Tag Archives: work

Drdo

DMSRDE – RTI -4

Leave a comment
To,                                                                                   25th July 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’
CPIO, DMSRDE
GT Road, Kanpur-208013

Hello,

This is with reference to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence Report 2009-10 & 2010-11 and News published in print/electronic media   regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (GSQR-1293) by DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  1. The date on which GSQR-1293 for BPJ was issued by AHQ to DRDO.
  2. Provide the copy of the letter from AHQ to DRDO for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
  3. Provide copy of DRDO HQ letter by which DMSRDE was instructed to develop BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
  4. The date on which DMSRDE started to work on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293 and the date on which BPJ-1293 developed successfully.
  5. PDC given by AHQ for development of BPJ-1293.
  6. Whether any team was constituted for development of BPJ-1293? If yes then provide name of  the team members (Scientists, Technical Officers and Scientific Assistants etc) who worked on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
  7. Whether any project has been sanctioned from the DRDO HQ for development of BPJ-1293?
  8. If yes then how much funds has been sanctioned for this Project?
  9. Provide the copy of sanction letter of the Project for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
  10. If no Project was sanctioned from DRDO HQ for BPJ as per GSQR-1293 then from which head (Build-up etc) funds were arranged for Development and Fabrication of BPJ-1293?
  11. Provide total expenditure incurred in procurement of items(matrials) for development of BPJ-1293 including expenditure incurred on TA/DA to Officers & Employees, Government Transport and hired transport separately.
  12. Provide copies of DRDO.MM.06 (demand) and copies of supply orders for purchase of items/materials and services hired for development of BPJ-1293.
  13. Purchase of materials, items and services hired for fabrication of BPJ-1293 were made under which type of tendering process (Single Tender /Limited Tender/Open Tender/Global Tender)?
  14. Provide details of procurement of materials(items)/services hired/fabrication for BPJ-1293 in the following format :-table
  15. Total expenditure incurred in creating facility in DMSRDE, Kanpur for R&D of BPJ-1293.
  16. Total expenditure incurred from public fund for TA/DA in Temp. Duty of officers and staff involved in development of BPJ-1293 for visiting site of vendor involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1293 or to other places for work related to BPJ-1293.
  17. Total expenditure incurred from public fund on Govt. Transport and hired transport for transporting the materials up to the site of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd at New Delhi/Palwal.
  18. Names of private vendors/firms involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1293.
  19. Whether SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd is registered with DMSRDE. If yes then provide copy of Registration Certificate issued by DMSRDE to S. M. Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd.
  20. Whether any award was given to BPJ-1293 team/group or Scientist for successful development of BPJ-1293 under Laboratory Level Award under DRDO Award Scheme for 2010-2011. If so then provide the
  • Name of Scientists/Individual Scientist getting this award.
  • Amout of award in Rupees for Laboratory Scientist of the year award.
  • Copy of the minute sheet sanctioned by Director for this award.
  • Copy of the letter forwarded by Head of the Division with name(s) of Scientists to Technical Coordination.
  • Copy of the recommendation/proceeding of  Award Committee constituted by Director for 2010-2011.

21. Whether facilities for fabrication of BPJ are available in Kanpur (Yes/No).

22.  M/s M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd , Kanpur  is also working on development/fabrication of BPJ at Kanpur. Provide the reasons on the ground of which DMSRDE did not utilized services of M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd, Kanpur for development of BPJ-1293 using Limited Tendering Process in order to save expenditure on TA/DA of Officials and hired Transport?

23.  Copy of certificate issued by TBRL, Chandigarh for successful testing of BPJ developed by DMSRDE under GSQR-1293

24. Whether these BPJ-1293 was under gone Quality Control/Assurance test by QAG, DMSRDE. If so then how many BPJ-1293 were tested by QAG, DMSRDE.

25.  Whether these BPJ-1293 were tested by another agency like CFSL Chandigarh etc? (Yes/No) If yes then provide the name of agency.

