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
By Pradip R Sagar October 16, 2019 18:34 IST THE WEEK
The officials have exposed the alleged irregularities in a multi-crore project
Causing embarrassment to the defence public sector undertaking, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), the Delhi High Court has quashed the suspension order of three of its senior officers, who have exposed the alleged irregularities in a multi-crore confidential project for the Indian Air Force.
On the basis of inputs on alleged irregularities in awarding a contract to a private firm by violating norms for Integrated Air Command and Control Systems (IACCS) for the IAF worth 79,00 crore, BEL in July 2018 had set up a three-member investigation panel. The panel was headed M.M. Pandey, general manager (Product Support), and comprised R.K. Goyal, senior deputy general Manager (Vigilance), and Sumit Krishna, manager, (Product Support). On October 3 last year, the committee submitted its report which said shell companies were used to gain contract. The investigation panel also pointed irregularities in awarding consultancy contract to a private firm for IACCS project at 10 locations across the country.
On March 29, 2019, the chief vigilance officer submitted its final report to the Chairman and Managing Director of the BEL, supporting the panel’s view. The report had stated: “A company that came into existence in April 2010 showed its employees had an experience of five years in 2013.” Moreover, the report also mentioned role of senior Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) officers, who were under the scanner, since it was the DRDO which recommended the name of the private firm to BEL.
However, instead of taking action against the corrupt officials on the basis of CVO’s report, the BEL authorities suspended all three members of the committee on disciplinary charges. A chargesheet and suspension order was issued against the whistleblowers on May 17, 2019.
While delivering the judgment, the court observed that on perusal of chargesheet-cum-suspension order (dated May 17, 2019), it is specifically mentioned that M.M. Pandey, GM, product support, was appointed as Investigation Officer by CVO (vide letter dated July 18, 2018) to conduct a detailed investigation into the alleged irregularities reported in the execution of civil construction works in the IACCS project. It is further stated the he submitted his report October 3, 2018 to the CVO which was received in CVO’s office on October 8, 2018.
“Thus, it is established that the chargesheet-cum-suspension order was issued in pursuance to CVO letter dated July 18, 2018 to conduct a detailed investigation into the alleged irregularities,” Delhi High court stated in its order.
“Since the disciplinary authority concerned for the petitioners have not initiated departmental proceedings, therefore, in my considered view, the order dated May 17, 2019 is illegal and accordingly set aside.” said Justice Suresh Kumar Kait in his order dated October 9, 2019.
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of
decision: 09.10.2019
+ REVIEW PET. 360/2019 and
CM
APPL. 39523/2019 (Stay)
in
W.P.(C) 8188/2019
MAN MOHAN PANDEY AND ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr. B.K.Pandey, Advs.
versus
BHARAT ELECTRONICS
LIMITED AND ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG withMr. Manish Paliwal, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advs. and Mr. B.V. Ramaiyya, DGM, Legal, BEL./ R-1 Mr. Vijay Joshi, Sr. Panel Counsel for R-2/UOI
Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC withMr. Rohan Anand, Adv. and Mr. Waize Ali Noor, GP
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to recall the order dated
31.07.2019 passed by
this Court in WP(C) No.8188/2019.
2. At the outset, it is pointed out that in Para 19 of order dated31.07.2019, it is recorded that the petitioners are above level E-VIII; however, which is factually incorrect.
3. It is clarified that the petitioner No. 1 is the only officer who comes under the category of level E-VIII whose Disciplinary Authority is CMD.
The other
two petitioners are below level E-VIII. The grade of the Petitioner
no
2 is of level E-VI A and Petitioner no 3 falls under the category of level
E-V. Their Disciplinary Authority is the
Functional Director.
4. Further clarified that in Para 19 of the order that the Disciplinary
Authority under the delegated powers is the Functional Director also suffers from error which is clear from the Office Order No.HO/144/22 read with CDA-Rules dated 10.04.2001.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said office order which
relates to
sub-delegation
of powers would show that in
fact the powers delegated under CDA-Rules amended from
time to time/notification of
sub delegation of power (SDOP)
are unchanged and same as on date
contained in CDA-Rules 2001. The said Rules read with office order dated
10.1.2019 is very
clear that the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority for an
officer upto Grade E-VII is Functional Director. Chairman and Managing Director is the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority for an officer of Grade E-VIII & IX only. CMD has not sub delegated his
power for the officers of
Grade E-VIII & IX any further. He has sub delegated his powers of being Disciplinary/Punishing Authority
for
officers upto Grade E-VII to the
Functional Director. In other words, the position of CDA Rules 2001 read with sub delegation of powers dated 10.1.2019 is very clear that CMD is the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority in case of petitioner no.
1 and that the Functional Director is the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority
in case of petitioner nos. 2 and 3. The said order 10.01.2019 is very clear that the sub-
delegated powers will be exercised only by the
Executives entrusted with the responsibilities for the
concerned work/assignment.
6, Learned counsel for
the
petitioners further submits that the issuance of
Charge- sheets cum suspension orders by Director (Marketing) in the case of petitioner no. 1 and by GM in case of petitioner no. 2 and AGM in the case
of
the petitioner no 3 is illegal and unsustainable, which is evident from the
table at Page 10 of
the
Review Petition.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that
the
officers competent to award the minor punishments cannot initiate the proceedings for major penalties. However, it is submitted that the CDA Rules bearing
Office Order No. HO/772/019 dated 10.04.2011
do not
require the Disciplinary authority
to
issue a charge sheet for Major Punishment as mentioned in Rule 5(a). The said Rules only provide for the imposition of
punishments
and therefore, the
same
cannot be
made
applicable for initiation of the Disciplinary proceedings.
8.
