTRICTION REGARDING MARRIAGE and GOI MHA OM No. 219/51-Ests. Dated 16.02.1955: Procedure for dealing with requests from Government servants for permission to remarry while first wife is still living, provide following information.
 i.            Whether TBRL/DRDO received any request from Mr. Suresh Chand, CAO regarding permission to remarry while first wife is still living. (Yes/No)

ii.             If answer to point (i) above is yes then due procedure as per Rule 21 has been followed by Competent Authority in the matter. (Yes/No)

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.                                                                        

Regards,

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

Registration Number – MODEF/R/2013/61087

Drdo

RTI- DMSRDE – M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur

Leave a comment
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Scientist ‘F’
Central Public Information Officer
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013

                    Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly provide the following information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide the following information in respect of Tender Reference No. DMSRDE/13552064 published on website of DRDO.(Copy Enclosed)
    1. Comparative Statement of Tender duly approved by SPC and Director.
    2. Name of vendor/firm/trader (L1) to which Supply Order was issued.
    3. Provide copy of supply order issued against this tender enquiry.

    Cost of the material purchased against supply order under above mentioned tender reference

  2. Provide following information in respect of business carried out by M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur in DMSRDE, Kanpur.
    1. Registration Certificate issued to M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur by DMSRDE, Kanpur.
    2. As per provisions of Rule 3.2 of Purchase Management 2006 of DRDO in which  categories of stores, e.g., raw materials, chemicals, machine tools, instruments, electronics and electrical items, timber, fabrication jobs and other general stores etc., the M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur is registered in DMSRDE, Kanpur.
    3. Total cost of supply orders placed in the year 2009 and 2010.
    4. Total cost of supply orders placed from 1st January 2011 to 31st October 2013.
    5. Copies of supply orders placed to Manglam Traders from 01.01.2011 to 31.10.2013.
    6. Number of repeat order placed to Manglam Traders and copies of  supply orders issued for repeat order
  3. Provide the copy of supply order placed against DMSRDE Case No. 13PDD014 dated 25.04.2012 initiated by Production Division.
  4. Provide amount in Kg of Polydimethylsilane(PDMS) purchased in the period.
    1. 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2010
    2. 01.01.2011 to 31.10.2013
    3. Likely to be purchased(Supply Order placed)
  5. Copies of bills submitted by M/s Manglam Traders to DMSRDE, Kanpur against supply orders and repeat orders placed to M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur.

The information related to purchase, supply orders, bills etc. has already been allowed by FAA, DRDO vide his decision No. RTI/02/2091/F/2013/0142 dated 14 October 2013 in First Appeal No. 142 on First Appeal of applicant.

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

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

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F548630 ) is enclosed as Annexure-1.

Date: 10 November, 2013                                                

(Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal)
 21-Sunderwala, Raipur
 Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand                     

Annexure:-

  1. 1.    IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 17F548630 as application Fee.                
Drdo

Private cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 using DMSRDE for commercial purpose

3 Comments
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Central Public Information Officer
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013             

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Hello,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given thereof in these decisions.

  1. File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.
  2. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

CIC in its above mentioned 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.

In light of the above decisions of CIC, Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Total No.  of transport/vehicles available in MT Division DMSRDE.
  2. Provide following information in respect of all vehicles available in DMSRDE.
  • Type of vehicle, Brand name, Manufacturer
  • Date of Purchase, purchase cost and source of fund(Build up/Project etc)
  • Present depreciated cost as on 31.10.2013
  • Average distance run /traveled by each vehicle in the year 2012-2013 separately for
  • each vehicle.
  • Total expenditure on maintenance of each vehicle separately in the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

3.      How many CMTD /MTD are posted in MT Division?
4.      Mode of tendering for selection of vendors for hired vehicles (Local Board/Single            Tender/Limited Tender/Open Tender/Repeat Order) for the following years.

