Tag Archives: without

Drdo

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

Leave a comment

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- II

‘The LCA won’t take off in the near future’

George Iype

The Light Combat Aircraft is perhaps the most ambitious of all DRDO projects. But 17 years and four postponements of its test flight later, the multi-role fighter meant to replace the MiG-21 is still a dream.

What has happened to the LCA, the most technologically complex challenge that DRDO had taken up? Air force officers, DRDO scientists and defence experts say it remains grounded because of “scores of technical problems.”

The delay has hurt the air force badly and dented the DRDO’s image. A country that has not designed a jet fighter in decades had been waiting long for one. India had designed and produced the HF-24 aircraft in the early 1960s, but its engine was British.

Such was the enthusiasm behind the LCA that in 1985 the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi showcased it as a symbol of the new era of co-operation and friendship between India and the United States. Gandhi even overrode the claims of the French and Germans who had been collaborating with DRDO and the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautical Limited for the LCA production.

The original deadline to fly the aircraft was 1993. The cost, Rs 5.6 billion. The DRDO and HAL did roll out an LCA in the presence of then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao on November 17, 1995. DRDO top brass then announced that the maiden flight would take place in early 1997. The dates were revised to June 1998 and then to February 1999.

Years passed by, but no test flight took place. Today the deadline for the LCA has become a joke in defence circles.

The most scathing criticism of the project came from the Comptroller and Auditor General of India who, in his 1999 report, said: ‘Even at the end of 1998, the LCA had not crossed the development stage. Its production and induction into the air force remains only a distant possibility.’

The CAG report went on to add that the airframe for LCA developed by the DRDO’s Bangalore laboratory, the Aeronautical Development Agency ‘is deficient in vital parameters of aerodynamic configuration, volume and most importantly, the weight.’

The first phase of the project consumed Rs 25 billion, overshooting the estimated Rs 5.6 billion. Worse, due to the delay, the air force was compelled to upgrade its MiG Bis aircraft at a cost of Rs 21.35 billion.

Scientists at DRDO, ADA and HAL concede one thing: the LCA has run into some serious technical problems. LCA is a meticulous fly-by-wire aircraft, which is critically dependent on software to fly.

“But over the years, we have not been successful in fully testing the software. Therefore, we face difficulties in integrating the system,” admits an engineer at HAL.

Since the aircraft depends on computers, no pilot wants to risk a flight test without thoroughly validating the system. Scientists say the trials intended to test the dynamic stability of the airframe and the LCA’s engine-flight control system has been successful. Though the engine and the electronics are in the advanced test mode, the aircraft’s ability to withstand low pressure and temperature at high altitudes is suspect.

“There is reason enough to worry that the LCA will not take off in the near future,” says Bangalore-based aviation expert P N Srivastava.

“I feel the delay is primarily due to the fact that it took years for a country like India to get the advanced technology for the project,” he says. “The idea for LCA was born without having any requisite technology on our side,” Srivastava points out.

DRDO officials put forward one reason for the project delay — sanctions from the United States after the Pokhran nuclear blasts. In a bid to force India to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle, the US has pulled out of the project soon after the tests.

Thus, just one week after the explosions in May 1998, many scientists working on different fields linked to the LCA at aerospace giant Lockheed Martin in Binghamton, New York, were asked to pack their bags for India by the United States. The Indian engineers were working to validate a computerised control law software for onboard computers which will ultimately fly the aircraft.

As it imposed sanctions, the US also denied key components like hydraulic actuators — that help manoeuvre the aircraft, gain altitude and determine the trajectory — and the ring-laser gyros to make inertial navigation systems.

“One of the main reasons for the delay is that technological sanctions from the US hit us badly. Had it not been for the nuclear blasts, our deadline to test fly the aircraft would have been successful in December 1998,” says a senior DRDO official.

Lockheed Martin refused to give the DRDO the flight control computer, which was in the US for testing, when sanctions were announced, he added.

Another major hurdle for DRDO is the LCA’s engine. As per its agreement with the US, India was allowed to purchase frontline 404 engines from General Electric. In fact, DRDO imported 11 such engines and fitted them on to the early versions of the aircraft, pending the development of the indigenous Kaveri engine being developed by Bangalore’s Gas Turbine Research Establishment.

But after the nuclear tests, GE withdrew its technical support personnel from India and DRDO was forced to depend only on Kaveri. Sources now say it will take at least two years to determine whether Kaveri engines can withstand the low pressure and temperature at high altitudes.

No one at DRDO, ADA and HAL believes that the LCA will fly before 2005.

Experts say the delay should be examined in the context of a country that has not designed and produced a jet fighter since the 1960s. Development of every vital component of the LCA — airframe, multimode radar, flight control system, Kaveri engine, digital electronic engine control – are said to be beset with problems.

Scientists at DRDO, for their part, hold the defence ministry partially responsible for the delay. Between 1990 and 1994, all work came to a virtual standstill as the defence ministry refused to release the much-needed foreign exchange because of economic stringency.

But the biggest worry for DRDO is not the bureaucratic delays and sanctions, but the Indian air force. Faced with diminishing number of its ageing fleet, the IAF holds DRDO responsible for promising to deliver the LCA before year 2,000, thereby considerably upsetting many of its aircraft acquisition plans.

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

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

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

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

Drdo

Air Force audit says pact for LCA parts unauthorised

Leave a comment

Chethan Kumar, Bangalore, April 24, 2013, DHNS: – DECCAN HERALD

The Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), one of the agencies working on light combat aircraft — Tejas had struck an agreement with BAE Systems Overseas Inc for supply of 15 ship sets of integrated flight control systems line replacement units costing US$3,06,00,000, without the approval of competent authority, states the audit of the Office of the Director of Air Force Audit.

BAE Systems Overseas Inc was to have delivered the units by March 2009. “Under the contract, ADE received 14 shipments. The consignment containing the 15th set consisting of actuators (total 15 numbers) valuing US$21,27,215 (Rs 10.63 crore) in one case weighing 206-kg was sent via shipper number 54151 dated December 17, 2008 by British Airways. However, the consignment was not received by ADE,” the report, completed in 2010 reveals.

Bringing this to the notice of Defence Minister A K Antony, Javed Abbas Technical Officer ‘B’, retired, in a letter said there are several other irregularities going on at ADE, a lab under Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), regarding appointments, promotions and transfers.

The audit report, annexed in to the letter, further states: “as per documents provided by BAE Systems, USA, the consignment was received by British Airways and the aircraft left the John F Kennedy International Airport (New York) for Heathrow Airport, London on December 12, 2008 by flight number BA 114.”

While 40 per cent of the value of these products had already been paid to BAE, payment for balance, amounting to 60 per cent of value was effected in October 2009, well after the deadline for delivering of the units was passed, and, the consignment had not reached ADE.

The auditors point out that as per para 7.2 of Purchase Management procedure, 2006, stores costing Rs 2.5 crore might be insured against loss or damage in transit and that insurance cover will invariably be obtained from the insurance agency before dispatching the consignment by the supplier.

“However, the consignment was not insured by DRDO in contravention of the regulation. On reasons for non-insurance, the ADE stated that the clearing agent Air Consolidation Agent — Balmer & Lawrie & Co did not advise the establishment to do so,” the report adds. Observing that the excuse is not tenable, the audit said, onus of deciding on whether the consignment should be insured or not rests with ADE and not the clearing agent.

“Thus, by not insuring the consignment by ADE, as provided in the regulation, the State had to bear loss of Rs 10.63 crore,” the report concluded.

DRDO sources said the consignment, eventually never reached the organisation, and it was lost in transit!

Drdo

DRDO hikes salary, ignores FinMin order

Leave a comment

 ABHINANDAN MISHRA 20th Apr 2013

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), increased on its own the pay scale of its officials, thus overlooking the objections by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) and Audit authorities, who had turned down the request for the increase. In spite of being asked to stop this, the DRDO ignored the Finance Ministry order and continued to pay the hikes salary, thus causing an annual liability of Rs 9.6 crore.