Learned Additional Solicitor General further submits
that BEL has defined the Disciplinary
Authority based on the punishments. Though the Disciplinary
Authority is referred in the context of the punishment in BEL
CDA
Rules, the approval for initiation of the Disciplinary
proceedings, issuance of charge sheet etc. is based on the formal approval by the Disciplinary
Authority as defined in CDA Rules. The punishment will be later on the basis of misconduct and the
punishing authorities have been
mentioned in the CDA Rules. Once the charge sheet is approved by
the Disciplinary Authority, the charge sheet is served by the respective Department /Division/Unit Head
or an
officer who is at
least one level above to
the
charge-sheeted executive. Such an officer
just
initiates the enquiry and
does not impose the punishment. The imposition
of punishment is a separate
issue which is decided later by the competent authority within the organisation.
9. To strengthen her arguments on the above issued, learned AdditionalSolicitor General relied on the decision of
the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of
Inspector General of Police vs. Thavasiappa, (1996) 2 SCC 145, whereby it is held that a charge sheet need not
be issued by the appointing authority and
any authority who is the controlling authority can initiate departmental proceedings by issuing a charge sheet. The Hon’ble Court further observed that the charge sheet need not to be issued by the authority empowered to impose
the proposed penalty.
10. Learned
Additional
Solicitor General
has further
relied on
P.V.
Srinivasa
Sastry &
Ors. vs.
Comptroller
and
Auditor General & Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 419, whereby in the context of Article 311(1), it was held that in absence of a rule any superior authority who can be held to be the
controlling
authority can
initiate a departmental
proceeding
and
that initiation of a
departmental proceeding per se
does not hold the
officer concerned with any evil consequences.
11. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that Bharat Electronics
Limited is a Public
Sector Undertaking and it is incorporated under the Companies Act and therefore, the employees do not enjoy
the
protections as available to the government servants.
12. In case of Tekraj Vasandi Alias K. L. Basandhi vs. Union of India &Ors. (1988) 1 SCC
236, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the only prohibition, if any, is the inability
to
pass a final order in the departmental
proceeding. However, the charge sheet can be issued by the officer lower
than the disciplinary authority but higher than the charged officer. The dismissal or removal of the officer or even the enquiry could be done at his instance. It was also held that the only
right guaranteed to a civil servant
under that provision is that he should not be dismissed or removed by an
authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. It was further held by
the
Supreme Court that it is not necessary that the charges should be framed by
the
authority competent to award the proposed penalty or that the
enquiry
should be conducted by
such
authority
as there is nothing under the rules which would induce the Court to read in the rules such a requirement. It is
thus established
from the ratio
in Transport Commissioner vs. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC
332 of the aforesaid decision that initiation and conducting an enquiry could be done by an authority other than the authority competent to impose the penalty. Therefore, unless a
statutory
rule
specifically requires that such proceeding is to be initiated and
conducted only
by a
disciplinary
authority, the same could be so done even by
a
subordinate
authority. Thus, learned Additional
Solicitor
General argued that there
is
no merit in the present petition and the
same deserves to be
dismissed.
13.
On perusal of Charge Sheet-Cum-Suspension order dated 17.05.2019, it is specifically mentioned that Sri M.M. Pandey, Staff No. 205757, GM (Product Support/CO) was appointed as Investigation Officer by CVO vide letter
dated 18.07.2018 to
conduct a
detailed Investigation into the alleged
irregularities reported in the execution of civil construction works in the
IACCS project being executed by NCS SBU of GAD Unit. It is further
stated that he submitted his report dated 03.10.2018 to CVO
which was
received in CVO’s office on 08.10.2018. Thus, it is established that the
Charge Sheet-Cum-Suspension Order was issued in pursuance to CVO
letter dated 18.07.2018 to conduct a detailed investigation into the
alleged irregularities.
14. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon Vigilance Manual and
in Para 7.3.1 regarding framing of Charge Sheet and in Para 7.3.2,
it
is specifically
mentioned that
the
charge sheet comprises the memorandum, informing the concerned employee about initiation of
proceedings against him
and
giving him
an opportunity to admit or deny the charge(s) within a period not exceeding 15 days. The memorandum is to be signed by the disciplinary authority himself.
15. As
argued by
learned counsel for the petitioner
that
since the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioners are in pursuance of letter dated 18.07.2018 issued by
the
CVO, therefore, Vigilance Manual is applicable
in
the case of
the
petitioner.
16. On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General has argued
that in the present case,
the departmental proceedings are not initiated
pursuant to vigilance departmental inquiry, therefore, the Vigilance Manual
is
not applicable in the
present case.
17. It is not
in dispute that in case of A. Radha Krishna (Supra), it is held that unless a
specific
rule
so requires that such proceedings
are to be initiated or conducted only
by
a disciplinary authority, the same could be done so even by the subordinate
authority.
18. In the present case,
the
charge sheet is issued without specifically mentioning therein whether a charge-sheet
is issued for major punishment or the minor punishment. The aforesaid judgment would be applicable only in
case
where there is no specific rules or guidelines to this effect. However, in the
present case, as per Para 7.3.2. of Vigilance Manual of BEL, the charge-
sheet
comprising the
memorandum,
informing the concerned
employee about the initiation of proceedings shall be signed by the disciplinary
authority himself.
19. In the present case,
admittedly,
petitioner
No. 1 is
E-VIII level employee and undisputedly, the disciplinary
authority for the same is CMD,
whereas the charge-sheet is issued by
Functional Director (Marketing), who
is
not disciplinary authority.
20. Regarding the charge sheet issued against the other petitioners, the
said charge-sheet was also issued to the petitioner No. 2 by
the
G.M. Radar, whereas the disciplinary authority
is
the Director. To petitioner no. 3, the
charge-sheet has been issued by
the
AGM, whereas disciplinary authority is
the Functional Director.
