NEW DELHI: Aeronautical Development Establishment, a Bengaluru-based DRDO lab that developed the Lakshya aircraft, has been visited by the CBI.
Possible misuse of hundreds of crores of rupees related to a premier pilotless aircraft system, which was developed by the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), has come to the notice of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) last month, after which the CBI has started its preliminary enquiry in the matter.
Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), a Bengaluru-based lab of the DRDO, that developed the pilotless target aircraft, “Lakshya” has been visited at least twice by the CBI officials in the past one month.
The alleged scam, in which critical components needed for this project like small aircraft and trucks, were procured but only on paper while some went “missing”. Despite the ADE top officials who are handling the project, being made aware of these discrepancies at least since 2015, did not report these to the CBI but rather allegedly victimized the official who brought it to their notice, while refusing to be a part of the coverup.
As per rules, whenever an item or material is purchased for the development of any program, Lakshya in this case, and when it is brought physically to the ADE campus, an entry is done in the ledger detailing the said product. The said ledger is handled by a permanent employee of the DRDO and once he moves out either due to retirement or new posting, the said ledger is then handed over to another employee, who first checks all the inventories are there as mentioned in the books before taking over the possession of the ledger.
There are two ledgers that are used to ensure products don’t go “missing”. The first one is the Personal Ledger (PL) in which an item purchased under the “general head” is entered.
Then there is the Project Personal Ledger or PPL in which items purchased under “project head” are entered.
This is done to ensure that whatever was paid for by the Government of India is actually bought and delivered and it’s the accountability and responsibility of the officer holding the ledgers to make sure that details in the ledgers match the material in the campus and the lab.
As per the details accessed by the CBI, a “PL number 613”, which contains products and materials purchased for Lakshya, was till 31 January 2011 being handled by B.R. Suresh, a Scientist-D with ADE.
When he retired on that date it was revealed that materials including pilotless target aircrafts, trucks, electronic sub system were missing and hence the matter was recorded internally and the post-retirement benefits of Suresh were withheld, but were subsequently released after four years, said sources.
In January 2015, the project director of Lakshya, V. Subramaniam asked one of his juniors to take over the PL that was earlier the responsibility of B.R. Suresh. Sources said that till then, the responsibility of the PL was not entrusted to anyone.
As was required under the rules, the said officer, before taking over the responsibility of PL-613, went to the lab to verify whether all the listed and purchased material were present or not.
crores, that were listed in the PL, were missing.
The missing inventory included at least 5 aircraft, 10 trucks, 50 tow bodies and 10 gyroscopes.
As per the information received by the CBI, Subramaniam asked the said officer to take the responsibility of the PL register, without mentioning the discrepancies, which Subramaniam claimed he would “manage’ by manipulating the content. In lieu, the said officer was promised swift promotion. The said officer, however, refused to accept the responsibility of the ledger.
Upon witnessing the refusal to take the handover of the PL, Subramaniam is alleged to have taken away access of the said scientist to his workplace and started harassing him.
The said officer, who had reached out to the other top officials in the lab to inform them of these discrepancies, received no help and for 28 months, no salary was given to him.
Those close to Subramanian say that such charges against him are baseless and motivated. In a response to The Sunday Guardian’s queries on the matter, DRDO, while confirming that a CBI probe at ADE, Bengaluru with regards to the Lakshya project was going on, stated that, “As per statements of ex Lakshya Project Personnel and available records, no discrepancies related to material needed for this project were communicated to the top officials anytime during 2011 or in 2014.”
Messages sent to Subramaniam did not elicit any response till the time the report went to press.
In 2019, Subramanian, now in the position of “Scientist-G” who was not originally on the interview panel that was constituted to interview and promote his erstwhile junior, made himself a member of the panel and ensured that the junior was denied the promotion. This happened despite the said scientist requesting the Human Resources head to not be interviewed by a panel that had his former boss as the member.
In November 2021, a memorandum of major penalty was filed against the scientist for “unauthorised leave” during the period when his access to his lab was withdrawn by Subramaniam which did not allow him to mark the attendance.
It is pertinent to mention that ADE and DRDO both had come under severe criticism from relevant government bodies for their failure to execute Lakshya on time despite the government releasing funds and other resources without any delay.
Subramaniam, who retired in May 2023, is still coming to the ADE campus regularly despite having been accorded no responsibility that would necessitate his visit to the campus, especially when an inquiry has been going on with regards to the discrepancies in Lakshya ledger that was his responsibility.
Last month, amidst the ongoing CBI investigation, crucial files related to the said project were allegedly dumped in the dump yard of the campus to be destroyed.
This happened after the CBI officials visited the campus on 28 March. The agency officials visited the campus again on 19 April.
Lakshya had a total of four projects—Lakshya, Lakshya LSP (Limited Series Production), Lakshya 1-D (partially digital version) and Lakshya 2, which was the fully digital version. The project has been a huge technical success.