According to a note dated 10 September 2012 and signed by an under secretary of the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, upgrading the grade pay of Technical Officers (A) from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800, was “irregular, contrary to the accepted recommendation of the Central Pay Commission and in violation of the allocation and transaction of business rules and was undertaken suo moto without reference, much less concurrence, of the Ministry of Finance”. An audit conducted by the defence audit branch (DGADS) for 2011-2012 passed strictures against the DRDO authorities for this action. The audit report said that DRDO officials, during the audit, agreed to recover the amount that was paid to its employees.

“The grant of Grade pay Rs 4,800 did not have the approval of the Ministry of Finance. Department of Expenditure had treated it as ‘irregular’ and asked to withdraw it. During discussion, at the insistence of audit, the DRDO authorities agreed to recover the overpaid amount of Rs 24 cr,” remarked DGADS. Some DRDO officers said that scientists who do not have the required expertise have been entrusted with managing the administration of DRDO.

 

Drdo

Dr.Arun Kumar’s CAT Case – Right Decision – A perfect warning signal for corrupt DRDO officials

6 Comments

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-4075/2012

Reserved on : 09.04.2013.

Pronounced on :17.04.2013.

Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Dr. Arun Kumar,
R/o P-25/5, DRDO Residential
Complex, Lucknow Road,
Timar Pur, Delhi-54. . Applicant

(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)

Versus

1. Union of India through
Secretary, Deptt. Of Defence
R&D and DG, DRDO, DRDO Bhawan,
Rajaji Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Sh. Sameer Kumar Khare,
Chief Vigilance Officer,
Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi. . Respondents

(through Sh. Rajesh Katyal, Advocate)
O R D E R

Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
This is a second round of litigation. Earlier this applicant had filed OA-3293/2012, which was disposed of by this Tribunals order dated 24.11.2012. Operative part of the order reads as follows:-
24. Considering the aforesaid two sets of infirmities in the decision making process in the matter, we are of the considered views that the impugned communications dated 23.08.2012 and 05.09.2012 cannot be sustained and, therefore, those needs to be quashed. We accordingly set aside the same. We further provide that it would be open for the RM to consider the report of the Expert Committee first on the allegations against the applicant in a dispassionate manner, without getting influenced by the advice of the CVC or prejudiced by the views already expressed in the notes/files when the matter was subjudice before this Tribunal and take a considered view to accept or reject the recommendations of the Expert Committee. Obviously, if he does not accept the recommendations of the Expert Committee, appropriate decision should be taken at his level as per law, without being influenced by our observations in the order.

25. In view of the above, the Original Application stands disposed of in terms of our orders and observations leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Now the applicant has sought the following relief:-
(i) To Quash and set aside the impugned suspension order dated 30.11.2012 being illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to release all retirement dues of the applicant without any delay.

To direct the respondents to issue relevant order for joining of applicant as Chairman CEPTAM as approved by ACC.

To allow the OA with costs.

Any other order or further order as the Honble Tribunal thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. Facts of this case have been gone into in great detail in OA-3293/2012 filed earlier by the applicant. We propose to only briefly mention them and then concentrate on the developments in the case subsequent to this Tribunals order dated 24.11.2012. We also do not propose to adjudicate again on the issues which have been covered in the earlier judgment of this Tribunal.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the applicant was working at the level of Outstanding Scientist in DRDO in the pay scale of Rs. 67000-79000. According to him, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet had also approved his appointment as Chairman, CEPTAM in DRDO for a period of three years from the date of joining. On the complaint of one Dr. Neelam Bhalla, Scientist-F of DRDO, submitted to various authorities, such as, CVC, Honble Raksha Mantri (RM), Cabinet Secretary, Womens Commission in Delhi, Secretary, DRDO and Vigilance Department of MOD, it was decided by RM to constitute an Expert Committee to enquire into the issue and ascertain whether there is any truth in the allegations made by Dr. Neelam Bhalla. The main allegation was that the applicant had committed irregularities and maneuvered the recruitment of Group-D Scientist in DRDO in such a way that he was able to secure appointment for his daughter Swati Srivastava. In the earlier OA, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the Chief Vigilance Officer of MOD had sought CVC advice on the action to be taken on the complaint without taking orders of RM. CVC had advised initiation of major penalty against the applicant. In that OA, the applicant had pleaded before the Tribunal that CVCs advice is bound to influence the decision of the DA i.e. Honble RM, who was supposed to first take a decision on whether to proceed against the applicant or not and thereafter seek CVC advice. It was also pleaded before the Tribunal that the Expert Committee constituted by RM had exonerated the applicant and the recommendations of the Expert Committee had been accepted by the RM. Thus, the matter should be treated as closed. The Tribunal after hearing the pleadings of both sides had given the above mentioned judgment in the said case by which it was directed that it would be open for Honble RM to consider the report of the Expert Committee first on the allegations against the applicant in a dispassionate manner without getting influenced by the advice of CVC or prejudiced by the views already expressed in the notings in the file and take a considered view whether to accept or reject the recommendations of Expert Committee. On 30.11.2012, the respondents have passed the impugned order by which the applicant has been placed under suspension with immediate effect. Now, the applicant has assailed the suspension order before us through this O.A.

4. We propose to deal with each of the grounds on which the applicant has challenged the suspension order:-
(i) The first ground taken by him is that the impugned suspension order has been issued in defiance of the orders of this Tribunal dated 24.11.2012. According to the applicant, the Tribunal had specifically directed that Honble RM would take decision without being influenced by the advice of CVC or the notings made during the pendency of O.A. However, the respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Defence has himself taken the file to Honble RM for passing the suspension order on the basis of same complaint and already quashed communications dated 23.08.2012 and 05.09.2012. Further, the applicant has alleged that the suspension order is biased because the respondents were determined to humiliate the applicant by all means. They have done so to satisfy false ego of respondent No.2 and complainant Dr. Neelam Bhalla.

4.1 In this connection, we have perused the original record of the department. In File No. 13011/6/D(Vig.II)/10 (Part File) on page-32/N, Honble RM has passed the following order:-
As advised by the Honble CAT P.B. New Delhi, I have gone through the report of DRDO expert committee and I am of the view that the report of the expert committee is full of contradictions as they have not considered the issues before them with proper application of mind. The issues are as under:-

(i) Ms. Swati Srivastava, daughter of Dr. Arun Kumar, the then Additional Director, RAC, DRDO, had applied for the post of Scientist B in DRDO in 2004. Although dealing with the instant recruitment process of Scientist B in his official capacity, Dr. Arun Kumar did not inform the office in writing and did not recluse himself from the recruitment process.

Dr. Arun Kumar, manipulated the selection process to include the subject Environmental Biology under the advertised subject Biotechnology, without issuing corrigendum or public notification. This was done solely in spite of the fact that there were 300 odd candidates with the requisite qualification in Biotechnology and was done solely to make Ms Swati Srivastava eligible for the post since she was having qualification Environmental Biotechnology.

Dr. Arun Kumar unjustifiably changed the criteria for shortlisting of applicants for the interview, such as introducing preference for NET qualified/ cut off marks for university toppers etc. with the sole objective of extending undue benefit to his daughter, who would not have qualified for the interview if the existing criteria were followed and not manipulated in her favour.

2. From the above, I am of the view that the report of the expert committee could not give satisfactory and convincing reasons on the above mentioned issues, and therefore, the report is not accepted.

