1. Whether M/s R D Konsultants submit his bankruptcy information to BEL. Yes or No 2. If yes, then BEL CMD submitted M/s R D Konsultants information letter of bankruptcy to BEL Board. Yes or No 3. If yes, then provide the date and copy of M/s R D Konsultant information letter of bankruptcy 4. Whether BEL submitted M/s R D Konsultants information letter of bankruptcy immediately to Director IACCS, Air force for managing the all strategic information available in M/s R D Konsultants. Yes or no 5. As M/s R D Konsultant consultants provide Company presentation for getting DPR order of IACCS, 95 employees are working in M/s R D Konsultant. Please provide whether BEL verified the manpower in any means. 6. Provide that what kind of measures were taken or taking by BEL official to secure the all strategic information available in M/s R D Konsultants. Since M/s R D Konsultants served the notice to employees so no trace can be available after few days. 7. Whether BEL seized the computers hard disks laptops of in M/s R D Konsultants yes or no. 8. Whether BEL submitted M/s R D Konsultants information letter of bankruptcy immediately to ministry of Prosuction Yes or 9. If Yes then date and time of submitting the information. 10. Whether BEL shared the M/s R D Konsultants information letter of bankruptcy to Chairman, DRDO, Dr. Satheesh Reddy as M/s R D Konsultants got order on recommendation of DRDO officers and already projected that M/s R D Konsultants precisely 30 projects of Rs 38 cr consultancy of Rs 1266 cr approved projects u/g works completed in last 5 years as on 31 March 2013. Pending u/g works 45 projects of Rs 52.29 cr consultancy of Rs 1743 cr approved projects. 11. Whether BEL ever verified above consultancy work of DRDO claimed by M/s R D Konsultants from any DRDO authority. Yes or No 12. If yes then name of DRDO authority and date of verification.
Address Room No. 160, Dte of PS, Air HQ (VB), Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110106
Facts leading to appeal:
An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 3 May 2019 was submitted to CPIO Air Hq sought information on IACCS project executed by costing approx 7900 Cr as new series posted in various media regarding scam in IACCS project. Being a senior citizen and tax payer I have request for some facts which are not in nature of any strategic information. It is hard to believe that CPIO not denial nor gave requested information judiciously, send reply without application of mind. Copy of RTI application is attached as Enclosure-1.
2. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-
Request information in Para
3 is not provide by CPIO Air Hq and
mentioned – not held with this Public Authority, the IACCS directorate in same
building and as per RTI act CPIO has to transfer under section 6 (3) of the RTI
Act 2005 to concern CPIO of Air Hq who is responsible for IACCS Directorate.
Request information in Para
4 is not provide by CPIO Air Hq quoted
that “not held with this Public Authority”, But CPIO has to transfer
under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 to concern CPIO of Air Hq who is responsible for IACCS Directorate
Request
information in Para 7 the CPIO, Air Hq not even denied or mention that
information is not available with him, just ignored. Here a big question arise
that the vision of RTI Act 2005 is to restrict the corrupt practices prevailing
in the system should be checked by citizen of India. The CPIO act clearly shows
that he want protect these corrupt practices running in Air force, because in Para
8 also CPIO even not mention any word just ignored the request of
information.
The act of CPIO to ignore the request of Para 7 & 8 shows that CPIO, Air Hq does not believe the constitutional provision of India. The request of information from common citizen is nothing to CPIO, but CPIO want to save culprits..
3. Facts & Grounds leading to appeal:-
the information requested are purely related to corruption and for to take corrective measures to restrict prevailing corruption in defence sector which is very highly dangerous to our national security. Compromising with quality and quantity and encouraging the false documents in procurement and execution in such important project is not anyway appreciable by common country man.
Information not providing
vide Para 7 & 8 itself prove that official sitting on seat are not thinking
of our future Air Force officials who will going to work their duties in IAACS
project centers, basically they are playing with the life of children may be
some present Air Force official’s sons
or daughters who wishes to join Air Force like their father.
