To 20-11-2019 Wg Cdr Suman Adhikari, CPIO, Room No. 160, Dte of PS, Air HQ (VB), Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110
Hello, Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of appeal submitted to Higher Court by BEL against order of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait dated October 9, 2019 to respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners Sh M.M. Pandey, General Manager (Product Support), Sh R.K. Goyal, Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), and Sh Sumit Krishna, Manager, (Product Support).
As per appeal page no 49 and 50 para xi line 5 – In this regard on 25-09-2019 the Asstt,
Chief of Air Staff vide his confidential letter has brought to notice of the
CMD, BEL that confidential documents relating to the said contract have been
found in the custody of un authorized elements and that: owing to the
sensitivity of the project involving national
security, investigation in this regard be carried out on highest priority and
report submitted at the earliest.
Provide that above mention
confidential letter dated 25-09-2109 whether sent to CMD, BEL by Asstt, Chief
of Air Staff. Yes or No
Does Air force taken any action against un authorized elements who possesses the sensitive project
information Yes or No
IACCS project sites security
managed by Air Force or BEL.
IACCS project sites CCTV
is managed by Air Force or BEL
IACCS project sites
contractors manpower verified by police Yes or No
Whether IACCS project
sites In-charge verify that the contractor manpower is from authorized contractors like L&T or from unauthorized
Sublette contractor like C S Construction or S R Ashok etc.
Whether IACCS Directorate or
Asstt, Chief of Air Staff above aware the unauthorized Sublette working equation
of BEL in IACCS sites Yes or No
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.
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
Yatish Yadav Jul 11, 2019 12:31:00 IST First Post New Delhi: After Firstpost expose on glaring irregularities in the civil construction of Indian Air Force’s (IAF) highly sensitive Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project, a former manager of a defence public sector undertaking and a whistleblower has surfaced alleging corruption in the procurement of software for automated command and control system for air defence operations.
Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), a defence public sector undertaking is implementing the Rs 7, 900 crore project, which was initiated during the UPA regime.
The former manager of BEL, Bhupesh Sharma in a letter to the Ministry of Defence and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on 29 June 2019 has said that top management of the defence public sector undertaking, quietly buried the findings of a 2016 internal inquiry, which indicted six BEL officers for alleged corruption. Sharma alleged that despite a reminder from the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the company to the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of BEL in April 2018, no punitive action was taken against the accused officers.
Representational image of an air defence system. Reuters
Sharma, then part of the procurement committee, had blown the whistle over alleged manipulation in the procurement of Data Distribution Service (DDS) software to favour an American company. Sharma alleging victimisation said accused officers indicted by vigilance were rewarded by BEL while he was harassed for exposing deep-rooted corruption.
“Even after CVC intervention and reminders by CVO to CMD (Chairman and Managing Director) no action was taken against the erring officers. I was harassed and troubled to the extent that I was forced to resign. Instead of black listing the vendor M/S RTI USA, the order was finally placed on the vendor. The vigilance officer who did the enquiry in this case has also been given punishment posting to a remote unit of BEL. The message given by the top management was clear that anyone who speaks against corruption would be brutally suppressed and those who play along with the persons at the top having vested interests would be rewarded,” Sharma, who claims to have been decorated with innovation award, excellence awards and Raksha Mantri award for IACCS project , wrote to the CVC.
The documents also reveal that efforts were made by BEL officers to conceal the alleged irregularities by removing the files and purchase order. Even the investigators were denied full access to e-mails of concerned purchase department.
A detailed questionnaire sent to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner Sharad Kumar, Ministry of Defence and BEL CMD MV Gowtama remained unanswered.
Unravelling of software scam
Firstpost has reviewed the documents submitted to the Ministry of Defence and the CVC, which clearly shows that the procurement committee had engineered unwarranted specification in the procurement of DDS software to allegedly disqualify one of the two vendors in the race for the contract.
The two companies, M/S RTI, USA and M/S Prismtech, UK represented by M/S Mistral Solutions and M/S RTTS respectively were invited by the BEL for the procurement of DDS software. The vigilance report said procurement team had pre-decided to give the contract to M/S RTI USA and the entire process of real time demonstration to assess feasibility also known as Proof of Concept (PoC) was merely an eyewash.