3. Hence, I find that it is a fit case where a departmental inquiry should be instituted as per applicable rules and guidelines. I hereby order that Dr. Arun Kumar may be placed under suspension with immediate effect before the action on disciplinary proceeding is processed. Since the first stage advice is required to be taken, let the matter be referred to CVC in accordance with the applicable rules.
We find from the aforesaid order that there is no reference to the advice of CVC or the communications dated 23.08.2012 and 05.09.2012. The order passed by Honble RM is well reasoned. He has ruled that the report of the Expert Committee was full of contradictions as they had not considered the issues before them with proper application of mind. Ms. Swati Srivastava D/o Dr. Arun Kumar (applicant and the then Additional Director, RAC, DRDO) had applied for the post of Scientist-B in DRDO in 2004. The applicant although dealing with this recruitment did not inform the office that his daughter was a candidate in the said selection process and did not recluse himself from the recruitment process. Honble RMs order further says that the applicant had manipulated the selection process to include the subject Environmental Biology with the advertised subject Biotechnology. This was done without issuing a corrigendum or public notification with the sole purpose of making Ms. Swati Srivastava eligible for the post since she was having qualification of Environmental Biotechnology. Further, the order says that the applicant unjustifiably changed the criteria for short listing the candidates for interview and introduced preference for NET qualified/cut off marks for university toppers etc. with the sole objective of extending undue benefit to his daughter, who would not have qualified for the interview if the unchanged criteria had been followed. Rejecting the report of the Expert Committee, Honble RM has directed that this was a fit case where a departmental inquiry should be instituted as per applicable rules. He has also directed that Dr. Arun Kumar be placed under suspension with immediate effect. Further, he has ordered that CVCs first stage advice may be taken in accordance with applicable rules.

4.2 In our considered opinion, the order passed by Honble RM is well reasoned and logical based on the material pertaining to the case. He has not been influenced by the advice of CVC as alleged by the applicant nor it appears that it has been done to satisfy false ego of respondent No.2 and complainant Dr. Neelam Bhalla. There is also nothing on record to show that Respondent No.2 has taken the file to Honble RM himself. Honble RMs order is of a date subsequent to the date on which Respondent No.2 saw the file. Thereafter, the file has been seen by Additional Secretary and Defence Secretary before being put upto Honble RM.

4.3 The second ground taken by the applicant is that respondent No.2 had no legal right to keep all the files containing the details of decision of Honble RM after receipt of High Power Committee report with him and after disposal of the OA by this Tribunal. As per rules and terms of this Tribunal, the decision on the Expert Committee report was required to be taken only by Honble RM on the filed to be submitted by Secretary, DRDO and not by MOD (Vigilance).

From the records produced by the department, we notice that the decision by Honble RM has been taken in the file of MOD(Vigilance). Respondent No.2, the Chief Vigilance Officer has made the following noting while submitting the case to Honble RM Honble RM may like to decide future course of action as mentioned in Para(4) of Note 28 above. The relevant Para-4 of the Note at page 28 is as follows:-
In view of the position explained above, the file is re-submitted to Honble R.M. for taking a decision on the findings of the DRDO committee in the matter as under:-

(a) To accept the recommendations of the Expert Committee/DRDO and close the case, in which case no action is required to be taken against Dr. Arun Kumar/shri A.K. Bansal.
OR
(b) To reject the report on the ground that the report was contradictory and has not covered major allegations as mentioned in the Table A (placed opposite) and to proceed ahead with the departmental enquiry based on the examination of the case by D (Vigilance). However, in this case Shri Arun Kumar will have to be placed under suspension [Under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965-F/Y] with immediate effect as he is retiring on 30.11.2012 to avoid the case being time barred as per Rule 9(2)(b)(iii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (F/X). It may be stated that as per Rule No.9(6)(a) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972(F/Z), the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted from the date the Government Servant is placed under suspension.
We have also seen the order of this Tribunal dated 24.11.2012 and we find that there is no mention in that order that Respondent No.2 was not required to keep the file with him or that Honble RM has to take decision on the report of the Expert Committee in the DRDO file and not on the file of MOD (Vigilance). Thus, the contention of the applicant in this regard is without merit.

4.4 The next issue raised by the applicant is that even the relevant rules and instructions have been violated while passing the impugned order. According to CCS(CCA) Rules, suspension should not be made in a routine and casual manner. It can be issued only where continuation of an officer in service is either likely to prejudice investigation or subvert discipline or after holding preliminary inquiry a prima facie case is made out, which is likely to lead to major penalty. According to the applicant, none o these conditions are applicable and the applicant himself was to leave the office on account of attaining the age of superannuation.
The respondents in their reply have stated that the DA has taken the decision after careful perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the material on record. The charges against the applicant were grave and he had failed to maintain absolute integrity while discharging his duty. The respondents have also denied the allegation of mala fide and have prayed for these to be ignored by the Tribunal.

5. We have perused the order of Honble RM by which the suspension has been ordered. It clearly brings out the grave charge of nepotism against the applicant, namely, that he had manipulated the recruitment process of Scientist-B of DRDO to favour his daughter. We do not feel that this has been done in a routine and casual manner. Since it is a grave charge which could lead to a major penalty, the respondents were justified in placing the applicant under suspension.

6. However, we do find that there is some merit in the contention of the applicant that since he was already retiring on 30.11.2012, the date on which Honble RM ordered his suspension, the suspension was not warranted inasmuch as the applicant would have otherwise left the office on account of attaining the age of superannuation. It is settled legal position that suspension is not a punishment and it is resorted to keep the delinquent officer away from office so that he does not get chance to tamper with the evidence so that the inquiry against him could proceed unhindered. In the instant case, the suspension order was issued on the last day of the service of the applicant on which day he would have, in any case, left the office and would not have been able to either tamper with the evidence or interfere with the inquiry. In our opinion, this appears to have been done in haste to meet the requirement of Rule-9(2)(d)(ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, which prescribe that no proceedings shall be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. The charge against the applicant pertains to recruitment that had taken place in the year 2004. The inquiry under CCS(Pension) Rules could not have been instituted against the applicant after 30.11.2012 since it pertained to an event which took place more than 4 years before his date of retirement. The respondents were, therefore, keen to institute the proceedings during the service time of the applicant. For doing so, either a charge sheet was to be served or the employee had to be placed under suspension. Only then the proceedings can be deemed to have been instituted. On 30.11.2012, when the suspension was order by Honble RM, the issue of charge sheet was not possible since before doing so CVCs first stage advice was to be taken. Therefore, the respondents resorted to issuing the suspension order.

7. While this may be so, we have to examine whether the suspension order gets vitiated for this reason and whether suspension order issued on the last date of retirement is unsustainable in law. It is an admitted fact that the order of suspension was served on the applicant at 2.30 P.M. on the date of his retirement. The applicant has contended that the relationship of the employer and employee had come to an end on that day and as such the suspension order was not valid. In this regard, the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Honble High court of Tamil Nadu in the case of G. Subramanian Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1988(2) MLJ 418 in which the Writ Petition was allowed and the order of dismissal passed against the applicant was quashed. In that case the applicant was due to retire on afternoon of 30.06.1977 on attaining the age of superannuation. That afternoon, he was informed by a telephonic message that Government of Tamil Nadu was placing him under suspension and not permitting him to retire. Thereafter, Government of Tamil Nadu issued an order on that very date stating that criminal offence was under investigation against the petitioner and, therefore, in public interest he was placed under suspension with immediate effect. He was also not permitted to retire. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted in which two charges against the petitioner were proved. He was issued a notice to show cause why he should not be removed from service. At that stage, the petitioner had approached the Honble High Court of Tamil Nadu.

8. While going through the facts of the case, we find that it is not applicable in the instant case. The reason is that in the case quoted above, the petitioner was not allowed to retire and was subsequently given notice for removal from service. The Honble High Court of Tamil Nadu had ruled that after the date of retirement of the petitioner, proceedings against him could have continued only for determining whether pension or a part thereof could be withdrawn from the petitioner. They, therefore, found that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner for removal from service was unsustainable in law. However, in the instant case, while the suspension order has been issued under CCS(CCA) Rules, the petitioner has been allowed to retire and now the proceedings are continuing under the CCS(Pension) Rules. This is obvious from the Annexure A-1 of the rejoinder, which is an order from the applicants Ministry transferring him to Pension Establishment w.e.f. 01.12.2012 (F/N).