  • 2010-2011
  • 2011-2012
  • 2012-2013
  • 2013-2014

5.     Total budget of MT Division years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
6.     Total expenditure and payment made for hired vehicles/transport for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13 along with name of vendor to whom the payment made.
7.      Provide expenditure incurred on various heads for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
8.      Provide information about vendor/firm which got contract for hired vehicles and amount paid to these vendors  in following formatrtimtpost1

 9.      Amount of Service Tax  that has been paid by DMSRDE to Vendor as reflected in bills submitted by vendor for depositing in Custom, Excise & Service Tax Department in following formatrtimtpost2

  1. Provide copies of CST (Comparative Statement) after opening of quotations duly approved by competent authority for the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 for giving contract to vendors for hired vehicles services in DMSRDE.
  2. Provide copy of supply order placed for hiring private vehicles/transport for the FY 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in DMSRDE.
  3. Copy of contract with terms & condition and rate (usage charges) for the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
  4. Whether any extension of contract for hired vehicle has been given to any vendor for during the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. (Yes/No)
  5. If answer to point (13) is yes then provide copy of rules under PM 2006 by which extension for contract of hired vehicle services (Repeat Order) could be given to vendor without going in fresh bidding.
  6. Details about maintenance of vehicles/transport available in DMSRDE for each vehicle/transport in following formatrtimtpost3
  1.  Status of vehicle (operational/Non operational) available in DMSRDE when services of hired vehicles were utilized.
  2. Whether hired vehicles provided by vendor Super India Travels, Rama Devi, Kanpur with following registration number are registered at RTO, Kanpur under category of Taxi for commercial purposes. Registration & Details of vehicles are

(a)   UP78 BS 1144 ( Indica Car White Color with white number plate)

(b)   UP78 CP 6510 (Indigo CS White Car with white number plate)

  1. If answer to point (17) is Yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by RTO Kanpur for said vehicles under Taxi for Commercial purpose.
  2. If answer to point (17) is No then provide the grounds on which vendor not having proper registration under Taxi from RTO, Kanpur was allowed to provide services in DMSDRE.
  3. The details of Vendor Registration Committee at DMSRDE with name & designation of Chairman and members.

The color of the number plates used in cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 provided by vendor for hired services are not Yellow. The color of these no. plates are White. It establishes that cars used for hired transport in DMSRDE are not registered under TAXI FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. Also the said vendor is not registered at Custom & Excise Department under Service Tax category and not depositing any Service Tax for hired vehicles services at DMSRDE.

Therefore the Information Sought is pertaining to Allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549289) is annexed as Annexure-1.

 
 
Date: 23 October, 2013                                                                              (Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal)
                                                                                                                              21-Sunderwala, Raipur
                                                                                                                               Dehradun-248008
                                                                                                                              Uttarakhand                    

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.   17F 549289   as application Fee.
Drdo

RTI-DMSRDE-STAFF CAR

Leave a comment
To,
Central Public Information Officer
DMSRDE,
GT Road
Kanpur-208013                     

Subject: Application/Request under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given in these decisions.

i.    File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.

ii.   CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO) 
iii.   CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
iv    CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

CIC in its above mentioned  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.

In light of the above decisions of CIC, Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. The date from which Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE was availing staff car facility for commuting between office and residence.
  2. Copy of the letter by which Dr. AK Saxena , Director, DMSRDE requested to his superior authority/controlling authority to withdraw the staff car.
  3. The date from which staff car facility was withdrawn from Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE.
  4. The date from which Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE availing Transport Allowance.
  5. Amount of Transport Allowance provided to him after withdrawal of Staff Car.
  6. How many staff car existing in DMSRDE?
  7. Whether staff car facility was offered to other senior officer at No. 2 or No. 3 in rank for commuting between office and residence after withdrawal of staff car facility from Dr. AK Saxena. (Yes/No)
  8. If answer to point (7) is yes then provide the copy of the offer letter as mentioned above and letter of acceptance/denial by such senior most officers.
  9. Details/List of Scientists/Tech. Officers/CMTD/MTD/Other employees & staff below the rank of Scientist ‘D’ to whom Telephone Reimbursement has been sanctioned/allowed by Director, DMSRDE for prepaid mobile/Landline with Broadband/Postpaid with Internet facility. Provide details for each official with following information.
  • Name of the Scientist/officer/official with rank
  • Amount of telephone Reimbursement
  • Justification

10.    Provide the total number of Scientist/Tech. Officer/Other officer & employees           below the rank of Scientist ‘D’ who are availing Telephone Reimbursement.

11.     Copy of the Minute Sheet/SOC approved by Director, DMSRDE by which Officer & employees posted at Motor Transport Division was allowed for Telephone Reimbursement.

13.   Copy of the rule under which Telephone Reimbursement for Scientist C’, Scientist ‘B’, Tech. Officers, CMTD, MTD, Admin. Asst. & other employees & staff of DMSRDE have been allowed in DMSRDE, Kanpur.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

This is also for your kind information that the information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not the personal information under RTI Act.

