Tag Archives: work

Uncategorized

DRDO labs to be overhauled, expert committee set to review charter for futuristic battles

Leave a comment

By Manu Pubby, ET Bureau Aug 26, 2020
Synopis
To be led by Prof P Ramagopal Rao, Director IIT Delhi, the select panel will delve deep into the nature of work being carried out by each lab under the organisation and will present a report to redefine the charter of work being carried out and minimize technology overlaps.
NEW DELHI: The Defence Research and Defence Organisation (DRDO) is going for a deep overhaul of its laboratories and has set up an expert panel to review their charter of duties to prepare the armed forces for futuristic battlefields.

To be led by Prof P Ramagopal Rao, Director IIT Delhi, the select panel will delve deep into the nature of work being carried out by each lab under the organisation and will present a report to redefine the charter of work being carried out and minimize technology overlaps.

Interestingly, the panel also includes representation from the armed forces, with Deputy Chief of Air Staff Air Marshal Sandeep Singh as a member. Others include ISRO Director S Somnath and two representatives from within the DRDO.
The committee is to present a roadmap within 45 days with the specific directive to “redefine the charter of duties of labs on the current and futuristic battlefield scenario; minimise the overlay of technologies amongst the labs.”

The study could pave the way for a reorganisation of the organisation that has a network of 52 labs across the country engaged in a variety of projects – from nuclear missiles to development of fighters and UAVs, food products for soldiers, data analytics and laser technology.

The last major overhaul of the organisation took place after the Rama Rao Committee report of 2008 that had suggested that DRDO be reorganised into clusters of labs based on the role they were tasked with. Seven clusters were set up like missiles, armaments, aeronautical systems and life sciences.

The Rama Rao Committee had recommended the setting up of a Defence Technology Commission, a younger age profile for scientists, more involvement of the organization in defence procurements, more foreign collaborations, a dedicated research board, restructuring of labs and a commercial arm of the research body.
It had also recommended that DRDO concentrate efforts in 8-10 critical areas suiting its existing resources and that 11 labs related to life sciences be transferred out of DRDO to other departments.

PMO

RTI to BEL on Rs 7900 Cr Scam News published in First Post

Leave a comment

To                                                                                                      08-05-2019

Mr. Udaya Shankara K S, AGM (Marketing),

Bharat Electronics Limited Corporate Office,

Outer Ring Road, Nagavara,

Bangalore – 560 045

 

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect  of  CVC order No 59/12/03 dated 9 December 2003. Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public Sector Enterprises and the Role function of CVC – Amendment to Para 32.3 thereof, (Copy enclosed). As per CVC said order that the Board of Directors should review the vigilance work in every six months

 

  1. Provide number of cases reviewed by Board of Directors in last three years in six months format as per above CVC order in every six months
  2. May 2019 first week Board of Directors meeting at Imphal, Manipur reviewed the vigilance work. Yes or No
  3. Whether Board of Directors  meeting at Imphal, Manipur  considered the news series published in First Post of financial irregularities of  IACCS project Yes or No
  4. If yes then provide the action plan of Board of Directors  on financial irregularities of  IACCS project.
  5. Whether  BEL submitted the report of investigation on IACCS project prepared by CVO to CVC Yes or No
  6. Provide the current status of investigation on IACCS project initiated against letter no. 21328/399/BEL/GAD/18-19 dated 18 July 2018 from BEL, CVO.

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,

Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

Registration Number      BELBL/R/2019/50052

 

PMO

Bharat Electronics in the dock for ‘compromising’ confidential IAF project, favouring one vendor, BEL’s internal inquiry report reveals

Leave a comment

Yatish Yadav Apr 02, 2019 – Firstpost

New Delhi: Defence public sector undertaking Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) is under the scanner for allegedly compromising national security by awarding a highly sensitive air command and control contract of the Indian Air Force to an ill-equipped and newly formed private design firm in 2011. The project was worth Rs 7,900 crore.

An internal inquiry report of BEL has exposed massive irregularities in the way the contracts were awarded and how the Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) was implemented at 10 locations across the country.

IACCS is an automated command and control system for air defence operations that integrates all ground-based and airborne sensors. BEL is the executing agency for the highly-sensitive project.

BEL’s internal investigation report — exclusively reviewed by Firstpost — also highlighted a conflict of interest of a BEL officer, who was instrumental in the hiring of a private vendor to put together the Preliminary Project Report (PPR) of the coded system, in joining the same private company after retirement. The report also suggested that the investigative team looking into the irregularities was not provided with crucial project documents allegedly to bury the scam.

The defence PSU’s internal inquiry report was prepared in October 2018. It flagged discrepancies at various stages of the execution of the project. To begin with, the report questioned the move to hire M/s RD Konsultants to prepare the PPR in 2011 and then bringing the same company on board as the design consultant in 2013, violating the norms in place during UPA regime. The inquiry report also red-flagged other serious issues, including monumental lapses in ordering the execution of the contracts at all 10 sites across the country and deviations in the implementation at certain project sites where BEL had to bear additional expenditure.

After Firstpost mailed a detailed questionnaire to MV Gowtama, chairman and managing director (CMD) of BEL, Ranjit Karamchandani from the CMD’s office denied the findings of the firm’s own inquiry report.”BEL follows a transparent process in selection of its vendors/partners,” he said. “Prima facie, BEL does not see any irregularity, as alleged.”

Questionnaires sent to RD Konsultants seeking its comment on findings of the inquiry report went unanswered.