9. The applicant has also relied upon the ruling of Honble Madras High Court in the case of P. Pandaram Pillai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (WP(MD) No. 10032/2009) dated 27.06.2011 in which it was observed as follows:-
7.."5.(i) the Disciplinary authority should not resort to last minute suspension of the Government servants (i.e) on the date of their retirement. A decision either to allow Government servant to retire from service or suspend him from service should be taken well in advance (i.e.) three months prior to the date of retirement on superannuation and orders issued in the matter and such a decision should not be taken on the date of retirement, if final orders could not be issued in a pending disciplinary case against a Government servant retiring from service due to administrative grounds

"13.Time and again, the Supreme Court and this Court has deprecated the initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings against an employee of the fag end of his retirement and keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the employee under suspension. Further when the petitioner had pleaded that there was official prejudice and enmity between him and the third respondent in the matter of use and maintenance of the official vehicle, the Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the case in proper perspective while dismissing the Original Applications. The Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner when there was hardly fifteen days left for his retirement. More over, when his date of retirement is on 11.3.1987 and the order of suspension was passed on 25.3.1987 by invoking G.O.No.173. Therefore, when once the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 11.3.1987, the placing the petitioner under suspension after his date of superannuation is without authority and that when the relationship of master-servant ceased to exist, no Disciplinary Proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner. On this ground also, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
10. Honble High Court has observed that last minute suspension of a Government servant should not be resorted and a decision either to allow the Government servant to retire or suspend him from service should be taken well in advance. The Honble High Court has also quoted the observations of Honble Supreme Court deprecating the initiation of disciplinary proceedings of an employee at the fag end of his retirement and keeping the matter pending for a long time.

11. Further, the applicant has relied on the Honble Madras High Court judgment in Writ Petition No. 14786/2011 in the case of V. Meenakshi Vs. The Director of Social Welfare dated 17.11.2011 in which the suspension order was issued on the last date of retirement of the petitioner. The Honble High Court observed as follows:-
11. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the disciplinary action initiated by the department. But in an extraordinary case, like the case on hand, where the petitioner was proceeded with an action on the last day of her service, based on the report in letter No. 031783/V2/1999, dated 9.5.1999, which was issued twelve years back, this Court has no option, but to interfere. The reason given by the respondent for taking such action on the last day that the report dated 9.5.1999 was received by the office of the respondent only on 31.5.2011 is not acceptable. As stated above, the respondent ought to have pursued with the Director of Government Examinations on his request made in 1998 to verify the genuineness of the certificate. For the above said reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and accordingly those orders are quashed.
12. The respondents have, on the other hand, stated that in the instant case the applicant himself filed OA before the Tribunal in which stay order had been granted putting the proceedings on hold. The OA was disposed of on 24.11.2012 i.e. just a week before the retirement of the applicant. Thus, the time available was very short and, therefore, the suspension order could be served only on the last day of the service of the applicant. However, according to the respondents, this does not vitiate the suspension order or the proceedings against the applicant in any manner. They have placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, AIR 2008 SC 1235 in which it was held as follows:-
In the instant case the show cause notice was issued to the respondent employee on January 13,2000 when he was very much in service. The respondent submitted his explanation on January 15,2000 which was not found to be satisfactory. A regular show cause notice was, therefore, issued by the Corporation on January 31,2000 and was served upon the respondent employee on the same day. The notice was also sent by registered post which was received by the employee on February 11,2000. But it is clear from the documents that show cause notice was issued and replied. A regular show cause as to departmental inquiry was also served upon the respondent employee on the last day of his service which was January 31,2000. Therefore, it could not be said that the proceedings had been initiated against the respondent employee after he retired from service.
The respondents argued that the Apex Court had clearly ruled that when an employee is served with the suspension order on the last day of his retirement, it cannot be said that the proceedings against him have initiated after the employee had retired from service. In view of this, the argument of the applicant that the employer-employee relationship had already ended is not sustainable.

13. We have considered the arguments of both sides and find that in the cases cited by the applicant there was unexplained delay in initiating action against the petitioners which were kept pending till the fag end of his retirement. In one case, the petitioner was not even allowed to retire and was given show cause notice for removal from service. However, in the instant case, the facts are different as the preliminary inquiry had been instituted against the applicant quite some time back through an Expert Committee. The findings of the Expert Committee were under examination. In between the applicant approached the Tribunal and obtained the stay order, which was vacated a week before his retirement. Thus, the respondents were left with very little time to initiate action against the applicant. Moreover, the charge memorandum clearly mentions the rules, namely, rule-9(2)(b)(ii) of CCS(Pension) Rules and Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Thus, after retirement of the applicant and his passing on to the Pension Establishment w.e.f. 01.11.2012(F/N), the proceedings against the applicant can only be continued under the Pension Rules for deciding whether full or any part of his pension may be withheld. We do not find any infirmity in this order.

14. The applicant has also pleaded for quashing of the proceedings on account of delay. His contention is that the first complaint was made by Dr. Neelam Bhalla in the year 2009 i.e. 5 years after the recruitment had taken place. The disciplinary action against him had been started 8 years after that recruitment. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (Appeal (civil) 4901/2005 dated 08.08.2005 in which it was ruled as follows:-
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account o the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistake committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.
The same judgment was relied upon by Honble Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 10694/2005 and connected cases.

15. However, we find that in the same judgment in Para-19, the Honble Supreme Court has also observed as follows:-
It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay.
16. Moreover, in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. V. Appala Swamy, (2007) 14, SCC 49 the same observation was made by the Apex Court. They further have gone on to say that if there has been delay then the delinquent officer should take that plea before the Inquiry Officer and also explain how delay has caused prejudice to his defence. Thus, the position that emerges is that facts and circumstances of each case have to be gone into and proceedings cannot be quashed merely on account of delay. In the instant case, the inquiry has just begun. The applicant can take the plea of delay before the IO and also explain if delay has caused any prejudice to his defence. We are not inclined to quash the proceedings on this ground alone.

17. In their arguments, the respondents counsel has emphasized on the fact that disciplinary proceedings in the instant case are at the interlocutory stage and judicial interference at this stage is not warranted. He has relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. A.N. Saxena, 1992 SCC(L&S) 861 in which the Honble Supreme Court had quashed the order of this Tribunal staying the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant holding that the charges against the applicant were serious and Tribunal had erred in granting injunction in restraining the UOI from taking disciplinary action against the officer. He has also retied on the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Govind Prajapati Vs. UOI & Ors., 150(2008)DLT 435 in which the Honble High Court quoted the Honble Supreme Court guidelines that interference by the Court at the stage of issuance of chargesheet would amount to pre-judging the issue as the correctness of the charges are yet to be looked into by the DA.

18. From the above analysis, we come to the conclusion that none of the grounds taken by the applicant for challenging the suspension order have any merit. Moreover, as laid down by Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Court of Delhi interference in disciplinary proceedings should not be ordinarily resorted to at interlocutory stage. We, therefore, dismiss the O.A. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)

 

/Vinita/

Drdo

INDIAN DISCOVERER KEPT UNDER CAPTIVITY AT DEFENCE LAORATORY, JODHPUR in 1992.