21. As per
the charge sheet-cum-suspension order, the said
order is
issued in pursuance of the letter issued by the CVO as mentioned above. Therefore, it cannot be said that disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioners are not a vigilance case.
22. Be that as it may, as stated by learned Additional Solicitor General that the Ministry of Defence has seized with the matter and instructed the
respondents not to proceed further.
Accordingly, the departmental
proceedings against the petitioners is kept in abeyance till further instructions from the said Ministry.
23. It is pertinent to mention here that if the charge sheet is accepted and at the end, the disciplinary authority is of the view that major penalty is to be issued, in that eventuality, the authority under the statutes is not competent to issue the major penalty. Thus, while issuing further proceedings against the petitioners, if any, it shall be specifically mentioned that the charge-sheet is issued against the petitioners for minor or major penalty.
24. Admittedly, since the suspension order has not been extended further beyond the statutory period of 90 days, in view of the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India & Anr., (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 291, suspension is illegal thereafter. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that more than 90 days of the suspension have been elapsed. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners forthwith. The period of suspension shall be treated as per the rules.
25. In view of above discussion and legal position, since the disciplinary authority concerned for the petitioners have not initiated departmental proceedings, therefore in my considered view, the order dated 17.05.2019 is illegal and accordingly set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings as per the statutes and the Vigilance Manual, if so advised, against the petitioners. Accordingly, the order dated 31.07.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 8188/2019 is hereby recalled.
26. The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending application also stands disposed of.
Here is a conversation between Mr. D.K. Chatterjee and Mr. M.M. Pandey
wherein Mr. Pandey is exposing the BEL corruption Modus Operandi observed in ordering of civil contracts in
IACCS.
Mr. D.K. Chatterjee an IIT Kanpur Graduate of 1983 batch had
worked in many indigenously developed products related to communications and
radars. He is presently in the R&D group in-charge of the Radar Data
processing. He is an engineer of par excellence in his field and through his in-house
research and development he has saved a huge amount of foreign exchange for the
country.
He has been targeted by the BEL management and his career
has been stalled since he does not fit into the BEL model of going for foreign
ToTs and with big corporate / private vendors to provide the defence forces
equipment at very high cost and ensure kickbacks leading to corruption where
persons at highest level BEL are involved. In the IACCS project the biggest
challenge was to integrate the legacy Radars of Indian Air force and Army with
the IACCS system since the output protocol of these old Radars was not
compatible with input requirement for IACCS system.
Mr. D.K. Chatterjee and Mr. M.M. Pandey wherein Mr.
Pandey is discussing the discrepancies which have been observed in ordering of
civil contracts in IACCS. In turn Mr. Chatterjee tells about his experience
wherein as a part of IACCS project he had worked on creating the interface
(Radar Data Processing hardware and software) between the old legacy Radars and
IACCS system. He was forced to use hardware which were pre-defined and at a
very high cost.
As per him even with the high cost of hardware (since the
software was written in-house) the cost of one system came to just about Rs 25
lacs. After the systems were proven he was unceremoniously removed from the
project and the systems were subsequently outsourced and bought at a huge cost
of about Rs 2.5 Crores each. With so many legacy Radars which were integrated
to the IACCS the amount of money which has been misappropriated by the top
management of BEL would run into hundreds of Crores.
This is again a case where an intelligent IIT graduate
Electronics Engineer who did not compromise on corruption and worked for giving
the Defence Forces the best at the least cost was harassed and removed from the
main stream and made to suffer in his career. This is again in line with what
has been brought out in the case of ordering of DDS software where a software
worth not more than Rs 20 Crores was being bought at Rs 320 Crores and when one
of the Managers in R&D became a whistle blower to stop this from happening
he was harassed and bullied to the extent that he was forced to resign.
The Vigilance report which brought out this corruption
had also noted that all the original team which worked on software related to
IACCS (first phase wherein five nodes were established by BEL) was dismantled
and engineers were either transferred out of the Unit or outside the project. Hence
the modus operandi is the same in BEL for all persons who stand against
corruption. They are harassed, side tracked, given punishment postings or
suspended and terminated.
It can be understood that if one or two persons are
targeted but in the project IACCS it is clearly brought out at various stages
that persons have been targeted whenever they have spoken about the rampart
corruption which is being monitored by the highest level of management in BEL.
If proper investigation is carried out by external
government agencies it will clearly come out that in this project from the
beginning itself at all stages and in all systems (software, hardware, civil
contracts, sub-systems for hardened underground buildings) organized and
planned corruption has taken place through a mafia (which may be external to
BEL) and with full support from persons sitting at the highest level of BEL.
Some of the conversations of Mr. D.K. Chatterjee are as follows:
• I have talked to Shri Ajay Singh who is involved in the
civil works of IACCS. He has also said that there are lots of discrepancies in
the civil contracts.
• I was part of IACCS group who interacted with Air Force
persons during the initial phase of the project. I was working in Radar Data
Processing (RDP) and when we were interfacing with Air Force personnel they
also told us that there was something very wrong going on in the project.
• The amount of corruption which is there in the project
it does not look that CMD would have any control. If the loot is of the order
of Rs 1000 to 2000 Crores, I think a very small part of it would have gone to
BEL persons. Persons facilitating this loot in BEL would just get few foreign
trips and perhaps some GM promotions. The very fact that Air Force has given
BEL the job of civil construction on underground buildings is itself
questionable since DRDO already had expertise in this and Air Force could have
done this job ( directly through some private vendor) with DRDO help (this
shows that the plan was to do all the corruption by just front ending BEL).
