It is observed from the inputs received through the website that these developments raise serious questions that the nation must examine with utmost vigilance. As patriotic citizens, can we blindly accept a situation where an individual, seemingly intoxicated by power and displaying an increasingly authoritarian and dictatorial attitude, is allowed to jeopardize BrahMos—a strategic symbol of the close and enduring ties between India and Russia?
The issue is no longer merely an internal administrative matter. When actions surrounding an institution of strategic significance such as BrahMos raise concerns about institutional integrity, accountability, transparency and national interest, silence itself becomes a matter of serious public concern.
It is therefore a humble yet urgent appeal to the nation, the Hon’ble Prime Minister and the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri: intervene before the situation deteriorates further.
Stop this arbitrary exercise of authority. Save BrahMos. Save DRDO. Protect India’s strategic interests. And safeguard the enduring India–Russia friendship.
The nation deserves answers. The armed forces deserve institutions governed by integrity, accountability and due process, not personal authority or unchecked influence.
Current Status
Following the exposure of the alleged actions of J. R. Joshi and the concerns surrounding the matter, the 31st meeting has reportedly been rescheduled to 1700 hrs on 1 September 2026.
The rescheduling makes the matter even more significant and warrants close scrutiny by all concerned authorities.
Input received by website:
“Latest developments
Board Meeting rescheduled on 01 Sept at 1700 hrs
J R Joshi is still confident that Board will pass the resolution as per his conspiracy theory.
Yesterday he went to HQs DRDO and met DG HR, Chairman, Addl FA and DG MSS to eye wash about the report.
Justice prevails as none of his favourite corrupted Scientists F like Dr. Abhisek Kumar PD Lucknow, were not promoted to G
His rival group got promotions including earlier Dy CEO Dr. S K Joshi whom he managed to transfer to DIBER after confrontation using Dr Kamath’s influence.
Dr J R Joshi is urgently going to Lucknow tomorrow. don’t know whether Jogi ji called him or not.’’
At this critical juncture, the question remains:
How long can the nation remain silent when the credibility of a strategically vital institution and a relationship of immense national importance may be at stake?
The agenda proposed for the 31st August meeting on the restructuring of BrahMos raises serious questions and, if approved in its present form, could prove to be a major setback for DRDO and the institutional architecture that has supported BrahMos since its inception.
How?
The whole world knows that on 12th February 1998, under the visionary leadership of Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, a Joint Venture was formed as a partnership between India’s DRDO and Russia’s Military Industrial Corporation, NPO Mashinostroyenia (NPOM).
The first successful flight of BrahMos was launched on 12th June 2001. Since then, BrahMos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. has developed and produced multiple variants and has also entered the international defence-export arena.
There is numerous success stories associated with BrahMos, including its outstanding operational performance and the significant role attributed to the system during Operation Sindoor.
Unfortunately, according to the concerns and allegations raised in this matter, a former Chairman of DRDO made a controversial decision amid what has been described as an influential internal lobby and selected J. R. Joshi as DG BrahMos.
Most significantly, it has been alleged that J. R. Joshi was the junior-most among 7 eligible candidates. The selection was challenged before the CAT, and the Tribunal reportedly rejected the justification offered for the selection, including the explanation that the decision had been made on the basis of alphabetical order. Such an explanation has understandably raised serious questions, particularly when it concerns a premier national defence institution. The appointment was consequently quashed by the Hon’ble CAT.
Here, one important allegation requires serious examination: it has been claimed that information regarding the proposed appointment of J. R. Joshi was communicated to a particular individual one day before the selection interview and that this matter was duly brought to the attention of the Chairman, DRDO.
If established, such a sequence of events would raise serious questions regarding the transparency and credibility of the selection process and the confidence of the internal network involved. It is further understood that a stay was obtained from the Telangana High Court. Following extensive arguments, including submissions involving the ASG, the matter reportedly remains pending, with the verdict reserved since 8th July 2026.
The central question now is: what happens to the institutional ecosystem that has developed under J. R. Joshi if the High Court ultimately vacates the stay?