DEHRADUN: The ministry of defence (MoD) has issued an order to stop admissions at all schools aided by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in the country for this academic session while one DRDO school in Mussoorie – the Institute of Technology Management (ITM) School – was shut down on April 1. Former President, APJ who served in DRDO for almost four decades, had mooted the idea of DRDO schools to develop scientific temperament among students He had also envisaged the schools benefiting children of officials of DRDO, which has a network of 50 laboratories working on defence technology. Some of these labs are in remote, isolated areas. DRDO has nearly 30,000 employees
Of the 11 DRDO-aided schools in India, three are slated to be transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS): one each in Bangalore, Hyderabad and Kochi
Seven others, including one each in Dehradun (Raksha Anusand Vidyalaya), Chandigarh (Ballistics Vidyalaya), Pune (R&D E(E) English Medium School), Odisha (Range School, Chandipur Balasore) and Andhra Pradesh (NSTL Visakhapatnam), and two in Telangana (Defence School Lab, Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad and DLS Vignyanakancha, RCI Hyderabad) are to handed over to other agencies.
The order, issued December 21, 2021, bi Vishnu Chandra Jha director, management services MoD reads “The competent authority has decided that there shall be no new admissions tin the entry level classes as well as all other classes in these schools for the next academic session 2022 -23” When quarried about the reasons behind the news, BK DAS, director of instrument and Research Development establishment IRDE of DRDO Dehradun said we are following instruction of the Defence Ministry which said running school doesn’t fall under the mandate of DRDO. The matters are decided at the headquarter level not by is, We are not closing idea is simply to hand over the management of these schools from DRDO to some other reasonable agencies. “ while the reason of handover of the school was not was not made immediately clear, sources pointed to fund crunch as a possible reason. A source in the know said, The decision was taken at the PMO level to curtail the expenses of DRDO”
Teaching staff and the parents of the student in these schools meanwhile expressed disappointment with the MoD decision
Pryanka Bisht, resident of Mussoorie whose children used to study in the ITM School said covid-19 has hit everyone financially my husband works at the small shop and we cannot afford English medium is education for our children at a private school, the fee was affordable at ITM where my son studies in class 1 and daughter in class 4 we are still banking on the school for reopen.
Badal Prakash vice president of Landoir cantonment board in Mussoorie where the school is located wrote a letter on Friday to officials to reconsider the decision to close the school “Teachers in this school have been working for 15 to 30 years. Now they are unemployed. The school currently 106 students who will have to travel far to gett quality education as there are no English medium school within the 5 km radius” Prakash said.
Subject: Request to deployed more staff in ACB, Chandigarh
Sir,
I have sent a complaint to the ACB, CBI, Chandigarh on 16 October 2020 based on a detailed departmental investigation report corruption in the procurement of some equipments by Snow Avalanche Study Establishment. DRDO. Him Parisar, Plot No.1, Sector 37A, Chandigarh – 160 036 (SASE). The equipments were purchased at an inflated cost of shockingly to the tune of 50 times of the original cost. As per the documents it is evident that there is Malafied act of corruption but DRDO seems to be indifferent to act on it. These equipments used in Avalanche forecasting studies which are of very strategic importance. If such level of corruption is happening, it is directly affecting strategic interests of the nation. Because of these corrupt scientists more than 90% equipments are not working and that will be a sabotage of life risk of our great soldiers.
Now I have received the letter from Vigilance DRDO for confirming the complaint after passing 6 months. The DRDO letter enclosed the ACB letter mentioned that “this office has not conducted any open enquiry in to the matter”
To my utter disappointment, instead of conducting an independent enquiry into the allegations based on complaint with all supporting documents, the Chandigarh unit of CBI simply forwarded the information to Director Vigilance of DRDO (Not even to CVO of MoD). Effectively it is simply passing on the buck to the organization which is not interested to tackle corruption in its organization, because the department enquiry document itself shows that after enquiry till date no action have been taken on this matter and buried under the table.
The corruption they are doing in such system which directly deploy in various snowbound border areas and collect the data and on the basis of these data they pass information to defence forces which conduct the patrolling in these snowbound areas. Because of these corrupt scientists more than 90% are not working and that will be a sabotage of life risk of our great soldiers.
I am fighting ageist corruption since last 20 years and lot of CBI officers, IB, Officers met me during this period across the India and most of I have found that they are working hard to get input/lead of corruption and national security and surprisingly in this case I found that ACB, Chandigarh not having any interest first he sit with information for six months and now just passing the ball to same department who are helpless to act against corrupt scientists for unforeseen reasons.
So I personally feel that the ACB, Chandigarh having lot of investigations and is not able to give time for this act of corruption and sabotage of national security case. I urge the Director, CBI to conduct an independent investigation by the responsible official for the corruption in strategic work of DRDO organization and ensure exemplary punishment to the accused through court if law..
To save the life of our defence personal and stop the siphoning of poor tax payer money your early action is required.
1. Copy my letter to ACB.CB, Chandigarh along with copy of DRDO enquiry report.
2. Copy of ACB.CBI, Chandigarh letter address to Vigilance, DRDO Hrs
3. Copy of Vigilance, DRDO Hrs letter
Copy to
Prime Minister of India – At the moment, the entire nation is battling with Corona and lot of funds is required to save the precious lives. Every hard earned penny of tax payer is needed to strengthen health care system. Siphoning of national exchequer should be treated as serious crime in the need of hour.