26.  How many BPJ-1293 was fabricated by SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd and total amount paid to SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd for the fabrication of said BPJ-1293?

27.  Copy of the supply order placed for fabrication of mould/procurement of mould for BPJ-1293.

28.  Whether user trials were conducted by Army for BPJ-1293. (Yes/No) If yes then how many BPJ-1293 were submitted to AHQ for unit/field testing?

29.  AHQ (Army) accepted BPJ-1293 (Yes/No)

Enclosed-           Rs 10 Postal order 12F 470728

 

Regards,

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

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

Leave a comment

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- IV

The DRDO has succeeded with missiles, but…

George Iype

In May 1998, the DRDO and its chief Dr A P J Abdul Kalam became symbols of national pride thanks to the nuclear tests. DRDO’s expertise in explosives and related technologies, and in systems engineering and integration was the key to the five devices tested by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government.

Four months after the event, the government entrusted DRDO with a Rs 20 billion ballistic missile defence project. This is perhaps the most ambitious programme that DRDO has embarked upon. It would need to integrate the Russian-made anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile systems, which the army and air force are planning to induct, with an Israeli fire control radar.

The project, along with the Integrated Guided Missile Development programme and the nuclear submarine programme that DRDO has engaged in over the years, is meant to lay India’s foundation of strategic missile programme and security stability.

But given DRDO’s track record in the IGMD and nuclear submarine programme, not many believe the new ballistic project could come out with flying colours, that too in time.

It is not that DRDO’s missile mission has not taken India to the rarefied heights of missile power. “If there is one area in which DRDO has succeeded with a certain degree of success, it is in missiles,” says Prakash Nanda, a security expert in Bangalore who is currently writing a book on the subject.

“Agni, Prithvi, Akash, Trishul and Nag. All these missiles have made us proud. But the problem is that though a number of flight tests of these missiles have been successfully carried out, DRDO has been unable to induct some of them into the forces,” he says.

For instance, for the last 16 years, DRDO has been building two types of anti-aircraft missiles — Trishul and Akash. According to the government’s defence plans, these surface-to-air missiles were to have replaced the Russian-supplied OSA-AK and Kvadrat systems by early 1990s. But DRDO has been unable to meet the deadlines.

To be specific, the Trishul project began in 1983. The original deadline was 1992. DRDO has spent more than Rs 2.6 billion on the missile, but it is still undergoing trials. Official sources say the major problem with Trishul is that the missile’s command guidance does not work.

Hence, though the defence ministry has entrusted DRDO with the Rs 20 billion project, it is not confident that the agency will accomplish its task in time.

“The anti-ballistic missile programme will languish like the nuclear submarine project, which DRDO has been working on for years now,” a ministry official comments wryly.

Fifteen years ago, the nuclear submarine programme was billed as India’s key to second strike capability after enunciation of the no-first use policy. But after spending millions of rupees, the naval headquarters is now demanding a technical audit of the Advanced Technology Vehicle project, as it is formally known.

The design and development of the nuclear submarine is a joint project of DRDO, the Department of Atomic Energy and the Indian navy. The DRDO, DAE and navy together have spent a whopping total of Rs 20 billion on the ATV — on its design drawings from Russia, civilian construction work, establishing test beds and testing facilities on the east coast and procurement of related equipment.

DRDO sources say the land-based prototype testing facility of the submarine reactor has been completed successfully and a training facility to familiarise with the nuclear submarine’s power plant has also been set up. The submarine’s power plant would use enriched uranium as reactor fuel.

But years after the ATV project was mooted, the submarine’s keel is yet to be laid because DRDO has been unable to decide on its construction design.

Drdo

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

Leave a comment

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- III

‘DRDO took up Arjun before it learnt to make tanks’

George Iype

Some 20 years ago, the defence ministry entrusted the DRDO with two projects: the development of a battle tank and a multi-barrel rocket launcher system.

The DRDO called the former, assigned to it in 1974, Arjun, and the latter Pinaka.

