Tag Archives: Bharat Electronics Limited

‘Akash missile system can’t be trusted during war’: Degraded by govt defence agencies, loopholes in strategic weapon system threaten national security

Yatish Yadav Dec 02, 2019 18:22:43 IST

Other squadrons reported frequent unserviceability of mobile surface-to-air Akash Missile system and long duration downtime, which means that the missiles are dysfunctional and may not be cocked and loaded against enemy in contingency

Several government agencies, including missile manufacturer Bharat Dynamics Limited, Bharat Electronics Limited, did not tell the truth to the government about malfunctioning Akash Missile system and poor quality of spare parts provided by the private vendors

CAG was perhaps far-sighted, when in a 2017 report, the national auditor observed that Akash Missiles cannot be trusted in situation of a war

On 3 June, 2018, Akash Missile’s Transportation and Loading Vehicle (TLV), parked at an Air Force Squadron, was jolted after a sudden burst of tube followed by shearing off wheel bolts due to impact. The incident shocked Air Force headquarters. The Air Force officials wanted not only wanted the routine analysis of the incident, but also an in-depth discussion with Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), a multi-disciplinary Missile System laboratory under the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to unearth issues hampering the functioning of the strategic weapon system.

More than a month later, another squadron reported cracks on air intake caps of dummy missiles. An investigation by Firstpost revealed that the incidents were followed by other squadrons reporting frequent unserviceability of mobile surface-to-air Akash Missile system and long duration downtime, which means that the missiles are dysfunctional and may not be cocked and loaded against enemy in contingency. This incident forced Guided Weapon Maintenance Department of Air Force on 5 September 2018 to raise the issue, where they clearly stated that the “Squadrons have been reporting frequent unserviceability of Missiles and it has been noticed that time taken to resolve these failures is considerably high due to delay in analysis of failures.”

The sheer inertia of government defence enterprise involved in Akash Missile production and maintenance reached to such an alarming level that at least three squadrons of Akash in February 2019 reported that missile system remained down or simply broken and sometimes even out of order during 90 percent of the time since their date of commissioning. These squadrons were commissioned between 2013-2015 to counter Chinese aggression.

Multiple government agencies, including Missile manufacturer Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) which comes under the Ministry of Defence, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) which is responsible for radars and maintenance and the DRDO, did not tell the truth to the government about malfunctioning Akash Missile system and poor quality of spare parts provided by the private vendors.

The malfunction of Integrated Air Compressor and Storage Facility (IACSF) revealed another shocker and the Air Force mentioned it on record that the IACSFs of Akash Missile System units are unserviceable due to wobbling and vibration, pneumatic leakage, breaking of mounting pads and bolts. A missile had failed to take off during combined guided weapon firing exercise known as ‘CROSSBOW-18’ and a team of Missile System Quality Assurance Agency (MSQAA), BDL and DRDL was constituted to investigate the failure.

MSQAA is an independent inspection Agency under the administrative and functional control of Director General Aeronautical Quality Assurance, which comes under the Department of Defence Production of Defence Ministry. The incidents of leakage from fuel tanks and leakage in pressurised Missile containers were taken so lightly that the Air Force, responsible to secure the nation from aerial threats, was forced to direct to the DRDL, BEL and BDL that present configuration of certain systems of Akash Missile will not be acceptable for future squadrons, which are under the process of procurement. The Air Force, BDL, BEL and DRDL are yet to respond to a questionnaire sent by Firstpost on 24 November.

Details expose criminal act by government defence enterprises

If there is an emergent situation, several Akash sqaudron may not be able to launch counter offensive because deficiencies in many of the system including hydraulic oil leakage and container pressure leakage, which is pending since 2017. The complaints received from Air Force headquarters, Eastern Air Command and other Akash field units reveals there is no back-to-back agreement with vendors for equipment under warranty, making it difficult to repair the faults. Documents reviewed by Firstpost showed that almost all squadrons have expressed that they are unable to get proper feedback from BEL on repairing the faults in Missile System and on problems plaguing Akash Missiles which Indian agencies are ill-equipped to resolve. Surprisingly the field engineers, who are supposed to rectify the critical snags, are not even aware of any action plan.