There are also serious concerns being raised regarding BrahMos production, with claims that production has already declined to approximately 25%. already because of continues inductions of non-skilled/low-skilled scientists with great profile could be Eco Intel from IB will justify.
Similar concerns have also been raised regarding continuing transfers and terminations involving individuals who are allegedly not aligned with the existing internal influential lobby. These allegations deserve transparent examination rather than being dismissed without inquiry.
Now comes the most consequential point. The proposed agenda appears to have been placed for approval through the present DRDO leadership. The concern is whether the complete institutional, technical and governance history of the BrahMos Joint Venture has been adequately considered.
Why should the DG MSS be removed from the Board?
Why has the DG MSS historically been associated with the Board/directorship structure of the Joint Venture?
The reason is fundamental: the DG MSS ecosystem is responsible for major missile R&D capabilities. The achievements of India’s missile programmes have been built upon the collective contribution of multiple missile-complex laboratories and their associated R&D infrastructure.
Now the agenda puts which shows that approve by RM through temporary DG DRDO, who don’t know the complete JV MoU, removal of DG MSS from the Board why DG MSS heading board directorship of JV because responsible for R&D and because of this India achieved 87% indignation of various and all missile complex labs under DG MSS have the credit.
Now our genius JR Joshi, current CEO ad MD BrahMos wants that BrahMos R&D will be in house at BAPL with just 20-30 low expertise scientists as you know what expertise are them.
However, the same indignation by DRDO since 2001 to till date Under DG MSS achieved 87% has contribution of more than 300 scientists in last 26 years of the history of BrahMos.
what will Joshi achieve with these small chunks and without R&D infrastructure, the help of DRDO missile complex laboratories and DGMSS Who is the Director General all missile complex laboratory cluster in Hydrabad. Can our dear Defence Secretary know this points basically they ignoring the vision of Dr. Kalam and misleading the RM.
Against this background, the proposal that BrahMos R&D should effectively be brought in-house with a limited team of approximately 20–30 scientists raises a fundamental technical question: can such a small group replicate the depth, infrastructure, laboratories, specialist manpower and institutional knowledge available across the established missile R&D ecosystem?
This is the point that must be examined carefully. From 2001 to the present, the established missile R&D structure under DG MSS and associated laboratories has contributed substantially to India’s missile-development achievements. What additional capability would be created by fragmenting this established ecosystem and attempting to recreate R&D capacity inside BrahMos with a comparatively small scientific team?
Can our Defence Secretary and the Raksha Mantri be fully apprised of these technical and institutional implications before any restructuring decision is taken? If not, there is a real risk that the original vision of Dr. Kalam and the founding leadership of BrahMos could be diluted through administrative restructuring rather than strengthened through scientific and technological integration.
As the agenda reportedly indicates that the Russian side’s responsibilities remain unchanged, a fundamental question arises: what is the compelling strategic necessity for such a significant change on the Indian side?
Russian Board:
• Dr. A. A. Dergachev – Chairman, Board of Directors, JV BrahMos
• Mr. Aleksander Maksichev – JMD
Indian Side – Board of Directors
Earlier:
• CEO, MD & DG BrahMos – currently J. R. Joshi, whose position is the subject of ongoing legal controversy.
• DG MSS –J Nayak (who voluntary withdrawing to support J R Joshi without considering the organization and national interest because of he is fascinating with JR Joshi dictatorship appearance and dreaming DRDO chairmanship with help of JR Joshi influential lobby support. He got this DG MSS post also the same lobby support because he is not a missile field man.
The proposed restructuring reportedly seeks to establish J. R. Joshi as the Chairman for the Indian side of BrahMos. This raises an important governance question: does the existing MoU of BAPL expressly provide for such a self-created or separately designated Indian-side Chairmanship?
If no such provision exists in the governing framework, the proposal requires careful legal, contractual and governance scrutiny before implementation.
Indian corporate-governance history would find it highly unusual if one Joint Venture were to operate with two separate Chairmen without a clear contractual and statutory basis.