Deep-rooted nexus exposed

According to the inquiry report, BEL first hired RD Konsultants in September 2011 to prepare the PPR for IACCS. The report pointed out that the firm was barely one and a half years old when it was hired, having come into existence on 1 April, 2010, on 50-50 partnership between Ruby Kant and Suresh Kumar Anand. The BEL top brass approved the proposal to award the contract to the company on 6 September, 2011, with a note that made it amply clear that “as per corporate vigilance guidelines, if ‘M/s RD Konsultants’ is hired as a consultant for preparing the PPR, then it cannot be considered for similar requirements in the future”. The note added that for the IACCS project, BEL would have to look for new consultants for “future requirements of consultancy”.

The inquiry report also flagged the way RD Konsultants was hired to prepare the PPR. “…No norms of Request for Proposal or tendering were followed, but it was selected just based on a recommendation by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) with no written correspondence from the DRDO,” it said.

But BEL officers went a step ahead to allegedly favor RD Konsultants in the second stage of the project while hiring a consultant to prepare a Detailed Project Report (DPR), the inquiry report suggested. As per the rules in place in October 2012, BEL formed a committee to select consultants to prepare the DPR along with a detailed design for 10 sites of IACCS nodes. That RD Konsultants should not have been allowed was clearly mentioned in the file initiated by BEL’s Network Centric System (NCS-Strategic Business Unit) on 28 July, 2011, and cleared by the top brass on 6 September, 2011. But that did not happen.

RK Handa, who was the general manager of the NCS at the time, was part of the committee that selected the vendors and hired RD Konsultants in 2011, the report noted.

“In fact the file raised in October 2012 should have been in continuation to the file initiated on 28 July, 2011. Why it was not done needs a detailed investigation with respect to malafide intentions to violate the Central Vigilance Commission’s guidelines for hiring of consultants,” it added. “Even in the selection of M/s RD Konsultants for the second time, there were a lot of deviations from the norms laid down.”

The inquiry report further highlighted that had a financial criterion been put in place, RD Konsultants would not have qualified for the job.

The defence PSU signed the second contract with the firm in September 2013 to prepare the DPR of all 10 IACCS sites. The inquiry report noted that RD Konsultants was paid Rs 13.5 lakh for consultancy charges to prepare the PPR but Rs 15.94 crore for the DPR, alleging that someone was pulling the strings to favour the company, and that the financial criterion was changed twice during the course of selection of vendors.

“M/s RD Konsultants’ had been established in April 2010, but to show a turnover in the last three years as required, they showed a turnover in 2009-10, also verified by a chartered accountant. This clearly shows that false information was provided. Also, a company that came into existence on April 2010 showed that its employees had an experience of five years in 2013. This again is false information. It is interesting to note that another company, M/s Systems Dynamics, was rejected by the committee on the criterion that it had shown a turnover for only two years (2010-11 and 2011-12),” the inquiry report said.

The chartered accountant certificate enclosed with the inquiry report does not mention a telephone number. The letterhead of the CA firm merely shows an address of Shakarpur in New Delhi.

Raising concerns over the track record of RD Konsultants, the inquiry report recommended further investigation to find out whether it has actually completed the big ticket projects as it claimed to BEL. Raising suspicion, the report said RD Konsultants had mentioned that by March 2013, they had completed 30 projects worth Rs 1,266 crore, with consultancy charges of Rs 36 crore, whereas they had 45 works worth Rs 1,743 crore underway, with consultancy charges of Rs 52.29 crore.

“How was a company, which came into existence in April 2010, awarded 75 projects within three years (when as per DRDO rules, any company without requisite experience and turnover cannot be awarded contracts). What was the timeline in which these projects were completed? These need detailed investigations to find the ground reality. As per the BEL Works Contract Manual, it is mandatory that all vendors who qualify submit proof of the works they claimed to have done. RD Konsultants took the plea that they could not share details of the works since they were for the DRDO and confidential in nature, though another vendor, ‘M/s Systems Dynamics’, submitted documents related to the DRDO as well as the integrated headquarters of the army to confirm the work they did. There is no secrecy in the order copy or listing of the works carried out for the DRDO. Non-submission of the details (by RD Konsultants) itself casts doubts on the validity of the claims made,” the inquiry report said in its scathing observation.

BEL’s inquiry report further alleged that RD Konsultants had claimed to have provided design consultancy to a few well-known brands that specialise in equipment used for structures similar to IACCS, such as Temet Oy Finland and Pro-Hub Germany. It added that RD Konsultants was also into civil construction “with direct/indirect control on a lot of companies like SR Ashok & Associates, CS Construction etc.”

“Being the designer agency, which got the order for all 10 sites, they have a huge influence on the selection of vendors for various sub-systems of the project. A detailed investigation is needed to find out where orders have been placed with companies where RD Konsultants has direct/indirect influence. (There was a case wherein SR Ashok & Associates had applied for civil execution of underground structures and CS Construction was hired by L&T for execution of work at sites). Also, Temet Oy Finland and Pro-Hub Germany have been given orders for sub-systems to be installed inside the IACCS structures,” the report observed.

Moreover, the file to hire consultants for IACCS structures was initiated with the mandate that one agency will not get the order for all 10 sites. Even the newspaper advertisement and qualification document clearly mentioned that a consultancy firm could be given a contract for five sites. However, the inquiry report alleged that the entire process was manipulated. Further alleging serious charges of conflict of interest, the report said BEL officer PK Bhola, who was instrumental in having RD Konsultants cleared to prepare the PPR for the IACCS project in 2011 joined the same company after retiring from the defence PSU. The report said he might have passed on crucial information to benefit the company.