1 Comment

INDIAN DISCOVERER KEPT UNDER CAPTIVITY AT DEFENCE LAORATORY, JODHPUR in 1992. – M.A.Padmanabha Rao, PhD (AIIMS)

raomap@yahoo.com

INDIAN DISCOVERER KEPT UNDER CAPTIVITY…… This article is intended to provide some insights to Government of India why INDIAN ACADEMIC and RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS ARE CRUMBLING despite spending huge amounts for research and development. My own experience says hard working scientists with honesty and sincerity face a hell in Indian academic and research institutions, besides not getting normal promotions. The biggest consolation for me today is that I escaped from going to jail, while doing research work at Jodhpur . On one hand, my senior colleagues in DRDO at Jodhpur did not want me to get any award for the discovery of a new atomic phenomenon taking place in radioisotopes, for the fear that I might become the next Director of the Defence Laboratory. They denied me two promotions by downgrading my ACRs. Now some people in DRDO staged a war through Krishnan Raman and Gp Capt Sandhu, as DRDO staff or retired from DRDO and resorted to mudslinging on the Physics Discoveries done by me, discrediting even the India ’s glory. Just one day before Gp Capt Sandhu launched an attack on my research work, I received an e-mail on 2 Feb 13 from Air Cmde Raghubir Singh(Retd), Pune with a copy to Sandhu Gp Capt GS…….. “Dear Dr Padmanabha Rao, I read about you today & your meeting SA at that time. There is similar case of an intellectual Gp Capt GS Sandhu my course mate & we served together in the IAF & DRDO for long years. He took premature retirement & continued with his research on his own .He too had met Dr APJ Abdul Kalam”. ….. BLACK HOLES IN WHITE APRON:…………. While working as Lecturer in Medical Physics in Nuclear Medicine Dept at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi I have been invited as Assembly Member to the World Federation of Nuclear Medicine and Biology held at Tokyo in 1974 at the age of just 37 yrs. Looking at the Memento presented to me at Tokyo, one eminent Physics Professor at Jodhpur told me that it is a rare International Honor. For my doctoral thesis, I worked independently after office hours sometimes up to 2.00 A.M for over 5 years that ultimately led to the award of PhD Degree (AIIMS) in 1975. All these academic distinctions did not help me to get a normal promotion from Lecturer to Assistant Professor for 11 years in the prestigious academic institution in the country, while some others managed to get senior posts with no experience, in the same Department. My medical colleagues did not want an honest man around in the Department in their top secret activity. When AIIMS prohibits private practice, my three Nuclear Medicine doctor colleagues leagued with two private practicing doctors and tested nearly 400 patients secretly for imaging of liver, brain and thyroid using Gamma Camera and radiopharmacuticals whether required for diagnosis or not but to have monetary benefit. These patients were subjected to radiation exposure whether required for diagnosis or not. Against the normal practice, they were given appointments on phone and in the appointment register patients names were not entered, but as 2 patients of doctor (Private practitioner’ name). Reports were handed over directly to patients, while such VIP facilities were denied for AIIMS Hospital patients. Money transaction took place from private practitioners to my medical colleagues. The news was published in magazines, with the title ‘Nuclear Racket’ in the weekly Blitz, and ultimately in Indian Express. Three enquiries were held as a pretext but only to save the guilty. File containing detailed list of patients tested illegally reached Health Minister Laskar through Home Minister Venkata Subbayya but everything was hushed up. Afterwards, two of these Nuclear Medicine doctors could secure posts as International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) experts at Geneva . I left AIIMS after 19 yrs when not promoted for 11 yrs from the post of Lecturer………. INDIAN DISCOVERER KEPT UNDER CAPTIVITY:………….. When I joined the Defence Laboratory at Jodhpur in Rajasthan in March 1983 as Sc D (Assistant Director) through UPSC selection, two of my senior colleagues who knew me at Delhi were unhappy of my joining. As a result, no office chair and table were offered to me for 40 days. In 1984, I wrote a letter in private capacity to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi requesting to nominate me for Jawaharlal Nehru Fellowship. An officer was deputed from PMO to meet me and discuss the matter. But the then Director did not allow the officer to meet me. My seniors were afraid that I may become the next Director. What I got was punishment instead of Fellowship. My Annual Confidential Report was downgraded so that I do not get promotion for next 4 to 5 yrs. On instigation by my senior colleagues, three members of workers union were looking for an opportunity. Probably in 1992, three members of workers union saw me in an isolated building but hardly 15 meters from Director’s office. One person blocked the door without any chance for me to escape from the room. Time was 5.30 p.m, and the laboratory would be closed at any moment. When I was trying to escape from room, another person hiding behind the door hit me. My hand was fractured. The third person stood at the entrance of the building so that I cannot escape from the building. The Director office just 15 meters away did not care to relieve me. Director and Deputy Director were hearing the episode from another office. After 45 minutes my colleague with the help of Administrative officer relieved me. When all the scientists protested for the untoward incident and news appeared in local Dailies, those three were suspended on the advice of the Scientific Advisor to Minister for Defence, Dr. Arunachalam. I lodged an FIR and it became a criminal case. In 1997, I withdrew the case because one person may go to jail for 7 yrs. I happened to do the breakthrough research that led to six fundamental physics discoveries while attending criminal court on one side. I just got only one promotion when most of my colleagues got 3 promotions in 14 yrs of service. While the laboratory has been a hell to carry on my research, it was a heaven to some. Some of my colleagues were fortunate to became Grade I directors without any need of working a single hour in the experimental laboratory. One Head of the Department was fortunate enough to purchase 10 plots near aerodrome for serving as Stores in-charge. Today it is worth several Crores of Rupees. Some scientists did pioneering research how to become rich and get regular promotions without any need of doing any significant work. While many young scientists leave DRDO, to some scientists DRDO is an ATM card. This is how a serious research worker with sincerity and honesty can face torturous life in India , so the young seek foreign shores…….. Please peruse my comment approved by Mr. Luis Miranda in his Blog ‘Why I have turned pessimistic about the education sector’. http://forbesindia.com/blog/economy-policy/why-i-have-turned-pessimistic-about-the-education-sector/ – See more at: http://forbesindia.com/blog/technology/what-this-75-yr-olds-story-tells-us-about-discovery-in-india/#sthash.KW4ZaGW3.dpuf

Drdo

Defence audit raises questions about scientific adviser’s grants

3 Comments

The CGDA has pointed out several infirmities in the grants sanctioned by V.K. Saraswat.

ABHINANDAN MISHRA NEW DELHI | 6th Oct 2012 – The Sunday Gaurdian

he Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) has raised questions about certain research grants and aids given by the Defence Minister’s Scientific Adviser, V.K. Saraswat, to undeserving societies headed by scientists. These questions have been raised during an audit of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO), ordered by the Ministry of Defence. The projects are all part of the DRDO.

According to the report, Saraswat, the scientific adviser, sanctioned a grant of Rs 288 lakh to Professor V.U. Reddy of C.R. Rao Advanced Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science (AIMSCS), Hyderabad for a project on a futuristic radar.

The CGDA has pointed out several infirmities in this sanction. Since Saraswat is the president of the society’s governing body, it was wrong on his part to sanction any grants to the society. More importantly, the society is known for its achievements in mathematics, statistics and computer science and “is not even generally connected with research relating to futuristic radars”. The society also does not have the necessary equipment to carry out such research and did not have the expert manpower when it was given the grant.

The DRDO sanctioned another grant-in-aid project costing Rs 298.17 lakh to another scientist from the same society, S.B. Ra, who is a co-principal investigator for the above project. The CGDA has questioned the sanctioning of large grants-in-aid to institutes that do not have the required number of researchers or even basic facilities like computers.

The audit has also questioned the way various DRDO chairs are being given to ex-DRDO employees. S.K. Salwan, an ex-laboratory director, was appointed to the Dr B.D. Nag Chaudhari DRDO chair for three years at a cost of Rs 83.064 lakh. Kota Harinarayana, former director of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a DRDO sponsored society, was awarded the Dr D.S. Kothari-DRDO chair for three years at a cost of Rs 83.064 lakh.

As per the audit, no public notice was issued seeking applications for these highly paid positions. The appointment was made by DG, DRDO in a discretionary manner on the basis of nomination. Further, instead of paying a monthly remuneration, the DRDO released a sum of Rs 27.688 lakh each to both of them without deducting tax at source.