Documents further said: “Currently majority of the Akash field engineers are working to pass information about issues without any tangible technical output. The untrained and poorly equipped field engineers are neither aware of any corrective action plan nor they are committed.”

The documents also pointed to massive delay in supply of spares for Missile System, virtually grounding them for for six months to a year. Air Force in a meeting had informed that most of the problems reported in 2017 were pending for over a year now. The documents also pointed at the repairing of Akash trailers which are covered under annual maintenance contract. It said: “Akash Trailers serviceability is poor and some cases spares supplied to Akash Missile units are not configured as per system requirement which is affecting equipment serviceability in case of failure.”

Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) the manufacturer of Akash Missile has not been able to resolve three important issues for the last two to three years. BDL, founded in 1970, is a government enterprise under the administrative control of the Ministry of Defence. It is learnt that BDL was told in high level meeting convened last year to come out with solid plan after conducting an investigation and study of faults in Akash Missile System within a month on long delays of critical faults. Even the investigation to unearth and address the issues was delayed.’


The Air Force has refused to pay for new maintenance contract for certain Akash Missile squadrons as the old ones expired in September 2019. They argued that missile systems in several squadrons were left idle for more than a year. Instead, it had asked for extension of warranty for certain squadrons which have been dysfunctional for 17 to 15 months in the last two years. Air Force asserted since system was down and faults were neither rectified nor replaced, it violated the maintenance contract. Air Force is learnt to have said that “during the warranty period, the seller shall either replace or rectify the failed goods free of charge within 30 days of notification of such defects. As per article of the contract, warranty of the equipment would be extended by such duration from time the buyer has reported such unserviceabilities till the time seller has restored the status of the buyer’s satisfaction.”

Red tapeism in government defence enterprises hurt national security

Firstpost investigation also revealed gross inefficiency of government defence agencies BEL, BDL and DRDL to address the problem in Akash Missile System. Documents reveal that meetings after meetings were convened on the issues but the government defence enterprises couldn’t satisfactorily answer the questions raised by Air Force. These government defence enterprises have been passing the buck. They also cheated Air Force by providing substandard and fake spares.

A meeting earlier this year chaired by Air Vice Marshal Bhanoji Rao pointed at severe negligence in handling Akash Missile System which may have serious ramifications in contingency. Documents revealed that certain spares, especially those of sub-vendors (procured by BEL) were being received at Akash Missile System units without ‘Quality Assurance’ certification and on a few instances it came to light that these spares were old and fake. In a letter, it was noted: “On few instances it has been noticed that the items were not new/authentic.”

Air Vice Marshal Rao clearly told his team at the Air Force not to accept spares without ‘Quality Assurance’ certification. The meeting also revealed a lack of expertise of government-owned defence enterprises which are acting merely as a supplier of equipment after procuring it from domestic and foreign vendors. It basically means that these government enterprises are acting like a payment facilitators. Their complicity in this entire saga was further exposed when government defence enterprises officials told the senior Air Force officials that sub-vendors (private companies supplying spares) were not willing to share their design documents.

An appalled Air Vice Marshal asked, if the Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) is the authority then it must have intellectual property rights of all designs related to Akash Missile System. Obviously, the defence agencies representatives were not aware about it since they never took the pain to look into the agreements and promised the Air Force to look into the matter to ascertain whether these rights were with vendors. A promise was made to list all major vendors for unhindered supply of spares to overcome single vendor situation. As far as BEL is concerned documents said: “Almost all squadrons have expressed that they are unable to get proper feedbacks from BEL on progress and plan of action of pending faults.”

The meeting chaired by Air Vice Marshal Rao also discussed high failure rate of one of the systems of Akash Missile, lacunae in analysis of faults and mismatch in software versions used for the this strategic weapon.

Another major loophole, which highlights the non-seriousness of defence agencies, is the contract with the private vendors. The agreements are more favorable to private parties putting Akash Missile System in jeopardy. Documents flagged these concerns further pointing out that all the vendor supplied items are outside their warranty obligations and in certain cases supplied spares are not configured as per system requirements. Some spares for Akash Missiles are not fit and functional and this is affecting the equipment serviceability in case of failure.

