A tribunal called the selection “manifestly arbitrary.” The High Court has stayed that finding for now. But the questions raised by the appointment go far beyond one individual — they strike at the credibility of decision-making inside India’s strategic defence establishment.
There are moments when an institutional decision becomes bigger than the individual who receives the appointment.
The appointment of JR Joshi as DG, BrahMos is one such moment.
This is not merely a dispute between two scientists. It is a test of whether India’s strategic institutions still understand the difference between discretion and arbitrariness, authority and accountability, eligibility and merit.
And the most uncomfortable fact is not an allegation made by a critic.
It is what the CAT Hyderabad Bench, itself recorded in its judgment of December 29, 2025.
The Tribunal — a bench of Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne and Varun Kul Kaumudi — quashed the appointment and directed the MOD and DRDO to reconsider the candidature of Distinguished Scientist Dr. Sivasubramaniam within four weeks, with an interim in-charge arrangement to be made until then. More significantly, the Tribunal concluded that there was “manifest arbitrariness” in the decision-making process.
That finding deserves to be examined — not buried beneath bureaucratic silence.
THE ALPHABETICAL ORDER QUESTION
Three scientists were shortlisted for the post
According to the Tribunal record, the three candidates were awarded identical scores — reportedly 80 marks each — while the Selection Committee forwarded the names to the appointing authority in alphabetical order.
The Tribunal specifically noted that no rule had been shown to justify arranging the recommended names alphabetically.
Stop and think about that.
Alphabetical order may be perfectly reasonable for a telephone directory.
But when the Government of India is choosing the head of a strategically critical organization associated with one of the country’s most important missile programmes, the obvious question is:
Where is the comparative assessment?
Where is the documented reasoning?
Where is the distinction between one equally-scored candidate and another?
Where is the record demonstrating why one scientist was considered more suitable than the others?
A government appointment to a strategic scientific position cannot be reduced to a mathematical exercise in alphabetical arrangement.
It means the questions remain alive.
A HIGH COURT STAY IS NOT A CLEAN CHIT
This distinction is essential.
On January 7, 2026, a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court — Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin — granted an interim stay suspending the operation of the CAT’s December 29 order, on petitions filed by both Dr. Joshi and the Union of India. That allowed Dr. Joshi to continue in the post while the legal challenge proceeds.
That is an interim judicial development.
It is not a judicial declaration that every
It tells senior scientists that years of service and peer recognition may be secondary to internal equations.
And most dangerously, it creates the perception that the system can decide first and justify later.
They are pro-DRDO questions.
The danger is not one weak appointment.
The danger is an ecosystem in which people learn that compliance is safer than competence, silence is safer than dissent, and proximity to power is more valuable than technical achievement.
That is how institutions hollow themselves out.
Not overnight.
Not through one scandal.
But through hundreds of small decisions in which the wrong incentive is rewarded.
If the decision was fully justified, publish the reasoning.
If the comparative assessment exists, show that the process was rigorous.
inquiry and due process.
That is how institutions regain credibility.
Not through silence.
Not through intimidation.
Not through selective leaks.
Not through unverified claims presented as fact.
Through evidence;
Some facts that there is no comparison between Dr. Sivasubramaniam and Dr JR Joshi because the DG BrahMos post needs the missile core expertise as they compared Project Director with Project Manager Technical awards with paper awards.
Senior most with junior most
Actual they focused corruption expertise, proximity with vendors, and derailing capacity of projects, bluffing expertise and for most loyalty with super corrupt lobby of ex DRDO stalwarts.
Justifying above
Asked feedback from PD Kusha and LRSAM, Joshi inducted all his Kusha and LRSAM vendors, if any oppose, he did random mass transfer, termination, two employed died with heart attack, about derailing capacity BrahMos production is down 25% after Joshi appointment, pls checked from records.
Best joke of bluffing, she the DRDO tweet regarding production in Lucknow and revenue generation.
There are no full facilities established in Lucknow, what they are doing they are only collecting the main part and war head part from Pilani, Hyderabad and Nasik and fixing the bolts in Lucknow and claiming by billing with GST.
Dr. Joshi, if Honorable Yogi ji gets this info maybe he will send Bulldozer at your door step.
Next if 100 number BrahMos earning revenue nearly 1100 Cr then how many will earn as mentioned 5200 Cr in tweet pls check the balance sheet for confirming the claims.
Regarding loyalty EX DG (BrahMos), Mishra informed to some responsible Philipe person one day before selection that JR Joshi is next DG and myself congratulations to Dr Kamat by what’s up same time one day before selection, his decision in advance so anyone imagine how weakest Chairman was run the DRDO.