• I have also been a part of IACCS project from the very
beginning (although I was looking after a very small portion related to RDP)
but I also found something strange happening in the project. When I was doing
the RDP I was asked by Mr. Anil Pant (the AGM in-charge of IACCS who was
indicted by the Vigilance report dated 16th Nov’16 for manipulations in the ordering
of DDS software but was subsequently promoted as General Manager) to choose the
hardware from a particular vendor (on a single tender basis and at a very high
cost from what was available in the market). As per Mr. Pant it was customers
requirement to go with a particular vendor (how can customer dictate the
vendor).
•
Even taking the hardware at a higher cost I was able to make the system in-house
at a cost of Rs 25 lacs. The same system they were getting from vendors at
almost Rs 2.5 Crores (ten times the in-house cost).
•
Although I was doing a very small part of the project the attitude which was
there in the
overall
project got reflected in this also (as in overall IACCS project they have been
going for single tenders for ordering on pre-fixed vendors at much higher costs
than available in the market).
• Everyone looked at me as if I have done a very big
mistake by developing the system inhouse (maybe because I came on the way of
persons making money out of outsourcing the same to pre-fixed vendors).
Everyone (including the end user) tried to dissuade me from taking up the
in-house development by telling me that the system is required urgently within
six months thinking that I will raise my hands due to the impossible time lines
set for me for development. Everyone was saying that RDP cannot be made
in-house but like a fool I accepted the challenge and when I successfully
demonstrated it, I was unceremoniously thrown out of the project.
• It
is quite obvious that there is some serious misappropriation going on in the
project at the highest level.
It is obvious that since after developing the system at a cost of Rs 25 lacs Mr. D.K. Chatterjee was thrown out of the project the required systems would have been bought at inflated cost (almost ten times) from pre-fixed vendors. This has been the modus operandi in the IACCS project wherein persons who had originally been part of the project and were instrumental in development of software and selection of hardware were unceremoniously removed from the project and a bunch of persons who had nothing to do with the project were placed at the positions where they manipulated the ordering in connivance with the persons at the highest level at BEL for personal gains.
An
explosive purported conversation between former in-charge of Air Force’s Rs.
7,900 Crore project, MM Joshi and another BEL senior officer MM Pandey recently
surfaced and received by the corruptionindrdo.com through anonymous sources. MM
Joshi was the officer who signed the IACCS contract on behalf of Bharat
Electronics Limited in October 2015 and served as driving force till April 2016
when he was unceremoniously transferred from BEL.
According
to sources, Joshi was removed from the position after he refused to endorse
large-scale corruption in the project that was being orchestrated through
senior officers of defence public sector undertaking.
Another
person in purported conversation, MM Pandey (GM), who conducted inquiry in
alleged irregularities in IACCS project and exposed the deep-rooted corruption
in the project. Pandey has now been suspended by BEL for exposing corruption.
The government, which vows to fight corruption has been a mute spectator all
along while Pandey is being harassed for doing honest job. MM Joshi who handled
the sensitive IACCS project in purported conversation with Pandey has made
startling revelation suggesting that alleged loot in contract began immediately
after BEL signed the agreement with Indian Air Force and at least two senior
officers were instrumental in perpetrating the irregularities. Joshi is also
heard in the conversation admitting that it is fit case to be investigated by
the Central Bureau of Investigation.
This
shocking revelation fly in the face of BEL, which has been trying to cover-up
the massive scam and punishing honest officers, who expose the rot. It has been
learnt from the reliable sources that Department of Defence Production, has
recommended a CBI probe but the file for the last one month is still awaiting
recommendation of defence minister.
While
this case has been caught in bureaucratic quagmire due to influence exercised
by the Babus, BEL officers, the inquiry team which exposed corruption has been
suspended. This is a sad reality of a vibrant democracy where corrupts are
honored and honest officers are hanged.
This
whistleblower website which has been on the forefront of anti-corruption movement
for more than a decade has decided to publish excerpts of the purported
conversation which makes it amply clear on loot right under the nose of
government and investigating agencies.
www.corruptionindrdo.com, however, cannot independently verify the
authenticity of audio. Received from anonymous source. www.corruptionindrdo.com has forwarded government agencies
for further investigation.
Here are the excerpts of
conversation between MM Joshi (NCS SBU head in BEL
when the IACCS project was finalized between BEL and Air Force, Retired in
March 2019) and MM Pandey (GM-PS/Delhi who was
the Vigilance Inquiry Officer who brought out the corruption in IACCS project) on
9th April 2019 or 10th
April 2019 after main stream media reports publish on 9th April 2019
“BEL
allegedly violated string of norms to award contracts to German, Finnish firms;
ex-CMD, two retired defence officials under scanner”
Mr. M.M. Joshi can be
heard saying:
_ I was very careful
in signing any document order/contract of IACCS without seeing that everyone
has signed since I knew that all of these cases would be opened by Vigilance
one day
_This report is
beyond the report which was made by M.M. Pandey and contains details of
procurement of “A” class items. Mr. Nataraj Krishnappa (who is Director-Oother
Units) and Mr. Joydeep Majumdar (who is the present GM-NCS)
will finally be caught for what they have being doing (which brings out
that he had knowledge of the wrong which was to happen in theproject
from the time the project was taken up).
_ One of the
Directors of BEL is saying that there is some person in DRDO who has leaked the
report to press
_ What has been
brought out in the second news article is point to point and ever thing which
has been written is the truth and today’s report is very explosive and related
to Material Procurement
– This report will
directly indict Mr. Nataraj and Mr. Majumdar. They should get a lesson and they
should get the return for whatever wrong they have done. They were the people
behind my transfer out of NCS in fact Mr. Majumdar had started manipulations
even before he took over as SBU head. Also Mr. Nataraj is the person who
manipulated the selection of D (OU) and saw that my application for that post
gets rejected so that he could be selected. He was also responsible for my
transfer out of NCS SBU and bringing in Mr. Joydeep Majumdar in my place
_ All these should be
handed over to CBI/CAG or they should take suo moto cognizance of the
corruption done by these people.