“How come the order for all sites was finally awarded to only one vendor, which violated the tender document? The quote given by RD Konsultants was nearly the same as that estimated by BEL, which leads to doubts whether the methodology of estimates was known to RD Konsultants. Mr PK Bhola (DGM of NCS-Marketing), who was the main resource in BEL for raising all the files and interfacing with the customer for the project, joined RD Konsultants after his retirement from BEL, and hence, all information was being transmitted to RD Konsultants through Mr Bhola,” the report alleged.

Firstpost reviewed two BEL notes regarding the inquiry report’s observations on Bhola. The first note from July 2011 signed by Bhola, when he was the deputy general manager of marketing at the NCS, is on hiring RD Konsultants to prepare the PPR for the IACCS project. The second note, dated 8 August, 2016, which is basically minutes of a pre-bid meeting for two tenders related to the IACCS project. In this, Bhola is mentioned as a representative of RD Konsultants.

Irregularities in ground execution

RD Konsultants is the design consultancy firm for all 10 IACCS sites, but the contract to execute the project was given to different companies. The details quoted by the inquiry report from the files related to the project suggests that after clearance, certain changes were made in the quantities, which escalated the cost of the project by Rs 106 crore to the government exchequer. The report said such changes were concurred to by the BEL director of finance vide note no 37, where it is mentioned that “this is a deviation from the works’ contract manual”.

The report further observed that L&T was awarded the execution work at three sites, but its cost per site was more than that of the other sites being constructed by other companies. The inquiry also found that L&T had subcontracted work at two IACCS sites to a private vendor, which is allegedly linked to RD Konsultants.

“L&T has further subcontracted part of the work at two sites to ‘M/s CS Constructions’, which is again a company related to RD Konsultants. The director of the company, Mr Rahul Bhuchar, has been coming to BEL and meeting the assistant general manager (infrastructure) as a representative of RD Konsultants. The sub-contracting of work by L&T to a party related to RD Konsultants is in violation to the terms of the contract. A civil engineering expert needs to go into the details of the costing for each site and the various considerations that led to the difference in the cost of various sites. As per the file on the selection of a consultant, DRDO representatives had brought out that all sites will be same, with only cosmetic differences in design. If that was so, then how come the difference in the costing between the lowest and the highest is more than two times?” the report said, flagging the loopholes in financial deviations, seeking further investigation into the entire matter.

It also said that under “para 3.2.3 of the design and engineering contract, RD Konsultants and his affiliates as well as sub-consultants have been debarred from providing any goods, works or services”. “RD Konsultants failed to make a voluntary and complete disclosure in this regard, thus violating the contract,” it concluded.

BEL shelled out more due to deviations in project

BEL’s internal investigation report said that at three IACCS sites, deviations in execution on the ground forced BEL to shell out more money. The report observed that at all three locations, the conditions of the sites during excavation were found to be in mismatch with those taken by RD Konsultants while designing and preparation of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for excavation.

The report also revealed that a few IACCS sites under construction had collapsed. An inspection team visited one of the sites on 22 and 23 March 2018 to investigate the mishap. Although CCTV cameras were installed, the BEL fact-finding team was told by its own manager deployed at the site that the footage was not available. Interestingly, an engineer from MECON Limited, the government-owned company that blew the whistle on irregularities at a project site, was transferred. MECON Limited functions under the Ministry of Steel and is working as a project management consultant at five IACCS sites.

Firstpost is withholding the name of the whistleblower and the location of the IACCS project in the interest of national security. The inquiry report mentioned these in detail.

“There was a complaint received from ‘AAAAA’ (site engineer) posted by M/s MECON at the ‘BBBBB’ site alleging that though he had brought out that quality procedures were not being followed at the site, senior executives at BEL, in collusion with the vendor, have not responded to his calls/reports. He alleged that pressure was put on him to ignore the facts since it was more important to meet the timelines. He also alleged that he was transferred along with the local BEL site engineer because they had highlighted that procedures were bypassed. The complaints need to be pursued to find out the facts,” the inquiry report asserted.

Firstpost reviewed the engineer’s complaint dated 28 March, 2018, which was sent to two senior BEL officials. In the letter, he claimed higher officials of BEL impose a lot of unethical verbal instructions on juniors, which is damaging for a PSU of national importance.

“I was posted as the site in-charge of MECON Limited and tried my best to act as a whistleblower, being a part of a project of national importance. I had issued innumerable emails and letters regarding quality issues of the project. But the engineer in charge and other higher officials from BEL desisted me verbally to not follow quality procedures strictly on the pretext of progress of the project. They actually always blindly favored the contractor anywhere and everywhere,” the MECON Limited engineer wrote in his complaint.

“However, when we did not allow any relaxation in this regard and made deduction in bills wherever quality procedures were not followed, higher officials of BEL were not satisfied with the site in-charges (both officials of BEL and MECON Limited) for not favoring the contractor and for following the rule book strictly. For this reason, the BEL general manager and assistant general manager transferred their own site in-charge and pressurised MECON Limited to transfer its senior manager (name withheld) in September 2017 on the pretext that they did not perform satisfactorily, whereas actually it was just the opposite. This was to instill a sense of fear so that other engineers fall in line.”

The inquiry report said walls at the site of another project collapsed twice due to the soil conditions being different from what were assessed by the design consultant when the SOP for excavation was formulated. BEL had to get the soil analysed independently by the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru at its own expense.

“The total cost of the execution increased because of the side wall collapse and also the change in the foundation, which, once again, resulted in extra cash flow of crores of rupees. All this needs detailed investigation by some civil engineering expert,” report further added.