Next biggest news that smart DG HR playing efforts to promote himself and Joshi in DS post. As both are in seniority list 31 and 40
Rest senior and competent scientist will get “Baba ji ka Thullu’’
Why because they deserve it, they never raise their voices against this rotten system.
It is a very biter truth of current DRDO.
BRAHMOS DESERVES BETTER
BrahMos deserves leadership selected through competence, credibility, transparency and strategic judgement.
DRDO deserves an HR system that strengthens — not weakens — the scientific establishment.
And India’s taxpayers deserve to know that every rupee spent on strategic defence infrastructure is backed by documentation, engineering discipline and accountability.
The High Court has stayed the operative consequences of that judgment, and the matter continues through the judicial process.
And if something went wrong —
find it, fix it, and hold the responsible people accountable — through due process, not presumption.
Unfortunately, if we looked the DRDO Chief legacy since Arunachalam till date Dr Sameer V Kamat was the weakest chief ever seen by DRDO. He received the crown on the juncture. when Dr G. Satheesh Reddy was unprecedentedly stepped down with unvisible reason for sake of national interest or……
Dr. Kamat treated this prestigious position with great casualness; the proof of this lies in the work he undertook throughout his entire tenure—including two extensions—and the outcomes of those efforts, which are clearly visible in the current state of the DRDO.
There is a difference between occupying a chair and wielding the authority that comes with it. There is a still wider difference between administering an institution and leading one. The tenure of Dr. Samir V. Kamat as Chairman of the Defence Research and Development Organisation demands a hard, unsentimental reckoning — not because DRDO deserves to be diminished, but because DRDO is too important to be allowed to drift.
For decades, DRDO has shouldered one of the most consequential mandates in the Indian national-security establishment: building the technologies on which this country’s strategic autonomy actually depends. From missiles to radars, electronic warfare to aerospace, naval systems to unmanned platforms, its scientists have proven again and again that India possesses the intellectual firepower to solve extraordinarily hard defence problems. But brilliance in the laboratory cannot indefinitely paper over rot in the corridor. And it is in the corridor — not the lab — that the Kamat years raise their sharpest questions.
A MOMENT THAT DEMANDED COURAGE
Kamat took charge in August 2022, inheriting an organisation already under fire for delays, cost overruns and chronic mismanagement. This was not a caretaker’s job. It was a mandate for institutional courage — a call to confront a system choking on procedure, competing fiefdoms and decades of accumulated inertia.
Instead, the question that came to define his chairmanship was blunt and uncomfortable: where was the transformation?
The government’s own high-powered committee, led by K. Vijay Raghavan, was convened to find out. Its verdict was not kind. It found that nearly 60 per cent of project delays traced back to internal failures — including the absence of critical technologies at decisive stages — with the remainder split between shifting service requirements and plain bureaucratic red tape. That finding should have triggered an institutional earthquake. Instead, reform became just one more battlefield inside an organisation already exhausted by them.
Kamat’s tenure did not end with his original term. He was extended — not once, but twice. That fact alone raises the stakes of any honest assessment, because an extension is not a formality. It is a grant of additional trust: more time, more authority, more room to act.
After years at the helm, what measurable transformation did DRDO get in return?
Not speeches. Not committees. Not another round of presentations. Transformation. Did decisions start moving faster? Did accountability get sharper? Did delays actually fall? Did the administrative layers shrink? Did scientists win back the freedom to do science instead of fighting paperwork? Did HR become transparent, litigation shrink, headquarters get leaner, the whole machine get more agile? Did the VijayRaghavan recommendations ever reach the laboratory floor — or did they die somewhere on the way? These are not rhetorical flourishes. They are the only questions that should decide a Chairman’s legacy.
THE REFORM THAT EXPOSED THE SYSTEM
The VijayRaghavan committee was not convened because DRDO was thought to be functioning well. It was convened because the structural rot had become impossible to explain away. Its recommendations touched organisational design, project management, HR, recruitment, industry participation, academic collaboration, accountability and the functioning of DRDO headquarters itself — a genuinely comprehensive blueprint.
And yet implementation stalled. By October 2024, reporting indicated that the major restructuring simply had not happened on the ground, despite round after round of meetings — with resistance from senior officials cited as a central reason for the paralysis.
That is the real story here. Not whether a committee wrote a good report. Whether the leadership had the spine to force it through. A report sitting in a file is not reform. A meeting is not reform. A slide deck is not reform. Reform begins the day entrenched interests lose their power to block it — and by that measure, DRDO under Kamat never got there.