Defence Minister – I am bringing to your notice a corruption of high level where key defence scientists are involved that may risk life of soldiers who are patrolling in snowbound border areas. Action requested in your end
Chairman, DRDO – for information please, because action …………
Abhinandan Mishra Published Sunday Guardian: February 27, 2021,
New Delhi: An ailing official with the Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO), who was described as a “whistle-blower” by the then Defence Minister, the late Manohar Parrikar, is facing “forceful eviction” from his government house in what he has described as a “vindictive action” by the DRDO. Prakash Singh, who belonged to the Administration cadre of DRDO, was removed from service in August 2020 for being “absent” from the job. However, the facts on record, which The Sunday Guardian has gone through, present a totally different picture. Singh played an instrumental role in bringing to public view the alleged corruption and nepotism done by at least three director level officers with DRDO—one of whom was suspended on the last day of his job—and anomalies related to recruitment of four different scientists—of these four, the appointments of two were annulled. Singh’s immediate ordeal started in August 2016 when he was posted at Joint Cypher Bureau (JCB), a wing of the DRDO, on 18 August 2016 as a senior administration officer. Three days later, he was sent to another sub office of the same wing where he was not given any work until he stayed there till 29 November 2017 despite Singh sending multiple communications seeking “work”. On 30 November 2017, he on his own “rejoined” the JCB office. According to Singh, he went to this office till 11 December and was allotted an access pass, an official email address and departmental work. However, on the afternoon of 11 December 2017, his access was removed and he was stopped from entering the establishment. Despite that, he continued to go outside his office and register his presence by showing his ID card into the CCTV camera that was installed at the gates. He continued to do so till August 2020 when he was removed from service for “absence from duty” and all his pensionary benefits, that came with 33 years of service, were stopped. “I was not given any salary for these 21 months (from December 2017 to August 2020) despite going to register my presence every day in front of the CCTV camera, as I was not allowed to enter the premises. Now, they are coming to my house daily and asking me to vacate the house despite my case of illegal removal from service still pending in multiple forums and both my wife and I are in ill health, the certificates of which I have already submitted to the offices concerned,” Singh told The Sunday Guardian. According to Singh, the DRDO carried out an ex-parte inquiry against him while deciding to remove him from service, and did not give him the charge-sheet and the inquiry officer in the case himself was allegedly “tainted”. Documents accessed by The Sunday Guardian clearly show that the then Defence minister Manohar Parrikar had directed the DRDO and the Ministry of Defence “to identify and take action against the persons who trumped up false charges and committed a number of procedural irregularities with single-minded objective of harassing Shri Prakash Singh” after disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Singh. However, as per Singh, no inquiry was done by DRDO to identify these persons and rather it was he who has been continuously “targeted” since then. The proceedings were started, as per Singh, after he brought out in the open the alleged wrongdoings within DRDO by a few. “Raksha mantri has ordered quashing of the charges framed against Shri Prakash Singh,” reads the official communication. Another official communication by the Vigilance Department of Ministry of Defence, of October 2013, while investigating a case of irregular recruitment that was brought out in the open by Singh, has stated that the CVC was treating Singh as a “whistle blower” while stating that “it is palpable that action by some in handling the three complaints lodged by Shri Prakash Singh to CBI was taken with the motive to cause difficulties to the complainant”. Email sent to DRDO for their response on the matter and whether any action, as directed by Parrikar, was taken to identify the persons who were harassing Singh was taken, did not elicit any response till the time the story went to press.
नोएडा: DRDO का वैज्ञानिक ऐसे हुआ मुक्त, पुलिस टीम को 5 लाख इनाम
घटना सेक्टर-49 थाना क्षेत्र के सेक्टर-77 स्थित प्रतीक विस्टेरीया सोसायटी के बाहर की है. बीते शनिवार को डीआरडीओ के वैज्ञानिक के अपहरण की सूचना मिलते ही नोएडा के पुलिस महकमे में हड़कंप मच गया. सूचना मिलते ही कमिश्नर आलोक सिंह के नेतृत्व में छह टीम बनाई गईं.
दिल्ली से सटे यूपी के नोएडा में रक्षा अनुसंधान एवं विकास संगठन (डीआरडीओ) के जूनियर वैज्ञानिक को पुलिस ने सकुशल बरामद कर लिया. वैज्ञानिक को हनी ट्रैप के जाल में फंसा कर उनके परिवार वालों से 10 लाख की फिरौती मांगी गई थी. बताया जा रहा है कि वैज्ञानिक को शनिवार की शाम नोएडा में मसाज के नाम पर एक होटल में बंधक बनाकर अगवा कर लिया गया था.
घटना सेक्टर-49 थाना क्षेत्र के सेक्टर-77 स्थित प्रतीक विस्टेरीया सोसायटी के बाहर की है. बीते शनिवार को डीआरडीओ के वैज्ञानिक के अपहरण की सूचना मिलते ही नोएडा के पुलिस महकमे में हड़कंप मच गया. सूचना मिलते ही कमिश्नर आलोक सिंह के नेतृत्व में छह टीम बनाई गईं. सभी को अलग-अलग दिशाओं में वैज्ञानिकों की खोज में भेजा गया. रविवार की देर रात वैज्ञानिक को सकुशल बरामद कर एक महिला सहित तीन लोगों को गिरफ्तार कर लिया गया. पुलिस इन बदमाशों के अन्य साथियों को पकड़ने के लिए जगह-जगह दबिश दे रही
पुलिस ने बताया कि शनिवार को मसाज सेंटर का एक आदमी आया और वह उसके साथ नोएडा में ही एक होटल में मसाज के लिए चले गए. थोड़ी ही देर में तीन-चार लोग वहां पहुंचे और वैज्ञानिक को धमकाने लगे. उन पर सेक्स रैकेट में शामिल होने का आरोप लगाया और खुद को पुलिस अधिकारी बताने लगे. फिर उन्हें होटल के कमरे में बंधक बना लिया. फिर परिवार वालों से 10 लाख रुपयों की डिमांड कर डाली.
बदमाशों ने खुद को पुलिस अधिकारी बताते हुए वैज्ञानिक को धमकाया अगर पैसे नहीं मिले तो उसे गिरफ्तार दिखाया जाएगा. जिससे न सिर्फ उसकी नौकरी जाएगी बल्कि बदनामी अलग होगी.
बताया जा रहा है कि पुलिस को सूचना डीआरडीओ मुख्यालय से मिली थी. जिसके बाद पुलिस ने लगातार छापेमारी शुरू की और देर रात उन्हें सफलता मिली और वैज्ञानिक को सकुशल मुक्त करा कर परिवार वालों को सौंप दिया. पुलिस अब इस के अन्य साथियों को तलाश में जुट गई है. जिससे यह पता चल सके कि यह गैंग अब तक कितने लोगों को ऐसे ठग चुका है.
पुलिस को तफ्तीश में पता चला कि ये सारा खेल हनी ट्रैप का था. पुलिस ने बताया कि वैज्ञानिक अजय प्रताप अपने मोबाइल पर मसाज पार्लर और स्पा सर्च कर रहे थे. जहां उन्हें किडनैपर्स का नंबर मिला. किडनैपर्स ने पहले वैज्ञानिक को अपने जाल मे फंसाया फिर अपहरण कर 10 लाख की फिरौती मांगी. पीड़ित परिवार ने थाना सेक्टर 49 नोएडा पर इस घटना की लिखित तहरीर देकर मु0अ0सं0 802/2020 धारा 364ए भादवि0 पंजीकृत कराया.
सर्विलांस की सहायता से जब पुलिस लोकेशन पर पहुंची तो होंडा सिटी गाड़ी में तीन लोग मौजूद थे, जो कहीं भागने की फिराक में थे. लेकिन पुलिस टीम ने ड्राइविंग सीट पर बैठे दीपक पुत्र राजेश निवासी गांव चेहडका, थाना बहल, जिला भिवाडी, हरियाणा को पकड़ लिया. वह वर्तमान में आई 64 ओयो होटल सेक्टर 41 में ठहरा हुआ था. कार में पिछली सीट पर बैठे दो व्यक्ति खिडकी खोलकर फरार हो गए.
पुलिस ने उसी की निशानदेही पर सेक्टर 41 के ओयो होटल के कमरा नंबर 203 में दबिश देकर अपहरणकर्ता सुनीता गुर्जर पत्नी देवेन्द्र गुर्जर निवासी गांव आगाहपुर, सेक्टर 41, थाना सेक्टर 39 नोएडा और राकेश उर्फ रिंकू फौजी पुत्र दिनेश कुमार निवासी गांव चेहडका, थाना बहल, जिला भिवाडी, हरियाणा के कब्जे से अगवा किए गए वैज्ञानिक को बरामद कर लिया. उसी कमरे में वैज्ञानिक को बंधक बनाया गया था.
इस मामले में सफलतापूर्वक वैज्ञानिक को मुक्त कराने और आरोपियों की गिरफ्तारी को लेकर अपर मुख्य सचिव (गृह) ने जनपद गौतमबुद्धनगर की पुलिस टीम को 5 लाख रुपये का नगद पुरस्कार देने की घोषणा की है.
Panel to review duties of DRDO’s 52 laboratories, cut technology overlaps By Pradip R Sagar August 26, 2020THE WEEK
The central government has set up an expert committee to redefine the role of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for the current and futuristic defence and battlefield scenarios. It aims to reduce Indian military’s dependence on imports, as India is the second-largest arms importer in the world after Saudi Arabia. Moreover, its also a move towards Prime minister Narendra Modi’s vision of “Aatmanirbhar Bharat” in the defence sector. On day one of his second innings as DRDO head, Dr G. Satheesh Reddy, who is also the secretary of the department of defence research and development (ministry of defence), constituted the five-member elite panel. Incidentally, the Cabinet’s Appointments Committee had on Monday approved a two-year extension of tenure for Reddy.
The committee is headed by professor V. Ramagopal Rao, Director of IIT, Delhi. Other members include S. Somnath, Director, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre; Air Marshal Sandeep Singh, Deputy Chief of Air Staff; Dr. Samir V. Kamat, Director General-Naval Systems & Materials (NS & M) and Benjamin Lionel, Director, Instruments Research & Development Establishment of DRDO.
The terms of reference of the committee will be to study and review the charter of duties of all 52 laboratories of DRDO and to redefine the same for both current and futuristic defence and battlefield scenarios. Part of the panel’s tasks will be to minimise the overlap of technologies amongst the laboratories.
The committee has given a deadline of 45 days to submit its report and its chairman may co-opt subject specialists as invitees to specific meetings.
But, defence experts are apprehensive about the new panel, hoping it will not meet the fate of other expert committees, such as the P. Rama Rao Committee.
The committee headed by P. Rama Rao, former Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, had submitted its report in 2008. The report, DRDO’s first external review aimed at restructuring the defence R&D body, suggested that DRDO concentrate only on “core technologies” of “strategic importance” instead of venturing into making juices, mosquito repellents, titanium dental implants and so on. The committee had also suggested de-centralization of DRDO management and making it a leaner organization. Subsequently, on the Rama Rao panel’s suggestion, DRDO’s management was decentralised by merging its 52 labs to form seven clusters based on technology domains such as missiles, electronic warfare, radars, aerial vehicles and underwater weapons.
DRDO has often been criticised for delayed projects and missing repeated deadlines with huge cost overruns. And in absence of self-reliance in defence, Indian armed forces continue to be heavily dependent on imports with over 70 per cent of armed forces requirements are met from foreign firms.
On Monday, a delegation by DRDO made a detailed presentation before Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, identifying 108 military sub-systems and components for development by Indian (private) industry and the DRDO will provide support the process. DRDO claims that the design and development of these subsystems would be done over the next couple of years. This announcement follows the negative list of 101 military hardware from imports, which have to be domestically procured in a phased manner.
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.
भर्ती एवं मूल्यांकन केंद्र ( आर ए सी ) रक्षा अनुसंधान और विकास संगठन (डीआरडीओ), रक्षा मंत्रालय, तिमारपुर, दिल्ली में जुलाई 2019 में अनुबंध के आधार पर डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर और एमटीएस की भर्ती की गयी ! जिसमे काफी संख्या में आवेदन आए जिन्हे साक्षात्कार के लिए 29 जुलाई और 30 जुलाई 2019 को बुलाया गया ! रूम नंबर 301 ( श्रीमति सुनीता वढेरा ) में साक्षात्कार हुए ! जिसमे काफी संख्या में आवेदको ने भाग लिया ! इस भर्ती में जो भी आवेदक साक्षात्कार के लिए आए उन्हे बाद में कोई सूचना नहीं दी गयी और ना ही उन्हे कोई कारण बताया गया की उनका चयन क्यों नहीं हुआ !
अजय कुमार, पूर्व डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर, भर्ती एवं मूल्यांकन केंद्र ( आर ए सी ) रक्षा अनुसंधान और विकास संगठन (डीआरडीओ), रक्षा मंत्रालय, तिमारपुर, अनुभव 16 वर्ष,( आर ए सी – 1998-2001, 2003- 2016) मैंने पूर्व निदेशक श्री आइ सी शर्मा, पूर्व निदेशक श्री प्रसाद सर , पूर्व निदेशक जेठी सर , पूर्व निदेशक डॉ अरुण कुमार, पूर्व निदेशक श्री रिशभ कुमार जैन और पूर्व निदेशक श्री सुधीर गुप्ता इन सबके साथ भी काम किया है ! 30 जुलाई 2019 को 12.10PM रूम नंबर 301 में साक्षात्कार दिया ! लेकिन नौकरी के लिए नहीं बुलाया गया ! जब उसका कारण पूछा तो सुनीता वढेरा मैडम, रूम नंबर 301 मे मुझे बताया गया की आपका आवेदन स्वीकार कर लिया गया था लेकिन अशोक कुमार शर्मा, साइंटिस्ट ‘ई’ , रूम नंबर 414 ने आपका आवेदन अस्वीकार कर दिया लेकिन कारण कोई नहीं बताया गया ! ये सिर्फ मेरे ही नहीं और जो कैंडिडैट साक्षात्कार के लिए आए थे उनके साथ भी धोखा है !
लेकिन बाद में पता चला की ( अशोक कुमार शर्मा और वर्तमान निदेशक सुशील वर्मा ) द्वारा इस भर्ती में इन लोगो ने अपने जान पहचान वाले और अपने रिश्तेदारों का चयन किया है इसलिए इन्होने मेरा चयन नहीं किया ! इसमे इन्होने 3 कैंडिडैट निदेशक सुशील वर्मा के जान पहचान के है ! दो कैंडिडैट जो की गर्ल्स है वो अशोक कुमार शर्मा की बेटी की सहेली है जो रूम नंबर 412 मे बैठती है ! एक कैंडिडैट संचिन सिंह साइंटिस्ट की जान पहचान का है और भी कई कैंडिडैट जिनका चयन इन्होने किया है इसी कार्यालय में कार्यरत ऑफिसर और स्टाफ ( स्टोर ऑफिसर ) के रिस्तेदार और जान पहचान वाले है जिनके जान पहचान नहीं थी उन्हे नहीं लिया गया !
इस भर्ती की सबसे खास बात ये है की जिस ठेकेदार को ठेका दिया गया है उसके किसी भी कैंडिडैट का चयन शायद ही किया गया हो ! इन्होने अपने रिस्तेदारों और जान पहचान वालों को भर्ती करने के लिए ही ये कांट्रैक्ट लिया था ! जितने भी कैंडिडैट साक्षात्कार के लिए आए थे ठेकेदार को उनके बारे मे पता ही नहीं था क्यूंकी साक्षात्कार के समय सिर्फ आर ए सी स्टाफ ही था ठेकेदार वहाँ पर मौजूद है नहीं थे ! इसकी भी जांच होनी चाहिए की ठेकेदार ने कितने कैंडिडैट भेजे थे और कितनों का चयन हुआ है !
इस भ्रष्टाचार में इस कार्यालय के कई ऑफिसर और कर्मचारी संलिप्त है जिसके जांच होनी चाहिए !
16 वर्षो तक आर ए सी में डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर का कार्य करने के बाद 31 जनवरी 2016 में जब हमारा कांट्रैक्ट समाप्त किया गिया तब के तत्कालीन निदेशक (डाइरेक्टर) सुधीर गुप्ता द्वारा बताया गया की अब हमारा सारा कार्य ऑनलाइन होता है इसलिए अब हमे डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर की जरूरत नहीं है !
3 वर्ष के बाद ऐसा क्या हुआ की वहाँ पर 05 डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर की जरूरत आन पड़ी ! जब की हम तो सिर्फ दो डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर ही पिछले काफी वर्षो से कार्यरत थे जब हमारी ही जरूरत नहीं थी तो इतने डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर की क्या जरूरत आन पड़ी ! सब कार्यालय ऑनलाइन कार्य कर रहे है तो क्या आर ए सी अब ऑफलाइन कार्य कर रही है ! ये तो प्रधानमंत्री श्री नरेंद्र मोदी जी की डिजिटल इंडिया मूवमेंट को बर्बाद करने पे तुले है क्या ऐसे ही इंडिया डिजिटल होगा !
इस कार्यालय में चपरासी, एमटीएस काफी मात्रा में है लेकिन ऐसी क्या जरूरत पड़ी की इनको 07 एमटीएस अनुबंध आधार पर लेने पड़े ! ऐसा कितना कार्य होने लगा अचानक इस कार्यालय में ये भी जांच का विषय है !
मुझे एसएमएस और फोन कॉल करके आर ए सी में साक्षात्कार के लिए बुलाया गया लेकिन अशोक कुमार शर्मा के मना करने पर मेरा चयन नहीं किया गया क्यों ?
अशोक कुमार शर्मा जो पहले इनमास में कार्यरत थे वहाँ भी इन्होने ऐसा ही कार्य किया होगा इनकी पिछले कार्यालय की भी जांच होनी चाहिए ! क्योंकि कुछ कैंडिडैट इनमास के है तथा कुछ एसएसपीएल (SSPL) के जो इनकी जान पहचान के है ये भी पता लगाया जाना चाहिए की इन दोनों ऑफिस में ये कैंडिडैट किसके कहने पर वहाँ से आर ए सी में बुलाये गए है !
जितने भी डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर और एमटीएस का चयन हुआ है उन सबकी भी जांच होनी चाहिए की क्या इनमे से कुछ कंडीडटेस अशोक कुमार शर्मा के साथ दूसरे कार्यालयो में भी कार्य कर चुके है !
उन सबके अनुभव और उनकी शिक्षा का स्तर की भी जांच होनी चाहिए !
ठेकेदार ने कितने कंडीडटेस भेजे थे और कितने ऑफिस स्टाफ के है इसकी भी जांच होनी चाहिए !
ठेकेदार की भी जांच होनी चाहिए क्योंकि इस ठेकेदार को ठेका किस आधार पर दिया गया है और कितने ठेकेदारो ने यहाँ पर ठेके के लिए आवेदन दिया था ! ये ठेकेदार अशोक कुमार शर्मा या स्टोर इंचार्जे इन दोनों मे से किसकी जान पहचान का है !
अतः आपसे अनुरोध है की इस कार्यालय में व्यापक पैमाने पर हो रहे भ्रष्टाचार की जांच की जाए ! जब तक ऐसे ऑफिसर और कर्मचारी होंगे तब तक माननीय प्रधानमंत्री श्री नरेंद्र मोदी जी का भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ चलाया अभियान सफल नहीं हो सकता !
धन्यवाद
अजय कुमार
पूर्व डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर, आर ए सी,
पता : हाउस नंबर 491, तकिया चौक
गाँव बुराड़ी, दिल्ली – 110084
कॉपी :
PMO, Room No -152, South Block, New Delhi – 110011
Sh. Rajnath Singh, Raksha Mantri, 104, South Block ,( rmo@mod.nic.in)
PS to RM, 105 South Block
Dr. G. Satheesh Reddy, SA to RM, Secretary, Dept. of Defence R&D and Chairman, DRDO
Director, Dte of Vigilance & Security, DRDO, Min of Defence
Shri BP Sharma, Chairman RAC
Shri Prabhu Dandriyal, ( prabhudoon@gmail.com ), Curruption in DRDO
Here is a conversation between Mr. D.K. Chatterjee and Mr. M.M. Pandey
wherein Mr. Pandey is exposing the BEL corruption Modus Operandi observed in ordering of civil contracts in
IACCS.
Mr. D.K. Chatterjee an IIT Kanpur Graduate of 1983 batch had
worked in many indigenously developed products related to communications and
radars. He is presently in the R&D group in-charge of the Radar Data
processing. He is an engineer of par excellence in his field and through his in-house
research and development he has saved a huge amount of foreign exchange for the
country.
