Tag Archives: finance

Uncategorized

BEL allegedly violated string of norms to award contracts to German, Finnish firms; ex-CMD, two retired defence officials under scanner

Leave a comment

Yatish Yadav Apr 09, 2019 – Firstpost

New Delhi: Defence public sector undertaking Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) handling Indian Air Force’s (IAF) confidential Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) awarded a sub-system contract without floating global tender to a German company Mueller Safe GmbH, which had produced only 75 pieces of valves used for such installation.

Another company Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH was also selected by BEL for a contract despite submitting the technical proposal after closing time of bid. A Finland-based company Temet OY was given an award on a single tender basis. Interestingly, Temet OY and Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH were already mentioned in a detailed project report of IACCS prepared by M/S RD Konsultants in 2013, raising serious questions over conflict of interest. It is learnt that two BEL officers currently working on IACCS project are also under the scanner of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which recently received source based inputs regarding their activities.

These facts emerging from documents and BEL’s internal inquiry report raise serious questions that Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) rules and BEL’s own purchase procedures 2016, were allegedly violated in the entire process of the project contracts, which began when the UPA government was in power. As reported by Firstpost on 2 April, BEL has come under the cloud by its own inquiry report for allegedly favouring project design consultant M/S RD Konsultants.

Documents reviewed by Firstpost shows BEL, in the gross violation of purchase procedure, awarded plant and machinery contracts worth hundreds of crores to foreign firms including Temet OY of Finland, Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH and Mueller Safe of Germany. No open or global tender was floated to select the vendors. Sources confirmed that the government is likely to ask investigative and enforcement agencies to probe into alleged irregularities in hiring design consultant, the award of contracts for the plant and machinery and role of the serving and retired officers in the process.

After Firstpost mailed a detailed questionnaire to MV Gowtama, chairman and managing director (CMD) of BEL, his office said BEL follows standard procedures, guidelines and its business practices conform to C&AG and CVC guidelines.

“The contracts for any project are awarded through competitive tendering and based on capabilities and capacities of partners/vendors. Hence prima facie BEL does not see any irregularity,” the BEL CMD’s office said.

Temet OY, Finland citing non-disclosure agreement refused to comment on the contract and chose not to respond on working arrangements and details about its association with M/S RD Konsultants. It, however, claimed M/S RD Konsultants was not Temet’s agent.

“We can confirm that M/S RD Konsultants mentioned below is not and has not been an authorised Temet dealer. Of course, if there is an official investigation in progress, we will cooperate with the relevant authorities,” Tero Hanhinen from Temet OY said.

Temet OY though conveniently suppressed the fact that two of its officers, Likka Elias Kivisarri and Adel Velic were accompanied by M/S RD Konsultants’ Vikram Parvathoju to BEL office from 6 to 8 August 2018 for technical discussion with defence PSU officers.

Questionnaire sent to Pro Hub and Mueller Safe, Germany, seeking comments went unanswered. M/S RD Konsultants did not respond to a detailed questionnaire sent on 31 March.

Deal with IACCS design consultant’s foreign affiliates raises a stink

The design firm M/S RD Konsultants in the detailed project report had mentioned that it was working with several foreign companies including Temet OY, Finland and Pro Hub, Germany. The fact has rattled BEL’s internal investigators, who alleged that decision to go with a single vendor is surprising as the design consultant is questionable and requires further probe. The design consultant selected for all 10 sites has total control in the choice of sub-systems like electronic items, building management system and other sensitive hardware. By sidestepping the procurement procedure, BEL did not go for open or global tender for the procurement.

As per BEL purchase procedure para 10.1.7: “Open tenders shall be resorted to in case of non-production/ non project materials estimated to cost Rs 1 crore and above. The time allowed for receiving quotations against open tenders can be fixed, depending upon the geographical area covered, effort required to be put in by the vendors and other relevant factors, however shall not be less than 7 days. In case of global tenders, the notice will also be published in Indian Trade Journal and sent to Indian Missions abroad deemed necessary for adequate response in addition to the press advertisement and BEL website.”

None of these guidelines was followed by BEL in the procurement of equipment of IACCS and the competitive bidding for all 10 operation sites was surreptitiously eliminated and firms directly/indirectly linked with the design consultant were roped in. This is what BEL’s inquiry report had feared. The report mentioned Temet OY, Finland is represented in India by Stahl Tecniks Private Limited, which is directly/ indirectly linked to M/S RD Konsultants. One of the past directors of Stahl Tecniks was Suruchi Totala, who was also director of RD Designs LLP that was floated in 2015 by M/S RD Konsultants partner SK Anand. Now, the RD Designs LLP is in the process of shutting the shop. The BEL’s report also alleges that being the single vendor for all 10 sites, the design consultant carried out works to make sure that it suits the private vendors of plant and machinery of its choice.

“The civil design for the underground structures would have been carried out keeping in mind the various sub-systems to be installed inside. For example, if blast doors of M/S Temet, Finland are chosen that all the openings for the doors would have been designed suiting the doors from Temet. Same would be the case for hydraulic lifts, air conditioning ducts, opening for blast valves etc. Hence either the systems selected by the consultants have to be used or else minor/major modifications would have to be carried out in the civil structure for interfacing any alternate make sub-system. This also substantiates the fact that if minimum two consultants had been hired then at least the two consultants selected would have proposed multiple vendors for the various sub-systems which would have led to healthy competition between various vendors leading to competitive biddings for various sub-systems,” BEL’s internal inquiry report said.