Two-plus decades later, the Arjun is considered a major failure. And so is the Pinaka. The Indian army found the latter passed only seven of its 29 requirements.

Defence experts allege that DRDO continues to work on Arjun and Pinaka just to keep its laboratories open.

“The Arjun main battle tank is not world class and has failed to meet the required levels of accuracy. But DRDO is keeping it alive because it does not want its factories to close down,” says Major General (retd) Ashok Mehta.

Experts like Major General Mehta feel the Arjun could have been a tank with potential if DRDO had got its act together. But the premier defence research organisation continues to exert pressure on the army to accept a limited series of production for the Arjun.

Army officers say it is politics and not the tank’s potential that is at work in the defence ministry, which last year placed orders with the Avadi Ordinance Factory to manufacture 124 Arjun tanks.

“I am happy to inform you that not only is the army satisfied with the Arjun tank’s performance, but it has placed an order for 124 more such tanks,” Defence Minister George Fernandes had told Parliament. “With this India has achieved the capability for indigenous manufacture of battle tanks.”

Army officials, however, say no other defence agency in the world must have spent 25 years and Rs 3.5 billion on developing a tank that has failed to perform.

“We have wasted money and time in producing a tank that is just not a world class product these days,” an army officer in Hyderabad says.

Insiders say the army was not “satisfied with the Arjun’s performance” as Fernandes claimed, but was coerced to accept it by the DRDO.

N K Mohan Pillai, a retired army officer who witnessed the Arjun trials, says the tank lacked three vital strengths. First, its engine is weak. Second, its suspension needs permanent maintenance. Third, its gun control is not accurate enough to obtain first round kill probability.

“In fact, the main problem was that DRDO took up the Arjun project before learning how to make tanks,” Pillai remarks.

In 1994 when DRDO announced that the Arjun tank was ready for production, then army chief General B C Joshi witnessed the trials. He sent a note to the DRDO and the defence minister saying the tank fails to meet standards and therefore was unacceptable. General Joshi then laid down a dozen imperatives that DRDO should take to improve upon the tank.

General Joshi’s main concerns were that the tank that weighs 57 tonnes lacked armour protection and vital suspension for crew comfort and gunfire accuracy.

But DRDO, which has showcased the Arjun as its finest indigenous product, claims that the problem is not with the tank, but with the army.

“The army is used to handling only T-72 tanks. For the soldiers who have fired T-72 tanks, operating the Arjun is a gigantic task. So we have told the army to train their crew before accusing us of inferior production,” a DRDO engineer says.

Despite DRDO’s claims, many in the army believe that the 124 Arjun tanks will drain the exchequer just like the multi-barrel rocket launching system Pinaka did.

In 1999 the Comptroller and Auditor General severely indicted DRDO for its failure to develop critical components for Pinaka after spending Rs 424.5 million on the project.

The defence ministry had entrusted DRDO with the Pinaka project in 1980. The deadline given was 1994. Twenty years later DRDO is nowhere near finishing. The war heads and all the three vehicles necessary for launching the rockets are yet to be developed by DRDO. Against the requirement of eight types of warheads, only three have been developed. Of this, one is not acceptable to the army and the other is only a dummy.

“The delay in the development of the EWPinaka has compelled the army to depend on our existing 20 kilometre-range system even during Kargil conflict. The DRDO is entirely responsible for this,” charges an army officer.

According to experts, the Pinaka system has met just seven of the 29 requirements of the army during trials. The indigenous rocket launcher lacks the promised range, fire power, loading time of the salvo and deployment time.

These, however, are “minor problems” according to DRDO.

Drdo

Congrats to Dr W.Selvamurthy for assuming charges as President of Amity University

2 Comments

Bravo Congrats to Dr W.Selvamurthy  for assuming charges as President of Amity University – without having no objection from Government of India.

 

As per government of India Office Memorandum No 27012/52000-Estt(A) Dated 5thDecember 2006.