Although UK Company had quoted value of the project in the range of about Rs 5 to 10 crore, the quote submitted by American company M/S RTI was about Rs 130 crore. However, since, the BEL had decided to grant the project to M/S RTI, USA through its Indian representative M/S Mistral Solutions, BEL officers inserted a particular specification which caught the eye of vigilance team investigating the case.
“Technical expert in his report has stated that there is a lack of clarity in the PoC evaluation process/criteria which leads to ambiguity and conspiracy. Also technical expert has confirmed that there are irregularities and inconsistencies in framing of specifications and conducting PoC. Scope of PoC for the DDS document does not specify any particular method of demonstrating the PoC and it generally highlights the features to be shown in the PoC. Hence the vendor can select any particular method and demonstrate the features. PoC evaluation criteria and the PoC test document is not uniform for all the vendors,” the vigilance report to the CVC said.
System Requirements Specification document signed with the customer by BEL indicates that there are no special specification requirements for the use and configuration of DDS and also the security of the data transferred using DDS. PoC scope does not highlight that the above security implementations should match and confirm to DDS OMG standards. Even though no vendor has a complete implementation of DDS X types still M/S RTI was shown complied during technical bidding regarding para 6.2 of technical specification,” the report further said.
The vigilance report made it clear that specifications mentioned above as ‘para 6.2 technical specs’ were allegedly modified by the procurement committee of BEL to suit American firm. Sharma claims he had opposed such manipulation and turned whistleblower by exposing the wrongdoings in his emails to vigilance and top officials of the BEL.
“I became the whistleblower when ordering of software for the IACCS project was forcibly being ordered on the resultant single tender basis (by manipulating and making the other vendor technically non-complied). I tried my best to stop the ordering by talking to all my seniors in the unit and finally when I was not heard, I wrote to CVO and all the directors of the company including CMD about the corrupt practices being followed in the unit,” Sharma wrote to the CVC.
It is also evident from the vigilance report that the UK firm was deliberately denied security clearance for demonstration though its India representative M/S RTTS was allowed and subsequently disqualified.
“The team (BEL) misinformed M/S Prismtech regarding non-availability of security clearance on 11 May 2016, though a security clearance was taken by Senior Manager DGM (Development & Engineering division of Network Centric System 1) for the period of 9 May-11 May 2016. The contradicting statements of senior executives and D&E engineers in relation to security clearance for M/S Prismtech representative’s leads to suspect that D&E does not want to give the opportunity to M/S Prismtech to demonstrate the features,” the vigilance report said.
Questions have also been raised by the vigilance team over the formation of a technical committee and PoC committee for the procurement. The report observed although the procurement involves a lot of technical parameters related to software and high value of approximately Rs 130 crore, the procurement committee was made with two mechanical engineers, one finance and two electronic engineers. The report slammed BEL further asserting that there were no software professionals in the technical specification team and approval of a procurement team with non-technical members reveals a lax approach of the management as they played a dubious role.
“It appears that D&E engineers (Development & Engineering division) have played a pivotal role in finalizing specifications whereas others merely acted as spectators,” the vigilance report said.
The report has also raised doubt on the assessment process of technical specifications saying that evaluation of features is not the same for both M/S Prismtech and M/S RTI.
It said the PoC which were done by engineers from M/S Mistral Solutions, representative of RTI, USA, did not have relevant past experience to carry out PoC of DDS software and they could not answer anything technically or relevantly. The vigilance team during an interrogation of engineers from Development & Engineering division found that some engineers who were nominated as PoC members were not aware that they were part of an evaluation team.
Some were absent during the assessment, some engineers had relegated the job to their junior executives and no detailed review was done during the conduct of PoC and no senior executives have monitored the progress of PoC though it was such an important activity for the project. The test report of the American firm was also prepared in advance.