The report also highlighted glaring irregularities in the hiring of civil engineer Manish Goyal to look after the IACCS projects’ infrastructure as a manager. It claimed Goyal was hired despite falling short of the required 10 to 12 years’ experience and without having any exposure to highly specialised work like the IACCS project. The report expressed shock over this, saying it was quite surprising how and why the human resources division of BEL did not fully check or verify the documents Goyal’s submitted while establishing his experience as per BEL’s requirements and rules. The report said Goyal earlier worked with L&T. As the manager of NCS-infrastructure, Goyal was later given charge of the three IACCS sites that the infrastructure giant is working on and authorises L&T bills.

It is pertinent to mention that before the internal inquiry report was submitted in October 2018, a three-member BEL team had submitted an investigation-cum-site inspection report in May 2018 regarding certain allegations related to the execution of the IACCS projects. The panel, which included BEL officers AK Raheja, Sayanarayana and MM Roy, had submitted the report to BEL’s vigilance department, concluding that there were serious irregularities in the implementation of the ambitious national security project. Also, BEL’s panel report clearly said that the RD Konsultants’ capabilities were not checked before it was awarded the contract in 2011 and 2013.

“There are evidences of work being subcontracted to CS Constructions Private Limited by L&T, the execution contractor, both on the material and labour front. The registered addresses of CS Constructions Private Limited and RD Konsultants are one and the same. The company profile of YS Anand Consultants Private Limited shows Suresh Kumar Anand (partner of RD Konsultants) and Sarita Anand (director of CS Constructions Private Limited) as its directors. This evidences the fact of RD Konsultants’ involvement with the affiliates related to persons otherwise interested in project,” the panel’s report noted.

“The soil test report as submitted by the design consultant does not match the strata found in excavation,” it added. “Evidence exists of Manish Goyal (manager, NCS-infra), a key person in the infrastructure project, being a former L&T person. The documents submitted by Manish Goyal lack transparency. A part of the work experience of Manish Goyal conflicts with the tenure of pursuing M Tech, and to that extent, his work experience falls short of the minimum eligibility criteria. After the soil collapse at YYYY site (location withheld), no independent inquiry was conducted by the management for any corrective measure. The design of the soil extraction was changed without analysing the reasons for the soil collapse. Although a CAR (Comprehensive All Risk) policy exists in the joint name of BEL and L&T, no insurance claim was lodged. Pinpoint focus by BEL IACCS-Infra is somewhere lacking, and work is being left at the mercy of site engineers and the agencies hired.”

The panel’s report further suggested that BEL officials had tried to cover up the collapse. It indicated that the non-availability of CCTV camera footage at the important sites was yet another attempt to allegedly conceal the wrongdoing.

 

 

Drdo

DefExpo 2018: Policy paralysis during Congress rule had affected defence preparedness, PM Modi says

3 Comments

B Sivakumar | TNN | Updated: Apr 12, 2018, 13:21 IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Prime Minister was speaking at the defence expo in Chennai.
  • Modi said policy paralysis would not happen anymore.
  • The PM launched IDEX , a portal for startups to deal with the defence production department.

 CHENNAI: India is set to move faster in all fields as the NDA government has brought the country out of policy paralysis caused by the previous Congress government, said Prime Minister Narendra Modi while formally inaugurating the 10th edition of the defence expo – DefExpo 2018 – at Thiruvidandai near Chennai on Thursday.
“There was a time when, like many other aspects of governance, the critical issue of defence preparedness was also hampered by policy paralysis. We have seen how laziness, incompetence and perhaps some hidden motives can cause damage to the nation,” said the Prime Minister.
He said such paralysis would not happen anymore. “Issues that should have been long addressed by previous governments are being resolved now. You would have seen how the requirement of providing bullet proof jackets to Indian Army soldiers was kept hanging for years,” said Modi.
“You would also recall the long-drawn process of procurement of fighter aircraft that never reached any conclusion. We have not only taken bold action to meet our immediate critical requirements, but have also initiated a new process to procure 110 fighter aircraft. We do not want to spend 10 years in discussions without any tangible outcomes,” he said.
Promising honesty and transparency in all the dealings, the Prime Minister said, “We will work with you with a sense of mission to keep our defence forces equipped with state-of-the-art systems, and to create the necessary domestic manufacturing ecosystem to achieve this.”
Earlier, the Prime Minister launched IDEX (Innovations for Defence Excellence), a portal for startups to deal with the defence production department. “Today, we launched the ‘Innovation for Defence Excellence’ scheme. It will set up defence innovation hubs throughout the country to provide necessary incubation and infrastructure support to the startups in defence area,” said Modi.
He said the government would encourage private venture capital into the defence sector, especially for startups.
“New and emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and robotics are perhaps the most important determinants/of defensive and offensive capabilities for any defence force in the future. India, with its leadership in information technology domain, would strive to use this technology tilt to its advantage,” he said.
Quoting former President APJ Abdul Kalam, the Prime Minister said, Kalam asked us to dream, dream and dream. Our dream is to develop the ecosystem to foster an environment of new and creative entrepreneurship in defence manufacturing sector.
Modi said in the coming weeks the government would undertake extensive consultations with all stakeholders, including both Indian and foreign companies, about our defence production and defence procurement policy space. “I call upon all of you to actively participate in this exercise. Our aim is not just to discuss, but to draw the right lessons. Our intention is not to lecture, but to listen. Our goal is not merely to tinker, but to transform,” Modi said.
The Prime Minister witnessed live demonstration of the three services.

Drdo

DRDO lab up in arms against scientist’s transfer

10 Comments

The employees of the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), which is regarded as one of the most distinguished labs of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), are up in arms against what they have called arbitrary transfer.