As per “The Gazette of India” Extraordinary No 568 dated 23rd November 2006 Part – II, Section-3, Sub section  (i) 

       Para 3 (a) Whether a” No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment has   been obtained from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired.

                    (c) Whether there is conflict of interest between the policies of the office he has held in the last 14three years and the interest represented of work undertaken by the organization he proposed to join.

(e) Whether service record of the officer is clear, particularly with respect of integrityand dealings with non- Government Organizations.

rti replyselva1

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

Nearly 700 scientists quit DRDO in six years, says Govt

5 Comments

NEW DELHI, December 5, 2012 – THE HINDU

Scientists install a DRDO-developed bio-toilet in the icy vastness of Siachen. File photo: DRDO

Nearly 700 scientists have resigned from India’s premier military research body DRDO in little less than six years from 2007, Defence Minister A K Antony said on Wednesday.

In a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha on resignation of scientists from Defence Research and Development Organisation(DRDO), Mr. Antony said a total of 637 scientists resigned during 2007-2011 and 50 scientists up to October 31 this year.

Scientists who had resigned have either cited personal or domestic reasons for leaving DRDO, Mr. Antony said.

However, it is assumed that increased opportunities or incentives available in other organisations and industries are the main reason of such resignation, he added.

On incentives taken as corrective measures to restrict resignation of scientists from DRDO, Mr. Antony said excellent infrastructure facilities have been created at work places and residential complexes and two additional increments have been given on promotion to each grade.

To another question, Mr. Antony said DRDO is a subordinate organisation under Defence Ministry and does not enjoy any special powers or autonomy because of its strategic nature of work.

Asked whether DRDO enjoys a huge amount of autonomy because of its strategic nature of work, he said, “DRDO is a subordinate organisation under the Department of Defence( R&D) in Defence Ministry and is governed by central government rules and regulations.

“Therefore, DRDO as an organisation does not enjoy any special powers or autonomy because of its strategic nature of work.”

Revised delegation of financial powers of Director General of DRDO was carried out in 2010 to address a long standing requirement and was done after due process and deliberation, he said.

“The process of exercise of these powers has been further rationalised and a corrigendum has been issued by Department of Defence (R&D) on November 21, 2012 as a partial modification to the earlier financial powers,” the minister added.

____________________________________________________________

Question and Answer in  RAJYA SABHA

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
RAJYA SABHA

QUESTION NO 1295
ANSWERED ON 05.12.2012

Resignation of scientists from DRDO

1295 SHRI DILIPBHAI PANDYA

Will the Minister of DEFENCE be pleased to satate :-

(a) whether it is a fact that about 650 scientists have resigned from their posts in Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) during the last five years;

(b) if so, the year-wise and post-wise details thereof;

(c) whether low emoluments in DRDO are the reasons for their resignation; and

(d) if so, what corrective steps are taken / proposed to be taken by Government to persuade the scientists not to resign?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF DEFENCE
(SHRI A.K. ANTONY)

(a) A total of 637 scientists have resigned during 2007-2011 and 50 scientists upto 31st October 2012.

(b) Year-wise and post-wise details are given below:-

Post Year
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
(as on 31st October 2012)
Scientist ‘B’ 166 78 41 38 58 35
Scientist ‘C’ 86 58 18 18 21 12
Scientist ‘D’ 13 8 2 2 5 3
Scientist ‘E’ 2 5 1 3 1 –
Scientist ‘F’ 6 1 3 2 1 –
Total 273 150 65 63 86 50

No Scientist ‘G’, Scientists ‘H’ and Distinguished Scientist have resigned during 2007-2012.

(c) Scientists who had resigned have indicated their personal / domestic grounds as the reasons for leaving DRDO. However, it is assumed that increased opportunities / incentives available in other organizations / industries is the main reason of such resignation.

