To 20-11-2019 Wg Cdr Suman Adhikari, CPIO, Room No. 160, Dte of PS, Air HQ (VB), Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110
Hello, Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of appeal submitted to Higher Court by BEL against order of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait dated October 9, 2019 to respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners Sh M.M. Pandey, General Manager (Product Support), Sh R.K. Goyal, Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), and Sh Sumit Krishna, Manager, (Product Support).
As per appeal page no 49 and 50 para xi line 5 – In this regard on 25-09-2019 the Asstt,
Chief of Air Staff vide his confidential letter has brought to notice of the
CMD, BEL that confidential documents relating to the said contract have been
found in the custody of un authorized elements and that: owing to the
sensitivity of the project involving national
security, investigation in this regard be carried out on highest priority and
report submitted at the earliest.
Provide that above mention
confidential letter dated 25-09-2109 whether sent to CMD, BEL by Asstt, Chief
of Air Staff. Yes or No
Does Air force taken any action against un authorized elements who possesses the sensitive project
information Yes or No
IACCS project sites security
managed by Air Force or BEL.
IACCS project sites CCTV
is managed by Air Force or BEL
IACCS project sites
contractors manpower verified by police Yes or No
Whether IACCS project
sites In-charge verify that the contractor manpower is from authorized contractors like L&T or from unauthorized
Sublette contractor like C S Construction or S R Ashok etc.
Whether IACCS Directorate or
Asstt, Chief of Air Staff above aware the unauthorized Sublette working equation
of BEL in IACCS sites Yes or No
Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi Ji, Prime Minister of India,
Room No -152, PMO, South Block, New Delhi-110011
Respected
Narendra Modi Ji,
My
humble question is this if any citizen starts exposing the corrupt practices
prevailing in government, public sector etc and these organizations using
public funds to protect themselves for exposing from citizen (Chowkidar) of
India. Then what is the mechanism do you have to protect these volunteer citizens
(Chowkidars) of India.
I
want to give you an example that since 20 years continue fighting with these
corrupt gangs of government servants who for their little greed compromise with
national security, and facing lot of time bogus FIRs and other short of
pressures and to save my life I have spend lot of money in traveling, hiring lawyers
etc.
Currently
you may aware that an Rs 7900 Cr IACCS Project of Air Force which is
implementing by BEL is exposed due to irregularities in awarding tenders and so
many different allegations by media with authentic documentary evidence. First
Post, DNA etc
BEL
CVO investigated the ongoing 10 underground command centers IACCS Project of
Air Force and found lot of irregularities but entire top BEL management trying
to buried the issue and unforeseen reasons the recommendations (29th
March 2019) of BEL, CVO not processed till date. It seems that corrupt involved
top BEL officers trying to manage Ministry of Defence Production, because the
available documentary evidences are more than enough to prove the prevailing
corrupt practices of BEL officials.
I
have also supported the cause because my sole aim is to remove the corruption
in defence sector because I believe that corruption in defence is directly
impact in national security. For publishing the corrupt practices of BEL
management in my website corruptionindrdo.com received a legal notice through
law firm Chouta Associates, Bangalore by using poor tax payer’s money.
I
request you to kindly provide me a legal assistance officially from PMO as I am
now senior citizen and supporting your mission “Mai Bhi Chowkidar”
Your
early action is require to fill oxygen in mission “Mai Bhi Chowkidar”
“It
is unfortunate that corruption was institutionalized. The time has come to
change this. The time for middlemen is over: PM 5:58 PM – 17 Aug 2017
PMO
India September 6, 2016 ·
Zero
tolerance towards corruption & black money…an issue PM Narendra Modi has
been speaking on at the world stage.
PM
Modi Urges Supporters to Take ‘Main Bhi Chowkidar’ Pledge Modi has often
described himself as a “chowkidar” who would neither allow corruption
nor let himself be corrupted.