“From the test data report of M/S Mistral (representative of M/S RTI USA, it emerges that test data report was pre-prepared by suppliers and merely signed by BEL engineers. During examination of D&E engineers, it is observed that D&E-NCS has started working on evaluation versions of M/S RTI, USA since October 2015 through license agreements. During evaluation many issues came time to time and were resolved. This was probably the reason that PoC with M/S RTI, USA was merely a formality. The PoC conducted by M/S Mistral Solutions has been cleared despite number of irregularities/ inconsistencies,” the vigilance report said exposing the manipulation to favour a particular vendor.
The documents reveal that before the investigators could examine the documents related to alleged corruption, the files were removed by the concerned officers to erase the audit trail.
The vigilance report said, “Documents with respect to change of specifications which is intimated to M/S RTTS (India representative of M/S Prismtech, UK) was not found in the file, not informed to the investigator at any point and the same was concealed by purchase department. There was no documentary proof regarding the intimation of changed specifications to four cases to all the suppliers participated in the bidding. Currently, the purchase requisitions are also deleted in SAP (System Applications and Products) without assigning reasons and Unit Management has not given any reasons till now for the same.”
The vigilance report which was forwarded to the CVC on 24 November 2016, clearly opined that there are procedural violations in the subject case and there appear to be malafide intentions right from the beginning of coming out of consolidated requirements, generating the specifications for this software instead of PP drawings, arriving of PoC conditions, the manner in which PoC was conducted and M/S RTI, USA bid was accepted and M/S Prismtech bid was eliminated.
The vigilance recommended blacklisting of M/S RTI, USA, initiation of disciplinary action against officers involved and including the name of two senior officers in doubtful integrity list.
In defence procurements, the private companies are known to be hiring retired officials to exercise the influence. In this case too, vigilance raised apprehension about alleged manipulation as a former CMD of BEL was on board of Mistral Solutions. The vigilance had recommended a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), however, the matter was never referred to the premier investigative agency.
“It is learnt that M/S RTI’s malafide intention/ involvement with BEL D&E team cannot be underestimated as ex-CMD (BEL) Mr. Ashwini Kumar Datta is working in M/S Mistral Solutions which requires further investigation by the CBI,” the vigilance report said.
In its recommendation, the vigilance also said the finalisation of specifications and scope of PoC should be done by a competent technical committee and any vested interest/doubtful integrity executives should not be part of the panel.
Cover-up by BEL?
The alleged cover-up in the entire irregularities started after the project came under the scanner. The Rs 130 crore tender was scrapped and suddenly BEL realised that they have in house capability to provide that suspected security specifications that was inserted to allegedly favour a particular company.
However, Sharma said, the BEL management did not take any disciplinary action against accused officers, did not include two senior officers in doubtful integrity list and did not blacklist the American firm. In fact, Sharma alleged, a bogus re-tendering process was initiated on the single-vendor basis and this time the DDS software contract without suspected specification was awarded to same firm Mistral Solutions, India representative of RTI, USA at less than Rs 10 crore. The BEL GM, NCS Joydeep Majumdar in a letter to the CVO confirmed the contract to Mistral Solutions while claiming they have saved more than Rs 110 crore.
“Earlier security features were included in the RFQ for DDS software. M/S Mistral Solutions qualified technically. Mistral quoted Rs. 120 Crores, however, the technical committee after study found out that the security solution was available with CRL Bangalore (Central Research Laboratory) and no need to buy from Mistral. A proof of concept was carried out and it was found working with the proposed DDS. Thus, the committee decided to go for the same DDS from Mistral which was purchased earlier for CMS in NCS, SBU which was without security features and hence was valued very low. Also, since the NCS engineers are conversant with this DDS it will obviate learning the new DDS, if chosen otherwise. A fresh Single Tender Enquiry was floated and the expected order price is less than Rs.10 Crore,” GM Majumdar wrote to the CVO on 9 February 2017.
This new found solution to douse the scandal was clearly an afterthought, reveals the documents sent to defence ministry and the CVC. The vigilance report clearly stated that Request For Proposal (RFP) even before the procurement process began, was finalised in coordination with the CRL. Nowhere, documents mentioned CRL team’s observation that they have in-house capability of security solution and therefore there was no need to purchase it from a private vendor at such a high price.