As indicated in the internal inquiry report, after submission of detailed project report, the IACCS contract signed between BEL and IAF had no other choice but to include several of these companies against the requirement with a condition that something equivalent could also be explored. The CVC guidelines are very clear that any purchase order above Rs 1 crore should be concluded through the tendering process and for foreign vendor’s global tender should be floated. The opaque procurement process of BEL was orchestrated in such a way that it gives an impression of a level playing field by exploring other alternatives other than the vendor already mentioned in the detailed project report.

Documents reviewed by Firstpost reveals that a smokescreen was created by constituting a technical committee within the BEL for procurement of plant and machinery for IACCS. On 24 May 2017, BEL chairman and managing director (CMD) MV Gowtama formed the technical panel to explore and identify vendors for the equipment for IACCS complexes (details withheld). This was an interesting turn of event because BEL purchase procedure, 2016, does not mention the constitution of a technical committee to explore, finalise and recommend the vendors. Nevertheless, the technical committee chaired by Umesh Chandra with Pugazhenthi R, BP Pahuja, Subbarao G, Prashant Ranjan Maurya and Udit Agarwal as members were tasked to finalize specifications, identification, shortlisting of original equipment manufacturers/ vendors for supply, finalization of quotation for the equipment and evaluation of suitable make/model for each of the items required for seamless integration with the civil structure of IACCS.

How the contract process was manipulated?

The internal investigation report of BEL gives an indication that the procedures to select vendors for the project was handled through a very simple method of picking the names from the documents submitted by the design consultant, which had prepared a detailed project report mentioning the name of foreign companies it was working with. The project report submitted to BEL was later forwarded to IAF which signed the contract and sent it back to BEL. Subsequently, BEL formed a technical committee to purchase IACCS associated equipment. Thereafter, the technical committee went for shopping at companies first mentioned by M/S RD Konsultants in the detailed project report.

Documents reveal the Finnish firm Temet OY was given the contract for regenerative Carbon Dioxide Removal System for IACCS sites for more than Rs 60 crore without floating global tender. Interestingly, purchase order said that technical committee headed by Umesh Chandra had recommended searching more vendors and two other firms M/S Parker and M/S Airef were explored but both were found not capable of manufacturing Carbon Dioxide removal system with required specifications. Why and how these two companies were selected by the technical committee to explore more option instead of going for an open or global tender remain in the domain of speculation. A BEL officer in the finance division noted in the file that price of the system given to Temet OY needs to be justified since it was on a single tender basis.

“As per company’s policy, the price needs to be justified by technical evaluation or by comparing similar product available in the market not considered for the bidding,” Sanjoy Kumar Pal, senior deputy general manager, finance wrote on 22 August 2018.

There is some interesting observation in the documents, which expose the alleged irregularities. RK Sharma, an officer from the material management division (Network Centric System) gave a contradictory statement in a bid to clarify the pricing based on a single tender. He said price quoted by Temet OY was well below the unit cost considered for the selling price, however, he further went on to say that there was no procurement history of similar items and prices of this system is not readily available in the market.

Subsequently, the technical committee recommended that enquiry for carbon dioxide removal system be sent to Temet OY, Finland only. The proposal was on a single tender basis and Temet OY, Finland was called for technical-commercial negotiations, which was held from 6 to 8 August 2018. Besides BEL and Temet OY officials, Vikram Parvathoju from design consultant M/S RD Konsultants was also present in the meeting.

While appointing the technical committee in May 2017, the CMD, BEL had clearly mentioned that representatives of design consultant, project management consultant and the third-party inspection and certification agency should be involved in the proceeding but neither project management consultants nor officials from third party inspection agency were present in technical and price negotiation meetings. After technical committee recommendation, the single tender proposal was approved.

Just a day after the committee meeting on 8 August 2018, which was attended by senior BEL officers including Joydeep Majumdar (General Manager, Network Centric System), BP Pahuja ( Assistant General Manager, Infrastructure, Network Centric System) and two representatives of Temet OY, the defence PSU started placing the purchase order for Temet OY, Finland. The total quantity of carbon dioxide removal system (details withheld) is mentioned on the 20 August 2018 note, which further said, “The total quantity was indicated by Infra group based on the design and requirements finalized by design consultant M/S RD Konsultants.”

“Technical committee recommended that enquiry for Carbon Dioxide Removal System be sent to M/S Temet OY only. The proposal is on a single tender basis,” the note said.

German company favoured despite submitting the technical proposal after closing time

Another foreign company under the cloud is Pro-Hub Hebetechnik GmbH based in Germany that was awarded the multi-crore contract of goods lifts for the IACCS project. The company was mentioned by M/S RD Konsultants in the detailed project report submitted during the UPA regime. M/S RD Konsultants had claimed that it provides design consultancy to the Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH. This issue has been raised in the internal investigation report of BEL, recommending further probe to ascertain conflict of interest.

Satyaprem from M/S RD Consultants was present in the technical meeting on 16 July 2018 between officials from BEL and Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH. No representatives from the project management consultant and third-party inspection and certification agency were present in the meeting. Documents reviewed by Firstpost shows technical committee had selected two companies for goods lift — Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH and M/S Maspero Elevatori.