Practically, a Board can only have one presiding Chairman at a time. In this point BAPL CS Mr. Nanda not agreed and resigned.
One Chairman and one Vice-Chairman may be a conventional governance structure, but any alternative arrangement must be clearly supported by the MoU, Articles of Association and applicable corporate law. The decision should therefore be based on institutional logic, legal provisions and national interest—not on individual aspirations or expectations regarding future appointments or extensions.
Now comes the proposed new MD position. Sources have told that the post may be offered to Mr. Arvind, Director, CFEES Delhi and CEO will be given to Sambhashiv Prasad, his old colleague, friend and Deputy CEO post will proposed to Mr. Parveen Pathak who is currently director market promotion and exports who started his career in BrahMos as Russian translator. All three individuals required proper IB clearance with Eco Intel.
If this is indeed the proposal, the country deserves to know the objective criteria, technical expertise, leadership credentials and selection process that justify such an appointment.
Now country can assume what type of qualities JR Joshi has.
It’s humbly requested to RM, please thoroughly considered the above points and This JV is between two countries Indo-Russia and international impact will be there so Kindly root through PMO and NSA for final restructuring of BrahMos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd.
Rest: Please see the 115th BM agenda sheet reportedly placed for approval before the Raksha Mantri.
Defence Secretary, RM should go thoroughly all 105pages line by line So they can assess the manipulation of J R Joshi and his influential lobby.
Seems to Discuss New Terms and Conditions to Take BEL on Greater Heights and Figures
Bharat Electronics Limited CMD M.V. Gowtama meets Union MoS AYUSH (Independent Charge) and Defence Shripad Yesso Naik, in New Delhi on June 19, 2019 Bharat Electronics Limited CMD M.V. Gowtama meets UnionDefence Minister Raj Nath Singh
To 2nd December 2014
Hon’ble Shri Manohar Parrikar,
Defence Minister,
Room No 104, South Block, MoD,
New Delhi-110011
SUBJECT : DRDO CHIEF ON CONTRACT
REFERENCE
Letter No. 12/9/2013-EO(SM-I), Government of India, Secretariat of the Appointment Committee of Cabinet, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions , dated 31 May 2013 regarding The appointment of Shri Avinash Chander beyond his date of retirement i.e. 30.1 1.2014 on contract basis.
Print Release, Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, 28November2014 18:48 IST
Hon’ble Sir,
With regards, I would like to draw your kind attention towards letters under reference. The press release of PIB, MOD is regarding – Avinash Chander to Continue as DRDO Chief on Contract after Superannuation.
Following facts are conclusive form the above letters.
A contractual retired employee (employee on contract) is now DRDO Chief.
By which Order, The President is pleased to retire Dr. Avinash Chander, Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development in the Ministry of Defence from Government Service with effect from 30.11.2014 (AN) on attaining the age of superannuation. Why the said Order was not disclosed by MOD?
The Order dated 31 May 2013 was issued by previous Government and this Government has issued orders for retirement of Shri Avinash Chander.
There is no fresh order issued by this Government regarding contract of Shri Avinash Chander as DRDO Chief.
Questions
Government is emphasizing on young Scientist in the DRDO on the other hand despite being several talented and experienced scientists available in DRDO, what is necessity and compulsions of a retired person as DRDO Chief.
How a person on contract will enjoy administrative and financial powers while DRDO is having 30000 employees and Rs. 15283 crore budget?
Will they have to report a contractual employee?
How an employee on contract be Head of Department and Head of Office in DRDO.
Would Ministry of Defence could not find any suitable scientist as DRDO Chief out of 7500 talented scientists in DRDO or from other organisations.
Why Government is not maintaining Transparency in the appointment on contract and powers being exercised by Shri Avinash Chander after superannuation. All RTI replies returned under section 24 of RTI Act 2005
Government has cancelled many appointments of previous Government but why not of Shri Avinash Chander while several complaints are pending before the Government against him.