Even after RFP, the two members of CRL were part of the evaluation process and nowhere during the assessment process, the members acknowledged having in-house capability for the security solution that could save taxpayers money. In fact, further investigation revealed that UK’s company India representative M/S RTTS had held meeting at CRL Bangalore but the issue of having this in house security specification capability was not raised.
“A meeting with the vendor M/S RTTS at CRL Bangalore was conducted and the vendor has informed during discussion that PoC had ambiguous requirements not in line with PoC document, hostile environment during conduct of PoC by some of the PoC team members, required infrastructure which has to be provided by BEL was not provided,” the investigation report said.
Sharma claimed, the BEL officials brought up the issue of CRL having security solution only after procurement came under the vigilance scanner to conceal the alleged irregularities.
Subsequently, the CVC, not pleased with soft action of merely issuing warning letters to accused officers, wrote to BEL CMD MV Gowtama on 5 July 2017 for taking appropriate action.
“The Commission has observed that the tender was scrapped but the violations are serious in nature. The officers concerned have been let off with very lenient action. The Commission has desired that the CMD, Bharat Electronics Limited may review it sou-moto, if provision exists,” Ajay Kanoujia, Director, CVC wrote to Gowtama.
Later on 17 July 2017, Manager Vigilance in a note decided to send a reminder to the CMD observing that action against accused officers were indulgent.
“In the subject case, CVC’s observation were in line with Corporate Vigilance’s observations that a lenient view has been taken by the disciplinary authority without analyzing corporate vigilance letter/report, to close the case with minor penalty actions for the reasons not mentioned in the corporate vigilance report. In this regard, in line with CVC recommendations, it is proposed to send a letter to CMD to initiate appropriate major disciplinary proceeding action on attempts done by delinquent officers,” the note said.
Further, file noting suggests that another reminder for action in the case was sent to the CMD on 9 April 2018. It is also learnt that similar irregularities were unearthed in the procurement of database (DB) and Operating System which were later rectified after an internal probe flagged the wrongdoings.
Similarly, in civil construction, the issue of a single vendor for design consultant and procurement from the related parties have come under the vigilance scanner. Instead of taking action against the accused officers named in the vigilance report, the defence public sector undertaking has suspended members of the investigation team, who exposed the corruption.
“The same modus operandi has been followed with the vigilance team which brought out the corruption in selection of the design consultant and civil infrastructure ordering. The report of the vigilance enquiry has been downplayed and every member who was part of the vigilance enquiry has been charge sheeted, suspended or given punishment postings,” Sharma wrote to the CVC.
The investigation panel in its report had pointed irregularities in awarding consultancy contract to a private firm RD Konsultants for Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project at 10 locations.
The defence public sector undertaking Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) has suspended its three-member investigation panel, who had unearthed irregularities in the Indian Air Force’s confidential Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project, citing them of acting in “prejudicial” manner that was against the company’s interest.
The investigation panel in its report had pointed irregularities in awarding consultancy contract to a private firm RD Konsultants for Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project at 10 locations.
The report had stated: “A company that came into existence in April 2010 showed its employees had an experience of five years in 2013.”
DNA had exposed irregularities in awarding contracts in an April 3 report (‘Bharat Electronics bent norms to favour private firm: Report’).
It was also found a BEL senior officer PK Bhola who was behind awarding contract to the private vendor to prepare a Preliminary Project Report, later joined the same company after his retirement. The PSU awarded RD Konsultants to prepare the PPR in 2011 and then again brought as the design consultant in 2013, violating laid out norms.
Also the role of senior Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) officers is under the scanner since it was DRDO which recommended the name of RD Konsultant to BEL, although it was done informally.
Sources said that after the scam came out in public domain, the inquiry committee headed by MM Pandey was suspended and all the three members, including Pandey were issued show cause notice and were put on suspension. The committed was set up by the BEL’s Chief Vigilance officer (CVO) Siva Kumar. After Kumar’s tenure ended in April, Shrikant Walgad, an IAS officer of the Haryana Cadre, took over charge as CVO. Kumar before his tenure end had submitted the inquiry report.