It appears that careless handling of most critical weapons has been going on for a long time. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) was perhaps far-sighted when in a 2017 report, the national auditor observed that Akash Missiles cannot be trusted in situation of a war. CAG had categorically stated that Akash missile system delivered by BEL were deficient in quality and 30% missiles failed the test.

“Audit found that the Strategic missile system delivered by BEL were deficient in quality. Out of 80 missiles received up to November 2014, 20 missiles were test fired during April-November 2014. Six of these missiles i.e., 30 percent, failed the test. Preliminary failure analysis report revealed that the missiles fell short of the target, had lower than the required velocity, and also there was malfunctioning of critical units like Servo Control Unit and Connector. Two missiles had failed to take off because the booster nozzle had failed. These deficiencies posed an operational risk during hostilities. Two missiles had failed to take off because the booster nozzle had failed. These deficiencies posed an operational risk during hostilities.” CAG report had said.

Firstpost investigation showed that after the CAG report, the squabbling between government defence enterprises had come to light. Eight critical snags in Akash Missile Systems were reported after the CAG report which were pending for three-seven months. CAG had recommended that Ministry of Defence needs to ensure better synchronisation of the various activities and agencies involved in such strategically important projects to ensure their timely completion and quality of Strategic Missiles also needs improvement so as to bring down failure rate.

Notwithstanding, many snags were not rectified citing lack of spares. The Air Force anguished over lackadaisical attitude of BEL and BDL has firmly directed them to resolve all internal issues immediately and ensure that no Missile is kept unserviceable due to their internal problems.

Delhi High Court revokes suspension of BEL whistleblowers;

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.

(SURESH KUMAR  KAIT) JUDGE

OCTOBER 09, 2019

Vigilance heat forced BEL to drastically cut tender size for software in IAF’s Rs 7,900-cr IACCS project, but contract went to tainted US firm

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.

RTI BEL Regarding closing of Vigilance Cases

To      08-07-2019

Mr. Udaya Shankara K S AGM (Marketing), 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 of CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED.

  1. Provide the numbers of vigilance cases investigated by CVO, Mr. S. Shiva Kumar, IAS officer of the 1987 batch in last three years up to March 31, 2019
  2. Provide the numbers, ongoing vigilance cases March 31, 2019 before retirement of CVO, Mr. S. Shiva Kumar.
  3. Provide the numbers, ongoing vigilance cases closed by new CVO Shri Shrikant Walgad after taking Charge as CVO in BEL.
  4. Provide the numbers, ongoing vigilance cases exist after closing order by new CVO Shri Shrikant Walgad.
  5. Provide the numbers of cases forwarded to CVC by BEL in last three years up to 31 March 2019.

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun, Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879, prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number              BELBL/R/2019/50088

Chinese firm Delhi chose for CCTVs on US radar

Concerns have also been raised on the firm being owned by the Chinese government, adding a twist to the controversy over a Delhi government project to install 1.5 lakh CCTV cameras across the city.

By Shaurya Karanbir GurungET Bureau|May 23, 2018,

The Chinese firm is however, not new to controversies, with a growing number of US organisations either removing or barring the use of company’s products.

A Chinese firm whose subsidiary has been shortlisted to supply security cameras for the national capital is on a US watch list, with an advisory on threats, including remote hacking and potential backdoor access.

Concerns have also been raised on the firm being owned by the Chinese government, adding a twist to the controversy over a Delhi government project to install 1.5 lakh CCTV cameras across the city.
While Defence public sector unit Bharat Electronics LimitedNSE 1.13 % (BEL) has been selected, it bid to supply cameras manufactured by Prama Hikvision India Private Limited. Chandra Shekhar, a senior official with Prama Hikvision told ETthat Prama Hikvision is a subsidiary of Hikvision.

However, Prabhat K Bhattacharya of its PR firm Consocia Advisory, claimed Hikvision owned 58% of the Indo-China venture Prama Hikvision.

The project came under controversy after Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee president Ajay Maken alleged that the AAP government had compromised national security. The Chinese firm is however, not new to controversies, with a growing number of US organisations either removing or barring the use of company’s products. The firm’s cameras were removed from the US Embassy in Afghanistan and another of its army base.