Can a man of doubtful integrity be appointed on contract basis as DRDO Chief? The case of Dr Arun Kumar’s daughter’s recruitment where Sh Avinash Chander give clean chit and after CVC/CVO, MoD intervention the said recruitment was found illegal and cancelled.
Farzi EDK MoU in US propaganda till date nothing has been done, only Ms Reny enjoying the US trips, what India got from this MoU except spending crores of tax payers money and Sh Avinash Chander’s photo session with Ms Fay Crowe, her mother, her sister and her daughter.
Sir, on behalf of Government would you like to reply to the nation being a technocrat-cum-politician, how much it is justified to have DRDO Chief on contract basis for one and half year.
The scientific community and employees are very much surprised from this decision of Government and this will lead frustration among the scientific community of DRDO. In the interest of nation and the DRDO, I kindly request to you to remove the Shri Avinash Chander as DRDO Chief and setup High Level Committee to inquire all the complaints against Shri Avinash Chander pending before the Government (PMO & MOD)
Press Information Bureau Government of India Ministry of Defence 28-November-2014 18:48 IST
Avinash Chander to Continue as DRDO Chief on Contract After Superannuation
The President is pleased to retire Dr. Avinash Chander, Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development (DOB: 06.11.1950), in the Ministry of Defence from Government Service with effect from 30.11.2014 (AN) on attaining the age of superannuation.
The appointment of Dr. Avinash Chander beyond his date of retirement i.e. 30.11.2014 for 18 months would be on contract basis, with the same terms and conditions as he would be entitled to Secretary (DRD) before the date of retirement. His contractual term will end on 31 May 2016.
SA to RM, Sh Avinash Chander is visiting today Institute of Technology Management (ITM), Mussoorie where he will enlighten the modus oprandi of Director in DRDO to newly appointed Director of various DRDO labs.
ITM, Mussoorie
Misinterpretation of laid down government rules and misappropriation of fund are the main hidden agenda.
Examples are the contractual appointments of few of his pals ex TO’s, ex account officers, ex JCDA man are among them and some of them are continuing their contract since 2005, they are basically masters in manipulation of funds, during missile launchings up to certain extent they accumulated unaccountable money.
Ms Tessy Thomas
Sh Avinash Chander proved his might when he forced the selection committee to promote Ms Tessy Thomas as scientist ‘H’ by superseding 100s of competent eligible scientists. Sh. Avinash Chander further given appointment of her husband Cmdr SK Patel as scientist ‘G’ creating tailor made advertisement and afterwards made him Director QRS, GOD is great but Sh Avinash Chander is also great for incompetents.
Like his predecessor he also did not accepted a technical officer or junior scientists being appreciated by user, Sh B B Sarkar of DIPAS like unsung hero succumbed to injury after doing so many good works particularly in Siachen but more ever his work was never ever recognize by DRDO but in dynasty of Sh Avinash Chander he was harassed. GOD will see – …….
This above orientation program may consume crore of rupees as directors and DRDO top officials are attending with family all guest houses around Dehradun and Mussoorie are booked.
Unfortunately, A will cut short his visit, Honorable defence minister is schedule to visit DRDO Bhawan tomorrow at 3.30 PM.
SA to RM just save his contractual appointment gave full page advertisement in leading national papers and publish the photographs of Sh Modi Ji & Sh Parrikar Ji are being beefooled along with 125 crores people. The cow dunk has the said microbes as claimed by DRDO to use in Bio digester, as spin off technology for rural sanitation.
The Idea behind of this that he believes in photo puja, in DRDO every director’s office having good framed SA’s photograph not first SA of DRDO but Sh Avinash Chander’s photograph.
Almost 20 to 25 lakhs spend by DRDO for this advertisement Parrikar shahib almost more than 200 toilet can built from this amount in rural area which was spends only to please you from public money.
Further Sh Avinash Chander will ensure that Agni- V is successful contribution by test fire before 30th November 2014 ?