_ All the companies
to which order has been given are shell companies
_ I will wait for
that day when these two are punished for what they have been doing.
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.
Mr. Udaya Shankara K S AGM (Marketing), CPIO, Bharat Electronics Limited Corporate Office, Outer Ring Road, Nagavara, Bangalore – 560 045
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. No.005/VGL/4 Government of India Central Vigilance Commission Circular No. 31/9/06. Subject-Posting of details on award of tenders/contracts on websites/bulletins, copy enclosed. It is observed that BEL, Website suddenly stopped Posting of details on award of tenders/contracts eProcuement-SRM after media published the Rs 7900 Cr scam in Air force IACCS Project.
1.Provide the date and time of stopping Posting of details on award of tenders/contracts on BEL Website eProcuement-SRM
2.Provide the name of authority who place the order to stopping Posting of details on award of tenders/contracts on BEL Website eProcuement-SRM
3.Provide if details of efforts to restart Posting of details on award of tenders/contracts on BEL Website eProcuement-SRM
4.Provide details and copy of letter if any orders received from BEL CMD Office for stopping Posting of details on award of tenders/contracts on BEL Website eProcuement-SRM
Whether BEL take any policy decision not to Posting of details on award of tenders/contracts on BEL Website eProcuement-SRM then provide the details therof.
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
Yatish Yadav Jul 11, 2019 12:31:00 IST First Post New Delhi: After Firstpost expose on glaring irregularities in the civil construction of Indian Air Force’s (IAF) highly sensitive Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project, a former manager of a defence public sector undertaking and a whistleblower has surfaced alleging corruption in the procurement of software for automated command and control system for air defence operations.
Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), a defence public sector undertaking is implementing the Rs 7, 900 crore project, which was initiated during the UPA regime.
The former manager of BEL, Bhupesh Sharma in a letter to the Ministry of Defence and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on 29 June 2019 has said that top management of the defence public sector undertaking, quietly buried the findings of a 2016 internal inquiry, which indicted six BEL officers for alleged corruption. Sharma alleged that despite a reminder from the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the company to the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of BEL in April 2018, no punitive action was taken against the accused officers.
Representational image of an air defence system. Reuters
Sharma, then part of the procurement committee, had blown the whistle over alleged manipulation in the procurement of Data Distribution Service (DDS) software to favour an American company. Sharma alleging victimisation said accused officers indicted by vigilance were rewarded by BEL while he was harassed for exposing deep-rooted corruption.
“Even after CVC intervention and reminders by CVO to CMD (Chairman and Managing Director) no action was taken against the erring officers. I was harassed and troubled to the extent that I was forced to resign. Instead of black listing the vendor M/S RTI USA, the order was finally placed on the vendor. The vigilance officer who did the enquiry in this case has also been given punishment posting to a remote unit of BEL. The message given by the top management was clear that anyone who speaks against corruption would be brutally suppressed and those who play along with the persons at the top having vested interests would be rewarded,” Sharma, who claims to have been decorated with innovation award, excellence awards and Raksha Mantri award for IACCS project , wrote to the CVC.
The documents also reveal that efforts were made by BEL officers to conceal the alleged irregularities by removing the files and purchase order. Even the investigators were denied full access to e-mails of concerned purchase department.
A detailed questionnaire sent to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner Sharad Kumar, Ministry of Defence and BEL CMD MV Gowtama remained unanswered.
Unravelling of software scam
Firstpost has reviewed the documents submitted to the Ministry of Defence and the CVC, which clearly shows that the procurement committee had engineered unwarranted specification in the procurement of DDS software to allegedly disqualify one of the two vendors in the race for the contract.
The two companies, M/S RTI, USA and M/S Prismtech, UK represented by M/S Mistral Solutions and M/S RTTS respectively were invited by the BEL for the procurement of DDS software. The vigilance report said procurement team had pre-decided to give the contract to M/S RTI USA and the entire process of real time demonstration to assess feasibility also known as Proof of Concept (PoC) was merely an eyewash.
Although UK Company had quoted value of the project in the range of about Rs 5 to 10 crore, the quote submitted by American company M/S RTI was about Rs 130 crore. However, since, the BEL had decided to grant the project to M/S RTI, USA through its Indian representative M/S Mistral Solutions, BEL officers inserted a particular specification which caught the eye of vigilance team investigating the case.
“Technical expert in his report has stated that there is a lack of clarity in the PoC evaluation process/criteria which leads to ambiguity and conspiracy. Also technical expert has confirmed that there are irregularities and inconsistencies in framing of specifications and conducting PoC. Scope of PoC for the DDS document does not specify any particular method of demonstrating the PoC and it generally highlights the features to be shown in the PoC. Hence the vendor can select any particular method and demonstrate the features. PoC evaluation criteria and the PoC test document is not uniform for all the vendors,” the vigilance report to the CVC said.
System Requirements Specification document signed with the customer by BEL indicates that there are no special specification requirements for the use and configuration of DDS and also the security of the data transferred using DDS. PoC scope does not highlight that the above security implementations should match and confirm to DDS OMG standards. Even though no vendor has a complete implementation of DDS X types still M/S RTI was shown complied during technical bidding regarding para 6.2 of technical specification,” the report further said.
The vigilance report made it clear that specifications mentioned above as ‘para 6.2 technical specs’ were allegedly modified by the procurement committee of BEL to suit American firm. Sharma claims he had opposed such manipulation and turned whistleblower by exposing the wrongdoings in his emails to vigilance and top officials of the BEL.
“I became the whistleblower when ordering of software for the IACCS project was forcibly being ordered on the resultant single tender basis (by manipulating and making the other vendor technically non-complied). I tried my best to stop the ordering by talking to all my seniors in the unit and finally when I was not heard, I wrote to CVO and all the directors of the company including CMD about the corrupt practices being followed in the unit,” Sharma wrote to the CVC.