Further it is also alleged that instead of taking action against the corrupt officers, BEL Chairman MV Gowtama suspended the investigation team members. “Kumar in his note dated March 29, 2019 sent to Chairman BEL, Ministry of Defence and the Chief Vigilance Commission had alleged deep-rooted corruption recommending strong action against erring officers and related firms,” said a source.
The phone calls and emails to BEL remained unanswered till the time the article is going for print.
The crackdown against the probe team started after Kumar, the CVO who was appointed by CVC, had established in the investigation report alleged irregularities and had recommended BEL to management for immediate action against suspected eight corrupt officers.
Laid Bare DNA had exposed irregularities in awarding contracts in defence public sector Bharat Electronics Ltd in an April 3 report titled ‘Bharat Electronics bent norms to favour private firm: Report’
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of recommendations of CVO, BEL 29.03/2019
Whether CMD, BEL send recommendations of CVO, BEL ( matter enclosed) with observation as confirmed in RTI reply no 17556/2019/RTI/CC/1795 dated 28 May 2019 to Ministry of Defence Production on IACCS Project. Yes or No
If yes, then certified copy of observations and copy of recommendations of CVO, BEL.
Provide the measures taken by BEL authorities for protect the national security informations existing with M/s RD Konsultants and his associate related to AICCS project as M/s RD Konsultants declared the 95 manpower and numbers of computer and laptops
Provide the action taken steps by BEL till date on M/s RD Konsultants the fraudulent transactions with M/s BEL as recommended by CVO, BEL.
Provide the action taken steps till date 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.
Provide the action taken steps till date by BEL on Shri. Dibyendu Bidyanta, AGM (HR&A) and Shri. B.K. Pant, DGM (HR&A) who are involved and responsible for overlooked the criteria in Mr Manish Goyal appointment
Provide the action taken steps till date by BEL on Mr Manish Goyal as CVO recommended suspension till departmental fair proceeding
Provide the action taken steps till date by BEL to maintain the CCTV and its record in all AICCS project sites as observed by CVO,BEL
Certified copy of email complaint received at Corporate Vigilance, BEL on dated 31.09.2017 the complainant was Advocate of Supreme Court, Mr.Manish Aggarwal, regarding scam in NCS unit of BEL Ghaziabad I construction sites of defefence project and irregularities in appointment of Mr Manish Goyal, Manager Civil
Hello, Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of CVC order No 59/12/03 dated 9 December 2003. Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public Sector Enterprises and the Role function of CVC – Amendment to Para 32.3 thereof, (Copy enclosed). As per CVC said order that the Board of Directors should review the vigilance work in every six months
Provide number of cases reviewed by Board of Directors in last three years in six months format as per above CVC order in every six months
May 2019 first week Board of Directors meeting at Imphal, Manipur reviewed the vigilance work. Yes or No
Whether Board of Directors meeting at Imphal, Manipur considered the news series published in First Post of financial irregularities of IACCS project Yes or No
If yes then provide the action plan of Board of Directors on financial irregularities of IACCS project.
Whether BEL submitted the report of investigation on IACCS project prepared by CVO to CVC Yes or No
Provide the current status of investigation on IACCS project initiated against letter no. 21328/399/BEL/GAD/18-19 dated 18 July 2018 from BEL, CVO.
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of news series published in First Post Apr 02, 2019 -Bharat Electronics in the dock for compromising confidential IAF project, favouring one vendor, BEL s internal inquiry report reveals. Etc
Air force officers visited Europe with BEL official for vendor capability inspection against IACCS project. Yes or No
If yes, then provide the number of Air force officers visited Europe with BEL official for vendor capability inspection against IACCS project.
Whether BEL put this inspection term in their MoU on IACCS project. Yes or No
The visit cost of Air force officers sponsored by BEL or Air Force or Foreign Firms
Provide the Year and month of Visit of Air force officers against IACCS project
AS per news clips the BEL already ordered plant and machinery to foreign vendors in more than 1000 Cr and sites are not yet ready or few sites even not started. In this regard please provide that Air force released payment or part payment to BEL for dumping plant and machinery in advance to make them scrape in few years.