He has been targeted by the BEL management and his career
has been stalled since he does not fit into the BEL model of going for foreign
ToTs and with big corporate / private vendors to provide the defence forces
equipment at very high cost and ensure kickbacks leading to corruption where
persons at highest level BEL are involved. In the IACCS project the biggest
challenge was to integrate the legacy Radars of Indian Air force and Army with
the IACCS system since the output protocol of these old Radars was not
compatible with input requirement for IACCS system.
Mr. D.K. Chatterjee and Mr. M.M. Pandey wherein Mr.
Pandey is discussing the discrepancies which have been observed in ordering of
civil contracts in IACCS. In turn Mr. Chatterjee tells about his experience
wherein as a part of IACCS project he had worked on creating the interface
(Radar Data Processing hardware and software) between the old legacy Radars and
IACCS system. He was forced to use hardware which were pre-defined and at a
very high cost.
As per him even with the high cost of hardware (since the
software was written in-house) the cost of one system came to just about Rs 25
lacs. After the systems were proven he was unceremoniously removed from the
project and the systems were subsequently outsourced and bought at a huge cost
of about Rs 2.5 Crores each. With so many legacy Radars which were integrated
to the IACCS the amount of money which has been misappropriated by the top
management of BEL would run into hundreds of Crores.
This is again a case where an intelligent IIT graduate
Electronics Engineer who did not compromise on corruption and worked for giving
the Defence Forces the best at the least cost was harassed and removed from the
main stream and made to suffer in his career. This is again in line with what
has been brought out in the case of ordering of DDS software where a software
worth not more than Rs 20 Crores was being bought at Rs 320 Crores and when one
of the Managers in R&D became a whistle blower to stop this from happening
he was harassed and bullied to the extent that he was forced to resign.
The Vigilance report which brought out this corruption
had also noted that all the original team which worked on software related to
IACCS (first phase wherein five nodes were established by BEL) was dismantled
and engineers were either transferred out of the Unit or outside the project. Hence
the modus operandi is the same in BEL for all persons who stand against
corruption. They are harassed, side tracked, given punishment postings or
suspended and terminated.
It can be understood that if one or two persons are
targeted but in the project IACCS it is clearly brought out at various stages
that persons have been targeted whenever they have spoken about the rampart
corruption which is being monitored by the highest level of management in BEL.
If proper investigation is carried out by external
government agencies it will clearly come out that in this project from the
beginning itself at all stages and in all systems (software, hardware, civil
contracts, sub-systems for hardened underground buildings) organized and
planned corruption has taken place through a mafia (which may be external to
BEL) and with full support from persons sitting at the highest level of BEL.
Some of the conversations of Mr. D.K. Chatterjee are as follows:
• I have talked to Shri Ajay Singh who is involved in the
civil works of IACCS. He has also said that there are lots of discrepancies in
the civil contracts.
• I was part of IACCS group who interacted with Air Force
persons during the initial phase of the project. I was working in Radar Data
Processing (RDP) and when we were interfacing with Air Force personnel they
also told us that there was something very wrong going on in the project.
• The amount of corruption which is there in the project
it does not look that CMD would have any control. If the loot is of the order
of Rs 1000 to 2000 Crores, I think a very small part of it would have gone to
BEL persons. Persons facilitating this loot in BEL would just get few foreign
trips and perhaps some GM promotions. The very fact that Air Force has given
BEL the job of civil construction on underground buildings is itself
questionable since DRDO already had expertise in this and Air Force could have
done this job ( directly through some private vendor) with DRDO help (this
shows that the plan was to do all the corruption by just front ending BEL).
• I have also been a part of IACCS project from the very
beginning (although I was looking after a very small portion related to RDP)
but I also found something strange happening in the project. When I was doing
the RDP I was asked by Mr. Anil Pant (the AGM in-charge of IACCS who was
indicted by the Vigilance report dated 16th Nov’16 for manipulations in the ordering
of DDS software but was subsequently promoted as General Manager) to choose the
hardware from a particular vendor (on a single tender basis and at a very high
cost from what was available in the market). As per Mr. Pant it was customers
requirement to go with a particular vendor (how can customer dictate the
vendor).
•
Even taking the hardware at a higher cost I was able to make the system in-house
at a cost of Rs 25 lacs. The same system they were getting from vendors at
almost Rs 2.5 Crores (ten times the in-house cost).
•
Although I was doing a very small part of the project the attitude which was
there in the
overall
project got reflected in this also (as in overall IACCS project they have been
going for single tenders for ordering on pre-fixed vendors at much higher costs
than available in the market).
• Everyone looked at me as if I have done a very big
mistake by developing the system inhouse (maybe because I came on the way of
persons making money out of outsourcing the same to pre-fixed vendors).
Everyone (including the end user) tried to dissuade me from taking up the
in-house development by telling me that the system is required urgently within
six months thinking that I will raise my hands due to the impossible time lines
set for me for development. Everyone was saying that RDP cannot be made
in-house but like a fool I accepted the challenge and when I successfully
demonstrated it, I was unceremoniously thrown out of the project.
• It
is quite obvious that there is some serious misappropriation going on in the
project at the highest level.
It is obvious that since after developing the system at a cost of Rs 25 lacs Mr. D.K. Chatterjee was thrown out of the project the required systems would have been bought at inflated cost (almost ten times) from pre-fixed vendors. This has been the modus operandi in the IACCS project wherein persons who had originally been part of the project and were instrumental in development of software and selection of hardware were unceremoniously removed from the project and a bunch of persons who had nothing to do with the project were placed at the positions where they manipulated the ordering in connivance with the persons at the highest level at BEL for personal gains.
Dear Sir, Defence Public Sector company M/s Bharat
Electronics-BANGALORE is involved in
massive corruption and act of
compromising national security in Indian Air Force confidential underground
project worth Rs 7900 Crore. The project names as Integrated Air Command and
Control System (IACCS) is basically “ Construction of underground bunkers
across 10 strategic locations in the country in which all communication system
which is going to command and control all RADARS and other communication
infrastructure related to Indian air force in all the time and specially in war
time can act as a complete safe house for all VIP/VVIPS as well as IAF
Officials .
The whole project is being executed through an
consultancy firm ( bogus/ shell company) named M/S R D KONSULTANTS DELHI ,
incorporated just 3-4 months before awarding the project related work started
in 2010-11 with all false and fabricated
certificates diluting the pre-qualifications norms just to make him
accommodative violating all CVC norms/ BEL MANUALS for tendering and contract. Further, this
consultancy firm awarded major construction related works to its sister
concerns having wife and other relatives as directors through a chain of shell
/ interrelated companies.
Further Plant and Machinery Infrastructure items worth more than Rs 2500 crores are being procured from the foreign firms based in Germany, Finland. Interestingly, all these firms are linked to M/s RD KONSULTANTS where former BEL officials are also working. Even the CVO of the company SHRI SHIVA KUMAR, IAS in MARCH 2019 ,has endorsed all findings of inquiry committee and mentioned serious violations involving criminal intent through violation of procedure, misrepresentation of facts, favourism to place order to prefixed vendors through vested interest, collusion of interest and attempt to make corporate losses details of full CVO report is mentioned.
Unfortunately CMD, Mr MD Gowatma not forwarded the CVO
recommendations to CVC which is mandatory as per CVC Guidlines and time to time
orders
Mr Shiva Kumar, CVO, BEL
has finally recommended heavy punitive actions against BEL officials ,
and consultant firm with police case for recovery of money , before going for his retirement as CVO of BEL on 29 March
2019, with advance copy of his REPORT & Recommendations to SECRETARY CVC
and CVO MOD DELHI( as mandated as per CVC
guidelines and circulars no. 000/VGL/166 DATED 16 JAN 2001 & NO.
06/VGL/065 DATED JULY 2006 ). Also as per these circulars CMD Of the company
also should send report to concerned CVO MOD and put up to the company board.
It is observed that CVC is not done any steps towards
this serious corruption which is directly involved in serious compromise with
our national security and hampered the defence preparedness, as the over ground
Air force command has to complete operational in March 2018 but still the
software’s etc are not ready. And underground command centres should be ready
in coming October 2019 but the work is not completed even 30% only object to
procure things for minting money and infrastructure are not ready or some are
not started yet.
As amount is huge in tune of Es 7900 crs so all
machineries are working to buried the
issue.
This whole act of massive corruption and irregular
practices in such a highly sensitive and strategic national importance project
has put the complete national security related to IAF operations and
intelligence at Risk & Danger. Many of the project teams members of BEL
some of which have retired and now the
present management team consisting of CMD
(MR GOWTAMA), DIRECTOR (OU)- MR NATRAJ KRINAPPA, Director Finance Mr khosy
ALEXXANDER & GM-NCS MR JAYDEEP
MAJUMDAR) are directly involved in these corruption and are openly
supporting all this mal practices.
A direction was issued by BEL CMD MR GAUTAMA to cease and
confiscate all Personal Computers of internal enquiry committee members which
shows fear of corrupt BEL officials.
Air Force’s (IAF) highly sensitive Integrated
Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project to establish the 10 underground nodes
in entire country Air Force site and knowingly under the command of MR
GOWTAMA the all irregularities in constructions and procurements were overlooked
and due collapse in three sites, the heavy losses worth several crores was born
by BEL and protected the contractors/vendors interests and no penalty was made
against design consultant even it is in terms and condition. All approvals were
done by Mr Goawatma with vested interest and loss to poor public tax payers.
All above shows a case of massive corruption,
fraud and abuse of power with criminal intent and a huge loss to Government
public money by BEL senior management persons in connivance with chief
consultant, EX DRDO and some IAF officials. The whole investigation
report findings are finally found true of the fact that as it is learnt
from top BEL & DRDO sources last week M/s RD Konsultant has written to BEL
MANAGEMENT that as his chief designer has left the specifications and whole
scheme of the project BEL management has already spend thousands of crores
of public money and suppose its design does not work then who will own the
responsibility of whole scam. Now the news that the firm M/S RD KONSULTANT is
running out of project the reason could only be because his fraud has come out
in media and BEL current management instead of taking legal action against the
corrupt, trying to harass and victimize the honest and brave investigation team.
Hope CVC will act on CVO, BEL recommendations and
sent to this case to CBI for thorough investigation to save the public money
Regards
Complaint dated 15-07-2019 has been successfully received in CVC. For status/action taken on your complaint no. 131351/2019/vigilance-9
Enclosed
Details of Investigation of CVO, BEL on Air force IACCS Project irregularities
Copy of BEL, CVO recommendations after investigation
Copy email by site engineer who exposed the corrupt practices going on Air force IACCS Project sites
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