Honorable Defence Minister is requested to formulate a method, so that incompetency, lethargies, nepotism and most important misuse power for corruption can be checked and only easy way is allowed RTI. Now in DRDO everywhere procurement drive is going on to just finish the budget amount before 31st March in any means, they replacing the intact flooring if young scientist opposing they are harass by so called works managers, fast manner tenders are floating for high rise buildings and best part is that DRDO only utilizing 30-40% of existing infrastructure only, Sir please check this.
Rest GOD is great if DRDO ke ache din 30th November 2014 se ane wale hai.
Sh A K Antony gave responsibility to find out the truth of appointment of Ms Swati Srivastava as scientist ‘B’ post by RAC.
The nation is witnessed that same person first gave clean chit under influence of corrupt officials of DRDO and now he has approved the order of annulment the appointment of Ms Swati Srivastava. Unfortunately, the country of 125 crores population, our government is not able to found any honest and responsible person for secretary, DRD, DG, DRDO and SA to RM post.
They are still shielding concern duo (Father Daughter) and other involved officials by terming the illegal recruitment of Ms Swati Srivasta as irregular appointment with the clear motive of department escape from the duty of lodging of criminal case against the manipulation done under the influence of Dr Arun Kumar in the direct recruitment of Ms Swati Srivastava in RAC Delhi
Hope Modi ji will look seriously this very important issue it is directly related to moral of our honest scientist whose fortune / fate is in hand of such man who has no respect of moral and honesty who only believes in his own growth.
Jaihind
Central Administrative Tribunal – Delhi
Dr. Arun Kumar vs Union of India on 24 November, 2012
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 3293/2012
Reserved on : 09.11.2012 Pronounced on : 24.11.2012
Ho’ ble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman, Hon’ble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)
Para 9
Seen. This is serious. As already ordered, a fresh inquiry into the allegations of irregularity by an independent agency against Dr. Arun Kumar, the then Director, RAC may be got conducted immediately. It may also be inquired as to how my note sheet containing specific orders to this effect is missing from the file.
/sd/(A.K. Antony)Raksha Mantri11th March, 2011
Para 10. Pursuant to the above directions, a High Power Inquiry Committee was constituted to inquire into the allegations of irregularities against the applicant with the approval of RM videhis order dated 15.07.2011 with following Members:
(i) Dr. S. K. Salwan, former Director, ARDE, Pune and Vice Chancellor, Bhagwant University, Ajmer;
(ii) Dr. Avinash Chander, Distinguished Scientist and Director, ASL, Hyderabad;
(iii) Mrs. Nabnit R. Krishnan, Director DMIST.
The Enquiry Committee enquired into the matter and submitted its report on 08.06.2012. The executive summary of the report was placed before RM indicating that the Inquiry Committee opined that no favour or undue advantage was given to Ms. Swati Srivastava, daughter of the applicant during her recruitment as Scientist ‘B’ in DRDO and the same was conducted following normal practices and procedures. The file was processed through SA to RM who recorded the following on 15.07.2011:
“The report of the Independent Enquiry Committee”. Constituted to investigate the appointment of Mr. Swati Shrivastava D/o of Dr. Arun Kumar, is placed opposite for perusal of Hon’ble RM.
The above recording was endorsed by the RM by signing on 18.07.2011.
The copy of DRDO order of annul of appointment of Ms Swati Srivastava, Scientist C, daughter of Dr Arun Kumar, Ex-DOP. The Order is signed by Dr A K Singh, DOP (another gem of DRDO)
To 2nd November 2014
Shri Syed Ekram Rizwi,
CPIO, PMO,
South Block,
New Delhi – 110011
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Rule 4 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 – “Employment of near relatives of Govt. servants in companies or firms”, GOI [MHA OM No. 25/43/55-Ests.(A), dated 19.01.1956] – “ Propriety of sons and near relatives of Class I (now Group A) officers seeking employment in private firms which enjoy Government patronage” and GOI [MHA OM No. 24/43/56-Ests.(A), dated 26.05.1957] – Awarding of contract to a firm in which son/daughter/dependent of an officer is employed.
Shri Avinash Chander is holding the post of Secretary, DRD since 31 May 2013.