Whether BEL taken any prior section for allowing L & T to further subletting construction of IACCS project sites. Yes or No
AS per news clips IACCS project sites collapsed one or two places whether IACCS project directorate reviewed or verified the earth profile submitted by M/S RD Konsultant prepared by IIT professor 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 news series published in First Post Apr 02, 2019 -Bharat Electronics in the dock for compromising confidential IAF project, favouring one vendor, BEL s internal inquiry report reveals
Whether CVO, BEL investigated and prepared any report on IACCS project for irregularity and compromising in such national security implementation. Yes or No
If yes, then CVO, BEL submitted report to CVC or CBI or any other GOI agencies. Yes or No
If yes, then provide name of agency and date of submission of said report.
Current status of the report.
Copy of any denial or other written communication provided to First post.
Provide the name of BEL official who recommended the recruitment of Manish Goyal Manager, NCS-infra
New Delhi: The top vigilance officer in Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) has recommended action in the Rs 7,900-crore air defence scam uncovered by Firstpost, but it is learnt that the top management has launched a hunt to identify the whistle blowers in a bid to cover up the revelations, which point towards a conspiracy involving BEL officials and private companies including foreign vendors.
The chief vigilance officer (CVO) Shiva Kumar has recommended the blacklisting of the design consultant of the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) sensitive air command and control centres, and action against eight BEL officers for allegedly favouring domestic and foreign companies at the cost of taxpayer money and national security.
The CVO, in the recommendation note highlighting the deep-rooted corruption, has said irregularities in the Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS), which started in the UPA regime, were carried out with criminal intent and government rules were flouted in awarding contracts for civil work as well as plant and machinery.
“There were serious violations involving criminal intent through violation of procedure, misrepresentation of facts to management, favouritism to place order on pre-fixed vendors through vested interest, collusion of interest and attempts to make corporate losses. The unit (BEL) has violated MoF (Ministry of Finance), GFR (General Financial Rules) and CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) guidelines while appointment of consultants, contracts for execution of civil works and procurement of items for plant and machinery and various subsystems,” the CVO directives reviewed by Firstpost said.
The comment by the CVO on the role of accused officers clearly indicates the need for not just departmental action but the initiation of criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other penal provisions as well. A questionnaire sent to MV Gowtama, chairman and managing director (CMD) of BEL, seeking comments went unanswered. Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence and the CVC did not respond to a questionnaire sent on 20 April.
However, sources in the CMD’s office revealed there had been no move so far to act on the findings and recommendations of the vigilance department, but a discrete hunt has been launched to locate whistle blowers.
Vigilance chief recommends action in Rs 7,900-cr IAF project scam, even as BELs management hunts down whistleblowers. “In this regard, top management is penetrating the computer and electronic records of all BEL employees in Bengaluru and Delhi,” sources in the CMD’s office said on condition of anonymity.
Sources quoted above also claimed that the top BEL management went into a huddle after the publication of the Firstpost investigation and subsequent recommendations by the CVO. It is learnt the officials were threatened for reporting massive irregularities in the project to the Prime Minister Office (PMO), defence ministry and the CVC.
The witch-hunt and silence of the BEL management is intriguing despite the CVO categorically pointing out the conflict of interest. The CVO said the design consultant of the highly-sensitive underground automated air defence command and control centres, M/s RD Konsultants should be blacklisted for the fraudulent transactions with BEL.
“Also as the agency (RD Konsultants) was involved in collusion of interest by executing the works through its affiliates, M/s CS Constructions Private Limited through subcontracting from M/s L&T, which has resulted in conflict of interest in the transactions with BEL. Financial penalty to be levied on M/s RD Konsultants as one way of punishment,” the CVO said.
According to sources in BEL’s finance division, since the IACCS project is worth Rs 7,900 crore and directly linked to national security, the audit committee comprising independent directors may recommend a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The finance division of the defence PSU had raised several objections over the award of contracts flagging rule-books but the officers were overruled by the top brass. Even BEL officer Nataraj Krishnappa, director (other units) had raised objections while processing a certain contract. Sources close to Krishnappa confirmed that a criminal investigation may be on the cards. A CVO is considered the extended hand of the CVC and constitutes an important link between the concerned organisation, vigilance watchdog and the CBI.