Please Find Enclosed – Postal Order No 17 F 549291

Date: 16th  October , 2013

 (Santosh Joshi)
2-Shanti Vihar
Behind mahindra showroom
Haridwar bypass 
Dehradun – 248001
Drdo

First Appeal -DMSRDE – Immovable Property Return (IPR) of Officials

Leave a 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/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

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

1.     Details of appellant:-

Name
Rajiv Chauhan
Address
1053/3, Shastri Nagar
Meerut(U.P.)- 250005

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

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

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

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 received by appellant on 20 September 2013. Copy enclosed as  Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)  An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 03 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)  Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 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 03 August 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. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010“.

(d)  In point (3) of reply dated 09 September 2013 , PIO referred the DOPT OM 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14 August 2013 in which  PIO mentioned some decision of CIC for seeking exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. The said OM is having three  Para’s but PIO did not read Para (2) and malafidely ignored Para (2) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment was quoted.

(e)  PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 03 August 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 PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

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 03 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 03 August 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

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

(d)    The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 03 August 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 from getting the information.

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

(g)    PIO is unable to understand the RTI Act 2005 and have not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of Act, definition of personal information, definition of public interest and various CIC decision in this matter. Misinterpretation of law leads to malafide intention and promotion to corruption by PIO. PIO is working under control and direction of Director (Public Authority).

(h)    It appears that PIO does know the meaning of Establishment Matter and public information, thereby he is claiming the information sought as personal information.

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

6.     Prayer /relief sought for:-

  1. Information sought vides RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 03 August 2013.
  2. Direction may kindly be issued to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions as PIO is for helping the appellant(Public/Information seeker) not for harassing the appellant as per sprit and provisions of RTI Act 2005.
  3.  Direction may please be issued to PIO to go through provisions of RTI Act 2005 before denial of information.

7.     Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-

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  “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. 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/ Routine correspondence and 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 03 August 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is alleged that Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F and Mr. Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ have violated Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 as both did not submitted IPR , Movable property returns and valuable property returns for several years. This ensures disciplinary action against them under CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. These officers are having disproportionate assets by showing undervalued cost of property. Both officers used black money to purchase property at high cost but declared on low cost by paying excess amount in black money for purchase of property. The black money involved in purchase of property came to them by means of corruption. Therefore the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption. Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is promoting this immoral act (corruption) based on casteism as Mr. Amit Kumar, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Dr. AK Saxena belongs to same cast Kayastha.

5.     Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters. The information related to IPR is Public Information as it is held by Public Authority under Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964. The details of IPR, Movable Property Return, Form 16 and Salary Slip are public documents. Thereby the information sought is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j).

6.     The information related toImmovable Property Return, Movable Property Return and Form 16 giving details of salary, house rent paid and rebate in income tax is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j) as this information has been allowed by Hon’ble CIC in decision No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 & CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008 by Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner.

Information related to IPR is disclosable as per CIC decision in Case No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001990/5042 dated 06 October 2009 and CIC/SG/A/2011/003719/17410 dated  16 February 2012.

7.     Information Sought is neither  personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005

  1. In reply dated 09 September 2013, PIO DMSRDE quoted in Para(3) – DOPT OM No. 11/2/2013-IR dated 14 August 2013.
  2. The said OM is having three(03) Para with one enclosure (CIC Decision in F No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 Manoj Arya Vs. Cabinet Secretariat).
  3. In Para (1) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, it has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission in one of its decisions (copy enclosed) has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005′.
  4. In Para(2) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, It has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) no. 27734/2012) in which it was held as under:- “The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual.” The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.
  5. The information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 is neither related to any complaint made against any Government servant nor related to the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation, as demanded in DOPT OM dated 14 August 2013.
  6. Thereby PIO is seeking illegal and  malafide shelter of the said OM of DOPT because information sought is not personal information, rather this type of information has already been allowed in CIC decision F No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 and CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008.
  7. Hence the information sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.

8.     The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1964- Rule 18

Every Government servant shall submit a return of his immovable property, movable and valuable property under the provisions of Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 under sub rule 18(1), 18(2), 18(3, 18(4) and  18(5). Therefore IPR, Movable property return and details of valuable property are public documents held by public authority. To submit the information under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules in prescribed format under Rule 18 are binding on each & every Government servant, therefore these are public information not the personal information. Government servants are seeking House Building Advance (HBA) of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs for purchasing of Immovable property, Car Advance, Computer advance, two wheeler advance and other various advances (loans) from Government. Therefore procurement of Immovable property, movable property and valuable property involves the public money therefore these information and documents are public information. These public documents are disclosable as per DOPT orders and CIC decisions in various cases.