Documents reveal that Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH technical response vide 11 emails were received on 26 June 2018, after the closing time of bid. However, it was not disqualified. This move triggered suspicion among the BEL officer’s ranks and Sanjoy Kr. Pal, Senior Deputy Manager, Finance division, BEL on 26 July 2018 objected the move. He questioned on the proposal file for awarding the contract to Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH asking as to why late tender is being entertained and why purchase clause is not being followed in this case.

“The proposal is put up to CMD under what Sub Delegation of Powers (SDOP) clause? As per clause 10.2.7 of the purchase procedure, no late tender should be entertained. Why purchase procedure clause was not followed? Pal questioned.

On 27 July, RK Sharma, deputy general manager, Material Management (Network Centric System), BEL clarified that since the happenings and the facts related to the receipt of bids after closing time are in variation of the actually prescribed process in purchase procedure 2016, approval is sought of CMD for the process followed by Strategic Business Unit (SBU) of BEL. He further said that Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH was not disqualified because a ‘conscious decision’ was taken by the SBU, keeping in view the project requirements.

Sanjoy Kumar Pal, BEL officer from finance division, however, was not satisfied with the clarification and he clearly said that proposal was in violation of purchase procedure.

“The proposal is in deviation of purchase procedure and accordingly it is put up to CMD,” Pal wrote.

Despite the proposal contested by his own officer in finance division, CMD MV Gowtama approved the proposal on 27 July 2018.

Technical capability? Produced just 75 valves but selected by BEL

Another deal that has come under the scanner is blast valves, gastight valves and wall sleeves for the IACCS sites. The contract has been awarded to German company Mueller Safe GmbH, which primarily deal in safe and very recently ventured into valve manufacturing and till May 2018 had only produced 75 pieces. On the other hand, a UK company, European EMC Products Ltd (EEP), which had produced and supplied more than 2,000 valves was simply disqualified on the basis of not meeting the criteria for average annual turnover for last three years, which was vigorously contested by BEL officer Nataraj Krishnappa, Director arguing that EEP is technically suitable and competent.

“M/S EEP, UK has been dropped based on the criteria that annual turnover of the company for the last 3 years does not meet the desired requirement. This vendor is technically suitable and competent. Why cannot they be considered for Request for Quotation (RFQ) purpose? The site visit report of the committee does not indicate any reason for the disqualification of the vendor,” Krishnappa wrote on 28 May 2018.

Joydeep Majumdar, general manager (Network Centric System) wrote that the technical committee felt EEP being a small organisation with low turnover will not be able to handle contract estimated to be worth Rs 200 crores. Subsequently, the EEP, UK was dropped and instead of going for global tender, Request for Proposal (RFP) on the restricted tender basis was sent to Mueller Safe GmbH and Temet OY, a world leader in valve business, which had supplied more than 60,000 valves till May 2018 globally.

The bid was invited on 15 June 2018 and while the response from Temet OY was submitted before the expiry of bid submission time, Mueller Safe GmbH bid was received after closing time. Subsequently, Mueller Safe GmbH, which had no expertise in manufacturing valves was declared L1 and it was called for techno-commercial negotiations, which were held from 9 to 14 July 2018. Questions were raised within BEL as to why Mueller Safe, an inexperienced company in making valves, was given contract and why not re-tendering process inviting more companies was initiated by the BEL.

Documents reviewed by Firstpost reveals that an officer in the finance division had warned just before the finalisation of the contract to Mueller that “selection should be as per the technical manufacturing capability”. But, that was ignored. Even after Mueller Safe GmbH was awarded the contract, Naresh Kumar, deputy general manager of the finance division, BEL said that the bid of M/S Mueller Safe GmbH is received after the closing time and approval for bid acceptance received after closing time requires CMD approval. Another officer V Muralidharan, General Manager (Finance) also flagged the concerns on 26 July 2018 that since the proposal was accepted after the closing time of bid, CMD post facto approval of deviation would be required. The proposal was approved by the CMD on 27 July 2018.

Documents reviewed by the Firstpost also revealed Mueller Safe GmbH was not mentioned in the RD Konsultants documents and thus it appears that no representatives from the design consultants attended the meetings. No one from the project management consultant and third-party inspection and certification agency was present either. Also, the meetings held between 11-12 July 2018 at BEL office with the Mueller Safe GmbH functionaries had not representatives from the above-mentioned group.

It is further learnt that original equipment manufacturer for valve refused on Transfer of Technology (ToT) arguing that its business will be adversely affected in the case full know-how is given to BEL as defence PSU will become the competitor in the market. The technical committee agreed upon partial ToT and gave its go-ahead for the contract.

The BEL internal inquiry report has recommended further probe into the installation of the sub-systems of IACCS observing that site design might be designed keeping a particular company in mind.

“It is also claimed that ‘M/S RD Konsultants’ has designed the underground RCC structure taking into consideration a particular make of doors, hatches, blast valves, lifts, air conditioning, building management systems etc. All the reinforcement, cut-outs etc in the RCC structure were designed for interfacing with the particular brand (example for the doors the steel reinforcements in the opening were designed as per the hinge locations in the particular band of blast doors). Since the RCC structures have been made at many sides even before the finalization of the sub-systems to be installed hence it needs to be studied what was the repercussion in the change in scope of RCC structure already built and what was the cost repercussion BEL had to bear,” the internal inquiry report said.

Similarly, the order for radio and its accessories worth more than Rs 9 crore, was also given to a Germany based company (details withheld) on a single source basis without inviting tender. It appears this German firm selected without tendering process was not the original manufacturer. A key document reviewed by Firstpost said, “The firm indicated that most of the hardware being delivered by them is third-party hardware.”