The CVO reports shows that Air force deputed in these palaces not allowed the senior vigilance officer to visit site and other way they allowed to any tom dick harry of L&T subletting contractor to roam around. Secondly in IACCS Directorate are co-operting BEL corrupt offices in big way.
4, Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vides RTI Application dated 03.05. 2019 by appellant has been not provided properly it is incomplete information given by CPIO, Air Hq. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, Air Hq to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, Air HQ to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 03 05 2019. Hope FAA will prove that FAA with “Nabha Sprsham Deeptam” not with corrupt officials who are busy with minting money and compromising with national security and also playing with life of our future Air Force aspirants.
5. Declaration:-
I
hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
Kindly provide me
with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of construction of residential accommodation at Mayur
Vihar (Chilla Gaon) (350 flats) and Ghitorni (Aya nagar)(150 flats) with reference
to enclose letter dated 23.05.19 address to Project Manager CCE(R&D),DRDO
in reference to their letter no CCE(R&D)D/Intelligence Community.2304 dated
18.04.2019 signed by Shri Hitesh Kumar, Under Secretary. Para 2 of enclosed
letter It is informed that nothing adverse has been found against any of the firms
mentioned in the list except two firms ie (i) M/s RD. Konsultants (ii) M/s
Torsteet Research Foundation in India, which have been involved in furnishing
false information for grabbing contract and suppressing vital information
Whether
DRDO CCE involved in construction of residential accommodation at Mayur Vihar
(Chilla Gaon) (350 flats) and Ghitorni (Aya nagar)(150 flats) Yes or No
If yes
then please provide the role of DRDO.
3. Whether DRDO CCE bagged the above construction
contract through any tender participation or Cabinet Secretariat
nominated for execution of the above mentioned construction task.
Provide the sanction authority
letter for above mention flats construction project to CCE, DRDO
Note: the matter is related to corruption
as first post and other media expose the 7900 cr scam in IAACS Project of Air force
and the equation between M/s RD. Konsultants and CCE, DRDO is very suspicious.
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information
requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in
respect of
IACCS project executing by BEL. Costing huge Rs 7900 Cr public money involved
in defence strategic preparedness program.
Whether BEL informed to IACCS Directorate that BEL Corporate Vigilance had received an email complaint: dated 31st August 2017 Vigilance from Shri Manish Aggarwal, Advocate. Supreme Court of India regarding scam in NCS unit of BEL. Ghaziabad in the 10 construction sites projects allotted for defence. Yes or No
If yes, then provide the date of receiving such communication from BEL on above said matter..
Whether BEL informed to IACCS Directorate that BEL received complaint mails and letter from IACCS site regarding compromising in quality procedures like one such mail sent by an engineer on dated 2018-03-28 13:21 to Mr Solomon Paul Raj, Mgs (CO-VIG) Yes or No
As per enclose email – Also MECON reply to BEL (9 pages) after collapse of slopes may be referred for a wider view of the project. Provide that Whether IACCS Directorate, Air force received any communication from BEL in respect of above mention collapse of slopes in construction sites yes or no
If yes than provide that any inquiry committee constituted by Air force on misshape of IACCS project. Yes or No
It may please be noted the following information being shared with you is highly confidential and unofficial. For my official version you can officially request my higher management (for permission) for my statement as ex-site in-charge of PMC only and not as complainant. I am sharing these information because I find higher official of BEL impose lot of unethical verbal instruction on juniors unethically which is damaging for a PSU.
I was posted as site In-charge of MECON (PMC) and tried my best to act as whistleblower being a part of a project of national importance. I had issued innumerable mails and letter regarding quality issues of the project. But the engineer In-charge (AGM) and other higher officials (GM) from BEL desisted me verbally at Ghaziabad and at site not to follow quality procedures strictly on the pretext of progress of the project. They actually always blindly favoured the contractor anywhere and everywhere.