THE HR MACHINE THAT EATS SCIENTISTS ALIVE WHY ARE THE WEAKEST CHAIRMEN SELECTED TO LEAD DG HR?
If any single function deserves a merciless institutional audit, it is Human Resources. In a scientific organisation, HR is not administrative plumbing — it is the entire climate in which scientists either flourish or wither. Transfers, postings, promotions, disciplinary proceedings, service disputes, court cases: these are not side issues. They are the terrain on which scientific productivity is won or lost.
A scientist fighting a transfer order for 5Years is not perfecting a seeker. A scientist contesting a disciplinary file is not refining a radar array. A scientist litigating a promotion is not solving a propulsion problem. He is fighting the system that was supposed to be fighting for him.
The bureaucracy has stopped serving science. Science has started serving the bureaucracy.
That inversion is not an inconvenience — it is dangerous, and it happened on someone’s watch.
THE AFHQ QUESTION NOBODY WANTS TO ASK OUT LOUD
The role and growing footprint of administrative cadres tied to Armed Forces Headquarters inside DRDO deserves to be examined in the open — not through whispers and allegations, but through records. The question is simple: has the administrative machinery propping up DRDO grown disproportionately powerful compared to the scientific establishment it exists to serve?
If the answer is no, the numbers should prove it in five minutes. If the answer is yes, the government owes the country an explanation. How many personnel, against how many sanctioned posts? What functions do they actually perform, and where do those functions duplicate DRDO’s own establishment machinery? What does it cost annually? Who controls transfers, postings, discipline, litigation? How many of those decisions end up contested in court, and how many of those cases are still pending years later?
And the question underneath all of it: does this structure make DRDO faster, or does it make DRDO slower? These are not personal attacks on individuals. They are governance questions a serious country asks about a strategic institution — and a serious Chairman answers them, rather than leaving them to outlive his tenure.
WHEN ADMINISTRATION BECOMES POWER
Every large institution needs administration. But administration exists to serve institutional purpose — the moment it becomes indispensable for every routine decision, it starts accumulating power of its own, and that power has a way of becoming self-perpetuating. Files start outranking outcomes. Procedure starts outranking purpose. Hierarchy starts outranking expertise.
And slowly, scientists stop asking what does the country need next? and start asking whom do I need to approach to get this done? That is how institutions decay — not in a single dramatic collapse, but quietly: one unnecessary file, one avoidable dispute, one delayed posting, one dragged-out court case, one stalled procurement, one talented scientist who simply stops trying. Then another. Then another. Until the organisation still has its thousands of employees but has lost its momentum entirely.
Here weakest chairmen selected The weakest DG HR and DOP, But they are functioning with absolute power as a GOD for the DRDO entire paternity.
THE COURT-CASE INDUSTRY
Litigation deserves its own uncompromising audit. When routine service matters routinely end up in court, the problem is rarely that employees are litigious by nature — it is usually that the administration itself is failing to resolve disputes before they escalate. Every significant case should be able to answer five questions: Why did the dispute start? Who made the original call? Could it have been settled internally? How much public money did it cost? How many scientific man-hours did it burn?
Because every court case involving a scientist carries a hidden bill — legal fees, administrative overhead, hearings, officers pulled off real work to draft responses — and somewhere in a laboratory, a scientist whose attention has been dragged away from the problem he was hired to solve. That cost never shows up on a balance sheet. National security pays it anyway.
THE SENSITIVE-DATA QUESTION THAT CANNOT BE WAVED AWAY
There are also unresolved questions surrounding the movement, custody and accessibility of sensitive DRDO information — questions that must be treated with total seriousness, not because every allegation is automatically true, but because national-security information cannot be governed by informal arrangements, assumptions, or institutional ambiguity.
If sensitive material moved outside authorised channels at any point, there must be a clean, documented answer: who authorised it, why, under what classification, who received it, where it was stored, who had access, what audit trail exists, and whether the transfer complied with security regulations. If the record is clean, it should be trivial to show that. A security investigation is not a weapon to be aimed at individuals — it is a mechanism that exists to protect the Republic, and it should be used as one. This was created by AFHq Cader, The Nation wants answer for it.
THE SCIENTISTS WERE NEVER THE PROBLEM
This distinction matters enormously, and it would be dishonest to blur it. DRDO’s scientists have delivered real strategic capability — in missiles, radar, aerospace, electronic warfare, naval systems, and more. The talent has never been in question. What is in question is whether the institution around that talent is capable of converting it into capability on time. That is an entirely different problem, and it is the one that actually needs fixing.