It is also evident from the vigilance report that the UK firm was deliberately denied security clearance for demonstration though its India representative M/S RTTS was allowed and subsequently disqualified.
“The team (BEL) misinformed M/S Prismtech regarding non-availability of security clearance on 11 May 2016, though a security clearance was taken by Senior Manager DGM (Development & Engineering division of Network Centric System 1) for the period of 9 May-11 May 2016. The contradicting statements of senior executives and D&E engineers in relation to security clearance for M/S Prismtech representative’s leads to suspect that D&E does not want to give the opportunity to M/S Prismtech to demonstrate the features,” the vigilance report said.
Questions have also been raised by the vigilance team over the formation of a technical committee and PoC committee for the procurement. The report observed although the procurement involves a lot of technical parameters related to software and high value of approximately Rs 130 crore, the procurement committee was made with two mechanical engineers, one finance and two electronic engineers. The report slammed BEL further asserting that there were no software professionals in the technical specification team and approval of a procurement team with non-technical members reveals a lax approach of the management as they played a dubious role.
“It appears that D&E engineers (Development & Engineering division) have played a pivotal role in finalizing specifications whereas others merely acted as spectators,” the vigilance report said.
The report has also raised doubt on the assessment process of technical specifications saying that evaluation of features is not the same for both M/S Prismtech and M/S RTI.
It said the PoC which were done by engineers from M/S Mistral Solutions, representative of RTI, USA, did not have relevant past experience to carry out PoC of DDS software and they could not answer anything technically or relevantly. The vigilance team during an interrogation of engineers from Development & Engineering division found that some engineers who were nominated as PoC members were not aware that they were part of an evaluation team.
Some were absent during the assessment, some engineers had relegated the job to their junior executives and no detailed review was done during the conduct of PoC and no senior executives have monitored the progress of PoC though it was such an important activity for the project. The test report of the American firm was also prepared in advance.
“From the test data report of M/S Mistral (representative of M/S RTI USA, it emerges that test data report was pre-prepared by suppliers and merely signed by BEL engineers. During examination of D&E engineers, it is observed that D&E-NCS has started working on evaluation versions of M/S RTI, USA since October 2015 through license agreements. During evaluation many issues came time to time and were resolved. This was probably the reason that PoC with M/S RTI, USA was merely a formality. The PoC conducted by M/S Mistral Solutions has been cleared despite number of irregularities/ inconsistencies,” the vigilance report said exposing the manipulation to favour a particular vendor.
The documents reveal that before the investigators could examine the documents related to alleged corruption, the files were removed by the concerned officers to erase the audit trail.
The vigilance report said, “Documents with respect to change of specifications which is intimated to M/S RTTS (India representative of M/S Prismtech, UK) was not found in the file, not informed to the investigator at any point and the same was concealed by purchase department. There was no documentary proof regarding the intimation of changed specifications to four cases to all the suppliers participated in the bidding. Currently, the purchase requisitions are also deleted in SAP (System Applications and Products) without assigning reasons and Unit Management has not given any reasons till now for the same.”
The vigilance report which was forwarded to the CVC on 24 November 2016, clearly opined that there are procedural violations in the subject case and there appear to be malafide intentions right from the beginning of coming out of consolidated requirements, generating the specifications for this software instead of PP drawings, arriving of PoC conditions, the manner in which PoC was conducted and M/S RTI, USA bid was accepted and M/S Prismtech bid was eliminated.
The vigilance recommended blacklisting of M/S RTI, USA, initiation of disciplinary action against officers involved and including the name of two senior officers in doubtful integrity list.
In defence procurements, the private companies are known to be hiring retired officials to exercise the influence. In this case too, vigilance raised apprehension about alleged manipulation as a former CMD of BEL was on board of Mistral Solutions. The vigilance had recommended a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), however, the matter was never referred to the premier investigative agency.
“It is learnt that M/S RTI’s malafide intention/ involvement with BEL D&E team cannot be underestimated as ex-CMD (BEL) Mr. Ashwini Kumar Datta is working in M/S Mistral Solutions which requires further investigation by the CBI,” the vigilance report said.
In its recommendation, the vigilance also said the finalisation of specifications and scope of PoC should be done by a competent technical committee and any vested interest/doubtful integrity executives should not be part of the panel.
Cover-up by BEL?
The alleged cover-up in the entire irregularities started after the project came under the scanner. The Rs 130 crore tender was scrapped and suddenly BEL realised that they have in house capability to provide that suspected security specifications that was inserted to allegedly favour a particular company.
However, Sharma said, the BEL management did not take any disciplinary action against accused officers, did not include two senior officers in doubtful integrity list and did not blacklist the American firm. In fact, Sharma alleged, a bogus re-tendering process was initiated on the single-vendor basis and this time the DDS software contract without suspected specification was awarded to same firm Mistral Solutions, India representative of RTI, USA at less than Rs 10 crore. The BEL GM, NCS Joydeep Majumdar in a letter to the CVO confirmed the contract to Mistral Solutions while claiming they have saved more than Rs 110 crore.
“Earlier security features were included in the RFQ for DDS software. M/S Mistral Solutions qualified technically. Mistral quoted Rs. 120 Crores, however, the technical committee after study found out that the security solution was available with CRL Bangalore (Central Research Laboratory) and no need to buy from Mistral. A proof of concept was carried out and it was found working with the proposed DDS. Thus, the committee decided to go for the same DDS from Mistral which was purchased earlier for CMS in NCS, SBU which was without security features and hence was valued very low. Also, since the NCS engineers are conversant with this DDS it will obviate learning the new DDS, if chosen otherwise. A fresh Single Tender Enquiry was floated and the expected order price is less than Rs.10 Crore,” GM Majumdar wrote to the CVO on 9 February 2017.