PMO is custodian of information related to Secretary of all Ministries/Department.
kindly provide following information under Section 6(1) of RTI Act.
1. Whether son/daughter/wife of Shri Avinash Chander is proprietor, partner, shareholder or employee of the any company, firm or business group that deals with any procurement /supply /fabrication/business/contracts related activity in any Establishment/Unit/Lab of DRDO. (Yes/No)
2. If answer to point(1) is Yes then provide the following details:
i. Relation with family member (son/daughter/wife)
ii. Name & address of family member/dependent
iii. Name of Company/Firm/Business Group with address
iv. Relation with Company/Firm – Proprietor /Partner /Shareholder or Employee
v. Stake in Company/Firm of the family member in case partner or shareholder
3. If answer to point(1) is Yes then provide the following details regarding contracts awarded/Supply Orders issued by DRDO to that company/firm during the years 2010 -2014
i. Total cost of contracts awarded/supply orders issued to that company/firm
ii. Total number of contracts awarded/supply order issued to that company/firm
4. If answer to point(1) is Yes then whether Shri Avinash Chander declared the facts and desist himself from the dealing of the case while award of contract/supply order or exercise patronage in favour of the company/firm as required under Rules 4 of CCS(Conducts) Rule 1964. (Yes/No)
5. If answer to point (4) is Yes then provide the copies of declarations submitted by Shri Avinash Chander to DRDO/MOD/Government of India
6. .Whether Shri Avinash Chander intimated to Government under provisions of Rule 4 of CCS (Conducts) Rules, 1964 regarding acceptance of employment of his son/daughter/dependent in the company/firm that has official dealing with DRDO. (Yes/No)
7. If answer to point (6) is Yes then provide copy of intimation regarding acceptance of employment by son/daughter/dependent under the provisions of Rule 4 of CCS (Conducts) Rules, 1964.
To
Hon’ble
Shri Narendra Modi
Prime Minister of India
PMO, South Block
New Delhi-110011
Subject: Conspiracy and propaganda for reverse technology transfer to USA by forged TOT of EDK by DRDO under guidance of Shri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO and SA to RM, Secretary, DRD
Sir,
HEMRL, Pune is one of the establishments of DRDO working on R&D of High Energy Materials and it developed the technology of EDI. DRDO patented the technology of Explosive Detection & Identification through Indian Patent Office by Patent Application No 524/DEL/1996 dated 12-Mar-1996 for
“A PROCESS FOR EXPLOSIVE DETECTION AND IDENTIFICATION”.
The patent granted vide patent no 238663 dated 16 Feb 2010.
As per GOI website Inventors of the said patent were RABINDRA KUMAR SINHA, USHA DEVI RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, HIRA LAL YADAV and JAMAN SINGH GHARIA .
Copy of Patent is enclosed as Annexure-I
Astonishing fact is that HEMRL falsely credited Ms Reny M Roy, Scientist C as innovator of EDK vide their letter No HEMRL/TS/3341 dated 8 March 2010. Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure-II.
DRDO signed licensing agreement for explosive detection kit with an Indian company, Vantage Integrated Security Solutions, Noida. The company basically working in area of CCTV, they import in kit form and assemble in Noida, no any connection in explosive, basically the company is instrumental for EDK propaganda because of Mr Panrav Verma’s (Owner) close proximity with corrupt DRDO officials who are using this company for CCTV applications for all over DRDO labs.Company’s website is self explanatory http://www.vantagesecurity.com/.
The expose of special audit by CGDA in 2012 jolted DRDO in each and every level subsequently Dr V K Sarswat, DG DRDO failed to get further extension and relived on 31st May. Indian media criticized the misadventures of DRDO corrupt practises especially by top scientists.
To divert the attention of country and media as well as politicians Sh Avinash Chander made big international propaganda of EDK Reverse Technology Transfer to US which was already signed MOU between then HEMRL, Pune’s Director, Dr. Subhanadnanda Rao and Mrs Fay Crow, President of Crow & Crow Co, on 25th April 2011. Copy enclose as evidence.