However, when we did not allow any relaxation in this regard and made deduction in bills wherever quality procedures were not followed, higher officials of BEL at Ghaziabad were not satisfied with XXXXX site in-charge (both of BEL& MECON] for not favouring the contractor and for following rule-book strictly. For that reason BEL GM&AGM transferred their own site incharge (Shri Ravi Kumar) and pressurized MECON to transfer Shri MK Haldar (Sr Mgr) of MECON in Sep 17 on the pretext that they did not perform satisfactorily,whereas actually it was just opposite. This was to instill a sense of fear so that other engineers fall in line.
BEL Vigilance took up the issue due to some complaint from other sources and Shri MM Roy {name not sure) of BEL Vigilance and team were to visit Salua site. BEL Ghaziabad became very Jittery on the news because I was the only engineer from BEUMECON at site who was there since inception of the project and was a whistleblower. They in connivance with the influential contractor again pressurized MECON management to remove me from site immediately and my transfer order was issued within 2 hrs on 15.03.18 with the release date of 19.03.13 so that I can be out of station before 23.03.18 after availing maximum 2 days joining leave.
Also it was intriguing and surprising, that the BEL vigilance team (all P5U employees with Police verification done) were not allowed at xxxx site by the Air force and this is first of such instance of refusal entry. Based on BEL site In-charge letter (all record available) even officials of unknown/roadside private firms were always allowed on producing of any govt. issued identify card (all record available with BEL site In-charge)
For all the aforesaid letters and emails (documentary evidences) you can approach file kept at MECON site office. Also MECON reply to BEL [9 pages] after collapse of slopes may be referred for a wider view of the project.
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information
requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Office order no. 59/12/03
dated 9 DEC 2003 issued by CENTRAL
VIGILANCE COMMISSION GOVT OF INDIA , Para
2 Board of Directors should review the
vigilance work once in six months and CVO will send a copy of the review done
by the Board to the Commission
Provide the numbers of board of directors meeting held during last three years
Provide the numbers of vigilance cases were reviewed by CMD/Directors in board meetings held during last three years
Provide the details of action taken report by Board of Directors on reviewed cases
Provide the Minutes of meetings of Board of Directors meeting during last three years.
Provide the details of reviewed cases report forwarded to CVC by CVO BEL vide Office order no. 59/12/03 dated 9 DEC 2003 in last three years.
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information
requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of
M/s R D Konsultants, C-9, Vasant Kunj, Local Shopping Complex,,
Delhi – 110070. As per enclosed CVO, BEL investigation that firm name was
suggested by DRDO for consultancy work of Approx 7900 Cr IACCS project. In
investigation few documents revealed that M/s R D Konsultants claimed that the
firm involved in consultancy in DRDO projects worth 3000 Cr. In one document of
BEL two DRDO officials name is reflected while in processing of awarding
consultancy assignment of said IACCS project
WhetherM/s R D Konsultants claimed of consultancy assignments in
DRDO past and present projects are correct (document enclosed )Yes or No
If yes then correct value of
consultancy only amount paid by DRDO to M/s R D Konsultants till date.
Please provide that M/s R D Konsultants Partnership
Company has any kind of registration in DRDO. Yes/No
Please confirm that the names of
DRDO officials
Shri S K Singh, Additional CCE, Shri M S Rathore, Scientist E are reflected
in BEL tender processing documents are
correct (document enclosed) Yes/No
Please provide the copy of BEL
request for these officers to attend such tender processing meeting if any
yes/No
If no then these officer can
attend such tender processing meeting unofficially yes/no
Note – the matter is
related to very high value corruption Rs 7900 cr as per media reports
published, it is observed that as per CVO investigation report that DRDO officials
were played a vital role in awarding
consultancy assignment to M/s R D Konsultants approx 16 cr.
Enclosed – BEL tender processing document page where two
DRDO name is reflected
M/s R
D Konsultants document where he claimed the work.