A country can have world-class scientists and a second-rate R&D management system at the same time. It can run brilliant laboratories out of a dysfunctional headquarters. It can post successful trials on top of chronically delayed programmes. It can spend enormous budgets and still deliver poor execution. Real DRDO reform, then, cannot be about stacking up more laboratories, more committees, more sanctioned posts. It has to be about building accountability for outcomes — the one thing that has been conspicuously missing.
THE CHAIRMAN’S TRUE TEST
A Chairman should be judged by what he leaves behind, not by what he presided over. If his successor inherits the same files, the same delays, the same bottlenecks, the same litigation, the same confusion, the same resistance to reform, and the same crushing dependency on layers of bureaucracy — then what, precisely, was transformed? That is the only test that matters. Leadership is not the ability to occupy the top floor of DRDO Bhawan. It is the ability to change what happens on the ground floor of a laboratory two thousand kilometres away.
THE MOST DANGEROUS WORD IN GOVERNMENT: “ONGOING”
Government has a peculiar vocabulary for standing still while appearing to move. Reform is always “under consideration.” Restructuring is perpetually “ongoing.” The file is eternally “under process.” The committee is forever “examining.” Years pass. People retire. Committees are reconstituted. Chairmen change. And somehow the reform itself never actually finishes — it simply remains, indefinitely, “ongoing.”
This is precisely why DRDO needs reform with teeth: not intentions, not promises, but deadlines, owners, metrics, and consequences. If a project slips, someone explains why. If a reform stalls, someone owns the stall. If a layer of administration is unnecessary, it gets cut — not studied again. If a scientist is worn down by an avoidable process, someone is held responsible. If sensitive information is mishandled, the investigation is uncompromising, full stop. That is how serious institutions actually behave. DRDO has not yet behaved that way.
WAS KAMAT THE WEAKEST CHAIRMAN?
History will settle that — but history needs evidence, not slogans. Calling any Chairman “the weakest” is a serious charge and should never be thrown around as one. It is equally dangerous, though, to shield senior leadership from scrutiny simply because the institution they run happens to be strategically vital. DRDO deserves scrutiny precisely because it is strategically vital — not despite it.
The Kamat years should be put through an independent, evidence-based performance audit: the organisation as it stood on the day he arrived, measured against the organisation as it stands today, on project delivery, cost escalation, HR reform, administrative efficiency, litigation, scientific manpower utilisation, technology transfer, industry participation, private-sector collaboration, procurement efficiency, security governance, and the actual implementation of the VijayRaghavan recommendations. Then let the numbers do the talking. If the record holds up, defend it. If it doesn’t, fix it. If it’s mixed, learn from it. But do not bury it in another file marked “ongoing.”
DRDO DOES NOT NEED A CUSTODIAN
It needs a reformer — someone who understands that scientific institutions cannot be run like conventional government offices, someone prepared to confront institutional inertia head-on and ask the uncomfortable questions instead of managing around them. Someone who will shield scientists from unnecessary administrative interference while demanding uncompromising scientific accountability in return. Someone who understands that autonomy without accountability curdles into complacency, and accountability without autonomy hardens into bureaucracy.
The next Chairman must be neither a bureaucrat who controls scientists nor a scientist who shields other scientists from being held to account. He must be an institution builder — because DRDO has had administrators. What it has not had, for far too long, is one.
The greatest danger to DRDO was never criticism. It is complacency. A country with ambitions of becoming a genuine global defence power cannot afford an R&D organisation that spends more energy managing itself than inventing the technologies of tomorrow. India needs hypersonics. It needs autonomous systems, advanced radar, electronic warfare, secure communications, propulsion, AI-enabled defence platforms, indigenous semiconductors, next-generation materials — technologies that do not exist yet, anywhere, and must be built here first.
None of that arrives at the speed the country needs while the institution charged with building it remains trapped in its own administrative inertia. So the real question was never simply “who was the weakest Chairman?” The real question, the one that outlasts any single tenure, is:
WHO WILL HAVE THE COURAGE TO FIX DRDO?
Because DRDO does not belong to a chairman. It does not belong to an administrative cadre, or a laboratory director, or any one scientist. DRDO belongs to India. And India’s strategic future is too important to be held hostage by institutional inertia — by anyone, for any length of time.
Hope MOD, PMO will take fast necessary action for the sake of National interest.
To 7th February 2018
Hon’ble Smt Nirmala Sitharaman,
Defence Minister,
104- South Block
New Delhi-110011
Subject: Army officers are in predicament or compelled position in DRDO
Madam,
In the name of Services Interaction, DRDO has service officers from all three wings of the armed forces. The officers are posted on a tenure basis.