Crowe and Company, LLC, a woman-owned, very small LLC, registered in SUMMERVILLE, South Carolina in 20th November 2007, net base company as per company website crowderscustomizing.cominvolve in business of car accessories, marketing & management consultancy. As per data available in internet the company turnover only $ 100000 only has two employees etc.
DRDO designed a high profile drama involved Indian Embassy, Washington, DC US chamber of commerce, FICCI, India to fool the country.
DRDO wasted lakhs of lakhs Rupees organised lunch for 1000 people, DRDO team under leadership of Sh Avinash Chander consisting more than 12 persons visited US, then Indian Ambassador Mrs Nirupama Rao gave dinner party for these DRDO team and Fay Crowe team.
Interestingly such big defence organisation of India signed second time same MOU with Mrs Fay Crowe, CEO who was present there with her mother, sister and daughter. India’s achievement was the photo session of Sh Avinash Chander only.
Explosive Detection & Identification (EDK) is nothing but as usual bluff of DRDO, because DRDO is mastering in bluffing the country and the KARGIL War was the eye opener for the country. But because of lack in vision of UPA government corrective measure not taken and DRDO got liberty to fool the country.
Again DRDO trying to lipapoti on EDK by sending again to US Ms Reny M Roy, Scientist C and one Technical Officer Mr Satish Nayak to do some gimmick with Ms Fay Crowe and waste some precious poor tax payer money
The enclosed documents, photographs, news paper clips are self explanatory of this conspiracy of DRDO.
The justification of this exercise from DRDO is need not important because whole world now knows the bluff of DRDO team this game was done only to distract the attention of media and public from DRDO failures, corruptions and CVC, CVO investigations.
It is requested a thorough investigation may be ordered to stop this kind of misadventure by DRDO, because of this country will face embarrassment situation of our country in international platform.
To, 17th September 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of procurement of PCs from M/s Tata Power by CAIR, DRDO, Bangalore. To favor M/S Tata Power demands raised against the laid down rule of PM-2006 approved purchased manual of DRDO, The procurement was done in PAC. It is not understood how universal available Personal Computer can become PAC item. In the name of secrecy exemptions are being obtained for publishing in Central Public Procurement Portal (CPP).
As per PM-2006 para 7.8 – SINGLE TENDER WITH PAC: This system will be adopted in respect of
Following cases on certification by the Director of Lab/Estt that no other Make/brand can be used.
(a) Proprietary articles which are monopoly product of a single manufacturer. If possible, a certificate in this regard may be obtained from the concerned firm, before Director Signs the PAC.
The DG involved in this procurement is Dr. KD Nayak who is best manipulator in such kind of procurement please refer to
CBI report No.PE-3(A) /2001 of DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun-Two special PARA of report is
The recommendation of the TPC was approved by Director and the statement of case was prepared for obtaining sanction for approval of purchase from competetent authority i.e SA to RM as in case of single tender the FINANCIAL competence of Director of Lab is restricted to Rs 1 Lakh. The statement of case put up DRDO under the signature of Dr.AS Bains and Dr.KD Nayak dt 7th Oct 1997 sate that the requirement of………
The deal for the purchase was approved by the then SA to RM Dr.APJ Abul Kalam. However the only bone of connection is fact that when the supplier asked for change of nomenclature and replacing the word down convertor with integrated circuit, Dr AS Bains, director of the lab had approved of the TPC recommendation and have not referred this matter of change of nomenclature to SA to RM as the deal was approved by him.
The care procured Rs 40-50 thousand PC in nearly 5.5 Lakhs with following demands.
14SSD228 – 6 March 2014- Rs 9580774.00- M/S Tata Power
14SSD237 –19 March 2014- Rs 9881360.00- M/S Tata Power
14SSD136 – 26 August 2014- Rs 58051500.00- M/S Tata Power
Please provide proprietary certificate given by M/S Tata Power.
Copy of statement case where justification mentioned about proprietary case.
List of TPC members who approved the above case.
The above case is the example of corrupt practice followed by DRDO in the name of secrecy government India can verify from the expert of DOE.