Similarly, the US Air Force last year cancelled a tender for Hikvision video surveillance. The US government’s GSA — which provides centralised procurement for it — has removed Hikvision manufactured products from sale. Security concerns of Hikvision products have been raised in the UK as well.

A US Department of Homeland Security advisory dated May 4, 2017 states that the products are “remotely exploitable” and require a low skill level to exploit. The vulnerabilities, advisory explains, are “improper authentication” and “password in configuration file”.
“Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could lead to a malicious attacker escalating his or her privileges or assuming the identity of an authenticated user and obtaining sensitive data,” the advisory reads. Prama Hikvision, however, claims that “allegations of a backdoor are false”.

“We have not, nor would we, intentionally place a “backdoor” in any of our products for any government or third party. Access and control of the video cameras and content will be restricted only to the end users and Prama Hikvision will not be able to access them at all,” the company said in response to an ET questionnaire.

In India, these security concerns may have not deterred procurement. Delhi government officials claim that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), defence ministry and Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) have procured cameras from Hikvision, in response to Maken’s allegations.

Individual questionnaires were sent to these organisations but received no response.

On its part, BEL said there is no compromise on security while supplying products for defence forces. “The requirement is for civilian use and not for any military application…BEL will never compromise on the security related aspects while supplying its products for defence forces. Supply of CCTV cameras for public use in various constituencies in Delhi does not violate any security norms,” BEL said in response to queries by ET.

While the contract is yet to be signed, controversy looms large with the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi creating a high-powered committee to create a standard operating procedure for installing CCTV cameras and the AAP-led government opposing the move.

DNA SPECIAL: Defence PSU BEL suspends internal probe team that exposed corruption

The investigation panel in its report had pointed irregularities in awarding consultancy contract to a private firm RD Konsultants for Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project at 10 locations.

The defence public sector undertaking Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) has suspended its three-member investigation panel, who had unearthed irregularities in the Indian Air Force’s confidential Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project, citing them of acting in “prejudicial” manner that was against the company’s interest.

The investigation panel in its report had pointed irregularities in awarding consultancy contract to a private firm RD Konsultants for Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project at 10 locations.

The report had stated: “A company that came into existence in April 2010 showed its employees had an experience of five years in 2013.”
DNA had exposed irregularities in awarding contracts in an April 3 report (‘Bharat Electronics bent norms to favour private firm: Report’).

It was also found a BEL senior officer PK Bhola who was behind awarding contract to the private vendor to prepare a Preliminary Project Report, later joined the same company after his retirement. The PSU awarded RD Konsultants to prepare the PPR in 2011 and then again brought as the design consultant in 2013, violating laid out norms.

Also the role of senior Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) officers is under the scanner since it was DRDO which recommended the name of RD Konsultant to BEL, although it was done informally.
Sources said that after the scam came out in public domain, the inquiry committee headed by MM Pandey was suspended and all the three members, including Pandey were issued show cause notice and were put on suspension. The committed was set up by the BEL’s Chief Vigilance officer (CVO) Siva Kumar. After Kumar’s tenure ended in April, Shrikant Walgad, an IAS officer of the Haryana Cadre, took over charge as CVO. Kumar before his tenure end had submitted the inquiry report.

Further it is also alleged that instead of taking action against the corrupt officers, BEL Chairman MV Gowtama suspended the investigation team members. “Kumar in his note dated March 29, 2019 sent to Chairman BEL, Ministry of Defence and the Chief Vigilance Commission had alleged deep-rooted corruption recommending strong action against erring officers and related firms,” said a source.

The phone calls and emails to BEL remained unanswered till the time the article is going for print.
The crackdown against the probe team started after Kumar, the CVO who was appointed by CVC, had established in the investigation report alleged irregularities and had recommended BEL to management for immediate action against suspected eight corrupt officers.

Laid Bare
DNA had exposed irregularities in awarding contracts in defence public sector Bharat Electronics Ltd in an April 3 report titled ‘Bharat Electronics bent norms to favour private firm: Report’

Vigilance chief recommends action in Rs 7,900-cr IAF project scam, even as BEL’s management hunts down whistleblowers

Yatish Yadav Apr 26, 2019 – Firstpost

New Delhi: The top vigilance officer in Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) has recommended action in the Rs 7,900-crore air defence scam uncovered by Firstpost, but it is learnt that the top management has launched a hunt to identify the whistle blowers in a bid to cover up the revelations, which point towards a conspiracy involving BEL officials and private companies including foreign vendors.

The chief vigilance officer (CVO) Shiva Kumar has recommended the blacklisting of the design consultant of the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) sensitive air command and control centres, and action against eight BEL officers for allegedly favouring domestic and foreign companies at the cost of taxpayer money and national security.

The CVO, in the recommendation note highlighting the deep-rooted corruption, has said irregularities in the Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS), which started in the UPA regime, were carried out with criminal intent and government rules were flouted in awarding contracts for civil work as well as plant and machinery.

“There were serious violations involving criminal intent through violation of procedure, misrepresentation of facts to management, favouritism to place order on pre-fixed vendors through vested interest, collusion of interest and attempts to make corporate losses. The unit (BEL) has violated MoF (Ministry of Finance), GFR (General Financial Rules) and CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) guidelines while appointment of consultants, contracts for execution of civil works and procurement of items for plant and machinery and various subsystems,” the CVO directives reviewed by Firstpost said.

The comment by the CVO on the role of accused officers clearly indicates the need for not just departmental action but the initiation of criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other penal provisions as well. A questionnaire sent to MV Gowtama, chairman and managing director (CMD) of BEL, seeking comments went unanswered. Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence and the CVC did not respond to a questionnaire sent on 20 April.

However, sources in the CMD’s office revealed there had been no move so far to act on the findings and recommendations of the vigilance department, but a discrete hunt has been launched to locate whistle blowers.

Vigilance chief recommends action in Rs 7,900-cr IAF project scam, even as BELs management hunts down whistleblowers.
“In this regard, top management is penetrating the computer and electronic records of all BEL employees in Bengaluru and Delhi,” sources in the CMD’s office said on condition of anonymity.

Sources quoted above also claimed that the top BEL management went into a huddle after the publication of the Firstpost investigation and subsequent recommendations by the CVO. It is learnt the officials were threatened for reporting massive irregularities in the project to the Prime Minister Office (PMO), defence ministry and the CVC.

The witch-hunt and silence of the BEL management is intriguing despite the CVO categorically pointing out the conflict of interest. The CVO said the design consultant of the highly-sensitive underground automated air defence command and control centres, M/s RD Konsultants should be blacklisted for the fraudulent transactions with BEL.

“Also as the agency (RD Konsultants) was involved in collusion of interest by executing the works through its affiliates, M/s CS Constructions Private Limited 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,” the CVO said.

According to sources in BEL’s finance division, since the IACCS project is worth Rs 7,900 crore and directly linked to national security, the audit committee comprising independent directors may recommend a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The finance division of the defence PSU had raised several objections over the award of contracts flagging rule-books but the officers were overruled by the top brass. Even BEL officer Nataraj Krishnappa, director (other units) had raised objections while processing a certain contract. Sources close to Krishnappa confirmed that a criminal investigation may be on the cards. A CVO is considered the extended hand of the CVC and constitutes an important link between the concerned organisation, vigilance watchdog and the CBI.

As far as the eight accused officers’ roles are concerned, the CVO has observed that disciplinary proceeding including the suspension of an officer working in the infrastructure division (network-centric system), should be initiated for violating procedures and CVC guidelines, which eventually resulted in favor to M/s RD Konsultants.

“It is observed that there was suppression and concealment of facts by the committee in the proposal initiated during 2013 with respect of appointment of a consultant during 2011, for preparation of a preliminary project report. It is pertinent to mention that in the proposal for appointment of consultants during 2011, there is a noting from Senior DGM (Finance) that as per CVC guidelines issued dated 24 June, 2011, if M/s RD Konsultants is hired as a consultant for preparing a preliminary project report, then it cannot be considered for future similar requirements for an IACCS project. Although the proposal was agreed to by CMD, these facts are not brought in the consecutive file raised and the committee have succeeded to give an order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants. Because of concealment of information with regard to previous appointment and delinking of old files and notings, it led to misrepresentation and concealment of facts which resulted in the placing of order with prefixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants, although an open tender has been called for formality,” the CVO note said.

The scathing CVO note also reveals that entire scam was engineered since screening stages in 2011 and 2013. It said that the defence PSU’s committee, comprising officers, constituted to select the consultant did a shoddy job with a clear intention to favour a particular vendor.

“It is observed that the committee during the initial screening has brought down 26 agencies to 14 agencies with shallow scrutiny and with total arbitrariness. After presentations further screening has resulted in qualifying only six agencies. It is pertinent to mention that after presentations, M/s Super Dynamics was disqualified citing only two years turnover against the required pre-qualification of a three-year turnover. However, preferential treatment was given to M/s RD Konsultants. This shows a clear-cut case of vendor favouritism. During evaluation of pre-qualification criteria, the committee had violated the CVC guidelines and the company’s work contract procedures with respect to evaluation of documents submitted by M/s RD Konsultants, non-evaluation of relevant documents pertaining to works completed by M/s RD Konsultants. It appears that wrongful clearance was provided to M/s Konsultants and the committee had facilitated M/s RD Konsultants for pre-qualification by violating the company’s procedures, to place the order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants. The committee during evaluation of pre-qualification criteria had created confused trends by changing the pre-qualification criteria twice without any reason and during such changes, post facto approvals are taken from CMD, forcing the management to committee’s decision,” the CVO observed.

The CVO report has flagged collusion with design consultant and other vendors involved in sensitive air force installations at 10 locations across the country. The report has termed an affiliate as a benami firm, raising suspicion over the role and connivance of BEL officers. The CVO has also attacked the design consultant and BEL management for rigging the confidential contracts.

“The agency M/s RD Konsultants also was involved in collusion of interest by executing the works, through its own benami company M/s CS Constructions Private Limited which has resulted in collusion of interest in the transaction with BEL and capturing both design and execution of project. Under para 4B 3.2.3 of the design and engineering contract, M/s RD Konsultants and his affiliates as well as sub-consultants have been debarred from providing any goods works or service. It is observed that M/s RD Konsultants had violated the contract terms, CVC guidelines by involving in collusion with benami through rigging of contracts. This happened at various levels. The quote by M/s RD Konsultants was nearly the same as that which was estimated by BEL which leads to doubt whether the methodology of estimate was known to M/s RD Konsultants. It is pertinent to mention here that, PK Bhola, then DGM (Marketing-Network Centric System) who was the main resource in BEL for raising all the files and interfacing with customer for the project, joined M/s RD Konsultants after his retirement. This is a matter of great concern,” the CVO has noted.

The corruption in the project being handled by BEL was so blatant that even CCTV footage at the air force’s command and control centres construction site was compromised to facilitate the collusion as evident from the CVO report, which said the surveillance cameras were “not kept in the proper record, which led to non-maintenance of measurement books, subleasing and collusion of parties”.

HOLI PREETI SANDHYA – 2014 -‘Murkhadhiraj Award” मूर्खाधिराज सम्मान

Navyuwak Mandal organised Holi Preeti Sandhya 2014 on 17th March 2014 at Sri Marwari Thakurbari premises. Indian Idol – 4 Finalist Naushad Ali Kaba and young singer Naveen Acharya were the attraction of the evening. Smt. Manju Sharma also performed outstandingly.

The Star attraction was Great Indian Laughter Challenge Champion Laughter King Sri Suresh Albela, who won many hearts by his poetic laughter doze.

Renowned Social worker and Industrialist of Jorhat Sri Akhechand Mohata was honoured with ‘Murkhadhiraj Award“. Hon’ble MLA of Jorhat and Gen. Secy of INA Sri Rana Goswami was honoured with Mr. Jorhat Award. Mr. Goswami recieved this Honour from 2013 Mr. Jorhat Sri Anand Agarwal.

Murkhadhiraj-Award
Murkhadhiraj-Award

 

8 experts in electronic warfare to be feted

Bangalore, Sep 18, 2014, DHNS DECCAN HERALD

The Association of Old Crows, India chapter, will honour eight people for their contribution to the field of Electronic Warfare (EW) at an event to be held in the City on Saturday.