By ABHINANDAN MISHRA | New Delhi | 28 January, 2018 Sunday Guardian

The employees of the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), which is regarded as one of the most distinguished labs of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), are up in arms against what they have called arbitrary transfer of a scientist who last year was named the “best lab scientist of DRDO”.

According to ADE officials, the said scientist, who has been working with the DRDO for 30 years, is being victimised for not agreeing with his seniors who wanted materials for a project to be procured from a particular company, despite the said company not matching the requirements of the project.

On 16 January 2018, on the ground of “public interest”, A.P.V.S. Prasad, “scientist-G”, who was made the project director of the coveted RUSTOM-II UAV programme of the DRDO in 2015, was moved out of the ADE to another DRDO lab in Bangalore without any notice and without taking the permission from his director.

However, official sources said that Prasad was being pressurised to give his permission to procure products for the UAV programme from a company whose product did not match the requirements of the project and when he did not relent, he was transferred.

Prasad has been credited with making sure that the much delayed India’s UAV programme got the needed push. Within two years of Prasad taking over the project, RUSTOM-II completed its maiden flight, earning him the best DRDO scientist award in 2017. An angry employees’ union of the ADE has now approached Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to intervene in the matter. Speaking to The Sunday Guardian, S. Narayanappa, who is president of the ADE civilian employees’ union, said that discriminatory transfers like this affect the morale of the scientists.

“I have been trying to speak to Dr S. Christopher (chairman of DRDO) on this issue but he is not taking my calls or responding to our messages. It was due to this that we were forced to approach the Defence Minister directly. Prasad is a very capable scientist which is clear from the work that he has done. His transfer, without taking even his director into confidence, is shocking. We are still awaiting a response from the Defence Minister. You can just imagine the kind of damage these kinds of things do to an official’s morale. He was offered multiple employment opportunities from various private corporate entities to head their division but he rejected them all,” Narayanappa said.

Drdo

RTI – Railway- bacteria from low temperature areas in India were acclimatized

Leave a comment

To                                                                                                        20th December 2017

Shri  RAKESH  KUMAR

D.D. (PG) &  C.P.I.O.

(Registration & Coordination)

R.No 05, RTI Cell / RB

Railway Board, New Delhi -110001

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of IR’s para-wise reply to Article titled “New Toilets In Indian Trains No Better than Septic Tanks: IIT Study” published in India Spend dated 23rd November, 2017. At para number 11 of the rejoinder, in reply it has been stated that instead bacteria from low temperature areas in India were acclimatized to low temperature and the bacterial species which had compromised activity at low temperature were supplemented (bioaugmentation) with selected group of bacteria isolated from lake sediment samples brought from Antarctica.

  1. Copy of patent If any applied for acclimatization process developed by DRDO, submitted to you by DRDO or  any other related documents,  which supported your statement  in reply of para 11.
  2. Kindly provide me a certified copy of safety certifications obtained from environmental agencies and bio safety agencies if you made them acclimatized through gene manipulation or any genetic engineering methods before releasing such bacteria into environment.

 

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      MORLY/R/2017/54482

IR’s para-wise reply to Article titled “New Toilets In Indian Trains No Better than Septic Tanks: IIT Study” published in India Spend dated 23rd November, 2017

11. Lokendra Singh, former director of the DRDE, had, after an expedition to Antarctica, brought home psychrophilic bacteria that can survive in extremely low temperatures. The bacteria were mixed with cowdung and normal soil, which have methogens (micro-organisms that produce methane) capable of breaking down human excreta. This was then supplied to the manufacturers of rail bio-digesters. 11.  It is not true that all the bacteria involved in biodegradation process were brought from Antarctica. Instead bacteria from low temperature areas in India were acclimatized to low temperature and the bacterial species which had compromised activity at low temperature were supplemented (bioaugmentation) with selected group of bacteria isolated from lake sediment samples brought from Antarctica.

The basic microbiological and biochemical steps involved in bio-digester, gobar gas plant and septic tank are similar except that septic tank does not have methanogens instead lower fatty acids get converted into H2S gas by employing sulphate reducing bacteria. Another difference is that inoculum is not added to the septic tank whereas bio-digester is seeded initially with a known anaerobic microbial consortium. The major difference in bacterial composition used in bio-digester and other technologies is that bacteria are more efficient and work in wider temperature range including low temperature (cold active bacteria and not psychrophiles as reported in the news)
Drdo