Registration Number MODEF/R/2019/51863
BEL CVO Recommendations
BHARAT
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATE
VIGILANCE
No.:21328/399&426/BEL./GAD/18-19
Date
29th March 2019
SUB:
Detailed enquiry done on the allegation of irregularties & Gross Violations
in the appointment of Design Consultants and in the execution of IACCS Project.
This has a reference to email complain: dated 31st August 2017 received at Corporate Vigilance from Shri‘ Mimish Aggarwal, Advocate. Supreme Court of India regarding scam in NCS unit of BEL. Ghaziabad in the 10 construction sites projects allotted for defence and also regarding appointment of Mr Manish Goyal. Corporate Vigilance has verified the identity of the complainant . The complainant was verified through the stated email id advn1maggarwaI@gmail.com.
A Fact verification request
was sent to the V0/GAD vide ref. 21328/399/BEL/GAD/17-18 dated 07.09.2017.
Based on the request of VO/GAD vide email dated 28″‘ September 2017, to
appoint technical personnel for investigating the case, Corporate Vigilance has
constituted the following Technical committee vide Ref No.
21328,/399/BEI./GAD/17-18 dated 14th December 2017‘.
a) Shri Satyanarayana H N, Sr DGM (Civil/BG)
b) Shri. Y.K Sharma then DGM (lACCS-Infra)/GAD
c) Shri M M Roy, then DGM (Vigilance/Central GAD
& Delhi Offices]
d) Shri.Anil Kumar Gupta, then DGM&VO (NCS&SCCS]
There was a request from GM (NCS)
vide letter ref 13708/143)/GM(NCS),/GAD dated 14th December 2017
regarding importance of Shri. Y K. Sharma in the IACCS project and also there
was an email dated 20th February 2018 from Shri. Satyanarayana HR. Sr
DGM (Civil/BG), regarding his ill health, which were received at Corporate
Vigilance. Hence the committee has been reconstituted vide Ref.
21323/399/BEL/GAD/17-18 dated 01st March 2018, with the following members, after
discussion with Shri. Charan Singh, the .then GM (Radar & Unit Head) for
the nomination of Shri. Arun Kumar Raheja. AGM (CS/GAD).
a) Shri. Arun Kumar Raheja, AGM (CS/GAD)
b) Shri. Syed Shakir Hussein, DGM (Civil Estate)
/Bg.Cx
c) Shrl Madan Mohan Roy then DGM (Vigilance /Central
GAD & Delhi Offices]
The above committee has to
make an independent verification of the complaint, study the contracts
pertaining to the same and submit its report The technical committee has
visited the —— site on 22.03.2018 & 23.03.2018. The committee had
failed and deviated from the main complaint and submitted its two page
perfunctory Report pertaining only to —— site without proper investigation vide
nil ref dated 20.03.2019.
Copy of the report is
enclosed as Annexure-A. The technical committee’s report was irrelevant and
does not cover the allegations of the total complaint The enquiry done by the
technical committee pertains only to —— site without going into the
allegations and details contained in the complaint
As the V0’s report was not
Comprehensive and incomplete, this has necessitated appointing a Senior Officer
of repute for conducting the investigation in total. Corporate Vigilance had
appointed Shri. MM Pandey GM [PS], the senior officer of repute, as investigation
officer, to investigate the above‘ matters related to cases vide Ref
21328/399/BEL/GAD/18-19″dated dared 18th July 2018.
The investigation officer [IO) & GM [P5] had submitted a detailed report on 03-10-2018
There are very important observations made by the IO in his inquiry report, in the subject investigation. After careful study of IO’s report» such observations are concurred and agreed upon by Corporate Vigilance. Important observations from IO’s report are enclosed
The lapses and serious violations observed are enclosed
After examination of
Technical committee report. Fact verification report of Mr
MM Roy, VO/GAD and detailed investigation report of IO & GM {P5} and
related documents’ the following are observations of Corporate Vigilance. ‘ –
Corporate Vigilance
Observations;
As per BPE guidelines given under letter no
BPE/GL/025,178,!Prodn./PCR/2/77,/BPE/Prodn. Dtt 15 July, 1978. Which was circulated under” CVC circular No.