The best contributor award in EW from Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) will be presented to J Manjula, Scientist ‘H’ and Director, DARE, DRDO, Bangalore and Dr M Lakshminarayana, Scientist ‘G’, DLRL, DRDO, Hyderabad.

Best contributor award in EW from Indian Armed Services will be given to Capt Babu Joseph, Indian Air Force, presently Project Director (RWR & UEWS) at DARE, DRDO, Bangalore and Capt Rishi Mohan, Indian Navy.

The best contributor award in EW from public sector units will be presented to Dr Ajith T Kalghatgi, Director (R&D), Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore and Philip Jacob, Executive Director, Central D&E, Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore.

The best contributor award in EW from private industry will be given to V Anuradha, Vice President-Designs,

Rangsons Defence Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore and Col (Retd) Ramachandran Mahesh, Program Director (C4I &EW), TATA Power SED, Hyderabad.
DH News Service

manjula taxi bill DLRL
Ms J Manjula’s Taxi bill samples simultaneously Claimed Transport allowance

Illegal Appointment of Sh A .K Musla, Ex Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun in Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), Kotdwara

Mr. Anil Kumar, Chairman and Managing Director,
Bharat Electronics Limited,
Corporate Office,
Outer Ring Road, Nagavara,
Bangalore – 560045

Dear Mr Anil Kumar,

BEL is backbone of our defence services and contributes in specialized system needs of our forces as well as paramilitary forces.

BEL has always been associated with DRDO in several areas and fields and the joint venture has always given great results. But unfortunately corruption is also growing very fast in our defence sector. In DRDO, you must be well aware, how in name of secrecy and R&D unlimited funds are managed. There is no accountability in DRDO and scientists are utilizing their brains and skills to fool our country’s people by applying numerous methodologies, like changing nomenclature of items, changing specifications, rotating the same items as surplus available in labs, in customizing the systems purchased at exorbitant prices. These are common practices in DRDO but with fast development of communication systems and easy access to databases these corrupt practices are starting to get exposed.

Recently after superannuation Sh A .K Musla, Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun joined Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), Kotdwara. Please find the RTI application to DRDO and copy of reply by DRDO Hqrs. This practice is adopted by corrupt DRDO scientists; they join various institutions/ organization where commercial interests between both organizations exist. Dr W Selvamurthy (Dr in YOGA from Private Institute) has joined Amity Group as President, Amity Science, Technology and Innovation Foundation (ASTIF) and Chair professor, Life Sciences without obtaining the required NOC from government of India. Recently Defence Minister recommended CBI inquiry against top DRDO officials and Dr W Selvamurthy is one of them.

Sir, I have sent an RTI to Ms. Vanitha Bhandari, MANAGER (HR&A) PIO, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) Kotdwara-246149, Dist. Pauri Gharwal, Uttarakhand and till date have received no communication from, BEL Kotdwara.

It is requested that if you could please look into the matter and do needful to stop the corrupt practices prevailing in BEL with the help of DRDO officials. It would be a great contribution towards a corruption free India.

Regards
 
Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                            
 21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                                
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                  prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com
 

Copy of RTI to CPIO, DRDO Hqrs

To                                                                                                           23rd  October 2013
CPIO, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105

Hello,
Recently after superannuation  Sh A .K Musla, Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun joined Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), Kotdwara

As per government of India Office Memorandum No 27012/52000-Estt (A) Dated 5thDecember 2006.

Procedure for grant of permission to the pensioners for commercial employment after retirement

And this practice is very well being followed by DRDO, Please refer

Your letter no DVS/01/0326/M/04 dated 16th March 2011 – Lt Gen Dilip Bhardwaj

Your letter no DOP/04/47009/M/01 dated 5th Oct 2011 – Lt Gen R K Karwal

Your letter no DOP/04/40078/P/01 dated 23rd Feb 2012 

Office Memorandum No 27012/52000-Estt(A) Dated 5th December 2006.

Para (a) Permission will be required for post-retirement commercial employment of a retired officer who was a member of a Group ‘A’ Central Civil Service or held a Group ‘A’ post if the commercial employment is to be taken up within one year of retirement.