Toilets on trains: Some issues that need attention

Leave a comment

October 18, 2014, Economic Times Blog
Ever since the Railway Committee started its work, whenever people run into me, even if it is at a social occasion, they buttonhole me and offer suggestions about what should be done to improve the Railways. This is understandable and desirable, since it is a manifestation of interest in the Railways. Often, though not always, these are complaints about passenger amenities, or their lack, and suggestions about improving these. Passenger amenities are only one aspect of improving the Railways, though this is visible, and is representative of most citizen interface with the Railways. Toilets figure towards the top of any average complaint list, toilets in stations and toilets on trains. For the moment, let me confine myself to toilets on trains. As everyone knows, Indian trains began to function from 1853. But toilets on trains had to wait till 1909. There is an oft-quoted, and therefore somewhat clichéd letter, written by Okhil Chandra Sen to the Deputy Superintendent of Sahibganj in 1909, familiar to all those who know about Indian railway history. The original letter is in the National Railway Museum, Delhi. This led to the introduction of toilets on trains.
Here is that self-explanatory letter. “Dear Sir, I am arrive by passenger train Ahmedpur station and my belly is too much swelling with jackfruit. I am therefore went to privy. Just I doing the nuisance that guard making whistle blow for train to go off and I am running with LOTAH in one hand & DHOTI in the next when I am fall over & expose all my shocking to men & female women on platform. I am got leaved Ahmedpur station. This too much bad, if passenger go to make dung that dam guard not wait train minutes for him. I am therefor pray your honour to make big fine on that guard for public sake. Otherwise I am making big report to papers.” Sahibganj (in Jharkhand) has seen better days, from the Railway point of view. It is no longer on the Howrah-Delhi main line. Ahmedpur is in West Bengal and Mr Sen must have travelled along the Bardhman-Sainthia section of what is called the Sahibganj loop.
IR (Indian Railways) has around 50,000 passenger coaches, a little less than 50,000 if you exclude EMUs (electric multiple units), a little more than 50,000 if you include EMUs. So these have to be fitted with toilets, say 4 per coach. This blog is only about toilets, not about cleaning and maintaining them. If it’s a short-distance train, you might legitimately argue you don’t need 4 toilets per coach. 2 might do and you might make them even more basic than those required for long-distance. Traditionally, IR toilets have provided for water and the waste has been discharged onto tracks. That’s a terrible idea from the sanitation point of view, especially when on a train is at a station. Tracks are corroded and so are fittings on the under-carriages. Why can’t we have toilets on trains that are like those in the West? What about the West? In some places in the West, you have what are called controlled discharge toilets (CDTs). These store waste in tanks and discharge them when the train attains a minimum speed. Three problems with these. First, you are still discharging on tracks, which is what you want to avoid. Second, these require trains to attain a minimum speed. Sometimes, trains don’t pick up that minimum speed at all.
Alternatively, at the other end, when a station has a long platform, the discharge begins before the train has left the station. Third, CDTs don’t work well when people use water, as opposed to toilet paper. Hence, no CDTs, though they have been used on Rajdhani, Shatabdi and Duranto. Almost 3000 coaches have actually been fitted with CDTs. Moving on, at best, on better trains (where people don’t use that much water), you can have tanks that don’t discharge, but have tanks that are cleaned. This is what happens with planes. However, with the large number of passengers who travel on trains, this won’t work except on short-distance trains, and those where people are unlikely to use water. Even if this were to be attempted, coaches need redesigning.
Therefore, IR has now veered around to bio-toilets, designed with DRDO collaboration. Bacteria decompose the waste. Some stuff is released as carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. Whatever is left is chlorinated and disinfected liquid that can be released onto the tracks. In tests, the effluent hasn’t had any toxic effects on rats and fish. Since 2011, almost 5,000 coaches have been fitted with these bio-toilets, on Express trains like GWL-BSB Bundelkhand, GHY-MAS Egmore, Indore-Gwalior, Lucknow-Mumbai Pushpak, Jammu Tawi-Indore, NZM-Indore Malwa, NZM-Indore Intercity, Mumbai-BSB Mahanagri and Kochuveli-Bangalore. These are like trial runs, though you may not have noticed them. There is a decision that all new coaches will have bio-toilets, a decision that will effectively be implemented from 2016-17. Sounds good, but there are a couple of problems. First, for a new coach (with 4 toilets), bio-toilets cost Rs 3 lakhs per coach. But for an old coach, which has to be retroactively fitted, it costs Rs 15 lakhs per coach. Among other things, because these toilets add to weight, and ordinary coaches are heavily loaded, the weldings/mountings fail. The coaches have to cut open, so that these can be reinforced. Assuming you can spare the coaches, that’s quite a sum of money. But there is a decision that from 2021-22, all coaches will have bio-toilets.
The second problem is more serious. People stuff other things into toilets – polythene bags, sanitary napkins, diapers, bottles, pouches. These aren’t always bio-degradable. In those trial runs, one coach per train has come back with this kind of problem. Sure, there are waste-bins outside toilets. But passengers don’t always use them. For sanitary napkins/diapers, you can’t reasonably expect passengers to come out and use those bins. You need bins inside toilets, like aircraft. But bins inside toilets stink, unless they are regularly cleaned. Therefore, you realize the broad problem. There are multiple kinds of passenger segments. It’s one thing to lick a problem for a train that travels for no more than 24 hours (even easier for 8 hours). It is another thing to lick a problem for a train than travels for 72 hours.

Drdo

‘Internal politics’ forces DRDO scientist to quit

3 Comments

By Pradip R Sagar | Published: 08th October 2017
NEW DELHI: With a dream to work for his country after spending a successful stint overseas, Dr Gausal Ahmed Khan applied for the post of senior scientist in the country’s premier defence research institute—DRDO—in 2009. Eight years down the line, Khan’s dreams were shattered when he was forced to resign in September owing to ‘internal politics’.
Khan, a physiologist, worked on a project to reduce the acclimatisation time of Indian Army personnel stationed at high altitude locations like Siachen. He has written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi exposing nepotism, politics, and corruption prevailing in the DRDO. “Unfortunately my scientific temperament and hard work proved to be a disqualification in one of the country’s most reputed organisations—DRDO,” Khan wrote to the PM.

Dr Gausal Khan

“Bereaved, my broken and humiliated conscience prompted me to write to you and apprise you of the prevalent politics, corruption, and other work conditions in DRDO. I am writing with a hope that in future work condition in DRDO may improve and will prevent scientists from leaving the organisation,” he added.

While disclosing how he was involved in litigation after not given credit for his work, he said, “I spent the last three years in the organisation defending myself in unwanted litigations imposed on me by higher officials due to their politics, personal vengeance, and family lineage.”

Khan got some relief when he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against a disciplinary case imposed on him. The Tribunal in its order stated: “He has been conferred with ‘developing world scientist award’ at international level for his research of unique nature.