IACCS prototype makers joined fugitive arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari firm

It is learnt that two senior officers of defence PSU, BEL, who were instrumental in designing prototype for Indian Air Force’s confidential IACCS project in 2007 joined fugitive arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari’s firm OIS Advanced Technology Private Limited after retirement in 2011. Interestingly, BEL was preparing to formally launch the IACCS project by inviting preliminary project report for 10 automated air operation centre for Indian Air Force around the same time. The two officers, who joined arms dealer’s company at senior positions, are now under the scanner of Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is probing alleged kickbacks linked to Bhandari in Swiss basic trainer aircraft Pilatus during UPA regime in 2012. Incidentally, BEL is the offset partner of Pilatus.

Drdo

Making Money in DRDO – A simple guide for Dummies

2 Comments

More stern and steadfast our honorable PM Modi ji becomes to eradicate corruption, more derisive and deceitful DRDO officials become to devise novel methods to siphon off public funds. They are least bothered about propriety or financial prudence in handling public money; on the other hand, they have mastered expertise of the methods to simply transfer funds for non-existing civil works and projects. They are so audacious and open in corrupt practices, at the end of the day they cock a snookat the ever struggling government. They have forgotten their duty to serve the nation and more afflicted with desire for power, pelf and perks and deep in corruption.

One of the civil works wing in DRDO, namely, CCE(R&D) is made for, made by and made of DRDO Scientists,is well known for making money out of nothing. Many government departments indulge in corruption by 30 to 40 %;but, here’s a department expertise in making 100% money for fictitious work. The steps followed by Bangalore based Dummies Guru and his stooges (Aka Alibaba and Chaalis Chor) are given below:

Step 1: Decide how much public funds to be siphoned off and create a fictitious work. Identify a subordinate office with Amiable Docile Employees, who will not question any atrocious attitude of Dalal (of corruption) Guru, who is basically heading a bunch of Audacious Egoistic Reckless Officers.

Step 2: Make a statement of case for this subordinate officer without their knowledge whatever crude way, as those sitting in higher office will not scrutinize the case. The sanctioning authority needs just one paper mentioning amount with signatures, no need to be clear about scope of work, building, work site etc.

Step 3: Move papers secretly without finance concurrence as the work referred is to another organization, this civil work was never existed.Get sanction of work to ever obliging Project Management Office and funds bypassing finance with audacious change of code head from revenue items into capital items (like staircase railings are shown as capital items and there is no need for finance concurrence up to 1.2 crores) and take sanction from DRDO top within this limit.

Step 4: All documents and work fabricated, silently work completion certificate created and funds transferred to predetermined contractor.

Step 5: After sharing booty, all gangster of gangs, celebrate the event watching a movie titled Hum Sab Chor Hai.

In this sample case, A Pretending Nangnaach Timid fellow, who helped earlier his boss, who was Master of Self Certification and fake doctorates in obscure topics, in escaping from the hot wheels taxi misuse case, is again at his old games. He sells himself to be tool in creating non-existing works, fabricating statement of case and obtain surreptitiously sanction for a work. He has heisted the heinous crime on non-suspecting Amiable Docile Employees of another organization. This is a case of blatant misuse of power and fraud on the system. This person even today shamelessly used taxi every day morning and evening from his house to office and back at the official cost while taxi will run vacant two times about 35 to 40 km just to take care of him.

The above example of clearly shows how these greats are at play in obtaining sanction for non-existent works with least respect to the rule book (surprisingly quite often emphasized by own vigilance division), that too for the fabricated work for the other organization. This is especially true for CCE (R&D) which is run by DRDO scientists and any time at the beckon of DG’s and those at HQr. They can do anything and get away with public funds running into lakhs and crores.

It wouldn’t be far off from truth that these worthies, the so called upholder of discipline and legitimate rights to rule DRDO (as per their wish and whims), have mastered the methods to circumvent the well laid down procedures in the system and financial controls to siphon off the public funds with impunity. Now, see the fun, once this report on the ice berg of systematized corruption is out, these dalals of corruption will, instead of retrospection and correction, start witch hunting because how dare someone can question top person indulging in money making business.

Jai ho DRDO.

Drdo

डीआरडीओ में ताजमहलो का निर्माण

4 Comments
माननीय श्री नरेंद्र मोदी जी                                                                       दिनाक 12 जून 2014
प्रधानमंत्री
कक्षसंख्या  152पीएमओ
साउथ ब्लाक  नईदिल्ली -110011

 

विषय : डीआरडीओ में ताजमहलो का निर्माण

माननीय श्री प्रधानमंत्री जी डीआरडीओ में रक्षा प्रणालीयो के अनसुन्धान व् निर्माण के  नाम पर जो लूट मची है उस के कई उदाहरण समय समय पर अखबारों के माध्यम से आम जनो को पता चलता रहता है परन्तु वास्तविकता यह है कि इन सभी खबरों को राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा के नाम पर दबा दिया जाता है

  1. ब्रह्मोस कम्पनी की उत्पति सन 1998 से आज तक उप्लभ्धि पर नजर डाले तो हज़ारों करोड़ रूपए  खर्चेने के बाद भी  सिवाए टेस्ट फायर के  खबरों कुछ भी यथार्थ में नहीं मिलेगा असली उप्लभ्धि है श्री पिल्लई का सन 2007 से अब तक सात बरसों का सर्विस में एक्सटेंशन, लाखो  रूपए खर्च करके अपना होलोग्राम बनवाया, अपनी नाम की गैलेरी बनवायी, अपनी आत्म कथा लिखने पर जनता का पैसा खर्च करा,  लाखो  रूपए के ब्रह्मोस मिसाइल के लकड़ी के माडल बनवाए, लाखो  रूपए विदेशो में डिफेन्स एक्सपो के नाम पर विदशो में  खर्च किये एक पैसे का आज तक आर्डर नहीं मिला, क्या हमारे देश में सेल्फ मोरल नाम की चीज़ वास्तव में खो गयी है, अब जाकर जब  श्री पिल्लई के दोस्त की सरकार गयी तो ब्रह्मोस कम्पनी को नया सी ई औ मिल रहा है,  पर क्या पंद्रह सालो में जो श्री पिल्लई ने देश का पैसा बर्बाद किया उसका हिसाब हमारे प्रधान मंत्री जी श्री पिल्लई से मांगेगे I
  1. डीआरडीओ सन 1990 से  मिसाइल के नाम पर  हज़ारों करोड़ रूपए खर्च कर रहा है देश को जानकर यह आश्चर्य होगा कि  डीआरडीओ के वैज्ञानिको ने मिसाइल को एक होली काऊ बना कर जम कर दोह रहे हैं अगर मात्र  डी आर डी एल हैदराबाद  संस्था  का स्पेशल ऑडिट करा लिया जाय तो पुरे डीआरडीओ के स्वास्थ्य का पता देश को चल जायेगा I
  1. उदाहरण के लिए – एक लगभग 8 मीटर x 12 मीटर का गोदाम डी आर डी एल हैदराबाद ने 19 जून 2014 को बड़े साज सज्जा के साथ उद्घाटन किया ( गोदाम की फोटो सलग्न है ) कुल लागत लगभग आठ करोड़

गोदाम की लागत – दो  करोड़ पिचासी लाख

गोदाम के अंदर लोहे की रैक – दो  करोड़ पचास लाख

गोदाम के अंदर संचालन हेतु दो बैटरी ऑपरेटेड फोर्क लिफ्ट व् प्लेटफार्म ट्रक – नब्बे लाख व् एक  करोड़ बीस  लाख

गोदाम के अंदर रखे सामान के जानकारी हेतु बारकोड सॉफ्टवेयर – सतर लाख

गोदाम का एयर कंडीशनर आदि –  एक  करोड़ से अधिक

गोदाम के अंदर फायर फाइटिंग का कोई प्रावधान नहीं दिया है I

जिस कांट्रेक्टर से गोदाम का निर्माण करवाया उसने आर्डर से दो महीने पूर्व ही कार्य आरम्भ कर दिया था I (गोदाम का निर्माण के कार्य सम्बन्ध की सम्पूर्ण सूचनाये सलग्न है)

आप से आग्रह है कि अगर आप गुजरात के किसी व्यापारी बंधू से गोदाम की लागत निकलवाएंगे तो सिर्फ एक करोड़ रूपये की लागत आएगी और हो सकता है उससे भी कम आए I

अतः आपसे अनुरोध है कि डीआरडीओ के वैज्ञानिको को रक्षा प्रणालीयो के अनसुन्धान के नाम पर देश को लूटने से बचाये I

धन्यवाद

प्रभु डंडरियाल
21-सुंदरवाला, रायपुर, देहरादून
फ़ोन  0135- 2787750, मोबाइल – 9411114879,
e-मेल  id prabhudoon@gmail.com  वेबसाइट  www.corruptionindrdo.comLRSAM phot 10 april
 
Item Description – Design, Manufacturing, Supply, Erection and Commissioning of Detachable Integrated Logistics Store EnclosureDemand No.  (DRDL/LRS/26/98P/13/049) Demand Date (dd.mm.yy)- 31.12.13

Inventory Holder Name (S/Shri.) V. Venkateswarlu , Scientist – D , LRSAM Project  ,DRDL  phone  no : 040 2458 4507

Rate (Rs.) 28500000.00 Sales Tax (VAT) 5.00% Tax Value  (Rs.) 1425000.00

SO Value with TAX (Rs.) 29925000.00

Firm Name (M/s.) Trinetra Constructions Firm Address17-1-388/77/B, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Saidabad HYDERABAD – 500 059. Firm Phone040 – 2406 4666 /  2406 4555 /  2407 1529 Firm Fax040- 2406 4666

(Local person who don’t have any (not more) construction experience in real estate field…

Bank Guarantee Amount (Rs.) 2850000 BG. No.35214IGPER0004 BG. Date13.03.14 Validity      11.09.14 Bank Name Andhra Bank

AB / EB / PJB -PJB EB / PJB Letter No. DRDL/LRS/24 EB / PJB Letter Date  30.12.13 EB / PJB Sanction ID No. PB027R1A(b)002 EB / PJB Sanctioned Quantity1 No. EB / PJB Sanction Cost RE (FE) Rs. Lakhs 348.53 (0) Additional Sanction  Revenue / Capital Revenue Mode of Tender Limited

S.O. No. DRDL/LRS/26/98P/13/049/8500

Key members involved in this particular case.

1.Mr . Jaiteerth Joshi , Sc’F; , LRSAM , DRDL.

2. Patrick D’Silva , Sc’G;’,Project Director , LRSAM ,DRDL

3. Ved Veer Arya , IDAS ( Indian defence Accountant services  1997 batch officer ), finance officer , missile complex ( DRDL, ASL, etc)

PDC – 30.06.14- but construction was started early in January 2014…

With the bank guarantee dates   of Andhra bank and with construction photos anyone can co-relate how much fraud was happen…..

Inaugurated on 19th June 2014

Drdo

LIVE INDIA EXCLUSIVE

1 Comment

Live India News Desk | Written on 5 Apr, 2014 at 20:51 in India |Ghadar-Aaj-Raat

Live India exposed how national security is compromised by the goverment. Itis related to Balco i,e Bharat aluminium company limited located in Korba,Chattisgarh.
The story talks about a chinese company named SEPCO being awarded a contract for setting up of a power unit inside BALCO, a Navratna company. At BALCO,DRDO’s research and development centre is in operation.They are making aluminium alloys like AA2014 ,AA2219 etc for different kind of missiles.
They are also producing various kinds of aerospace material for ISRO and Vikram Sarabhai space centre.Apart from this missile casing,designing and assembling is also being done here.
Vedanta,a UK based company,being the majority stake holder(51 percent) took the arbitrary decision of giving the contract to a chinese company SEPCO for setting a power unit inside BALCO thus compromising the national security interest.Interestingly SEPCO went a step further by subletting construction work to a company called Gannon Dunkerley.
This company claims to be an Indian company but it has its business interest mostly in Dubai,Abudhabi,Gulf and middle-east. This was done despite govt of India’s instructions that contract should be given to an indian company.The Govt of India remained a silent spectator to Vedanta’s decision.No action was taken.
Prior to entry of the chinese a shocking incident took place at BALCO. Missile proof and design were stolen from BALCO.Adding to that Vedanta,the 51percent stake holder in Balco sold missile assembly line under the pretext of it being oldwith taking due permission or clearance from defence ministry and other security agencies.
A congress MP Dadai dubey wrote a letter to then prime minister and home minister about it.But no action was taken.Now the govt has approved complete disinvestment of BALCO in favour of Vedanta.Finance minister P.chidambaram was non executive director of Vedanta from Nov 2003 till 22nd may,2004 a day before formation of UPA1.
He was given finance portfolio in the UPA govt.Allegation is that he facilitated complete disinvestment of BALCO, a Navratna company in favour of Vedanta.

Drdo

DRDO makes own rules on pay scales

2 Comments

Jatinder Kaur Tur,TNN | Jan 14, 2014, 02.34 AM IST

HYDERABAD: Sixteen months after it was pulled up for sanctioning projects without the approval of the government, the Hyderabad-based Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has done it again. This time, the premier defence research establishment has amended the pay scales of its employees on its own in violation of the rules and without the approval of the Union finance ministry.

Documents in possession of TOI show that DRDO amended or upgraded the Grade Pay of Technical Officer ‘A’ from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800. The defence organization effected the hike in 2009 with retrospective effect from 2006 and it came to the knowledge of the Union finance ministry in April 2012 through a query raised under the Right To Information (RTI) Act. A furious finance ministry then held that the order was ‘irregular’ and sought a strong-worded explanation from DRDO. The defence organization was also directed to withdraw the higher pay scale already granted to its Technical Officers.

But what followed was hilarious! In response to the reprimand from the Centre, DRDO reportedly sought retrospective permission for amending the Grade Pay scales. At this, an even furious finance ministry turned down the request in a strongly worded letter saying that the “arrangement was irregular, contrary to the accepted recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and in violation of allocation and transaction of business rules since it had been undertaken suo motu without reference, much less concurrence.”

The finance ministry also rubbished the claims of DRDO that this was done to maintain ‘relative hierarchy of Senior Technical Assistants (STA ‘C’) vis-a-vis Technical Officers ‘A’. DRDO was reminded that 6th CPC’s recommendations were aimed at de-layering the government and that ensuring the same ‘relative hierarchies’ as existed before the CPC awards defied the very purpose of rationalisation/standardization of pay scales attempted by successive Pay Commissions. At the end, DRDO was once again asked to withdraw the orders.

And now, DRDO in an attempt to cover up its administrative blunder, has distressed its more than 1,100 such technical officers across its 52 laboratories of which almost 124 promotees have already retired. In December 2013, DRDO not only downgraded these officers of DRDO Research and Technical Cadre, but also asked these officials to appear for special review and assessment and interview schedule in addition to the recovery of money so paid to them.

Meanwhile, the aggrieved officials maintain that it took them five years residential period and rigorous assessment tests to earn technical officers promotions from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800 grade. The DRTC Officers Association has reportedly urged defence minister A K Antony to bring the erring officers to book. These officials have been asked to return money to the tune of Rs 1,000 to Rs 5,000 earned monthly all these years as a result of this increased grade pay.

This was the second instance that DRDO has been found indulging in arbitrary functioning. About 16 months ago, a clandestine audit conducted by the Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) on the instructions of defence minister Antony, found major anomalies in DRDO’s arbitrary functioning. The defence organization was found guilty of sanctioning projects without government approval etc.