31.-IRC 1 dated 10.01.1983, for any new projects expansions, modernization/
modification of the existing projects involving an expenditure of Rs. 5 crores
and above, “the final selection and commissioning of the consultant should
be done with the approval of the board of public sector enterprises”. In
the subject case of appointment of M/s RD Konsultants during 2011 & 2013,
the files are approved bv CMD. However board approvals were not taken in the
subject cases.
As per CVC guidelines, the pre-qualification public notice should be issued to enlist names
-of suitable consultants. However the same was not Followed by the committee
and hence CVC guidelines in this regard was found violated.
3)
As per noting mentioned by Shri
P.K. Bhola, the then DGM[Marketing), at the initial stages, BEL has taken the
support from M/s DRDO citing non expertise in the field of underground
structure, and went on to appoint M/s RD Konsultants on nomination and adhoc basis for the preparation
of Preliminary Project Report at a cost
of Rs 13.23 Lakhs. However there were no “documents or written correspondences
are available in the file, indicating the recommendation of DRDO. As per above
CVC guidelines “Even though individually such works are less than Rs 5
Crores, it is necessary that the appointment of consultant should not be made
arbitrary or ad-hoc. In the subject case, the CVC guidelines with respect to
appointment of consultant was found violated.
4)
The value of contract awarded to
Mfs RD Konsultants during 2013 is Re. 15.04 Crores. The Scope of work includes
a]
Preparation of draft detailed project
report of all 10 sites including cost estimates on non-exceeding basis with conceptual
design of structure and services, geotechnical and topographical surveys and
preparation of final detailed project report for all the 10 sites.
b]
Detailed design engineering of
structures and services, preparation of working drawings tender documents etc.
c]
Regular designer supervision and
submission of inputs/ working drawings /documents for work to be executed at
all 10 sites up to completion and handing over of sites to user
5)
It is observed that, . there were
suppression and concealment of facts by the Committee, in the proposal
initiated during 2013, with respect of appointment of Consultants during 2011, for
preparation of Preliminary Project Report. It is pertinent to mention that in
the proposal for appointment of consultants during 2011, there is a noting from
Sr.DGM(F)/CO that as per CVC guidelines issued vide Ref 011/VGL./063-134657
dated 24th June 2011, if M,/s RD Konsultants is hired.as consultant
for preparing preliminary project report then he cannot be considered for
future similar re1uirements for IACCS project. Though the proposal was agreed
by CMD, these facts are not brought in the consecutive file raised and the
committee have succeeded to give order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants.
‘
6) Because of concealment of information
wrt previous appointment and delinking of old files and notings, led to the
misrepresentation and concealment of Fads
which resulted in placing of order on prefixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants though
open tender has been called for formality.
7)
During the Open tender, though 26
agencies have responded to expression of interest, it was reduced to 6 agencies
after pre qualification. These points are brought in detail in IO’s report lt is
observed that the committee during the initial screening has brought down 26
agencies to 14 agencies with shallow scrutiny and with total arbitrariness,
as-explained-by lO. After presentations further screening has resulted in
qualifying only 6 agencies. It is pertinent to mention that after presentations
M/s Super Dynamics was disqualified citing only two years turnover against
required pre-qualification of 3 year turnover. However preferential treatment
was given to M / s RD Konsultants and the same prequalification criteria was not
applied uniformly especially to M/s RD Konsultants. This shows a clear cut case
of vendor favouritism.
8)
During evaluation of
prequalification criteria, the committee had violated the CVC guidelines and
company’s work contract procedures with respect to evaluation of documents with
respect to turnover submitted by M/5 RD Konsultants, non-evaluation of relevant
documents pertaining to works completed by M/s RD Konsultants but only taken on
face value and non-visit of sites completed by Mfs RD Konsultants. The details
are brought out in the I0’s report enclosed at Annexure-C. It appears that
wrongful clearance was provided to M/s RD Konsultants and the committee had
facilitated M.s RD Konsultrants for-prequalification
by violating the Company‘ s procedures,
to place the order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants.
