Mr. Udaya Shankara K S AGM (Marketing), Bharat Electronics Limited Corporate Office, Outer Ring Road, Nagavara, Bangalore – 560 045
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information
requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in
respect news published in Amar Ujala 24 February
2019 news clip enclosed.
Provide the number of sexual harassment complaints
received by Bharat Electronics Limited, Ghaziabad in last three years from 2017
to till date.
Provide the number of sexual harassment case
where Bharat Electronics Limited taken any action.
Provide the details of action taken by BEL,
Management.
Whether complaint of sexual harassment were followed
by Vishakha Guidelines Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Yes or No
If yes then provide the copy of constitution of
inquiry committee. As per Vishakha Guidelines the Complaints Committee should
be headed by a woman and not less than half of its member should be women.
Further, to prevent the possibility of any undue pressure or influence from
senior levels, such Complaints Committee should involve a third party, either
NGO or other body who is familiar with the issue of sexual harassment.
The disciplinary action taken against by BEL
management against accused by BEL Management in sexual harassment complaints
cases in BEL, Ghaziabad Unit.
Provide the status of complainant of enclosed
news paper published incident whether complainant still working or left the organization.
If left then reason of resignation from service
and date of resignation.
Provide
whether inquiry committee found any truth in sexual harassment complaint which mention in published incident in Amar Ujala 24 February 2019
If yes than
provide the details of penalty recommended by inquiry committee to accuse.
Whether
penalty recommended by inquiry committee to accuse were as per Vishakha
Guidelines Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 Yes or No
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information
requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of
M/s R D Konsultants, C-9, Vasant Kunj, Local Shopping Complex,,
Delhi – 110070. As per enclosed CVO, BEL investigation that firm name was
suggested by DRDO for consultancy work of Approx 7900 Cr IACCS project. In
investigation few documents revealed that M/s R D Konsultants claimed that the
firm involved in consultancy in DRDO projects worth 3000 Cr. In one document of
BEL two DRDO officials name is reflected while in processing of awarding
consultancy assignment of said IACCS project
WhetherM/s R D Konsultants claimed of consultancy assignments in
DRDO past and present projects are correct (document enclosed )Yes or No
If yes then correct value of
consultancy only amount paid by DRDO to M/s R D Konsultants till date.
Please provide that M/s R D Konsultants Partnership
Company has any kind of registration in DRDO. Yes/No
Please confirm that the names of
DRDO officials
Shri S K Singh, Additional CCE, Shri M S Rathore, Scientist E are reflected
in BEL tender processing documents are
correct (document enclosed) Yes/No
Please provide the copy of BEL
request for these officers to attend such tender processing meeting if any
yes/No
If no then these officer can
attend such tender processing meeting unofficially yes/no
Note – the matter is
related to very high value corruption Rs 7900 cr as per media reports
published, it is observed that as per CVO investigation report that DRDO officials
were played a vital role in awarding
consultancy assignment to M/s R D Konsultants approx 16 cr.
Enclosed – BEL tender processing document page where two
DRDO name is reflected
M/s R
D Konsultants document where he claimed the work.
Registration Number MODEF/R/2019/51863
BEL CVO Recommendations
BHARAT
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATE
VIGILANCE
No.:21328/399&426/BEL./GAD/18-19
Date
29th March 2019
SUB:
Detailed enquiry done on the allegation of irregularties & Gross Violations
in the appointment of Design Consultants and in the execution of IACCS Project.
This has a reference to email complain: dated 31st August 2017 received at Corporate Vigilance from Shri‘ Mimish Aggarwal, Advocate. Supreme Court of India regarding scam in NCS unit of BEL. Ghaziabad in the 10 construction sites projects allotted for defence and also regarding appointment of Mr Manish Goyal. Corporate Vigilance has verified the identity of the complainant . The complainant was verified through the stated email id advn1maggarwaI@gmail.com.
A Fact verification request
was sent to the V0/GAD vide ref. 21328/399/BEL/GAD/17-18 dated 07.09.2017.
Based on the request of VO/GAD vide email dated 28″‘ September 2017, to
appoint technical personnel for investigating the case, Corporate Vigilance has
constituted the following Technical committee vide Ref No.
21328,/399/BEI./GAD/17-18 dated 14th December 2017‘.
a) Shri Satyanarayana H N, Sr DGM (Civil/BG)
b) Shri. Y.K Sharma then DGM (lACCS-Infra)/GAD
c) Shri M M Roy, then DGM (Vigilance/Central GAD
& Delhi Offices]
d) Shri.Anil Kumar Gupta, then DGM&VO (NCS&SCCS]
There was a request from GM (NCS)
vide letter ref 13708/143)/GM(NCS),/GAD dated 14th December 2017
regarding importance of Shri. Y K. Sharma in the IACCS project and also there
was an email dated 20th February 2018 from Shri. Satyanarayana HR. Sr
DGM (Civil/BG), regarding his ill health, which were received at Corporate
Vigilance. Hence the committee has been reconstituted vide Ref.