This new found solution to douse the scandal was clearly an afterthought, reveals the documents sent to defence ministry and the CVC. The vigilance report clearly stated that Request For Proposal (RFP) even before the procurement process began, was finalised in coordination with the CRL. Nowhere, documents mentioned CRL team’s observation that they have in-house capability of security solution and therefore there was no need to purchase it from a private vendor at such a high price.
Even after RFP, the two members of CRL were part of the evaluation process and nowhere during the assessment process, the members acknowledged having in-house capability for the security solution that could save taxpayers money. In fact, further investigation revealed that UK’s company India representative M/S RTTS had held meeting at CRL Bangalore but the issue of having this in house security specification capability was not raised.
“A meeting with the vendor M/S RTTS at CRL Bangalore was conducted and the vendor has informed during discussion that PoC had ambiguous requirements not in line with PoC document, hostile environment during conduct of PoC by some of the PoC team members, required infrastructure which has to be provided by BEL was not provided,” the investigation report said.
Sharma claimed, the BEL officials brought up the issue of CRL having security solution only after procurement came under the vigilance scanner to conceal the alleged irregularities.
Subsequently, the CVC, not pleased with soft action of merely issuing warning letters to accused officers, wrote to BEL CMD MV Gowtama on 5 July 2017 for taking appropriate action.
“The Commission has observed that the tender was scrapped but the violations are serious in nature. The officers concerned have been let off with very lenient action. The Commission has desired that the CMD, Bharat Electronics Limited may review it sou-moto, if provision exists,” Ajay Kanoujia, Director, CVC wrote to Gowtama.
Later on 17 July 2017, Manager Vigilance in a note decided to send a reminder to the CMD observing that action against accused officers were indulgent.
“In the subject case, CVC’s observation were in line with Corporate Vigilance’s observations that a lenient view has been taken by the disciplinary authority without analyzing corporate vigilance letter/report, to close the case with minor penalty actions for the reasons not mentioned in the corporate vigilance report. In this regard, in line with CVC recommendations, it is proposed to send a letter to CMD to initiate appropriate major disciplinary proceeding action on attempts done by delinquent officers,” the note said.
Further, file noting suggests that another reminder for action in the case was sent to the CMD on 9 April 2018. It is also learnt that similar irregularities were unearthed in the procurement of database (DB) and Operating System which were later rectified after an internal probe flagged the wrongdoings.
Similarly, in civil construction, the issue of a single vendor for design consultant and procurement from the related parties have come under the vigilance scanner. Instead of taking action against the accused officers named in the vigilance report, the defence public sector undertaking has suspended members of the investigation team, who exposed the corruption.
“The same modus operandi has been followed with the vigilance team which brought out the corruption in selection of the design consultant and civil infrastructure ordering. The report of the vigilance enquiry has been downplayed and every member who was part of the vigilance enquiry has been charge sheeted, suspended or given punishment postings,” Sharma wrote to the CVC.
Dr. Bhaskar Ramamurthi, Director at IIT, Chennai, Dr. R K Shevgaonkar, Professor at IIT, Mumbai, Mrs. Usha Mathur, ex-Secretary to Govt. of India, Mr. Sharad Sanghi, Entrepreneur, Shri Mukka Harish Babu, Practicing Chartered Accountant, Shri Surendra Singh Sirohi, ex-Secretary to Govt. Of India, Shri Vijay S Madan, ex-Secretary to Govt. Of India, Dr. Amit Sahai, Joint Secretary (P&C), Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production, Ms J Manjula, Distinguished Scientist & Director General-Electronics & Communication Systems, DRDO,
MASSIVE CORRUPTION IN AIRFORCE UNDERGROUND STRUCTURE, IMPLEMENTATION AGENCY DEFENCE PSU BHARAT ELECTRONICS SUSPENDS ITS OWN INVESTIGATING OFFICERS FOR UNEARTHING ROLE OF CMD & TOP OFFICERS
In an unprecedented move the defence public sector undertaking Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) has suspended three senior officials, who unearthed massive irregularities in the Indian Air Force’s confidential IACCS project- underground bunkers- at 10 strategic locations. The three officials were part of Inquiry committee set up by the BEL’s Chief Vigilance officer (CVO) in July 2018 . The team exposing the role of high ranking officers and manipulation of awards of contracts in Rs.8000 Crore project had submitted the report in October 2018. Instead of taking action against the corrupt officers, BEL management led by its Chairman MV Gowtama, who himself is under the scanner in IACCS project, acted with vengeance and suspended the investigation team members.
It is pertinent to mention that after three-member probe committee submitted the report, BEL CVO , a senior IAS officer MR S.SHIVA KUMAR 1987 BATCH in his note dated 29 March 2019 exposed the deep-rooted corruption recommending strong action against erring officers and firms. Yet, the CMD , who is likely to be arrested if a probe is ordered, cracked the whip against inquiry committee members for doing honest job. This crackdown is in spite of the fact that the CVO of the company as appointed by CVC of India had established and validated each point of the investigation report and strongly recommended to management of BEL for immediate police and civil criminal action against concerned BEL officers and chief consultant of the project M/s RD KONSULTANT. The role of senior DRDO officers is also under the scanner since it was DRDO which recommended and fully supported the name of RD Konsultant to BEL although it was done informally and BEL surreptitiously avoided DRDO role in the files.The role of DRDO officers was brought out and exposed by the BEL vigilance probe team which was suspended on 17 May 2019. To distract the government’s IB report, CMD, BEL created suspension drama of three personal of BEL, 2 GM Vigilance and one manager to fooling the country. This shows the clear mockery of BEL management.