As far as the eight accused officers’ roles are concerned, the CVO has observed that disciplinary proceeding including the suspension of an officer working in the infrastructure division (network-centric system), should be initiated for violating procedures and CVC guidelines, which eventually resulted in favor to M/s RD Konsultants.
“It is observed that there was suppression and concealment of facts by the committee in the proposal initiated during 2013 with respect of appointment of a consultant during 2011, for preparation of a preliminary project report. It is pertinent to mention that in the proposal for appointment of consultants during 2011, there is a noting from Senior DGM (Finance) that as per CVC guidelines issued dated 24 June, 2011, if M/s RD Konsultants is hired as a consultant for preparing a preliminary project report, then it cannot be considered for future similar requirements for an IACCS project. Although the proposal was agreed to by CMD, these facts are not brought in the consecutive file raised and the committee have succeeded to give an order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants. Because of concealment of information with regard to previous appointment and delinking of old files and notings, it led to misrepresentation and concealment of facts which resulted in the placing of order with prefixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants, although an open tender has been called for formality,” the CVO note said.
The scathing CVO note also reveals that entire scam was engineered since screening stages in 2011 and 2013. It said that the defence PSU’s committee, comprising officers, constituted to select the consultant did a shoddy job with a clear intention to favour a particular vendor.
“It is observed that the committee during the initial screening has brought down 26 agencies to 14 agencies with shallow scrutiny and with total arbitrariness. After presentations further screening has resulted in qualifying only six agencies. It is pertinent to mention that after presentations, M/s Super Dynamics was disqualified citing only two years turnover against the required pre-qualification of a three-year turnover. However, preferential treatment was given to M/s RD Konsultants. This shows a clear-cut case of vendor favouritism. During evaluation of pre-qualification criteria, the committee had violated the CVC guidelines and the company’s work contract procedures with respect to evaluation of documents submitted by M/s RD Konsultants, non-evaluation of relevant documents pertaining to works completed by M/s RD Konsultants. It appears that wrongful clearance was provided to M/s Konsultants and the committee had facilitated M/s RD Konsultants for pre-qualification by violating the company’s procedures, to place the order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants. The committee during evaluation of pre-qualification criteria had created confused trends by changing the pre-qualification criteria twice without any reason and during such changes, post facto approvals are taken from CMD, forcing the management to committee’s decision,” the CVO observed.
The CVO report has flagged collusion with design consultant and other vendors involved in sensitive air force installations at 10 locations across the country. The report has termed an affiliate as a benami firm, raising suspicion over the role and connivance of BEL officers. The CVO has also attacked the design consultant and BEL management for rigging the confidential contracts.
“The agency M/s RD Konsultants also was involved in collusion of interest by executing the works, through its own benami company M/s CS Constructions Private Limited which has resulted in collusion of interest in the transaction with BEL and capturing both design and execution of project. Under para 4B 3.2.3 of the design and engineering contract, M/s RD Konsultants and his affiliates as well as sub-consultants have been debarred from providing any goods works or service. It is observed that M/s RD Konsultants had violated the contract terms, CVC guidelines by involving in collusion with benami through rigging of contracts. This happened at various levels. The quote by M/s RD Konsultants was nearly the same as that which was estimated by BEL which leads to doubt whether the methodology of estimate was known to M/s RD Konsultants. It is pertinent to mention here that, PK Bhola, then DGM (Marketing-Network Centric System) who was the main resource in BEL for raising all the files and interfacing with customer for the project, joined M/s RD Konsultants after his retirement. This is a matter of great concern,” the CVO has noted.
The corruption in the project being handled by BEL was so blatant that even CCTV footage at the air force’s command and control centres construction site was compromised to facilitate the collusion as evident from the CVO report, which said the surveillance cameras were “not kept in the proper record, which led to non-maintenance of measurement books, subleasing and collusion of parties”.
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials