Tag Archives: CVO

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

Request to PM For Legal Assistance to Fight Against Corrupt Practices Prevailing in BEL

To                                                                                             26th July 2019

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

Jai Bharat, Vande Matram

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal, 21-Sunderwala, Raipur,Dehradun-248008, 0135-2787750 9411114879 –prabhudoon@gmail.com | website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed – Legal Notice received by Law Firm Chouta Associate on behalf of BEL

PMOPG/E/2019/0418698 

Complaint to CVC on IACCS Project

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

  1. Details of Investigation of CVO, BEL on Air force IACCS Project irregularities
  2. Copy of BEL, CVO recommendations after investigation
  3. Copy email by site engineer who exposed the corrupt practices going on   Air force IACCS Project sites

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

Appeal to Independent Directors of BEL on Rs 7900 Cr Scam in IACCS Project

To

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,

ushamathur@hotmail.com,
harish@harishassociates.com,
bhaskar@iitm.ac.in,
vc@bennett.edu.in,
secretarial@hfcl.com,
sdpns@nic.in

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.

RTI to BEL regarding CVC order no. 12/03/10

To                                                                                                27-06-2019

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 order no. 12/03/10 dated 5 march 2010 issued by CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION  GOVT OF INDIA ,  requires  VIGILANCE MANUAL VOL 1 , 6th   Edition wide para  2.16.2 provides for review of vigilance work in an organization to be taken by chief executive of the organization. The Commission has advised all organizations to hold regular meetings for review of vigilance work on monthly /quarterly basis in a structured manner between the CVO & chief executive in the organization.

  1. Whether structured review meetings were held between CVO- BEL  & CMD -BEL  during 01-04-2016 to 31-03-2019 – YES/ NO
  2. If yes, provide the number of such meeting were held.
  3.  Provide details  and minutes of meetings 
  4. Whether vigilance work reviewed in such meetings between CVO-BEL & CMD- BEL during 01-04-2016 to 31-03-2019 – YES/ NO
  5. If yes, provide details and minutes of meetings.
  6. If no , details of other agenda for discussions
  7. Whether actionable points were drawn up during the meetings  during 01-04-2016 to 31-03-2019 – YES/ NO
  8. If yes, provide details and minutes of meetings.
  9. Whether CVO-BEL has reported such monthly/quarterly review held in monthly report to commission  during 01-04-2016 to 31-03-2019 – YES/ NO
  10. If yes, provide details

Regards

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

Registration Number: BELBL/R/2019/50079

CVO Order No 12/03/10

Great Example of DRDO for Supporting and Giving Scot-free Passage for Senior Corrupt Officials

CVC, MoD registered 9 cases against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Ex Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and other scientists as per CVC the complaints has been sent to CVO, MOD for further action, to Director Vigilance, DRDO with reference No. 1323/2014/Vigilance 9, 3617/2014/Vigilance 9, 5022/2014/Vigilance 9, 13248/2014/ Vigilance 9, etc.

Recently a RTI reply recived on 27 June 2019 at 10:53 AM from CVO, MoD revealed that

(1)      As per records available in the file the following complaints were received 
(i)       Complaint(s) dated 26.12.2013, 17.12.2013, 15.01.2014, 24.12.2013 and 07.01.2014. The matter was examined in consultation with CVC and it had been decided with the approval of the competent authority to take the following action:-

           (A) Close the following complaints

           (i)      Regarding irregularities in procurement of laboratory micro  processor based high temperature furnace.

           (ii)     Irregularities in procurement of antivirus for computers and 

           (iii)    Irregularities in procurement of analytical weighing balance.

(B)       Issue recordable warning to 8 serving officers found involved in irregularities in procurement of high temperature reactor system and 18 serving officers found involved in procurement of chemicals. 

(C)       No action against officers who have retired from service. 

(2)       As contents of the replies/correspondence/file of the DRDO contain information relating to other officials/officers including third party information and disclosing the names of the officers dealing with the matter is barred under Section 8 (1) (g) and (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Moreover disclosure of the information would not serve any larger public interest. 