When asked about the developments, DRDO director general Avinash Chander said “while following the orders, the defence organization is trying to find a solution to the problem and issues raised by the technical officers issue.” Dr G Malakondaiah, chief controller, R&D (HR) at DRDO, while refusing to comment upon the orders in the past, said attempts are on to find a way out of the situation stemming out of the technical officers’ pay scale issue.

Curious case of pay hikes

In violation of rules and without the approval of the Union finance ministry, DRDO has amended the pay scales of its employees in 2009

The premier defence research establishment upgraded the Grade Pay of Technical Officer ‘A’ from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800 with a retrospective effect from 2006

After coming to know about it in April 2012, the Union finance ministry reprimanded the DRDO and directed it to withdraw the ‘hikes.’ In response, DRDO sought a retrospective permission from the finance ministry instead

A furious finance ministry then held that the order was ‘irregular’ and sought a strong-worded explanation from DRDO

DRDO in an attempt to cover up its administrative blunder, has distressed more than 1,100 technical officers across its 52 laboratories of which almost 124 promotees have already retired.

Drdo

DRDO takes finance ministry for a ride again

Leave a comment

Jatinder Kaur Tur,TNN | Jan 13, 2014, 01.04 PM IST
HYDERABAD: Sixteen months after it was pulled up for sanctioning projects without the approval of the government, Hyderabad-based Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has done it again.

This time, the premier defence research establishment has amended the payscales of its employees on its own in violation of the rules and without the approval of the Union finance ministry.

Documents in possession of TOI show that DRDO amended or upgraded the grade pay of technical officer ‘A’ from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4,800. The violation that happened in 2006 came to the knowledge of the union finance ministry in April 2012, through a query raised under the Right to Information Act. A furious finance ministry then held that the order was irregular and sought an explanation from DRDO. The defence organization was also directed to withdraw the higher payscale already granted to its technical officers.

What followed was hilarious. In response to the reprimand from the Centre, DRDO reportedly sought retrospective permission for amending the grade payscales. At this, an even more furious finance ministry turned down the request in a strongly-worded letter saying that the “arrangement was irregular, contrary to the accepted recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and in violation of Allocation and Transaction of Business Rules since it had been undertaken suo motu without reference, much less concurrence.”

The finance ministry also rubbished the claims of DRDO that this was done to maintain ‘relative hierarchy of senior technical assistants (STA ‘C’) vis-a-vis technical officers ‘A’. DRDO was reminded that 6th CPC’s recommendations were aimed at de-layering the government and that ensuring the same ‘relative hierarchies’ as existed before the CPC awards defied the very purpose of rationalization/standardization of pay scales attempted by successive Pay Commissions. At the end, DRDO was once again asked to withdraw the orders.

And now, DRDO in an attempt to cover up its administrative blunder has distressed its more than 1,100 such technical officers across its 52 laboratories of which almost 124 promotees have already retired. In December 2013, DRDO not only downgraded these officers of DRDO research and technical cadre, but also asked these officials to appear for special review and assessment and interview schedule in addition to the recovery of money so paid to them.

Meanwhile, the aggrieved officials maintain that it took them five years residential period and rigorous assessment tests to earn technical officers promotions from Rs 4,600 to Rs 4, 800 grade. The DRTC Officers Association has reportedly urged defence minister AK Antony to bring the erring officers to book. These officials have been asked to return money to the tune of Rs 1000 to Rs 5,000 earned monthly all these years as a result of this increased grade pay.

This is the second instance where DRDO has been found indulging in arbitrary functioning. About 16 months ago, a clandestine audit conducted by the Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) on the instructions of defence minister Antony, found major anomalies in DRDO’s arbitrary functioning. The defence organization was found guilty of sanctioning projects without government approval, etc.

When asked about the developments, DRDO director general Avinash Chander said “while following the orders, the defence organization is trying to find a solution to the problem and issues raised by the technical officers’ issue.” Dr G Malakondaiah, chief controller R&D (HR) at DRDO, while refusing to comment upon the orders in the past, said attempts are on to find a way out of the situation stemming out of the technical officers’ payscale issue.

Drdo

Defence ministry report slams DRDO chief

Leave a comment

Defence ministry report slams DRDO chief

14 Aug 2012Hindustan Times (Bhopal)

NEW DELHI: Defence Research and Development Organisation chief VK Saraswat sanctioned R2.8 crore to a mathematical society headed by him, an audit report has revealed. The report prepared by the defence ministry’s finance wing has also dealt with issues of transparency and shortcomings in projects developed by the organisation.

Defence ministry audit questions DRDO functioning

New Delhi: An internal audit report ordered by the defence ministry raised questions over the functioning of the DRDO and the grant of Rs 2.8 crore by its chief VK Saraswat to a society under him.

The report prepared by the finance wing of the defence ministry raised several issues in its review and the transparency of the research agency with a budget of over Rs 5,000 crore, defence sources said in New Delhi.

The report has questioned the grant of Rs 2.8 crore by Saraswat to a mathematical society.

The report has also pointed out that to avoid seeking approvals from the competent financial authorities, the DRDO was splitting the sanctions for its projects, they said.

It has also cited shortcomings in the products developed by the DRDO such as the Arjun tank, which has been found to be overweight by the Army for operations in certain areas along the border.

However, the DRDO said the issues raised in the report “are essentially in the nature of preliminary observations” and it was “vitiated by a faulty audit process”.

“Such preliminary observations are required to be formally issued and replies to the same should be sought prior to compilation of any report. Only if the replies are not satisfactory is the next step of making a preliminary report taken.