21323/399/BEL/GAD/17-18 dated 01st March 2018, with the following members, after
discussion with Shri. Charan Singh, the .then GM (Radar & Unit Head) for
the nomination of Shri. Arun Kumar Raheja. AGM (CS/GAD).
a) Shri. Arun Kumar Raheja, AGM (CS/GAD)
b) Shri. Syed Shakir Hussein, DGM (Civil Estate)
/Bg.Cx
c) Shrl Madan Mohan Roy then DGM (Vigilance /Central
GAD & Delhi Offices]
The above committee has to
make an independent verification of the complaint, study the contracts
pertaining to the same and submit its report The technical committee has
visited the —— site on 22.03.2018 & 23.03.2018. The committee had
failed and deviated from the main complaint and submitted its two page
perfunctory Report pertaining only to —— site without proper investigation vide
nil ref dated 20.03.2019.
Copy of the report is
enclosed as Annexure-A. The technical committee’s report was irrelevant and
does not cover the allegations of the total complaint The enquiry done by the
technical committee pertains only to —— site without going into the
allegations and details contained in the complaint
As the V0’s report was not
Comprehensive and incomplete, this has necessitated appointing a Senior Officer
of repute for conducting the investigation in total. Corporate Vigilance had
appointed Shri. MM Pandey GM [PS], the senior officer of repute, as investigation
officer, to investigate the above‘ matters related to cases vide Ref
21328/399/BEL/GAD/18-19″dated dared 18th July 2018.
The investigation officer [IO) & GM [P5] had submitted a detailed report on 03-10-2018
There are very important observations made by the IO in his inquiry report, in the subject investigation. After careful study of IO’s report» such observations are concurred and agreed upon by Corporate Vigilance. Important observations from IO’s report are enclosed
The lapses and serious violations observed are enclosed
After examination of
Technical committee report. Fact verification report of Mr
MM Roy, VO/GAD and detailed investigation report of IO & GM {P5} and
related documents’ the following are observations of Corporate Vigilance. ‘ –
Corporate Vigilance
Observations;
As per BPE guidelines given under letter no
BPE/GL/025,178,!Prodn./PCR/2/77,/BPE/Prodn. Dtt 15 July, 1978. Which was circulated under” CVC circular No.
31.-IRC 1 dated 10.01.1983, for any new projects expansions, modernization/
modification of the existing projects involving an expenditure of Rs. 5 crores
and above, “the final selection and commissioning of the consultant should
be done with the approval of the board of public sector enterprises”. In
the subject case of appointment of M/s RD Konsultants during 2011 & 2013,
the files are approved bv CMD. However board approvals were not taken in the
subject cases.
As per CVC guidelines, the pre-qualification public notice should be issued to enlist names
-of suitable consultants. However the same was not Followed by the committee
and hence CVC guidelines in this regard was found violated.
3)
As per noting mentioned by Shri
P.K. Bhola, the then DGM[Marketing), at the initial stages, BEL has taken the
support from M/s DRDO citing non expertise in the field of underground
structure, and went on to appoint M/s RD Konsultants on nomination and adhoc basis for the preparation
of Preliminary Project Report at a cost
of Rs 13.23 Lakhs. However there were no “documents or written correspondences
are available in the file, indicating the recommendation of DRDO. As per above
CVC guidelines “Even though individually such works are less than Rs 5
Crores, it is necessary that the appointment of consultant should not be made
arbitrary or ad-hoc. In the subject case, the CVC guidelines with respect to
appointment of consultant was found violated.
4)
The value of contract awarded to
Mfs RD Konsultants during 2013 is Re. 15.04 Crores. The Scope of work includes
a]
Preparation of draft detailed project
report of all 10 sites including cost estimates on non-exceeding basis with conceptual
design of structure and services, geotechnical and topographical surveys and
preparation of final detailed project report for all the 10 sites.
b]
Detailed design engineering of
structures and services, preparation of working drawings tender documents etc.
c]
Regular designer supervision and
submission of inputs/ working drawings /documents for work to be executed at
all 10 sites up to completion and handing over of sites to user
5)
It is observed that, . there were
suppression and concealment of facts by the Committee, in the proposal
initiated during 2013, with respect of appointment of Consultants during 2011, for
preparation of Preliminary Project Report. It is pertinent to mention that in
the proposal for appointment of consultants during 2011, there is a noting from
Sr.DGM(F)/CO that as per CVC guidelines issued vide Ref 011/VGL./063-134657
dated 24th June 2011, if M,/s RD Konsultants is hired.as consultant
for preparing preliminary project report then he cannot be considered for
future similar re1uirements for IACCS project. Though the proposal was agreed
by CMD, these facts are not brought in the consecutive file raised and the
committee have succeeded to give order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants.