9.     DOPT Orders on disclosure of IPR and Movable Property

  1. Please refer DOPT, Govt. of India Office Memorandum No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 on the Subject “Submission of Immovable Property Returns by officers of Group A Central Services for the year 2010(as on 01.01.2011) – Placing of the public domain regarding”.
  2. Under the provisions of Para (2) of the said OM “It has been decided that the immovable property returns submitted by members of all Group ‘A’ Services of the Central Government for the year 2010 i.e. as on 01.01.2011 will be placed in public domain by respective cadre controlling authorities by 31.05.2011“. Copy of the DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 is enclosed as Enclosure -3.

10. Partial information of IPR is in Public domain in  DRDO  

  1. As per DOPT OM dated 11th April 2011, it was binding on all Public Authorities to disclose IPR of all its Group’A’ Officers in public domain by uploading IPR on website.
  2. All organisations/departments uploaded IPR submitted by all Group A officers on their website as it is in the format prescribed under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. These IPR of all Central Government departments are as available on Internet.
  3. DRDO is more clever than DOPT and other organisatins/departments thereby DRDO compiled the partial information in tabular form of All Group ‘A’ Officers working under DRDO.
  4. These IPR was first time uploaded on DRDO website  under the link Immovable Property Return on home page of DRDO website in year 2011. Therefore DRDO accepted that information related to IPR is public information not the personal information. Despite disclosure of partial information related IPR on DRDO website , PIO, DMSRDE denied the information on the basis of personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. This act of PIO is malafide with ulterior motives to protect the corrupt officers of his own cast based on basis of casteism.
  5. PIO denied the information on illegal grounds to protect Dr. AK Saxena, Director, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar who are having disproportionate assets and are involved in corruption.
  6. Appellant filed RTI Application on 03 August 2013 and this was received by PIO on 13 August 2013 as he claimed in his letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September2013. It is false to say that RTI was received after 10 days of dispatch. At the time when RTI dated 03 August 2013 was filed to DMSRDE, then on IPR of DMSRDE loaded on DRDO website was not having any property details of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Mr. Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ but after receiving RTI on 13th August, Public Authority (Director, DMSRDE) awaken and left his all the horses to manipulate the IPR data of Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar and manage to put in record of DMSRDE by tempering and creating new data. Director managed to publish information regarding IPR of Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar on DRDO website under file name Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf.
  7. This can be verified from DRDO website under the link of DMSRDE that two pdf files are existing with the names IPR_DMSRDE.pdf (uploaded in year 2011) and Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf(Uploaded on 16 August 2013). In earlier file there was no information about IPR of Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar, but as soon as RTI was filed on 03 Aug 2013 and received by PIO on 13 Aug 2013, whole manipulation took place with in three days only and data was published by creating new file. This indicates how DRDO/DMSRDE is protecting its corrupt officials.

viii. Therefore information related to IPR is public information not personal information. Thereby Information sought should be disclosed by PIO, DMSRDE.

11. Information sought is related to larger public interest and public activity

  1. As per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
  2. As per the evidences available with appellant, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar are having disproportionate assets. The money, by which they purchase the disproportionate assets, came to them by means of corruption. The exact details will be disclosed before appropriate competent authority.
  3. Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar purchased the property in undervalued rates by making cost of property very lower  than original cost on which other property were sale in that area on that particular month. There by it create loss to Government in terms of low registry fee and stamps duty used for registry of the property.
  4. These officers did not declare their assets as per provisions of Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964, thereby they violated CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964. They are liable for disciplinary action for concealing the facts and not providing return of their assets.
  5. Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar is involved in corruption in DMSRDE and earned black money which they invested in purchase of Immovable Property and Movable Property. Activity pertains to corruption by these officers created pecuniary loss of public money and interest of Government as their integrity is doubtful in light of disproportionate assets with them.
  6. As public money, public servants, integrity of public servants, integrity of Public Authority and Public offices are involved in the matter, therefore larger public interest and public activity is involved in the disclosure of information.
  7. These officials are involved in acquiring disproportionate assets by means of corruption and manipulation. This fraudulent nature establishes that their integrity is doubtful and these are not suitable for Government Service. The existence of such kind of officials having fraudulent nature & activity, is not suitable for  DRDO as they can harm the reputation of DRDO. This involves public activity as public money and public office are involved.

viii. As a principle , public interest includes “Disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability in working of a public authority“. Thereby public interest is involved in seeking information as it will brought transparency in DMSRDE and contain the corruption as per preamble of RTI Act 2005.