Para d) Before an application of the retired officer is considered, an undertaking from the retired officer is to be taken in the form of an affidavit that the factors mentioned in clauses (b) to (f) of the amended sub-rule (3)of Rule 10 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, do not come in the way of considering his application.

As per “The Gazette of India” Extraordinary No 568 dated 23rd November 2006 Part – II, Section-3, Sub section  (i) 

Para 3 (a) Whether a” No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment has   been obtained from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired.

                    (c) Whether there is conflict of interest between the policies of the office he has held in the last three years and the interest represented of work undertaken by the organization he proposed to join.

(e) Whether service record of the officer is clear, particularly with respect of integrity and dealings with non- Government Organizations.

With reference to above kindly provide me the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

  1. Copy of permission letter of  Sh A .K Musla, Ex-Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun, DRDO before joining  Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), Kotdwara
  2. Copy of ” No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment    has   been obtained  by Sh A .K Musla, Ex- Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun, DRDO from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired.
  3. Copy of vigilance clearance from the competent authority.

Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) for the furtherance of business BEL, Kotdwara establishing an office/centre in the office complex of IRDE.

  1. Please provide terms & condition commercial
  2. Payment condition for using office premises by BEL
  3. As per government laid down rule MES permission and MES involvement is necessary, please provide the correspondence or MES approval of using   office premises from MES by Director, IRDE.
  4. IB clearance for BEL officials using office premises has been taken by Director, IRDE yes/No

Note –above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II

“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty”

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order -17F 549288

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                            
 21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                                                                              0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                  prabhudoon@gmail.comwww.corruptionindrdo.com
 

Copy of reply of CPIO, DRDO Hqrsmusla rti reply

 

Copy of RTI to CPIO, BEL, Kotdawra

To                                                                                             23rd  October 2013
Ms. Vanitha Bhandari, MANAGER (HR&A)
PIO,  Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL),
Kotdwara-246149
Dist. Pauri Gharwal,
Uttarakhand

Hello,
Recently after superannuation  Sh A .K Musla, Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun joined Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), Kotdwara

As per government of India Office Memorandum No 27012/52000-Estt (A) Dated 5thDecember 2006.

Procedure for grant of permission to the pensioners for commercial employment after retirement.

And this practice is very well being followed by DRDO,  

Office Memorandum No 27012/52000-Estt(A) Dated 5th December 2006.

Para (a) Permission will be required for post-retirement commercial employment of a retired officer who was a member of a Group ‘A’ Central Civil Service or held a Group ‘A’ post if the commercial employment is to be taken up within one year of retirement.

Para d) Before an application of the retired officer is considered, an undertaking from the retired officer is to be taken in the form of an affidavit that the factors mentioned in clauses (b) to (f) of the amended sub-rule (3)of Rule 10 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, do not come in the way of considering his application.

As per “The Gazette of India” Extraordinary No 568 dated 23rd November 2006 Part – II, Section-3, Sub section  (i) 

Para 3 (a) Whether a” No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment has   been obtained from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired.

 (c) Whether there is conflict of interest between the policies of the office he has held in the last three years and the interest represented of work undertaken by the organization he proposed to join.

(e) Whether service record of the officer is clear, particularly with respect of integrity and dealings with non- Government Organizations.

With reference to above kindly provide me the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

  1. Copy of permission letter of  Sh A .K Musla, Ex-Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun, DRDO before joining  Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), Kotdwara
  2. Copy of ” No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment    has   been obtained  by Sh A .K Musla, Ex- Scientist ‘G’, IRDE, DRDO, Dehradun, DRDO from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired.
  3. Copy of vigilance clearance from the competent authority.

Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) for the furtherance of business BEL, Kotdwara establishing an office/centre in the office complex of IRDE.

  1. Please provide terms & condition commercial
  2. Payment condition for using office premises by BEL
  3. As per government laid down rule MES permission and MES involvement is necessary, please provide the correspondence or MES approval of using   office premises from MES by Director, IRDE.
  4. IB clearance for BEL officials using office premises has been taken by Director, IRDE yes/No

Note –above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II

“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty” 

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order -17F 549287

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                            
 21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                                                                             0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                  prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com