(d) The following incentives have been granted as corrective measures to restrict resignation of scientists from DRDO:-

• Two additional increments on promotion to each Grade.
• Up to six variable increments on promotion granted on fast track.
• Professional update allowance to all scientists.
• Fast track promotions through assessments.
•Opportunity to acquire higher qualifications at reputed institutes viz. IIT’s / IISc, etc. as DRDO sponsored candidate.
•Young Scientists, Scientist of the Year and other DRDO Awards in recognition to their contributions, etc.
• Excellent infrastructure facilities have been created at work places and residential complexes.

Government is making all efforts to grant Performance Related Incentive Scheme (PRIS) to DRDO scientists at par with scientists of Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

 

Drdo

Restricting financial powers of Chief of DRDO

1 Comment

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
RAJYA SABHA
QUESTION NO 1286
ANSWERED ON 05.12.2012

Restricting financial powers of Chief of DRDO

1286 SHRI NAND KUMAR SAI

Will the Minister of DEFENCE be pleased to satate :-

(a) whether Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) enjoys a huge amount of autonomy because of it strategic nature of work;

(b) if so, the details in this regard;

(c) whether Government proposes to impose any restrictions on the financial powers of Chief of Defence Research and Development Organisation;

(d) if so, the details in this regard; and

(e) if not, the reasons therefor?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF DEFENCE
(SHRI A.K. ANTONY)

(a) Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is a subordinate Organisation under the Department of Defence R&D in the Ministry of Defence and is governed by Central Government rules and regulations. Therefore, DRDO as an Organisation does not enjoy any special powers or autonomy because of its strategic nature of work.

(b) In view of the reply given at (a) above, Question does not arise.

(c) to (e): Financial powers of DG DRDO are being exercised by the Secretary, Defence R&D in the capacity of higher Competent Financial Authority (CFA) with the concurrence of Additional Financial Adviser (R&D) in the Ministry of Defence (Finance), pending final decision by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on implementation of Rama Rao Committee recommendations. Revised delegation of financial powers of DG DRDO was carried out in 2010 to address a long standing requirement and was done after due process and deliberation. The process of exercise of these powers has been further rationalized and, to this effect, a corrigendum has been issued by Department of Defence (R&D) on 21st November 2012 as a partial modification to the earlier financial powers as issued on 30th July 2010.

Drdo

‘Strategic nature of work doesn’t give DRDO special powers’

3 Comments

Last Updated: Wednesday, December 05, 2012, 17:43 ZEENEWS.COM

New Delhi: DRDO is a subordinate organisation under Defence Ministry and does not enjoy any special power or autonomy because of its strategic nature of work, Defence Minister A K Antony told the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.

In a written reply to question whether DRDO enjoys a huge amount of autonomy because of its strategic nature of work, he said, “DRDO is a subordinate organisation under the Department of Defence R&D in Defence Ministry and is governed by central government rules and regulations.

“Therefore, DRDO as an organisation does not enjoy any special powers or autonomy because of its strategic nature of work.”

Revised delegation of financial powers of DG of DRDO was carried out in 2010 to address a long standing requirement and was done after due process and deliberation, he said.

“The process of exercise of these powers has been further rationalised and a corrigendum has been issued by Department of Defence (R&D) on November 21, 2012 as a partial modification to the earlier financial powers,” Antony said.
In reply to a question on resignation of scientists from DRDO, he said, “A total of 637 scientists have resigned during 2007-2011 and 50 scientists up to October 31, 2012… Scientists who had resigned have indicated their personal or domestic grounds as the reasons for leaving DRDO.”

However, it is assumed that increased opportunities or incentives available in other organisations and industries are the main reason of such resignation, he added.

On incentives taken as corrective measures to restrict resignation of scientists from DRDO, he said excellent infrastructure facilities have been created at work places and residential complexes and two additional increments have been given on promotion to each grade.

Replying to a query on ‘One Rank One Pension’ for the ex-servicemen, Minister of State for Defence Jitendra Singh said, “Substantial improvements have been made in the pensions of the Armed Forces personnel after 2006. However, improvement of pensionary benefits is an ongoing process.”