12. To provide reasons when information denied u/s 8(1)(j)

  1. PIO, DMSRDE is not aware of CIC decision in case No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 07.07.2006 . Decision pronounced is “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act“.
  2. PIO has not given any reasons as to how he arrived to the conclusion that information sought is personal information u/s 8(1)(j). PIO also not mentioned the grounds on which he rejected the RTI application under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Thereby he violated the CIC decisions and provisions of RTI Act. To use the shadow of section 8(1)(j) by PIO for rejection of RTI application is  illegal , prejudice and malafide.

13. Provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005

  1. PIO is reluctant to perform his duties as per provisions of RTI Act 2005. It appears that he has not under gone any training programme on RTI, sponsored by DOPT. Even though he is not taking  pain for mere reading of RTI Act. PIO, DMSRDE either has not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) or he is unable to understand the meaning of provisions of section 8(1)(j).
  2. Appellant would like to draw kind attention of FAA, DRDO on the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 “Provided that the information which can not be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person“.
  3. The information sought by appellant regarding “Immovable Property Return (IPR) of officers” has to be provided to Parliament and can not be denied by DMSRDE/DRDO in case Parliament seek such information as sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 of appellant, thereby the information sought   should be provided to appellant under the said provisions of section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought is not personal information.

14. Denial of Information to promote Casteism in DMSRDE

  1. Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar and some other official of DMSRDE are working as a gang based on casteism in DMSRDE. Integrity of these officers is doubtful and it can be established if proper enquiry will be conducted at DMSRDE by CVC/CBI. Promotion to casteism is violation of Constitution of India and CCS (conducts) Rules.
  2. Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava,  Mr. Amit Kumar all are belongs to the cast known as Kayastha.
  3. Dr. A.K. Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar are protecting the corrupt officials belonging to his cast on the basis of false ground and malafidely misusing the provisions of RTI Act. Some other official also belonging to cast Kayastha have also been protected by them by illegal denial of information.

8.     Declaration:-

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

 
 
Rajiv Chauhan
1053/3,Shastri Nagar
Meerut (U.P.) – 250005

 Appeal No.:FA/RC/DMSRDE/2013/02

Date: 25 September, 2013                                            

 Enclosure: Three 

(1)    Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 09 September 2013
(2)    RTI Application dated 03 August 2013.
(3)    DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011
RTI Reply by DMSRDE
RTI Reply by DMSRDE

 

To,

Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’

CPIO, DMSRDE,

GT Road, Kanpur-208013

Subject: Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

PARTICULARS OF INFORMATION

This is with reference to Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964 and information about Immovable Property Return (IPR) available on DRDO website (drdo.gov.in) and DOPT Notification for publishing IPR of each officer working in Establishment on organization website.Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  Information/Question

 

. S No.

Information Sought

Required Reply

1.

 Details of all the immovable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 by              Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ with  following information.

  1. Full details about location viz. Municipal No. Street/Village, Taluk, District and State in which situated.
  2. Purchase value of property
  3. Sources from which financed
 Pl. provide details.
2. Provide copies of the form submitted for giving prior intimation or seeking previous sanction under rule 18(2) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 for transaction in respect of all immovable properties acquired till 31 July , 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ Pl. provide details.
3. Details of all the movable properties acquired till 31 July,2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ with  following information.