‘
6) Because of concealment of information
wrt previous appointment and delinking of old files and notings, led to the
misrepresentation and concealment of Fads
which resulted in placing of order on prefixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants though
open tender has been called for formality.
7)
During the Open tender, though 26
agencies have responded to expression of interest, it was reduced to 6 agencies
after pre qualification. These points are brought in detail in IO’s report lt is
observed that the committee during the initial screening has brought down 26
agencies to 14 agencies with shallow scrutiny and with total arbitrariness,
as-explained-by lO. After presentations further screening has resulted in
qualifying only 6 agencies. It is pertinent to mention that after presentations
M/s Super Dynamics was disqualified citing only two years turnover against
required pre-qualification of 3 year turnover. However preferential treatment
was given to M / s RD Konsultants and the same prequalification criteria was not
applied uniformly especially to M/s RD Konsultants. This shows a clear cut case
of vendor favouritism.
8)
During evaluation of
prequalification criteria, the committee had violated the CVC guidelines and
company’s work contract procedures with respect to evaluation of documents with
respect to turnover submitted by M/5 RD Konsultants, non-evaluation of relevant
documents pertaining to works completed by M/s RD Konsultants but only taken on
face value and non-visit of sites completed by Mfs RD Konsultants. The details
are brought out in the I0’s report enclosed at Annexure-C. It appears that
wrongful clearance was provided to M/s RD Konsultants and the committee had
facilitated M.s RD Konsultrants for-prequalification
by violating the Company‘ s procedures,
to place the order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants.
9) The
committee during evaluation of pre-qualification criteria had created confused
trends by changing the pre-qualification criteria twice without anv reason and
during such changes, post facto approvals are taken from CMD forcing the
management to committee’s decision. The dilution of prequalification criteria by
the committee had subsequently led to the qualification of M/s RD Konsultants.
It is observed that the pre-qualification criteria were not defined properly at
the initial stages of tender. In this subject case, it is a clear cut and
definitive violation of CV(I guidelines. .
10) It is further observed, the agency M/s
RD Konsultants was established during April 2010
Recommendations:
To blacklist M/s RD Konsultants for the fraudulent transactions with M/s BEL and also as the agency had involved in collusion of interest by executing the works through his affiliates M/s CS constructions Pvt Ltd, through subcontracting from M/s L&T. which has resulted in conflict of interest in the transactions with BEL . Financial penalty to be levied on M/s RD Konsultants as one way of punishment.
Disciplinary Proceedings to be initiated on the committee members for violating company’s procedures & CVC guidelines and facilitated the selection of M/s RD Konsultants during evaluation of prequalification, without scrutinizing the submission of works experience, site visits and clearing the fake turn over documents of M/s RD Konsultants. Theviolations were brought in the Corporate Vigilance observations points 1-15.
The following committee members are
to be held responsible even though few of the delinquent officers are retired
R K
Handa then GM(NCS) – Retired
Gurjeet
Singh then Sr. DGM(CS) – Retired
T.K.
Moitra then DGM(F&T)
Virender
Kumar then DGM(AC) CS
Saleem
Parveez. Manager (Civil) CS
3 With respect to appointment of Mr. Manish Goyal, it is observed that his experience falls short of minimum criteria of 10 years. These facts are not checked by HR/GAD. Disciplinary Proceedings on Shri. Dibyendu Bidyanta, AGM(HR&A) & Shri. B.K. Pant, DGM (HR&A) who are involved in the recruitment of Shri. Manish Goyal, as per CDA rules. Mr. Manish Goyal shall be kept under suspension henceforth for fair conduct of department/legal proceedings.
4 The unit has not prepared their own
instructions and procedure duly approved by the board for the appointment of
consultants to ensure that the selection is made with maximum attention to the
suitability, competence and proven track record.
CCTVs installed at the behest of
vigilance has not kept in proper record which led to non-maintenance of
measurement books, subleasing and collusion of parties.
It
is important to mention that IACCS is a time bound project of armed forces viz
Air Force. Hence care to be taken to ensure customer get real value for money procedural
proprietaries are maintained, no collusion of interest and involve customer at
all possible levels, abiding by CVC guidelines and no corrupt practices are
involved, in such important projects.
CVO
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