M/S RD KONSULTANT – DELHI , which came out to be a shell company in investigation report , incorporated just 3-4 months before the award of PPR consultancy project with all false and fabricated documents, and was wrongly awarded DPR consultancy project also violating BEL own manual procedures as well CVC guidelines with a criminal intent of having control over all future activities of civil contract as well infrastructure/ Plant and machinery items procurement worth more than Rs 3500 crores, as recorded in noting files and many senior management personals of M/S BHARAT ELECTRONICS , which is continuously being done since UPA CONGRESS REGIME 2011.
One very interesting fact of the whole case is that the two BHARAT ELECTRONICS senior management personals named Mr N.K. SHARMA DIRECTOR( MARKETTING) and MR CHANDERPRAKASH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (D&E) GAD, who were the chief &key persons for co ordinating the IACCS project getting approved from Indian air force, joined a company named “OIS ADVANCE TECH” – 90% OWNDED BY MR SANJAY BHANDARI – famous arms dealer & power broker and close associate of ROBERT WADRA immediately after their retirement from BEL in 2010 and 2011, and immediately after this this project got formally started by BEL .
The detailed and very exhaustive investigation done by fact verification team in early 2018 and further investigation team in end 2018 and subsequently report by CVO of M/s Bharat Electronics has established the details of massive corruption and mal practices done by M/S RD Konsultant, its associate/related firms and senior management persons of BEL ( since 2011 onwards till now), by abusing their powers and violating all BEL manuals as well as documented CVC guidelines for tendering for award of civil project works and procurement of items worth more than 3500 crores.
These civil contract worth more than 1000 crores have been given of paper to reputed firms like M/S L&T but at almost 30 % higher and inflated rates (as also mentioned by then Director (Finance) Mr PRABHAT ACHARYA in file noting about more than 100 crore loss as well as violation of BEL Contract manual conditions as well as CVC guidelines) and after some period he resigned from company. After this project given to m/s L&T are being done by M/S RD consultant sister concern named M/S CS CONSTRUCTIONS at sites ( even MD- Mr Rahul Baucher of M/S CS Construction used to come to BEL-Ghaziabad unit for regular review meeting on behalf of L&T) – A serious violation of CVC guidelines as well contract conditions of BEL & M/S RD KONSUL) , which seriously compromise the quality , as it is a very small petty company which in no way has a technical capability and skill to deal such highly technical and secured project. This fact as validated by the fact that some sites were shown as collapsed during construction and crores of rupees were further approved by BEL management in name of deviation with fixing the responsibility on contractor.
The detailed design which was submitted by M/s R.D. Konsultants specified vendors for all the sub-systems which are used in the blast proof underground buildings. It is seen that these vendors are the same which they had brought out to be their partners during presented made by then during the Pre-qualification bid. The Order which was placed on BEL by Air Force was also based on the detail design report submitted by M/s R.D. Konsultants and hence all these vendors called in the order from Air Force were the same which were defined by M/s R.D. Konsultants.BEL has in turn placed many orders for the sub-systems based on the vendors defined by M/s R.D. Konsultants. A visit was made to the works of many of these European vendors by a team of engineers from BEL along with Air Force personnel. But is it said that the team was accompanied by a rep from M/s R.D. Konsultant and the visit was coordinated by M/s R. D. Konsultant. These foreign companies were allowed to supply materials on a single tender basis by the BEL chairman MV Gowtama. He in fact overruled his own officials and approved qualification of several firms despite they had failed to submit bid details during prescribed time. Such gross violation was similar to the ones seen during 2G scam. BEL Chairman violated the laid down norms by allowing these foreign firms despite objections duly recorded by the finance division.
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 company and the firm has gone bankrupt, he cannot give consultancy services to this project. Now on this bogus consultancy company’s design, 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 members ( in name of media leak- which even our prime minister call as a strong pillar of democracy) .
The team which is suspended and currently facing all type of harassment, victimization and humiliation of suspension, but in spite of all pressures and threats, have unearthed this scam just to keep the spirit of national security and defence importance and demand only for justice but calling for a detailed CVC/CBI/ED enquiry outside BEL management preview immediately and immediate intervention of MINISTRY OF DEFENCE for action on some BEL senior management for their misdeeds
A honest and sincere appeal to all concerned officials of PMO/MOD /CVC/PRESS/JUDITARY that please take immediate action in this regard to keep “CHOWKIDAR “ alive in our souls by safeguarding the honour of investigation team officials.
ABOVE ALL MATTER IS COVERED IN DETAILS BY A REPUTED NEWPAPER
“FIRSTPOST” IN ITS ARTICLE DATED 02 APRIL, 09 APRIL & 26 April 2019
Before publishing in media the matter was available with AF Intelligence, CVO, CBI, North Block, Chairman, DRDO, IB in March itself but god knows why any agency not take-up this matter seriously.
Hope you will take up matter seriously as you are responsible Member, Audit Committee and Director of BEL and may be aware of all developments from side of BEL management who are posing that matter is mare deviation of 50/60 lakhs as a bonafide fighter against defence corruption since more than 20 years I am fully aware of nexus. This nexus was designed by Retired Scientist of DRDO with ex DRDO chief because the U/G work of services was sole right of DRDO via SPIC, but when retirement stage these corrupt DRDO official gang create the scene and diverted this activity to BEL which doesn’t have any type construction division like DRDO have, U/G plant machinery experience either trading nor manufacturing in this tender only 500 cr electronics involvement can BEL claimed. As per investigation and observation it is clearly visualize that few greedy BEL official trapped in vicious DRDO official and for sake of few bucks they compromised with national security as well as their organization’s dignity. Please ask the vigilance report prepared by these three suspended BEL employees, Report is not an eye opener but will help govern to expose UPA era nexus who are responsible to siphon the defence budget under shadow of secrecy.
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