  1. Description of the property i.e. Car / Scooter / Motor Cycle / Refrigerator/ Computer/ Laptop/Bank account/shares/investments/Jewellery/loans/Insurance policies etc.
  2.  Make, Model and also registration No. in case of vehicles, where necessary
  3.  Purchase price of the property (Market value in the case of gifts)

 

 Pl. provide details.
4. Provide copies of the form for giving intimation or seeking previous sanction under rule 18(3) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 for transaction in respect of all movable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’. Pl. provide details.
5. Provide copies of final intimation in form 18(2) after purchase of the all immovable properties and in form 18(3) after purchase of all the movable properties under Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rule 1964 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘D’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ Pl. provide details.
6 Provide copies of the letters duly noted from DOP, DRDO HQ in respect of all immovable properties acquired by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D. Pl. provide details.
7. Reasons on the basis of which details of immovable properties acquired by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D are not reflected in Immovable Property Return (IPR) of DMSRDE, Kanpur on DRDO Website. Pl. provide details.
8- Provide copies of Form 16 for the Financial Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D.Provide copies of salary slips for month June, 2013 & July, 2013 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D. Pl. provide details.
9- Copy of loan papers issued by private agency like Bank, LIC HFL etc on the basis of which rebate on HBA interest was claimed/allowed to Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’. Pl. provide details.

.

This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisionsconsistently 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.Examples of decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act. An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee is enclosed

Date: 3rd August, 2013                                                                     

 

( Rajiv Chauhan)
1053/3;Shastrinagar,
Meerut(UP)-250005,
09412628314

 

IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.   16F964389   as application Fee.            

IPR DOPT OA1 IPR DOPT OA2 IPR DOPT OA3   

Drdo

First Appeal -DMSRDE – List of Scientists/ Officers Claiming rebate in Income Tax on rent paid by submitting rent receipts to 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/101/47/Letter_2013 dated 02 September 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

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

  1. Details of appellant:-
Name Rajiv Chauhan
Address 1053/3, Shastri Nagar

Meerut(U.P.)- 250005
  1. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name & Rank Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address DMSRDE

GT Road

Kanpur-208013
  1. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/47/Letter_2013 dated 02 September 2013 received by appellant on 10 September 2013. Copy enclosed as  Enclosure -1.

  1. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)          An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 31 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “List of Scientists/Officers claiming rebate in Income tax and rent paid by submitting rent receipt to DMSRDE“. Copy of the RTI application dated 31 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)          Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/47/Letter_2013 dated 02 September 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 31 July 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. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010“.

(d)          In point (3) of reply dated 2 September 2013 , PIO referred the DOPT OM 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14 August 2013 in which  PIO mentioned some decision of CIC for seeking exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. The said OM is having three  Para’s but PIO did not read Para (2) and malafidely ignored Para (2) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment was quoted.

(e)          PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 31 July 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 PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

  1. 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 31 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 31 July 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

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

(d)       The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 31 July 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO 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 from getting the information.

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

(g)       PIO is unable to understand the RTI Act 2005 and have not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of Act, definition of personal information, definition of public interest and various CIC decision in this matter. Misinterpretation of law leads to malafide intention and promotion to corruption by PIO. PIO is working under control and direction of Director (Public Authority).

(h)       It appears that PIO does know the meaning of Establishment Matter, thereby he is claiming the information sought as personal information.

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

  1. Prayer /relief sought for:-
  2. Information sought vides RTI Application dated 31 July 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 31 July 2013.
  3. Direction may kindly be issued to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions as PIO is for helping the appellant(information seeker) not for harassing the appellant as per sprit and provisions of RTI Act 2005.
  4. Direction may please be issued to PIO to go through provisions of RTI Act 2005 before denial of information.
    1. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
    2. 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 31 July 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“.

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

Information sought is related to  ” List of Scientists/Officers claiming rebate in Income tax an rent paid by submitting rent receipt to DMSRDE“. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