He also said that the recommendations of a government committee, headed by Cabinet Secretary, have been accepted by the government and are in the process of implementation.

PTI

Drdo

Exclusive: Whistleblower DRDO officer sacked for highlighting corruption

6 Comments

Posted By M.Sreedhar On November 3rd, 2012 08:52 PM | General News HYDERABADDAILYNEWS.COM

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on Thursday took the unprecedented action of sacking an officer who claimed to be a whistleblower . Senior administrative officer Prakash Singh, posted at the Defence Science Centre at Metcalfe House in North Delhi, was served with compulsory retirement order.

Singh was due to retire on December 31, 2023. But a DRDO team visited his house at Timarpur and pasted the retirement notice on the wall. Sources said Singh, who had taken leave from work on medical grounds, was not at home at that time.

Singh plans to challenge the move in court. He claimed the action against him was taken by officiating DRDO head H. Selvamurthy in the absence of scientific advisor to the Defence Minister, V.K. Saraswat, who is on leave.

Serving compulsory retirement notice is the harshest punishment that can be given to a government servant.

DRDO sources said the action was taken strictly in adherence to the government rules. The administrative officer is responsible for the functioning of a laboratory, but Singh had remained absent from work for two years in his previous assignments, they alleged.

The sources said Singh had a history of non-performance and trouble making. He had made complaints against his seniors in the past which were found to be false, they added.

However, reliable sources said Singh was ‘punished’ for highlighting widespread corruption in DRDO. The officer had filed a complaint with the CBI against three senior functionaries: Manas Kumar Mandal (director, institute of psychological research), Dr Anil Kumar Maini (director, Laster Science and Technology Centre) and Dr Arun Kumar (director, personnel, at the headquarters). The CBI referred his complaint to the vigilance department of DRDO.

One of these officers – Arun Kumar – was indicted in a recruitment scam by the Central Vigilance Commission that recommended penalty against him in August. But the DRDO inquiry dismissed the charges of irregularities levelled against the three officials and recommended disciplinary action against Singh for making false complaints.

Drdo

Punished for highlighting corruption?’ DRDO officer ‘who knew too much’ sacked

4 Comments

By GAUTAM DATT PUBLISHED: 20:51 GMT, 2 November 2012 Mail Today

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on Thursday took the unprecedented action of sacking an officer who claimed to be a whistleblower.

Senior administrative officer Prakash Singh, posted at the Defence Science Centre at Metcalfe House in North Delhi, was served with compulsory retirement order.

Singh was due to retire on December 31, 2023. But a DRDO team visited his house at Timarpur and pasted the retirement notice on the wall. Sources said Singh, who had taken leave from work on medical grounds, was not at home at that time. Singh plans to challenge the move in court.

Building of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) office in New Delhi, India

He claimed the action against him was taken by officiating DRDO head H. Selvamurthy in the absence of scientific advisor to the defence minister, V.K. Saraswat, who is on leave.

Serving compulsory retirement notice is the harshest punishment that can be given to a government servant. DRDO sources said the action was taken strictly in adherence to the government rules.

The administrative officer is responsible for the functioning of a laboratory, but Singh had remained absent from work for two years in his previous assignments, they alleged.

The sources said Singh had a history of non-performance and trouble making.

He had made complaints against his seniors in the past which were found to be false, they added.

However, reliable sources said Singh was ‘punished’ for highlighting widespread corruption in DRDO.

The officer had filed a complaint with the CBI against three senior functionaries: Manas Kumar Mandal (director, institute of psychological research), Dr Anil Kumar Maini (director, Laster Science and Technology Centre) and Dr Arun Kumar (director, personnel, at the headquarters).

The CBI referred his complaint to the vigilance department of DRDO. One of these officers – Arun Kumar – was indicted in a recruitment scam by the Central Vigilance Commission that recommended penalty against him in August.

But the DRDO inquiry dismissed the charges of irregularities levelled against the three officials and recommended disciplinary action against Singh for making false complaints.