“In the extant case, the laid down procedure was not followed and to that extent, the process of audit stands vitiated. Thus, even before seeking replies of DRDO, presumption and baseless conclusions appear to have been arrived at,” DRDO spokesperson Ravi Gupta said.

PTI

DRDO ‘develops’ blatant financial irregularities

Published: Friday, Aug 17, 2012, 9:00 IST

By Pradip R Sagar | Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA

The ministry of defence’s special audit has found blatant irregularities in the Defence Research Development Organisation’s handling of finances.

The special audit report, accessed by the DNA, reveals that financial sanctions are being split so that they do not require approval of higher authorities.

The audit carried out by Comptroller General of Defence Audit on the direction of defence minister AK Antony has found that key projects costing over Rs300 crore were tweaked by the DRDO to get them sanctioned without approaching the concerned financial authorities.

“DRDO authorities have sometimes used delegated powers to sanction supposedly new projects to complete the work taken up under ongoing projects, instead of going to the concerned financial authority for revision of cost of the old projects,” the audit report claims.

For instance, programme for development of main battle tank Arjun was sanctioned at Rs69.99 crore in November 2010. But the DRDO authorities changed the entire programme and split it into smaller sub-heads and several procurements were sanctioned under ‘build-up’ so that higher authorities within the system could be avoided. This shows that a coordinated attempt to avoid going to higher financial authorities, which is contrary to financial regulations,” the auditors observed.

Similarly, despite having a comprehensive five-year programme sanctioned for human performance enhancement in May 2009 at a cost of Rs34.56 crore, the director of Defence Institute of Physiology & Allied Sciences (DIPAS-DRDO), has managed to get approval for additional projects over the already sanctioned project. Such practice defeats the very purpose of making projects/programmes,” the report added.

Another project called ‘Product support and product improvement of NAG weapon system’ was sanctioned at a cost of Rs28.35 crore by VK Saraswat, director general of DRDO, despite the fact that the Cabinet Committee on Security approved similar programme was still in the pipeline.

Audit report also pointed out an unjustified cost reduction by DG, DRDO for a project for design and development of electro-optical sensors for air-borne platforms (UAV and Aerostat) at a cost of Rs49.82 crore.

“Director General, DRDO has reduced the cost from Rs70 crore as proposed to Rs49.82 crore so as to bring it just under Rs50 crore, which is his sanctioning power,” the special audit report claims.

Under scrutiny of accounts, the audit also found anomalies in facility for elctro-optical system testing (FACET). “FACET was sanctioned at a cost of Rs35 crore by DG, DRDO to create a facility, which is essentially required to meet the objectives of an already sanctioned project,” the report added.

The audit report also observed several split sanctions were issued for renovation of DRDO Bhawan in New Delhi while an unauthorised sanction of Rs49.15 crore to develop vehicle testing facility in Pune from public accounts mainly for civilian use was granted by the DRDO authorities

Drdo

DRDO – Revenue and Build up

1 Comment

14th November 2011

To
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

Reference: a)  Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21st March 2011
                       b)  Your letter No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th May 2011

Honorable Sir,

During UPA-I you assured the nation to fixing accountability on DRDO an organisation which has never been questioned since its inception in 1958.

Sir, until 1980 the cost of projects were few crores but due to the visionary thought of then Prime Minister late Smt. Indira Gandhi the projects/programs were planned for self reliance in south east Asia and in particular in the Indian sub continent. The neighbors Pakistan and China were supporting each other to keep their upper hand but nothing deterred Smt. Gandhi to take decisions which may culminate to self reliance in the defence sector.

Initially the projects were planned collecting inputs from the literature available elsewhere. The proposals worked out where the cost benefit ration never assessed.

The changing technology was constraint and therefore projects/ programs during 90’s were given extensions time repeatedly, in some cases without enhancing the cost, where the cost was enhanced with proper justification were made. The examples are LCA, MBT, SAMYUKTA (EW) etc.

Easy methods were worked out under the guys defence secret to persue the projects beyond sanctioned time, without financial implications. Today in the last ten years the projects/ programs for which PDC extended did not consume more than 7000 crores rupees an amount equal to the annual budget of DRDO.

What is the fall out?

The revenue and buildup money sanctioned for running the projects were diverted to meet the day to day expenses of the projects the projects/ programs, which were running on PDC extensions. The manpower, the infra structure, the electricity bills, the salary, the TA/DA expenses were more than the cost of build up.

This imbalance between revenue and buildup was supposed to be checked by finance ministry.

Without active project and constant engagement of manpower in dead project resulted in to growing incompetency of laboratories.

What to talk about the Scientist ‘G’, Scientist ‘B’ were started giving justifications for the failures and compared the annual expenditure of DRDO as the expenditure meet to counter the natural calamity like earth quake.

Then the top brass of DRDO says 100 crores projects is not a big amount for DRDO. Indian Air Force is losing every alternate day on a MIG-21.

Let SA to RM justify the extensions of services to his beloved/blue eyed boys.

Sir, there are hope of Indian people with you please fix accountability on DRDO.

At least the finance ministry should cross check the equal flow of money in revenue and build up.

Thanking you 

Regards     
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com,  prabhu@dandriyal.com Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
Copy to
1.       Prime Minister, PMO, south Block, New Delhi – 110011
2.       Finance Minister, North Block, New Delhi – 110011
3.       Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, United Progressive Alliance  Fax no.23018651