  1. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.
  2. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 31 July 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption.It is alleged that along with  Mr.AK, Scientist ‘D’ and Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ , several officers and employees of DMSRDE  are claiming Income Tax rebate on HRA and rent paid by submitting fake and forge rent receipt prepared by themselves while they are living on different address. Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is promoting this immoral act which is punishable under IPC and CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 , based on casteism as Mr.AK, Dr. Vineeta Nigam , Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Dr. AK Saxena belongs to same cast Kayastha.
  3. Information sought is related to “List of Scientists/Officers claiming rebate in Income tax an rent paid by submitting rent receipt to DMSRDE“. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters.
  4. The information related to rent receipt submitted for the purpose of seeking income tax rebateandForm 16 giving details of salary and house rent paid and rebate in income tax is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j) as this information has been allowed by Hon’ble CIC in decision No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001464 dated 24 November 2010 by Information Commissioner Mrs. Annapurna Dixit.
  5. Information Sought is neither  personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
  6. In reply dated 02 September 2013, PIO DMSRDE quoted in Para(3) – DOPT OM No. 11/2/2013-IR dated 14 August 2013.
  7. The said OM is having three(03) Para with one enclosure (CIC Decision in F No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 Manoj Arya Vs. Cabinet Secretariat).
  8. In Para (1) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, it has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission in one of its decisions (copy enclosed) has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005′.
  9. In Para(2) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, It has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) no. 27734/2012) in which it was held as under:- “The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual.”The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.
  10. The information sought in RTI Application dated 31 July 2013 is neither related to any complaint made against any Government servant nor related to the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation, as demanded in DOPT OM dated 14 August 2013.
  11. Thereby PIO is seeking illegal and  malafide shelter of the said OM of DOPT because information sought is not personal information, rather this type of information has already been allowed in CIC decision F No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001464 dated 24 November 2010.
  12. Hence the information sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
  13. Information sought is related to larger public interest and public activity
  14. As per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
  15. As per the evidences available with appellant , about 500 officials are working in DMSRDE, out of which at least 10% officials are claiming  income tax rebate on HRA by submitting fake & forge rent receipt. Fraudulently preparing forge & fake rent receipt is violation of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 and is a crime under IT Act & IPC.
  16. AK, Scientist ‘D’ and Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ are submitting forge & fake rent receipt of Rs. 10500/- pm and Rs. 12000/- pm. However both are not living on the address which has been mentioned in the rent receipt submitted by them. In FY 2012-2013 (AY 2013-2014) Mr.AK claimed rebate of approx 70000/- on HRA and thus he  is involved in income tax evasion of Rs. 21000/-. Mr.AK, Scientist ‘D’ prepared forge rent receipt by himself and submitted to DMSRDE for claiming IT rebate on HRA on the basis of forge rent receipt. Hence Mr.AK  prepared forge documents and submitted to DMSRDE During FY 2012-2013. Mr.AK was not living on the address which was mentioned in the rent receipt. Similar is the case with Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’, she is involved in income tax evasion of approx. Rs. 40000/- per year.
  17. In totality a racket is active in DMSRDE for Income Tax evasion by submitting forge rent receipt under protection and guidance of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE. Mr.AK, Scientist ‘D’ , Dr. Vineeta Nigam , Scientist ‘D’ and other henchman of Dr. Saxena are claiming IT rebate on HRA on the basis of fake rent receipt. The total amount of income tax evasion by these officials is approx. Rs. 10,00000/- (Rupees Ten lakh).
  18. Therefore loss of more than Rs. 10,00000/- in terms of income tax (Public Money) has been evaded by these officials from Govt. of India. Therefore the information sought is having larger public interest, as the disclosure of information will expose the fraudulent and dishonest officials at DMSRDE. Disclosure of information will help in getting Rs. 1000000/- in account of Govt. of India in form of income tax.
  19. As public money, public servants, integrity of public servants, integrity of  Public Authority and Public offices are involved in the matter, therefore larger public interest is involved and public activity is involved in the disclosure of information.
  20. These officials involved in fraudulent claim of rebate on income tax, thereby their integrity is doubtful and these are not suitable for Government Service. They should be terminated by DGR&D, DRDO for submitting forge & fake rent receipt to DMSRDE. The existence of such kind of officials having fraudulent nature & activity, is not suitable for  DRDO as they can harm the reputation of DRDO. This involves public activity as public money and public office are involved.

viii. As a principle , public interest includes “Disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability in working of a public authority”. Thereby public interest is involved in seeking information as it will brought transparency in DMSRDE and contain the corruption as per preamble of RTI Act 2005.