(3)       As regards complaint letters forwarded by CVC to D(Vig) and further forwarded to DRDO for action, in this connection, it is stated that these dates back to 2013 and 2014 and records of forwarding letters to DRDO of these period are not available.

Question is that the recordable warning to 8+18 scientist are nothing they are the puppets of Director and signed all wrong doings of boss for their promotion not for financial gain.

The Saxena the main culprit and conspirator of case have guts to deny the email exchange with vendor to discuss the requirement and finalize the specs before raising the file and made arrangement to split the order as per financial power and so many evidences are available because of evidences only the recordable warning was issued then how come kingpin escaped scot free.

Second is if reactor’s design is copy right of DMSRDE then what is meaning of M/s De Dietrich Process Systems India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai mail which received by Dr A K Saxena via Mr Anish Gupta from M/s Manglam Traders with attached annexure

From: Anish Gupta  mangalam26@bsnl.in
Date: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:54 PM
Subject: Offer for High Temp. Reaction Unit
To: AKSAXENA  arvsaxena@gmail.com

“The line diagram attached is not exactly as per their offer, they have forwarded us understand it will be somehow like the same. As per our line of requirement they will send us in 2 to 3 days.”

Subsequently Dr. Saxena forwarded this mail to Sh JN Srivastava

From: arvind saxena arvsaxena@gmail.com
To: jn_sri@rediffmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Offer for High Temp. Reaction Unit

Dr. Saxena can you explain what does the meaning the following enclosed drawing of 50 Lt Reactor unit, is it your copy right or property of M/s De Dietrich Process Systems India Pvt. Ltd  

DMSRDE’s official can judge themselves  who is …………………………….

And everyone know that DRDO Hqrs is deaf & dumb

Here come the role of DRDO corrupt officials nexus before his retirement of Saxena the then DOP, DHR, DG, HR, Director Vigilance, DRDO played vital role to get vigilance clearance from, CVO, MoD, one can imagine that this clearance cost to Saxena in lots of 0000000

http://bit.ly/2KCNzda

http://bit.ly/31Zxrb0

So it is clear message to all corrupts of DRDO the chain is available at your service do full way corruption in all means and share some to the chain and get clearance.

Now people of India looking with great hope that present DRDO Chairman will weed out the corrupt nexus in DRDO Hq as well as in Labs, the observations shows that the spinning is started and corrupt DRDO officials may blow out from DRDO periphery.. Problem is some corrupt officials of DRDO still holding the roots of corrupt oldies who were basically the responsible of downfall of 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

To.                                                                                           3rd June 2019

Shri Rajnath Singh Ji

104.  South Block

New Delhi – 110011

Dear Sir,

Congratulations for great victory and taking charge of big responsibility of Defence Ministry.

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 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 “CHOKIDAR “ 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 Chairperson, Audit Committee 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. 

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,

21-Sunderwala, Raipur,

Dehradun-248008

Phone – 0135-2787750 | Mobile – 9411114879

Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com | website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

RTI BEL for vigilance Cases

To        18-06-2019                        

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 order no. 59/12/03 dated 9 DEC  2003 issued by CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION  GOVT OF INDIA , Para 2  Board of Directors should review the vigilance work once in six months and CVO will send a copy of the review done by the Board to the Commission

  1. Provide the  numbers of board of directors  meeting held during last three years
  2. Provide the  numbers of vigilance cases  were reviewed by CMD/Directors in board meetings held during last three years
  3. Provide the details of action taken report by Board of Directors on reviewed cases
  4. Provide the Minutes of meetings of Board of Directors meeting during last three years.
  5. Provide the details of reviewed cases report forwarded to CVC by CVO BEL vide Office order no. 59/12/03 dated 9 DEC 2003 in last three years.

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,

Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed – Copy of CVC Office order no. 59/12/03 dated 9 DEC 2003

RTI Registration Number              BELBL/R/2019/50072