9) The
committee during evaluation of pre-qualification criteria had created confused
trends by changing the pre-qualification criteria twice without anv reason and
during such changes, post facto approvals are taken from CMD forcing the
management to committee’s decision. The dilution of prequalification criteria by
the committee had subsequently led to the qualification of M/s RD Konsultants.
It is observed that the pre-qualification criteria were not defined properly at
the initial stages of tender. In this subject case, it is a clear cut and
definitive violation of CV(I guidelines. .
10) It is further observed, the agency M/s
RD Konsultants was established during April 2010
Recommendations:
To blacklist M/s RD Konsultants for the fraudulent transactions with M/s BEL and also as the agency had involved in collusion of interest by executing the works through his affiliates M/s CS constructions Pvt Ltd, through subcontracting from M/s L&T. which has resulted in conflict of interest in the transactions with BEL . Financial penalty to be levied on M/s RD Konsultants as one way of punishment.
Disciplinary Proceedings to be initiated on the committee members for violating company’s procedures & CVC guidelines and facilitated the selection of M/s RD Konsultants during evaluation of prequalification, without scrutinizing the submission of works experience, site visits and clearing the fake turn over documents of M/s RD Konsultants. Theviolations were brought in the Corporate Vigilance observations points 1-15.
The following committee members are
to be held responsible even though few of the delinquent officers are retired
R K
Handa then GM(NCS) – Retired
Gurjeet
Singh then Sr. DGM(CS) – Retired
T.K.
Moitra then DGM(F&T)
Virender
Kumar then DGM(AC) CS
Saleem
Parveez. Manager (Civil) CS
3 With respect to appointment of Mr. Manish Goyal, it is observed that his experience falls short of minimum criteria of 10 years. These facts are not checked by HR/GAD. Disciplinary Proceedings on Shri. Dibyendu Bidyanta, AGM(HR&A) & Shri. B.K. Pant, DGM (HR&A) who are involved in the recruitment of Shri. Manish Goyal, as per CDA rules. Mr. Manish Goyal shall be kept under suspension henceforth for fair conduct of department/legal proceedings.
4 The unit has not prepared their own
instructions and procedure duly approved by the board for the appointment of
consultants to ensure that the selection is made with maximum attention to the
suitability, competence and proven track record.
CCTVs installed at the behest of
vigilance has not kept in proper record which led to non-maintenance of
measurement books, subleasing and collusion of parties.
It
is important to mention that IACCS is a time bound project of armed forces viz
Air Force. Hence care to be taken to ensure customer get real value for money procedural
proprietaries are maintained, no collusion of interest and involve customer at
all possible levels, abiding by CVC guidelines and no corrupt practices are
involved, in such important projects.
The investigation panel in its report had pointed irregularities in awarding consultancy contract to a private firm RD Konsultants for Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project at 10 locations.
The defence public sector undertaking Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) has suspended its three-member investigation panel, who had unearthed irregularities in the Indian Air Force’s confidential Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project, citing them of acting in “prejudicial” manner that was against the company’s interest.
The investigation panel in its report had pointed irregularities in awarding consultancy contract to a private firm RD Konsultants for Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project at 10 locations.
The report had stated: “A company that came into existence in April 2010 showed its employees had an experience of five years in 2013.”
DNA had exposed irregularities in awarding contracts in an April 3 report (‘Bharat Electronics bent norms to favour private firm: Report’).
It was also found a BEL senior officer PK Bhola who was behind awarding contract to the private vendor to prepare a Preliminary Project Report, later joined the same company after his retirement. The PSU awarded RD Konsultants to prepare the PPR in 2011 and then again brought as the design consultant in 2013, violating laid out norms.