  1. To provide reasons when information denied u/s 8(1)(j)
  2. PIO, DMSRDE is not aware of CIC decision in case No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 07.07.2006 . Decision pronounced is “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act“.
  3. PIO has not given any reasons as to how he arrived to the conclusion that information sought is personal information u/s 8(1)(j). PIO also not mentioned the grounds on which he rejected the RTI application under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Thereby he violated the CIC decisions and provisions of RTI Act. To use the shadow of section 8(1)(j) by PIO for rejection of RTI application is  illegal , prejudice and malafide.
  4. Provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
  5. PIO is reluctant to perform his duties as per provisions of RTI Act 2005. It appears that he has not gone under any training programme on RTI sponsored by DOPT. Even though he is not taking  pain for mere reading of RTI Act. PIO, DMSRDE either has not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) or he is unable to understand the meaning of provisions of section 8(1)(j).
  6. Appellant would like to draw kind attention of FAA, DRDO          on the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 “Provided that the information which can not be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person“.
  7. The information sought by appellant regarding ” List of Scientists/Officers claiming rebate in Income tax an rent paid by submitting rent receipt to DMSRDE” has to be provided to Parliament by DMSRDE/DRDO in case Parliament seek such information as sought in RTI Application dated 31 July 2013, thereby the information sought   should be provided to appellant under the said provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought is not personal information.
  8. Denial of Information to promote Casteism in DMSRDE
    1. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Mr.AK and some other official of DMSRDE are working as a gang based on casteism in DMSRDE. Integrity of these officers is doubtful and it can be established if proper enquiry will be conducted at DMSRDE by CVC/CBI. Promotion to casteism is violation of Constitution of India and CCS (conducts) Rules.
    2. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Mr.AK all are belongs to the cast known as Kayastha.
    3. A.K. Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar are protecting the corrupt officials belonging to his cast on the basis of false ground and malafidely misusing the provisions of RTI Act. Some other official also belonging to cast Kayastha have been protected by them by illegal denial of information.
    4. Declaration:-

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

Rajiv Chauhan

1053/3,Shastri Nagar

Meerut (U.P.) – 250005

Appeal No.:FA/RC/DMSRDE/2013/01

Date: 25 September, 2013                                                

 Enclosure: two 

(1)   Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 02 September 2013

(2)   RTI Application dated 31 July 2013.

 

To,

Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’

CPIO

DMSRDE, GT Road , Kanpur-208013

Sub:  Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide list of Scientists/Officers claiming rebate in Income Tax on rent paid by submitting rent receipt to DMSRDE, Kanpur in the following format for-

(i) FY 2010-2011                    (ii) FY 2011-2012               (ii)  FY 2012-2013

S.N. Name of Scientist & Rank Financial Year Rent claimed per month as per rent receipt Total rebate on rent paid in Income Tax
         
  1. Provide the addresses for which the Scientists/Officers submitted rent receipt in following format
S.N. Name of Scientist & Rank Financial Year Address in rent receipt Rent claimed per month
         
  1. Provide the copies of Form 16 issued by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur for AY 2012-2013 and AY 2013-2014 in respect of ShriAK, Scientist ‘D’.
  2. Provide copies of verified rent receipt submitted by ShriAK, Scientist ‘D’ to get income tax rebate on house rent paid for the AY years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 ( Financial Year 2011-2012 & 2012-2013).
  3. Provide the copy of the undertaking given by ShriAK , Scientist ‘D’ to Director, DMSDRE in respect to that ‘He will liable to pay Income Tax and Penalty on Income Tax in case it was found that his claim for both HBA interest and rent paid was found illegal’.
  4. Provide Copy of Income Tax Rules  on ground of which ShriAK was allowed to get rebates in income tax both on rent paid and  on HBA interest by Director, DMSRDE , Kanpur.
  5. Copy of Declaration in Form No. 10BA under Rule 11 (B) of IT Act by ShriAK, Scientist ‘D’ during FY 2011-12, 2012-2013.
  6. Provide copy of salary slips for the months June 2013 and July 2013.
  7. Provide Owner name and address of house for which the rent receipts were submitted by ShriAK, Scientist ‘D’.
  8. Provide Copy of the Performa submitted by ShriAK to finance division for claiming rebates and informing saving details duly verified by Administration Division after confirming the present address from his personal case.
  9. The date on which ShriAK, Scientist ‘D’ left the Government Accommodation . Provide copy of vacation report/certificate issued by MES to Estate Division in respect of ShriAK, Scientist ‘D’.
  10. The date from which ShriAK is submitting rent receipt in order to claim/get rebate in rent paid in Income Tax.
  11. Whether any Vigilance Committee/other Committee was constituted by Director, DMSRDE to verify that the concerned Scientist/Officer claiming rebate on basis of rent paid is living on the address claimed and not submitting fake/forge receipt for house rent? (Yes/No)
  12. If Yes then provide the copy of the letter by which the said Vigilance Committee/Other Committee for this purpose was constituted.

This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010.

Besides this the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005. An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee is enclosed.

Date: 31 July, 2013                                                                                                          

 (Rajiv Chauhan)

                                                                                                  1053/3, Shastrinagar,

Meerut(UP)-250005

Enc : IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No  16F 964390

 

 

rtireply dmsrde icomtax rebate