Everyone
who is fighting corruption, dirt, social evils is a Chowkidar
Shri Manmohan.Under Secretary (BEL),CPIO.Room No. 253-A,B-Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011
Hello, Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of letter in reference of F.No. DDP-E0030/1/ 2017-D(BEL) dated 11 July subject First Appeal under Section 19 of RTI Act 2005 to IAF regarding Rs 7900 Cr Scam in IACCS Project News Published in First Post. I have received a copy of letter above mentioned reference that Shri Manmohan, Under Secretary (BEL),CPIO forwarded copy of letter Air Force Headquarters No HQ/23401/204/3/17049/E/PS dated 12 June 2019 to CMD, BEL, Bangalore on 11 July 2019.
Provide
the certified copy of Air Force Headquarters letter No HQ/23401/ 204/ 3/17049/ E/PS dated
12 June 2019 to CMD, BEL, Bangalore on 11 July 2019.
Dear Sir, Defence Public Sector company M/s Bharat
Electronics-BANGALORE is involved in
massive corruption and act of
compromising national security in Indian Air Force confidential underground
project worth Rs 7900 Crore. The project names as Integrated Air Command and
Control System (IACCS) is basically “ Construction of underground bunkers
across 10 strategic locations in the country in which all communication system
which is going to command and control all RADARS and other communication
infrastructure related to Indian air force in all the time and specially in war
time can act as a complete safe house for all VIP/VVIPS as well as IAF
Officials .
The whole project is being executed through an
consultancy firm ( bogus/ shell company) named M/S R D KONSULTANTS DELHI ,
incorporated just 3-4 months before awarding the project related work started
in 2010-11 with all false and fabricated
certificates diluting the pre-qualifications norms just to make him
accommodative violating all CVC norms/ BEL MANUALS for tendering and contract. Further, this
consultancy firm awarded major construction related works to its sister
concerns having wife and other relatives as directors through a chain of shell
/ interrelated companies.
Further Plant and Machinery Infrastructure items worth more than Rs 2500 crores are being procured from the foreign firms based in Germany, Finland. Interestingly, all these firms are linked to M/s RD KONSULTANTS where former BEL officials are also working. Even the CVO of the company SHRI SHIVA KUMAR, IAS in MARCH 2019 ,has endorsed all findings of inquiry committee and mentioned serious violations involving criminal intent through violation of procedure, misrepresentation of facts, favourism to place order to prefixed vendors through vested interest, collusion of interest and attempt to make corporate losses details of full CVO report is mentioned.
Unfortunately CMD, Mr MD Gowatma not forwarded the CVO
recommendations to CVC which is mandatory as per CVC Guidlines and time to time
orders
Mr Shiva Kumar, CVO, BEL
has finally recommended heavy punitive actions against BEL officials ,
and consultant firm with police case for recovery of money , before going for his retirement as CVO of BEL on 29 March
2019, with advance copy of his REPORT & Recommendations to SECRETARY CVC
and CVO MOD DELHI( as mandated as per CVC
guidelines and circulars no. 000/VGL/166 DATED 16 JAN 2001 & NO.
06/VGL/065 DATED JULY 2006 ). Also as per these circulars CMD Of the company
also should send report to concerned CVO MOD and put up to the company board.
It is observed that CVC is not done any steps towards
this serious corruption which is directly involved in serious compromise with
our national security and hampered the defence preparedness, as the over ground
Air force command has to complete operational in March 2018 but still the
software’s etc are not ready. And underground command centres should be ready
in coming October 2019 but the work is not completed even 30% only object to
procure things for minting money and infrastructure are not ready or some are
not started yet.
As amount is huge in tune of Es 7900 crs so all
machineries are working to buried the
issue.
This whole act of massive corruption and irregular
practices in such a highly sensitive and strategic national importance project
has put the complete national security related to IAF operations and
intelligence at Risk & Danger. Many of the project teams members of BEL
some of which have retired and now the
present management team consisting of CMD
(MR GOWTAMA), DIRECTOR (OU)- MR NATRAJ KRINAPPA, Director Finance Mr khosy
ALEXXANDER & GM-NCS MR JAYDEEP
MAJUMDAR) are directly involved in these corruption and are openly
supporting all this mal practices.