It is observed that in DRDO more than 90% services officers are assigned logistic/ administrative jobs like Security Officer, Motor Transport Officer, Estate Manager, Material Management and managing scientists officers mess/canteen requirements, etc.
Since more than 30 years I have witnessed that scientists use these services to satisfy their ego issues and services officers for better APAR keep mum for the sake of their career.
Some smart services officers who are involved in DRDO’s scientists’ bluffer game are able to get permanent absorption in the organization and enjoy services as well as the scientist sticker.
But sincere services officers face a lot of embarrassment from the corrupt scientist herd. They faced unprecedented transfers in their short tenure, negative remarks on their service records only because they performed honestly the job assigned. For all these unfair means DRDO took help of senior services officers who are permanently absorbed and are enjoying all kinds of benefits along with the corrupt scientists.
Since the last 30 years, DRDO has not been able to quote a single services officer who contributed to any remarkable technical contribution to the nation through DRDO(except the services doctors).
The important part of these absorbed services officers is that they are promoted unduly fast without contribution to the nation or services. Only thing that they protect are the bluffers.
Only one example to prove the aforementioned is Maj. Gen. Ajay Gupta, present Director, VRDE, DRDO, Ahmednagar. If anyone sees his journey in DRDO, he will know how blessed the Maj. Gen. is because of saving culprit scientist as long as serving tenure, Director Vigilance, DRDO, HQ. Of the hundreds of complaints filed, he stopped or delayed himself. This itself reveals the truth about how corruption flourishes in DRDO with the help of service officers.
In DIPR, DRDO Group Capt. served continuous 8 years and again he got the posting in DIPR. This implies that he is very useful in research and contributing national or internationally or some linguistic connection is working.
It is not understandable that one side our honorable minister of state for defence Dr. Subhash Bhamre said in the Rajya Sabha that there is a shortage of over 9,000 officers in Indian Army & Navy and on the other hand DRDO is utilizing services officers in sundry jobs.
Please refer to enclosed DRDO, DOP letter no DOP/04/48013/01/Policy dated 30 September 2004 subjected “ Utilization of Services Officers Posted on Tenure Basis to DRDO”. Nothing has changed till date.
Please refer to enclosed RTI, RTI Reply, First Appeal, First Appeal reply of DRDO, which reveals the pathetic situation of service officers who want interview with DG, DRDO and are not able to know the interview request letter status.
It is not understandable how DRDO has become so powerful, which was created to strengthen the services instead of crushing their moral.
I am herewith sending you the letter addressed to Sri Narendra Modi, PM
as on date, no action was taken.
Regards
K.Surya Kumari.
Visakhapatnam,
D/21-9-16
From
Smt. K.Surya Kumari (Retd.),
R/o H.No.13-24, LN Nagar,
Sujatha Nagar Post,
Visakhapatnam – 530051 (AP)
To
Dr. Narendra Modi,
Prime Minister of India,
7, Race Course Road,
New Delhi – 110001
Sir,
Sub: Non-issuance of Pension
Ref: 1) Cabinet Committee report on Sexual Harassment constituted
Vide Cabinet Secretariat order No.501/IV/3/2012-VCC dt.5-8-13.
2) CAT, Hyderabad orders on OA Nos.309 and 310 / 2010
3) High Court, AP order on WPMP No.36603 in WP
No.29554 / 2011
4) DRDO Hq. Letter dt.14-9-2012 on non-posting anywhere else.
5) Cabinet Secretariat Memo dt.9-12-2015 to S.Christopher,
Secretary, DG DRDO.
6) On line grievance No.DDRDO/E/2016/00111 dt.20-7-16.
I have served in NSTL, DRDO for 35 years 10 months and retired on 29th Feb. 2016 as Technical Officer-B (Class-I Gazetted). I gave complaint against Sri SV Rangarajan on sexual harassment dt.18-12-2007. Without any proper enquiry, DRDO served me 3 charge sheets and suspended me for 33 months period.
Vide 2nd reference CAT stated that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, making allegations against several officers by petitioner also cannot be a ground for extension of suspension. DRDO revoked my suspension on 7th Oct. 2011 and transferred me to NPOL, Kochi on the same day. Vide 3rd reference, on 29th Aug. 2012, High Court suspended the transfer order stating that they are prima facie of the opinion that in effect it is an act of victimization and amounts to punishment.
Vide 4th reference, DRDO stated that my joining at NSTL cannot be permitted as the Department has filed a vacate petition at AP High Court. High Court has dismissed the Vacate petition filed on transfer order suspension on 4th Feb. 2013. From 1st Nov. 2011 to 3rd March 2013 i.e., my transfer period and joining not permitted period were not regularized till date.
….2.