The grant to S.K. Salwan was released even before he joined the Dr B.D. Nag Chaudhari DRDO chair. The audit has recommended appropriate recoveries. It has further questioned the rationale behind leaving the ownership of intellectual property rights generated by research performed under this grant with the experts and not with the government.

Drdo

Hurting DRDO’s autonomy

Leave a comment

R SUNDARAM The Hindu Business Line

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

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

SUDDEN ABOUT-TURN

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMPETENT AUTHORITY

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

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

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

(The author is former Member, Ordnance Factories)

(This article was published on October 1, 2012)

Drdo

CVC orders penalty against DRDO official

2 Comments

ABHINANDAN MISHRA   Sunday Guardians NEW DELHI | 30th Sep 2012

The officer has been found guilty of appointing his senior’s daughter without following the due process.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has advised the initiation of major penalty proceedings against an additional director rank officer and his superior, a director, with the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO). The officer has been found guilty of appointing his senior’s daughter without following the due process. The proceedings have been advised after a complaint filed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was probed by the CVC.

The CVC has recommended the penalty against A.K. Bansal, who was at that time additional director (Recruitment and Assessment Centre) (Scientist F) and Arun Kumar, director, (RAC) (outstanding scientist). Bansal illegally facilitated Kumar’s daughter’s appointment.

The Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC) of DRDO looks after the recruitment and promotion of scientists in the organisation.

The CVC in its memorandum dated 23.08.2012 has stated, “The case has been examined by the commission. On facts of the case, the commission in agreement with MoD, advises initiation of major penalty proceedings against Dr. Arun Kumar, Senior Scientist, DRDO, and Shri A.K. Bansal, Additional Director, RAC.”

The CVC has also asked the ministry to reconsider the appointment of Swati Shrivastava, daughter of Arun Kumar, who is working as Scientist C in DRDO. “Further, the commission advises the ministry to reconsider the appointment of Ms. Swati Srivastava, daughter of Dr. Arun Kumar.”

“This is a clear case of corruption and misuse of position to appoint close relatives,” an employee of DRDO stated on the condition of anonymity.

Arun Kumar is serving as Director (Personnel) in the DRDO headquarters at present. A.K. Bansal, who retired in 2009, was till last month working with the Institute of Defence Scientists and Technologists (IDST), a registered body of retired DRDO professionals, which claims to provide consultancy, expertise and assistance to DRDO.

The DRDO had earlier tried its best to stonewall an RTI (Right to Information) query filed by an employee of the organisation, seeking to inspect the records related to the employment of Dolly Bansal, daughter of A.K. Bansal. DRDO, while refusing to allow the inspection of records, had said that it was an exempted organisation under the RTI Act.

However, the Central Information Commission rejected the DRDO’s contention and said that since it was related to alleged irregularities in the selection of Dolly Bansal as a scientist and there was no harm in the inspection of the available records.

When contacted, DRDO spokesperson Ravi Kumar Gupta said that the organisation follows a transparent and fair policy of recruitment: “It may be a matter of difference of perception (the findings of CVC). Decisions by RAC related to recruitment are taken by a chairman who is independent of the scientific advisor. However, whatever action is required to be taken, will be taken.”

Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne with DRDO officials during a function in Bangalore earlier this month. PTI

 

Drdo

MoD restricts DRDO chief’s fiscal powers

2 Comments

Josy Joseph, TNN | Sep 23, 2012, 12.16AM IST

NEW DELHI: The government has taken an unprecedented decision to impose severe restrictions on the financial powers of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) chief Dr VK Saraswat after an internal audit report and an ongoing CAG scrutiny raised red flags over many of his decisions.

The move is unprecedented in many ways since DRDO chiefs enjoy exalted position —one of them Dr A P J Abdul Kalam even went on to become the President. DRDO also enjoys a huge amount of autonomy because of the strategic nature of its work and is rarely questioned on its financial decisions.

The government has taken an unprecedented decision to impose severe restrictions on the financial powers of DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat after an internal audit report and an ongoing CAG scrutiny raised red flags over many of his decisions.

However, all this has changed. Sources said the ministry of defence (MoD) has issued an order saying that the DRDO chief would have to take all financial decisions in consultation with the finance division of the ministry. Until now, DRDO chief could grant financial approvals of upto Rs 50 crore on his own, without having to consult with MoD finance.

The financial powers of DRDO chief were upped in mid-2010 through an order, which now the government believes was against the norms. The enhancement of his powers, especially as DG (DRDO) of upto Rs 50 crore where he only needed the concurrence of the financial advisor within DRDO, has now raised hackles in the government. The DRDO financial advisor reports to the DRDO chief.

Sources said the enhancement of DRDO chief’s financial powers went against the recommendations of an MoD panel headed by present Chief Vigilance Commissioner Pradeep Kumar when he was the defence secretary. They even allege that defence minister A K Antony may have been misled into approving the enhanced financial powers for DRDO chief in 2010.

Dr Saraswat holds three positions concurrently—scientific advisor to the raksha mantri, DG (DRDO), and secretary defence (R&D). Under the enhanced provisions, as DG (DRDO) Dr Saraswat can approve contracts upto Rs 50 crore without referring it to MoD. While, as secretary defence (R&D) Dr Saraswat has financial powers upto Rs 75 crore but would MOD finance approval. Over the last two years, Dr Saraswat had been approving most contracts in his role as DG (DRDO) without referring them to MoD finance.

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) is believed to have sent a draft para of its ongoing audit, raising questions over the way many financial decisions within the Rs 50 crore limit was approved by DRDO chief, without enough oversight.

According to the new order issued a few days ago by the M0D with the approval of Antony, Dr Saraswat has been asked to exercise his financial powers, ranging between Rs 25 crore and Rs 75 crors, “with consent” of MoD (finance).

Chief Comptrollers (CCs) of DRDO have financial powers upto Rs 25 crore. They would continue to exercise their authority in consultation with the financial advisor of DRDO, sources said.

A special audit of the DRDO on the orders of Antony has also found that the powers to sanction projects delegated to DG (DRDO), CC (R&D)s and lab directors was granted on the condition that the projects should be cleared by the Defence Research Council. “There is no government letter constituting the DRC, its functions and powers. The DRC meetings are not formal. There does not seem to be any system of circulating Agenda Briefs to members,” the audit said.

The report pointed out that in many cases the expenditure incurred on scientists and other manpower deployed on a project is not included in the project cost estimates to keep the total budget under the financial powers available to Dr Saraswat and his other officers.

A project titled “product support and product improvement of Nag weapon system” at a cost of Rs 28.35 crore was sanctioned by Dr Saraswat “even though the CCS (cabinet committee on security) approved Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme is still not closed in so far as NAG missile is concerned,” the report says.

Dr Saraswat approved a project worth Rs 49.82 crore for design and development of elctro-optical sensors for air-borne platforms such as UAVs and Aerostats. This was done “by reducing the cost proposed by the Lab (Rs 70 crore) so as to bring it just under Rs 50 crore, which is his sanctioning power,” the audit said.

DRDO chief sanctioned a facility for electro-optical system testing at a cost of Rs 35 crore by “DG DRDO to create a facility, which is essentially required to meet the objectives of an already sanctioned project. However, the old project’s cost was not revised with the approval of appropriate CFA,” it added.

Drdo

The secret world of DRDO – The New Indian Express

1 Comment

By Yatish Yadav and Nardeep Singh Dahiya 02nd September 2012 12:00 AM

India is at war. Tejas fighters wheel over a smoke dark battleground, taking down enemy aircraft with their superior radar and missile capabilities. Lower still, Indian-designed helicopters are giving hell to enemy armour and troop formations with missiles and machine-gun fire. On the ground, mighty Arjun tanks lumber slowly across dunes, sure of their inpenetrable Kanchan armour even as they spew death through their 120 mm guns. Jawans crouch and advance with the tanks, firing three-round bursts from their INSAS rifles and lobbing bhut jholokia grenades at their foes. They are tireless, having imbibed performance-enhancing pills, and well-fed, having had spoil-proof parathas and self-heated packaged meals before battle.