A direction was issued by BEL CMD MR GAUTAMA to cease and
confiscate all Personal Computers of internal enquiry committee members which
shows fear of corrupt BEL officials.
Air Force’s (IAF) highly sensitive Integrated
Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project to establish the 10 underground nodes
in entire country Air Force site and knowingly under the command of MR
GOWTAMA the all irregularities in constructions and procurements were overlooked
and due collapse in three sites, the heavy losses worth several crores was born
by BEL and protected the contractors/vendors interests and no penalty was made
against design consultant even it is in terms and condition. All approvals were
done by Mr Goawatma with vested interest and loss to poor public tax payers.
All above shows a case of massive corruption,
fraud and abuse of power with criminal intent and a huge loss to Government
public money by BEL senior management persons in connivance with chief
consultant, EX DRDO and some IAF officials. The whole investigation
report findings are finally found true of the fact that as it is learnt
from top BEL & DRDO sources last week M/s RD Konsultant has written to BEL
MANAGEMENT that as his chief designer has left the specifications and whole
scheme of the project BEL management has already spend thousands of crores
of public money and suppose its design does not work then who will own the
responsibility of whole scam. Now the news that the firm M/S RD KONSULTANT is
running out of project the reason could only be because his fraud has come out
in media and BEL current management instead of taking legal action against the
corrupt, trying to harass and victimize the honest and brave investigation team.
Hope CVC will act on CVO, BEL recommendations and
sent to this case to CBI for thorough investigation to save the public money
Regards
Complaint dated 15-07-2019 has been successfully received in CVC. For status/action taken on your complaint no. 131351/2019/vigilance-9
Enclosed
Details of Investigation of CVO, BEL on Air force IACCS Project irregularities
Copy of BEL, CVO recommendations after investigation
Copy email by site engineer who exposed the corrupt practices going on Air force IACCS Project sites
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
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.
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of CVO, BEL Mr. S. Shiva Kumar letter No:21328/ 399&426/ BEL/GAD/18-19 Dated:29 March 2019 subject Detailed Enquiry done on the allegations of Irregularities Gross violations in the appointment of Design Consultants and in the execution of IACCS project.
Whether IACCS Directorate, Air force received any communication from BEL that CVO BEL is investigating on the allegations of Irregularities Gross violations in. execution of IACCS project, Yes or No
If yes, then provide the date of receiving such communication from BEL on above said matter..
Whether IACCS Directorate, Air force informed about vigilance inquiry on IACCS project to their respective staff. Yes or No
As BEL vigilance investigation team mentioned in its report no Nil dated 20.03.2018 that Air force staff not cooperated in investigation, as they tried to restricted entry and not provided CCTV footage and other record in behalf of corrupt BEL officials working on site. Please provide whether IACCS Directorate, Air force received BEL vigilance report of 20.03.2018.
Provide that Whether IACCS Directorate, Air force received any communication from BEL in respect of non cooperation of Air force staff of IACCS project.
It is observed by investigation team and they collected records of evidences that in some IACCS project sites Air force staff provided unauthorized entries like M/s C S Constructions Pvt Ltd, Delhi personals. The firm has no official role in IACCS project. Any communication from BEL or any other agencies Yes or No
Provide if the IACCS Directorate, Air force received any information that key company M/s R D Konsultants who was responsible for PPR/DPR and consultant for all design aspect of IACCS project declared bankruptcy or disassociated from IACCS project from BEL. Yes or No
If yes, then provide the step taken by IACCS Directorate to ensure to protect the national security compromise in respect of project.
Provide that any inquiry committee constituted by Air force on misshape of IACCS project. Yes or No
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. Etc
Air force officers visited Europe with BEL official for vendor capability inspection against IACCS project. Yes or No
If yes, then provide the number of Air force officers visited Europe with BEL official for vendor capability inspection against IACCS project.