Assuming that there are some lapses on the applicant (scientist), the disciplinary authority should have taken a lenient view on account of the excellent scientific research by him which brought laurels not only individually for him but to the country as whole. However, the respondent (DRDO authorities) has not given due credit for his research in the scientific field. This depicts sorry state of affairs. Instead of appreciating his research work, he has been treated shabbily and awarded punishment in gross violation of law”.

When contacted Khan, who is leaving for the US, said, “I came with a vision and a dream. My working conditions forced me to leave. But before leaving, I wanted to apprise the top leaders of the poor work atmosphere. PM talks about self-reliance in defence, but we cannot achieve it unless we weed out corruption and internal politics.”

Drdo

Hon’ble Defence Minister is helpless in front of DRDO for continued deliberate harassment of Whistle Blower against constitutional provision

1 Comment

Even  the present Hon’ble Defence Minister  is helpless in stopping the continued deliberate harassment meted out to the Whistle Blower of DRDO (acknowledged by the then Defence Minister) by the top management of DRDO HQ New Delhi & by his present Director of Delhi based lab of DRDO, MOD through the following acts & omissions.

  • Harassment meted out by DRDO HQ, New Delhi                                     
  • By non implementation of the advice of CVC issued vide CVC OM No 24571/2016/vigilance-9  19-04-2016 , O M No conf/6807/16/315999 dated  30-05-201  & O M No conf/1750/09/3201 dated  15-07-2016  to restore the posting of the whistle blower to LASTEC, Delhi even disregarding the  formal representation dated  16-06-2017 submitted by the whistle blower of DRDO in this regard to the present Secretary, DDR&D.                                       
  • By non conveying  of the  decision of the Hon’ble Defence Minister ( obtained from him by deliberately misleading him distorting the material facts) to the complainant whistle blower on his complaint/ representation dated 28-12-2015 submitted to the then Hon’ble Defence Minister to get implemented the decision of para 03 (three) of MOD decision conveyed to DRDO HQ vide MOD ID no PC to 470/ DO (Vig)/ 2012 dated 19-10-2015 against  22 prima facie guilty officials of DRDO who trumped up false charges & committed a number of irregularities with single minded objective of harassing the whistle blower  through their ibid mala fide actions.
  • By non communicating the decision of the Hon’ble Defence Minister, decision of the present secretary,  DDR&D,   decision of present DG (ECS),  decision of Shri V  P Dutta, the then Scientist ‘G’ of DEAL, Dehradun  &  Chairman & decision of Shri   A K Pandey    Scientist ‘F’ OF IRDE, Dehradun &  member of the committee appointed  vide DG ( ECS) order No DG ECS /ADM/12538/LASTEC/2015/PS   dated 13-01-2016 on through proper channel representation dated 18-03-2016 of the whisle blower of DRDO submitted to the then DG (ECS) of DRDO HQ &  copies also endorsed to Hon’ble Defence Minister  & all the above mentioned authorities of DRDO for  taking remedial actions.
  • By hatching a conspiracy to ultimately post  the whistle blower  in a  wing of a Delhi based lab of DRDO situated 15 kms away from the main LAB  where there is no  basic infrastructural  facilities & absolutely no work for the whistle blower in his sphere of duties where the the whistle blower  has been suffering unbearable miseries. This was done after doing the drama of taking the option of choice posting to LASTEC, Delhi from the whistle blower. 
  • By not processing & not redressing his any of the genuine service matter grievances on one or the other illegal pretexts submitted by the whistle blower of DRDO during the tenure of present Secretary, DDR&D.
  • By illegally getting rejected the issues raised in the pre litigation conciliation representation dated 26-11-2015 of the whistle blower of DRDO through the  false Recommendations of the  committed pre litigation conciliation committee Headed by Shri Sushil kumar Verma, Director, Cyber security & Scientist ‘G’ of DRDO HQ  prepared  by deliberately overlooking & ignoring the contents of the pre litigation conciliation representation dated 26-11-2015 of the whistle blower  & other letters submitted  by the whistle blower to Shri Verma.
  • The issues raised in the pre litigation conciliation representation dated 26-11-2015 of the whistle blower were finally rejected by the present Secretary, DDR&D By deliberately ignoring the material facts based on the record of DRDO & MOD  contained in the through proper channel representation dated 28-04-2017 submitted to the present Secretary, DDR&D.
  • BY rejecting  most urgent & most immediate through proper channel representation dated 28-09-2015  of the whistle blower of DRDO submitted to the secretary, DDR&D   in most arbitrary manner directly violating the standing provisions of grievance redressal policy of both Govt. of India & DRDO, MOD.
  • By not deciding through proper channel representation dated 29-01-2016 of the whistle blower of DRDO submitted to the secretary, DDR&D pertaining to deliberate illegalities committed in DRDO HQ continuously affecting adversely to the whistle blower of DRDO even till to date.                                                               
  • By not deciding & not communicating the final outcome of 02 (two) complaints of vigilance nature dated 04-07-2016 & dated 11-07-2016  to the whistle blower of DRDO even up to now submitted by the whistle blower of DRDO  to the present Cabinet secretary to the Govt. of India & to the Hon’ble prime minister of India  respectively which reached in DRDO HQ in 2016 itself for taking appropriate actions on the same.
  • Harassment meted out to the Whistle Blower of DRDO by present director of the Whistle Blower
  • By hatching a conspiracy to post the whistle blower of DRDO in one wing of the concerned Delhi based lab of DRDO Situated 15 kms from the main lab where there was no work for the whistle blower even  when whistle blower of DRDO was the senior most officer of the Admin cadre posted in that    Delhi based  main lab of DRDO to make him professionally obsolete..
  • By hatching a conspiracy not to nominate  the whistle blower of DRDO  in 2016 for the training programmes even run by govt. agencies free of cost directly  related & essential for enhancing the acumen of the whistle blower of DRDO in the sphere of his charter of duties as senior administrative officer , Grade –I  of Admin Cadre of DRDO, MOD.
  • By hatching a conspiracy by getting  Arbitrarily rejected  04  nominations  of  of the whistle blower of DRDO  pertaining to short term training programmes of the duration of one week or less period   to be conducted during the period from July 2017 to December 2017  by the Govt training Institute namely by ISTM, New Delhi free of cost directly  related & essential for enhancing the acumen of the whistle blower of DRDO in the sphere of his charter of duties as Senior Administrative Officer , Grade –I  of Admin Cadre of DRDO, MOD through  the  initial decisions dated 13-07-2017 of his immediate sub-ordinate scientist “G’ Shri Raju Agarwal without   any cogent grounds & thereafter he himself approved such arbitrary decisions to harass the whistle blower of DRDO .  
  • By not ensuring processing any of the service matter grievances of the whistle blower of DRDO with due diligence & giving full opportunity to the concerned officials to adopt dilatory tactics in processing the service matter grievances of the whistle blower of DRDO, New Delhi.
  • By compelling the whistle blower of DRDO to exclusively limit his charter of duties to open & close the one wing of the Delhi based lab of DRDO in which he has been posted.
  • BY Removing the whistle blower of DRDO from the hitherto duties of officer in-charge              (assigned to him on 23-08-2016) of the one wing of the Delhi  based lab of DRDO  vide order dated 25-07-2017 leaving him without any work & compelling the the whistle blower of DRDO holding the functional designation of senior Group ‘A’ Gazetted post of  Senior Administrative Officer , Grade –I  of Admin Cadre of DRDO, MOD to report to  one in situ promoted Scientist ‘D’ of DRDO who does not any competence to do any value addition in administrative work of the said wing & who  even insulted the whistle blower in the presence of his all junior  on 25-07-2017 on  official telephone saying that the whistle blower does not have any authority in  the said wing of the said Delhi based lab DRDO because we scientists can do anything to the whistle blower which seems to be true also considering the above mentioned acts & omissions by one of the senior scientist of DRDO holding the designation of scientist ‘H’ &  Director of the Delhi based lab in which the whistle blower is posted Who was  dare enough to conduct the illegal meetings of internal screening committee main for assessment of Scientists ‘Fs’ of DRDO  for assessing their suitability for the posts of Scientist ‘G’ under promotion quota  IN 2011 even before inception of the amendments in the concerned statutory nature of recruitment rules of Scientist ‘G’ in DRDO  while holding the appointment of Director , RAC, New Delhi thereby incurring the financial loss to the tune of 14 lakhs to the public exchequer for which some investigation has also been ordered by the DRDO/MOD ,still he does not hesitate to  continue harassing the whistle blower of DRDO.
  • By making Payments of the arrears of 7th CPC to the whistle blower of DRDO only in April 2017 whereas all other officials of DRDO got their arrears of 7th CPC in 2016
Drdo