-: 2 :-
Vide 1st reference the Committee stated that hostile environment creation by Sri SV Rangarajan (Page No.11), DRDO is lack of sensitiveness, lack of attention to the application of rules and procedures (Page No.12), attitude and action of DRDO administration which has shown a casual and insensitive approach in dealing with the case (Page 13), DRDO and NSTL created a hostile environment in which the petitioner found it difficult to function (Page No.13) which conforms that NSTL and DRDO officials have harassed me in several aspects. No action was taken by Cabinet / Ministry on the findings of the Report.
Suspension period was regularized after my retirement (i.e, after 4 years) with imposing a penalty (though the matter is pending at High Court). Transfer period and non-posting period was not regularized so far and my pension and retirement benefits were not settled (even after 7 months of retirement) by which I am facing hardship, mental egony.
The PGPORTAL online grievance as referred 6 above also disposed off as per false and baseless information provided by Dr. Hina Gokhale, DOP, DRDO without proper investigation.
Now the organization processed the partial pension without 2 increments (2013 and 2014) for transfer period which is even less than the provision pension as per PGDA phone inquiry. Therefore, it is requested to instruct the concerned to take immediate action on the 1st reference report, Court cases, and release of proper pension and settlement of retirement benefits as early as possible (Gratuity, Commutation and Earned leave encashment).
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(K.SURYA KUMARI)
Copy to
1) Dr.S.Christopher, DG (DRDO), DRDO Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.
2) Hina Gokhale, DOP, DRDO Bhavan, New Delhi-110011
To, 18th May 2015 Shri Manohar Parrikar, Defence Minister, Ministry of Defence, Romm No -104, South Block, New Delhi-110011
Subject: J&K HC orders FIR against teacher who fails to write essay on cow- DRDO having hundreds of such cases where DRDO officials don’t have recognized certificates/diplomas/degrees
Sir,
It is observed that DRDO has a 30000 strong scientific and technical force and but unfortunately output is not corresponding with manpower strength, it is exceptionally very low in compare to any other organizations or corporate.
Reports are showing so many reasons and excuses for achievements in development of technology like inadequate allotment of budget, unavailability of latest components and systems from developed countries, not given free hand for procurement, not giving free hand for recruitments of manpower etc.
One of the real reasons is incompetency in lower level to higher level of DRDO organization.
If you see the level and quality of qualification of DRDO, a 30000 strong scientific and technical force you will see a very unbelievable scenario.
The real qualified manpower who are having a certificate/diplomas/degrees/post doctoral research/ having good number of published papers in national and international journals/ having name patents but under pressure put their bosses name or bosses blue eyed names without contribution/researchers are doing PhD’s under them, all these kind officials fail to get proper growth in DRDO. Such Skilled officials, if their family commitment allows, then the first thing they do is quit DRDO. Otherwise they accept the current scenario as their destiny.
The officials who have the manipulated certificates/diplomas/degrees/post doctoral research in private deemed universities where they are instrumental to in siphoning the DRDO funds in the name of CARS, Grants-in-Aid. Grants-in-Aid Scheme: Research sponsored in academic institutions under the extramural research (ER) etc / having good number of published papers but as a second, third fourth author, patents in their name but forcefully entered their names etc. These kinds of DRDO officials are at the top of DRDO each and every where.
Sir, unfortunately this is the real harsh situation of DRDO, since we are feeling that you are in the process of revamping DRDO, so this is the real time to look and check even verified from out sourcing like the corporate world is adopted before giving responsibility to someone because you are giving a free hand to spend 10000 cr taxpayers money, the educational professional background of each and every DRDO officials.
Any qualification enhancement from DIAT, Amity, JNTU, Shoolini University and other private deemed universities are mostly by manipulations. DIAT governed by DRDO, rest all private deemed universities from last 15 years enjoying lot of funds from DRDO in the name of CARS, Grants-in-Aid. Grants-in-Aid Scheme: Research sponsored in academic institutions under the extramural research (ER) etc and freely distributing all kind of qualification M Tech, MBA’s, lot unrecognized subject P h D’s and private university self designed degrees/diplomas.
When you will see the data of these DRDO officials you will automatically realize the reason of failure of DRDO.
Sir, above subject’s court decision attracted me to write this letter that I have collected so many evidences of forge qualification evidences of DRDO officials, and as per DOP, DRDO, Dr A K Singh’s letter it is clearly established such acquired qualification were not even verified and encouragement money was also distributed to hundreds of DRDO officials.
Sir, it is requested in the national interest through study is required from outside agency GOI can decide before allotting funds for projects whether the DRDO officials qualified and capable and they are having background knowledge of proposed projects, till date country is witnessing DRDO’s technology demonstration drama which they are able to display with the fully support from outside firms Indian or international.