Also the role of senior Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) officers is under the scanner since it was DRDO which recommended the name of RD Konsultant to BEL, although it was done informally.
Sources said that after the scam came out in public domain, the inquiry committee headed by MM Pandey was suspended and all the three members, including Pandey were issued show cause notice and were put on suspension. The committed was set up by the BEL’s Chief Vigilance officer (CVO) Siva Kumar. After Kumar’s tenure ended in April, Shrikant Walgad, an IAS officer of the Haryana Cadre, took over charge as CVO. Kumar before his tenure end had submitted the inquiry report.
Further it is also alleged that instead of taking action against the corrupt officers, BEL Chairman MV Gowtama suspended the investigation team members. “Kumar in his note dated March 29, 2019 sent to Chairman BEL, Ministry of Defence and the Chief Vigilance Commission had alleged deep-rooted corruption recommending strong action against erring officers and related firms,” said a source.
The phone calls and emails to BEL remained unanswered till the time the article is going for print.
The crackdown against the probe team started after Kumar, the CVO who was appointed by CVC, had established in the investigation report alleged irregularities and had recommended BEL to management for immediate action against suspected eight corrupt officers.
Laid Bare DNA had exposed irregularities in awarding contracts in defence public sector Bharat Electronics Ltd in an April 3 report titled ‘Bharat Electronics bent norms to favour private firm: Report’
14 JUN 2019 7:03PM by PIB Delhi Raksha Mantri Shri Rajnath Singhtoday reviewed the progress of research and development activities in the area of defence technologies at Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)Headquarters. Chairman DRDO, Dr G Satheesh Reddy and other senior scientists gave detailed presentation to the RM. The presentation covered recent achievements, details of major ongoing projects and the roadmap of DRDO. Shri Singh was apprised about the DRDO developed cutting-edge, state-of-the-art technologies and systems accepted by the Armed Forces and those under development. The RM appreciated the commitment and dedication of DRDO scientists and directed that they should focus their energies on flagship programmes of national importance. He also appreciated the DRDO initiatives to promote academia and industry. The Minister desired that such interaction should be enhanced further to create a greater scientific temper and production base, which would be a driving force for accelerated research and defence manufacturing. Shri Rajnath Singh also released a publication titled ‘Roadmap of DRDO’, which encapsulated its target for the next ten years. He congratulated DRDO for its singular achievements in strengthening the national defence capabilities and enabling the nation to join a select club of countries having some of the most advanced defence technologies, such as Anti-Satellite Capability, 4.5 Generation Fighter Aircraft, Airborne Early Warning & Control System (AEW&CS), Ballistic Missile Defence Programme, etc. Earlier, on his arrival at DRDO Bhawan, Shri Singh paid floral tribute at the statue of former President and noted missile scientist Dr APJ Abdul Kalam.
Hello, Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of news series published in First Post Apr 02, 2019 -Bharat Electronics in the dock for compromising confidential IAF project, favouring one vendor, BEL s internal inquiry report reveals that earth profile checked and verified by Prof. T N Singh on behalf of M/s R D Konsultans. Copy of a paper of signed by Prof. T N Singh is enclosed for your ready reference. As news you are already aware that it is big organize corruption in defence strategic preparedness and all citizen of India must support to clear the corruption.
Please verify that the signature of
Prof. T N Singh, Deptt of Earth Sciences, IIT, Bombay is correct on
enclosed paper.
Earth
Profiles checking and verification was officially undertaken by Prof. T N
Singh with consent of IIT. Bombay competent authority yes or No
If
yes, then provide the only numbers of Earth Profiles checked and
verified officially by Prof. T N Singh
Amount
charged from M/s R D Konsultans or any other Department like BEL or Air
force for checking and verification of Earth Profiles in entire India of
proposed locations.
Whether,
IIT. Bombay received any information that these Earth Profiles checked and
verified officially or
unofficially by Prof. T N Singh were collapsed many times during
construction. Yes or No