3,600 Crores Later, Made-In-India Akash Missile Fails Tests, Says Auditor

Leave a comment

The Akash and its newer variant, the Akash Mk-2, are a medium-range surface-to-air missile system designed to intercept enemy aircraft and missiles at a distance of 18-30 km.
All India | Written by Vishnu Som | Updated: July 28, 2017 18:41 IST NDTV

The Akash was produced by the state-run Bharat Electronics.

NEW DELHI: As many as a third of the home-made Akash surface-to-air missiles have failed basic tests, says the country’s national auditor, claiming the deficiencies of the missiles “posed an operational risk during hostilities.”

The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) is a big setback for the Make-In-India initiative which seeks to reduce India’s dependence on imported arms. The report, given to parliament, says, “the missiles fell short of the target, had lower than the required velocity, and there was malfunctioning of critical units.”

The Air Force has refused to comment on the report.

The Akash was produced by the state-run Bharat Electronics. The auditor says that though 3,600 crores have been paid to the manufacturer, none of the missile systems are installed at the six designated sites even though it has been seven years since the contract was signed.

The Akash and its newer variant, the Akash Mk-2, are a medium-range surface-to-air missile system designed to intercept enemy aircraft and missiles at a distance of 18-30 km. Tested extensively by the Indian Air Force, the Akash, which was first handed over in December 2008, was seen as a breakthrough indigenous system and in 2010, an additional six squadrons were ordered.

These additional squadrons, composed of missile launchers, radars, associated vehicles and hundreds of Akash missiles, were meant to be deployed at six air force bases in the East for which the government approved related infrastructure including storage facilities, workshops and ramp structures. These were supposed to be constructed by Bharat Electronics on a turnkey basis at a cost of approximately 100 crores. However, this infrastructure “could not be completed till October 2016 at any of the sites.” The auditor also says though work was nearly complete at two bases, the “IAF had not taken over these buildings because of defects in the construction, which rendered them unsuitable for strategic missile system storage. In other stations, the progress was below 45 per cent as of October 2016”.

While the missiles were indeed delivered to air forces bases between April 2014 and June 2016 after a delay of between 6 and 18 months, the missiles were found to be deficient in quality. According to the auditor, “Out of 80 missiles received upto November 2014, 20 missiles were test fired during April-November 2014. 6 of these missiles, ie, 30 per cent, failed the test.”