If you want the evidences which I have collected in last 10 years, I am ready to provide.
To Date 13th May 2015 Shri Manohar Parrikar, Defence Minister, Ministry of Defence, Room No -104, South Block New Delhi-110011
Subject
High Level Inquiry on complaints against Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DOP, DRDO HQ, DRDO, Min. of Defence, New Delhi.
Sir,
I have submitted following complaints against Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DOP, DRDO HQ, DRDO, Min. of Defence, New Delhi to Hon’ble Prime Minister as well as to your office. Details of the complaints are given below
As a matter of fact, Dr. A.K. Singh, Scientist ‘G’ is posted in New Delhi since his joining at INMAS, New Delhi since 1988. He is posted at New Delhi continuously since past 27 years and never been transferred out from Delhi.
Being posted as Director (Personnel) at DRDO HQ, Dr. A.K. Singh is misusing his official position to influence the inquiry of complaints filed against him. You may surprise that till date no action has been taken against Dr. A.K. Singh by Ministry of Defence despite my all complaints submitted to PMO were forwarded to MOD by PMO for necessary action.
No action against corrupt officers by competent authority lead frustration in mind of complainant and this forces the complainant to approach to Hon’ble Court by means of PIL to request to Court for action against Corrupt officer(s).
Recently, I was compelled to file one PIL on Corruption cases at DMSRDE, Kanpur against one Dr. A. K. Saxena, while in that case MOD was helpless because DRDO CVO and DRDO Hqrs did not taken any action against Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. The two fact finding committees constituted for only for eye wash.
Sir, you will appreciate that our judiciary is overloaded from court cases and whistle blowers and anti-corruption/RTI activists should not be forced to approach again and again to Hon’ble Court for filing PIL for proper action on complaints.
It is requested kindly, transfer Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (DOP) urgently from DRDO HQ to any other Lab from Life Sciences Cluster and order the High Level Inquiry to investigate my complaints against Dr. A.K. Singh as stated above in speedy and time bound manner.
Last year assessment list Dr. A K Singh name was added in third list for scientist G-H promotion. Since last more than 10 years he was engaged in only non scientific assignments.
Last year he was blessed by Sh Avinash Chander but now things are changed in DRDO.
As per sources in earlier all his assessment outside expert is always same person.
He has good proximity with Dr R K Jain, because both scratches each other back.
More than 80 % believes in Dr A K Singh capability of manipulation as per them he will get or manage promotion.
Rest 20% believes that Dr A K Singh’s days are over
No favorite Government
No favorite DG
No favorite CC HR only DHRD is underhand supporter
More than 22 complaints are pending against him
When he was CEPTAM Director he did lot of corrupt activity, people smells that one single village of Rajsthan more than half dozen candidates got appointment.
One driver till date is after him that he was recruited with Dr A K Singh’s blessing but now driver is suffering from Dr Malik’s CC R&D HR’s displeasure and Dr A K Singh mobile phone में ड्राइवर की डांट खा रहा है
Dr A K Singh giving illegal support to his sister Dr Shashi Bala, Director, DIPAS for harassing Dr Gausal Khan, Scientist, D, from NRI quota and a minority community, helping her maligning the image of DRDO. The ex SA specially given direction in Dr Gausal Khan case no intervention by DOP but DOP put his pet person Sh Rajiv Ranjan on the case.
if Dr A K Singh successes to get promotion then it means we have to fight with more strength to beat these kinds of corrupt officials.
To 27th April 2015 Sh A. M. Manichan, Under Secretary (IC-IV), CPIO, Ministry of Defence,Department of Defence, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi
Hello, Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of representation submitted by Dr V Ramchandra, Sc G, ADE, DRDO Bangalore through CPGRAMS vide DDRDO/E/2015/00066 dated 8/4/2015, regarding, Harassment and torture in suitable work assignment.
As per today The New Indian Express Bangalore edition page 4 Director ADE P Srikumar said he was not aware of any such complaint.
The DOP letter no DOP/11/110/108/CPGRAMS/M/01 dated 9th April 2015 signed by Ms Mukta Chauhan, Dy Director (Pers) for staff grievances officer, DRDO
Provide all action taken in this matter by ADE,DRDO
Provide the date of receiving of above DOP letter by ADE Director, P Sri Kumar
Provide Comment and action of P Sri Kumar, Director, ADE on subject matter.