Whether BEL put this inspection term in their MoU on IACCS project. Yes or No
The visit cost of Air force officers sponsored by BEL or Air Force or Foreign Firms
Provide the Year and month of Visit of Air force officers against IACCS project
AS per news clips the BEL already ordered plant and machinery to foreign vendors in more than 1000 Cr and sites are not yet ready or few sites even not started. In this regard please provide that Air force released payment or part payment to BEL for dumping plant and machinery in advance to make them scrape in few years.
Whether BEL taken any prior section for allowing L & T to further subletting construction of IACCS project sites. Yes or No
AS per news clips IACCS project sites collapsed one or two places whether IACCS project directorate reviewed or verified the earth profile submitted by M/S RD Konsultant prepared by IIT professor Yes or No
Like the MoU signed with Crowe And Company, LLC 975 Bacons Bridge Rd, Summerville, South Carolina 29485-4118 United States, DRDO is habitual to signed MoU’s and compromising the vital defence information to foreign origins.
For Air force application /telemetry and tele-command application 8 -18 GHz is vital frequency band as it covers two octaves.
MTRDC, DRDO, Bangalore based on Air force requirement signed MoU for development of micro wave tube with M/s Thomson – CSF, USA ignoring their own competence and capabilities of BEL, Bangalore.
One such tube supplied to DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun never worked and late Sh K N Rao, Scientist ‘G’ succumbed to injury due to mounting pressure of timely delivery of the project.
All these MoU’s are futile exercises only thing that the persons behind these MoU’s gets short term personal gains.
Chethan Kumar, Bangalore, April 24, 2013, DHNS: –DECCAN HERALD
The Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), one of the agencies working on light combat aircraft — Tejas had struck an agreement with BAE Systems Overseas Inc for supply of 15 ship sets of integrated flight control systems line replacement units costing US$3,06,00,000, without the approval of competent authority, states the audit of the Office of the Director of Air Force Audit.
BAE Systems Overseas Inc was to have delivered the units by March 2009. “Under the contract, ADE received 14 shipments. The consignment containing the 15th set consisting of actuators (total 15 numbers) valuing US$21,27,215 (Rs 10.63 crore) in one case weighing 206-kg was sent via shipper number 54151 dated December 17, 2008 by British Airways. However, the consignment was not received by ADE,” the report, completed in 2010 reveals.
Bringing this to the notice of Defence Minister A K Antony, Javed Abbas Technical Officer ‘B’, retired, in a letter said there are several other irregularities going on at ADE, a lab under Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), regarding appointments, promotions and transfers.
The audit report, annexed in to the letter, further states: “as per documents provided by BAE Systems, USA, the consignment was received by British Airways and the aircraft left the John F Kennedy International Airport (New York) for Heathrow Airport, London on December 12, 2008 by flight number BA 114.”
While 40 per cent of the value of these products had already been paid to BAE, payment for balance, amounting to 60 per cent of value was effected in October 2009, well after the deadline for delivering of the units was passed, and, the consignment had not reached ADE.
The auditors point out that as per para 7.2 of Purchase Management procedure, 2006, stores costing Rs 2.5 crore might be insured against loss or damage in transit and that insurance cover will invariably be obtained from the insurance agency before dispatching the consignment by the supplier.
“However, the consignment was not insured by DRDO in contravention of the regulation. On reasons for non-insurance, the ADE stated that the clearing agent Air Consolidation Agent — Balmer & Lawrie & Co did not advise the establishment to do so,” the report adds. Observing that the excuse is not tenable, the audit said, onus of deciding on whether the consignment should be insured or not rests with ADE and not the clearing agent.
“Thus, by not insuring the consignment by ADE, as provided in the regulation, the State had to bear loss of Rs 10.63 crore,” the report concluded.
DRDO sources said the consignment, eventually never reached the organisation, and it was lost in transit!
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