This is what a DRDO dream looks like. However, a nightmare was revealed recently when Defence Minister A K Antony ordered the Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) to do a secret audit of India’s equivalent of the futuristic workshop of James Bond’s ‘Q’ — the Defence Research and Development Organisation that goes by the handle DRDO.

The highlights of the report are frightening. Here are some of them:

* DRDO has been developing equipment which is either sub-standard or have extended deadlines and additional budgets;

* Many of the projects have been sanctioned without the requisite government approval. Only 10 per cent of projects have come to the ministry for clearance;

* Corruption and nepotism exists in the upper echelons;

* There is an exodus of qualified scientists;

DRDO has challenged the findings but the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has taken cognisance of them. It will be ordering a review of the agency’s approval processes as well as that of the recent proposal to enhance the financial powers for DRDO chief V K Saraswat.

Waste products

Crores of rupees are spent on research that mostly flops

The CGDA audit findings raise serious questions on the capability of this defence outfit, which has an annual budget of Rs 10,500 crore. Established in 1958, it has a network of 52 laboratories nationwide, employing 5,000 scientists with about 25,000 support staff. But only 29 per cent of the products developed during the last 17 years are being used by the Armed Forces. The audit notes that in several cases, DRDO bought equipment from other companies after spending crores on R&D. For instance, the CGDA found that after spending two years and Rs 29.96 crore to develop satellite signal monitoring, DRDO ultimately bought the same from a public sector undertaking on a single tender basis for Rs 24.50 crore in April 2011. “If such technologies are indeed commercially available, where was the need of a development project by DRDO?” the audit asked. DRDO also spent Rs 6.85 crore to develop explosive detectors, which were offered to the army for Rs 30 lakh each. Foreign versions of these are available off the shelf for Rs 9.8 lakh per piece, a price that also includes repair and maintenance.

The CGDA report criticised the ‘joint development’ technology initiative of DRDO, calling it “import of older, foreign technology under the disguise of joint development.” The CGDA accused DRDO of promoting Israeli company M/S SCD without the mandatory formal transfer of technology agreement. Commenting on a DRDO deal to develop a higher format uncooled detector, the CGDA said: “DRDO shall be financing the development expenditure of `19.90 crore by releasing it direct to M/S SCD Israel. Basically, instead of doing development itself, DRDO is funding a foreign agency’s development effort, that too, without any explicit arrangements being finalised about ownership of intellectual property generated from such financing,” noted the CGDA. “Neither the production agency nor the users — mechanised forces of army — have been kept in the loop,” the CGDA report says.

With a chaotic record of arms experiments and eccentric choices of spending money on pickles and automated idli and dosa makers for aircraft carriers, the very reason for DRDO’s existence seems dubious. Says V K Mittal, a former senior scientist with the agency, “DRDO technology is almost two decades old. Two projects, namely Samyukta and Sangraha electronic warfare equipment, were partially inducted in the armed forces, but users felt these were outdated and more expensive than the latest technology available.” Meanwhile, the agency has developed many products that is meant for the soldier at the front: DRDO pickles made of semi-ripe berries and spices such as red chilli powder, cinnamon, cumin, cardamom, black pepper powder, and clovers, spicy potato parathas, instant kadhi mixes, cashewnut barfi, mutton vegetable korma, instant halwa mix, egg biscuits and instant upma mix are among its culinary achievements. The agency also successfully bred a region-specific hybrid goat using technology that mixed the genes of adaptive and meat traits through cross-breeding breeds such as Changthangi and Gaddi and Sirohi and Black Bengal goats. DRDO has also developed ‘Lukoskin’, a herbal care product for leucoderma and the performance enhancing drug Perfomax which is meant to “improve physical and mental performance in high altitude and hypoxic conditions.” In true 007 style, it has also developed a car coolant that will not freeze in extreme temperatures. The crores of rupees wasted in innumerable half-baked projects add up to quite a sum. In a separate report by CAG in 2011-12, the DRDO is criticised for spending crores on random research projects. In 2011, out of 55 high priority projects based on user-requirements, only thirteen went into production. A modular bridge, being developed for the army was shelved in 2010, after eight years of experiments and spending Rs 21.46 crore. Six months later, Rs 13.25 crore was sanctioned for another modular bridge project. The initiative to produce next generation laser weapons was closed down within a month after equipment was procured.

“We are dangerously behind our adversaries. China is far ahead in indigenous technology in both tanks and missiles sector. DRDO’s claim of modern technology is too old when it is delivered to armed forces. It is a big disappointment”, observes security analyst Major General (Retd) Afsir Karim.

Flop wonders

Institutions without qualifications are promoted

Defence minister Antony had asked the CGDA to investigate after receiving complaints on suspected manipulation in DRDO contracts, undue favor to some external vendors, and irregular appointments in the agency which runs a vast network across the country. Its annual budget has no audit verified document to show what value has been generated so far through its technologies. Under a very personal cloud is DRDO chief V K Saraswat. The CGDA has questioned why he granted Rs 2.88 crore to a mathematics institute to develop a futuristic radar when its scientists are not even remotely connected with research relating to the project. Incidentally, Saraswat is the president of the institute’s governing body. The audit also stated that the institute lacked expert manpower, and started recruitment only after getting DRDO funds that were released without due diligence. A Dehradun scientific lab was granted Rs 14 crore to develop a communication link, while the institute headed by Saraswat was also sanctioned Rs 2.98 crore to develop the same technology — it doesn’t have even basic facilities like computers for individual researchers. “It shows that the radar development project is being split in different parts to avoid going to the ministry and users with a proper full scope development programme,” the CGDA said. The DRDO understandably refutes the findings. “These are only observations. The laid down procedure of audit was not followed, and it was issued without authorisation. It is a one-sided report. We will give a point by point reply of audit findings. DRDO has achieved several milestones and that nobody is talking about, ” retorted Dr Ravi Gupta, DRDO’s official spokesperson. However, the CGDA report says that DRDO has tried to camouflage its failures in the name of secrecy and national security.

Says Commodore (Retd) Uday Bhaskar, former head of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), “The Government is not willing to discuss the Rama Rao committee report that talks about reforming DRDO. It shows that they are not serious about the decaying of a government institution, which in the last 30 to 40 years has completely disappointed the users. Money is being spent without any effect on indigenous programmes. I will appeal to Indian Parliament to take this matter and discuss the issue.”

Project black hole

DRDO has been spending fresh money on its own failed projects

The CGDA accuses the DRDO of functioning in a non-transparent manner. “There is no comprehensive database to find out the details of projects sanctioned for execution by the DRDO and how many has been declared as successful,” it said. Antony was also informed that DRDO has been operating as an authority unto itself, bypassing the MoD where many crucial expenses are involved: the agency comes under the ministry and its main objective is to develop a modern technology base and equip the defence forces with internationally competitive systems and weapons. During 2009-2010, DRDO sanctioned 702 projects costing above `50 lakh but only 102 research projects were referred to the ministry. The audit body also questioned the grounds on which DRDO authorities sanctioned new projects in the name of completing failed projects with questionable changes in scope to avoid ministry’s nod. For example, DRDO took up a project for development of counter mine flail (CMF) for T-72 tanks at a cost of `8 crore in December 2002. CMF is a device that creates a safe passage through a minefield by deliberately detonating land mines in front of the vehicle that it is mounted on. Army HQ revised the requirement in 2004, but DRDO continued with the old parameters and in 2008, the product failed tests. In spite of this, it was not closed and in February 2011, another new project costing Rs 49.85 crore was sanctioned for the same CMF project.