Note the requested information is in larger interest because ADE is involve in very important projects and country is witnessing the unprecedented delays in LCA, Rustom and day to day corruption cases are coming up. If Dr V Ramachandra senior scientist is suffering from harassment torture then what about the junior scientists and technical staff, it is clear cut violation of human right. It is not single case earlier similarly Dr R K Gupta, Sc H, ASL, Hyderabad also sent representation to PMO.
by Sharan Poovanna Published: 27th April 2015 06:02 AM The New Indian Express BENGALURU: A senior scientist of a DRDO lab has knocked on the doors of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Defence Minister and Ministry of Defence among others over alleged harassment, torture and humiliation meted out to him by his superiors at the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE).
Though he has complained to the authorities, no action has been taken. Meanwhile, Raghavan (name changed), the G-category scientist who has over 30 years of experience, authored 180 technical papers and worked on almost all Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) projects of ADE, remains without an assignment for the last four months.
In his complaint, Raghavan alleged that ADE Director P Srikumar is trying to push junior scientists (below G category) to senior positions before he retires later this year. In two letters dated 31-1-2015 and 31-3-2015, Raghavan has told the Defence Minister and DRDO headquarters that “In order to promote some inefficient and less experienced individuals, I have been pushed out of ADE work. This is done due to partiality and favoritism”.
On December 8, 2014, the ADE Director signed a directive attaching Raghavan to ‘Project Ghatak’ at Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a nodal agency for design and development of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). But ADA has refused to accept the deputation as proper government approval and procedure was not followed, the scientist alleged.
When contacted, ADE director Srikumar said he was not aware of any such complaint. “This does not call for a story,” he said.
On April 9, the DRDO Director (Personnel) has forwarded the complaint back to ADE to resolve the matter. The status on the letter states ‘under process’.
“Since no justice is provided and harassment and insult continued, I made a formal representation to Director, ADE, ADG Aero, Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri, and Defence Minister through letter dated 21.1.2015. Till today, my grievance is not addressed and sorted out,” he stated.
When contacted, ADE director Srikumar said he was not aware of any such complaint. “This does not call for a story,” he said.
the above statement of ADE director Srikumar – see the DOP letter on subject matter
To 14th April 2015 Hon’ble Shri Manohar Parrikar, Defence Minister,Room No -104, South Block,New Delhi-110011
Subject: Submission of the facts of deliberate Acts and omissions of illegality, criminal offences under IPC 1860, misconducts under CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 and criminal misconducts under prevention of corruption Act 1988 committed in 2005 for conducting discreet independent enquiry and for registration of FIR against the prima facie guilty officers of AFHQ Cadre of the O/o JS (T) & CAO, MoD and DRDS officers of DRDO, MoD posted in DRDO HQ in 2005.
Sir, Please find the facts of deliberate Acts and omissions of illegality, criminal offences under IPC 1860, misconducts under CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 and criminal misconducts under prevention of corruption Act 1988 committed in 2005 for conducting discreet independent enquiry and for registration of FIR against the prima facie guilty officers of AFHQ Cadre of the O/o JS(T) & CAO, MoD and DRDS officers of DRDO, MoD posted in DRDO HQ in 2005. The Acts & Omissions are enclosed herewith in Annexure ‘A’ in a tabular form containing pages.
It is requested to conducted discreet complete enquiry in this regard exclusively from an independent authority like CVO of MoD and kindly register FIR against all those concerned retired and serving officers of AFHQ Cadre and DRDS Cadre of DRDO posted in DRDO HQ in 2005 if it is corroborated on documentary basis that they indeed committed the offences & misconducts mentioned in the Annexure ‘A’ enclosed herewith.
It is additionally request and caution your good self that the present regime in DRDO headed by Scientists in the O/o DOP, DHRD, CC R&D (HR) are in habit not to supply or adopt dilatory tactics in supplying the concerned original documents to the inquiry committee or they might even dilute the whole issue by constituting high power fact finding committee of scientists of DRDO who always put their best efforts to save the prima facie guilty officers.
It is therefore requested that all the concerned original documents available in DRDO HQ, New Delhi may kindly be called for in the O/o CVO, MoD at a very short notice within in a maximum period of a week so that saviors & sympathizers of the prima facie guilty officers are not able to protect the guilty officers.
I may kindly be intimated about the final outcome of my formal complaint at address for communication.
Annexure ‘B’ (containing 04 (four) pages) of the copy of the Advt. published at page no 28 of the employment news dated 06-12 August 2005, copy of the RTI application dated 25-04-2014 submitted to the CPIO of DRDO HQ, New Delhi and copy of the RTI Reply dated 01-05-2014
RTI DRDO 25 April 2014
RTI DRDO 25 April 2014
rti reply DRDO
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