Armaments apart, the DRDO has been splurging 10 per cent of its annual budget on construction of offices and auditoriums. CGDA also indicted DRDO for unauthorised sanction of Rs 49.15 crore to develop a vehicle testing facility in Pune — mainly for civilian use — disregarding approval rules.

“There is a lack of transparency and accountability in the name of defence research. For decades, DRDO has been promising a lot to the armed forces but have failed to deliver. The top brass should be made accountable. Unless this happens, money will be squandered away on technologically outdated projects and the armed forces will be cheated,” says Mittal.

Meanwhile, there has been a huge exodus of scientists from the agency. Last year, 86 scientists took VRS. Says Gen Karim, “The functioning of DRDO is improper. In the next five years, the difference between our adversaries and us would be glaring. The MoD is not serious about reforming DRDO. A national blueprint is required for this.”

The swadeshi trap

Unplanned indigenisation leads to losses and aborted projects

In this situation, how efficacious are the agency’s multimillion-dollar projects? India purchases arms worth $6.9 billion from the US, making it America’s second largest defence client after the Saudis. The Congressional Research Service’s annual survey of global arms sales written by Richard Grimmett and Paul Kerr says India is fast upgrading its equipment from its Soviet-era arsenal. In late 1993, a committee headed by then Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister and DRDO chief APJ Abdul Kalam had set the goal of 70 per cent of indigenisation in weapons production by 2005; DRDO has not moved beyond the 30 per cent it had reached in 1995. The passion for swadeshi is the principle behind the money being spent by the Indian government on DRDO. But most of DRDO equipment malfunctions or the projects themselves are yet to take off or are delayed, sucking in more and more money.

Rifle recoil: The mass produced INSAS rifle, meant to be the main rifle for the Indian Army has been known to malfunction in extreme conditions. The first known debacle was on August 7, 2005. As the evening shadows grew longer at the Royal Nepal Army’s Pili camp in western Kalikot district, about 550 km northwest of capital Kathmandu, Maoist fighters massed silently outside. The roads connecting the camp that housed about 200 soldiers — mostly employed in the construction of a new highway — had been mined. A little before 6 pm, over 1,000 Maoists attacked the camp. Armed with INSAS rifles, the Nepalese soldiers fought back, but in vain. By 4 pm, the Maoists had captured 100 soldiers, and executed 40 of them. Nepal blamed INSAS malfunctions for the disaster: “The rifles are okay if you fight for an hour or two, but are not appropriate for long battles. If we had better weapons, our casualties would have been much less,” said a Nepal government spokesman. In November 2011, the Ministry of Defence issued a tender for 66,000 assault rifles to replace the INSAS. The MoD wanted the new rifles to be able to switch calibres between the small, high-velocity 5.56 mm rounds the INSAS fires and the devastatingly powerful 7.62 mm rounds of the older FAL rifles.

The story of this short-lived rifle epitomises the drift in the way the DRDO works, and also between it and the armed forces. The DRDO took a decade to design the INSAS. A few years later, it was supplied to the Army throughout the later half of the 1990s. But the Army did not put all its eggs in the desi basket; it bought 100,000 AK-47s from Bulgaria in 1995 for its frontline units in Kashmir. The INSAS began rolling off the lines soon after, at a cost several times that of the Kalashnikov. When war broke out in Kargil in 1999, INSASs jammed; the transparent polymer magazines cracked. Its ammunition-conserving three-round burst went virally fully automatic. An oil spray glitch was detected. By 2002, the Army had ordered the Israeli Tavor 21 rifle for its special forces and the Galil for its snipers. This year, the Special Forces will induct US-made M-4 rifles, the Vietnam-era M-16’s newer version that US soldiers now use in Afghanistan. “DRDO products are half imported and half prepared here, which is dangerous. Defence is too serious business to be left to one party. It is the user — our armed forces — who will decide which product is useful. DRDO cannot claim success of a product sitting in the workshop,” says Gen Karim.

Air disaster: In the early 1980s, the Indian Air Force was over-reliant on Soviet-made MiG-21s, which would be phased out, beginning in the mid-90s. In 1984, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a national consortium of over 100 defence laboratories, industrial organisations, and academic institutions with HAL being the principal contractor, was created specifically to manage the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme. The DRDO was to develop the plane’s flight control system, hi-tech radar, and engine. DRDO delivered on the flight control system. However, the radar was the one that was to be developed by Ericsson and Ferranti Defence Systems Integration for the Gripen, a topline Swedish fighter plane. DRDO decided to develop the radar at home, and started in 1997. In 10 years, cost escalations, delays and other serious problems grounded the project, which is now being developed with help from the Elta group, an Israel Aerospace Industries subsidiary. Kaveri, the engine of the LCA — christened Tejas by former PM Atal Behari Vajpayee — was to be developed by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment, Bangalore using prototypes made by General Electrics, USA. By 2003, it had to be abandoned for an upgraded version of the GE engine used in the prototypes selected to power the first pre-production Tejas. The Kaveri had, in the meantime, failed high-altitude tests carried out in Russia, and by 2008, was officially declared unsuitable. GE was selected to provide 99 engines that were even better than the ones used in the first LCAs. Mysteriously, 15 actuators of the aircraft that were part of the LCA’s integrated flight control system went missing in December 2008 from Heathrow, London. The Tejas has flown, and well, but with an Israeli radar and American engine. The Kaveri programme alone cost the nation about Rs 2,800 crore over 23 years; the cost overrun of the entire LCA programme is estimated at about 3,000 per cent.

Tanked hopes: It took 35 years to make India’s main battle tank Arjun. In 1974, DRDO’s Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment at Chennai started designing the tank expected to be ready for war in 10 years. The Arjun was to weigh 40 tonnes with a 105 mm main gun. By the time it was finished in 2000, the tank had grown in size to 58.5 tonnes with a 120 mm gun that can fire rockets. In terms of cost overrun, the Arjun is the champion of delay and drift: it has cost 20 times the initial estimate to make an Indian tank with a German engine. It is so big that ordinary Indian rail wagons, the ones that have been transporting our older Soviet- and British-origin tanks had to be redesigned to accommodate its bulk. Military planners say bridges will collapse under Arjun’s weight. The Army and DRDO have been at loggerheads over the Arjun. Field tests have varied wildly: some have given the Arjun a junk rating, and others say it’s the best thing to have happened to the Armoured Corps. The tank is a ‘jugaad’ queen. South African howitzers have been mated to its chassis to make a self-propelled field gun that DRDO calls Bhima. The army will, at last, add to its ranks about 250-odd Arjuns, and 1,000 T-90s. The next Indian tank, the Futuristic MBT, may well come from a joint initiative with Russia.

As the MoD prepares to review DRDO’s financial procedures, the news is not all bad on the achievement front. Last week, the 350-km range surface-to-surface Prithvi II missile was successfully flight tested at the Integrated Test Range, Chandipur in Odissa. Saraswat, a multitude of rings embedded with various stones flashing on his fingers celebrated by feeding laddoos to the army commander present. However, the question for him is, after the ministry’s review, what’s for just desserts.

Comments(1)
Sir, Compliments to the authors for a candid and ‘no-nonsense’ expose. Speaking from personal experience in the ‘Silent Service’, I would say that DRDO Projects that were headed by the ‘USER’ and had a multidisciplinary team under him – ACHIEVED SUCCESS. Examples : Sonar APSOH (1984) – and now the mainstay of the ASW fitment on surface combatants, and ‘AJANTA’ – an EW suite for surface ships. And, let me put it squarely – For the Navy, ‘indigenisation’ is an Article of Faith. Yet, the output of the three DRDO labs, attached with the Navy – NPOL (KOCHI), NSTL (VIZAG) & NCML (MUMBAI) have been MODEST, to say the least. Good show Sirs !! Regards
Posted by Capt.(retd) H.Balakrishnan, I.N. at 09/02/2012 09:35