CORRUPTION, RTI

Sir,
I have preferred a complaint with Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and they have registered the complaint under CVC Ref: 611/05/10. Initially CVC web site exhibteed that "Administrative Action has been taken" when I wrote for details, CVC web site updated stating "Commission ordered closure of the case" and now CVC web site gives error message.
Am I to close the case or is there any away to reopen the case. The casse is now 3 years old involving several hundereds of Crores - I took so much risk in reporting complaint. The way the case has been unceremoniously closed really hurt me - as I have choosen unbiased way of reporting systematically to all Officials including CAG, CBI and the case is very genuine. One can get the informations from CVC (quoting their Ref:611/05/10) under RTI Act and they will get to knopw the seriousness of the case, which has been ordered to be closed.

When I first read this post, I did not get idea but from your another post found here, I understood then.

Well, website is still showing that commission ordered closure. Can you tell me how you asked under RTI act about the status of the complaint you lodged? May be you can do that via postal mail and filling up RTI form ?

Quote:

---

Any one who is really interested in knowing how eradication of corruption, upholding transparency in administration, Right to Information Act are working, they can get the information from Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) about the complaint (lodged by me) registered by CVC 611/01/10. CVC in its web site initially stated that “Administrative Action has been taken”, then stated that “Commission ordered closure of case” and now web site gives error message.

knowingly I have not given the details of my complaint - honestly hoping CVC will an impartial details on the case under RTI Act - let us see how transparancy works.
Regards,
Sincerely,
P.SWAMINATHAN
12, 18th Street, Balaji Nagar Extn.II, Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai-600091 (TN) India
Phone: 044-22530059
Cell: 9840780885
Email: [email protected] - [email protected]

---

My extreme thanks for the prompt reply.

It is my complaint and CVC registered the complaint under Ref:611/05/10.

Initially they reported "Administration action has been taken. The fact is that all Officials involved in the case have all resigned and some of them (responsible man for procurement, his Personal Assistant, and senior person) all took employment from the Contractor who is the 3rd Party Designer and Inspection Agency for the ship contracted for about Rs.240.00 crores.

The Vigilance Officer has also resigned.

The Purchase Officer (my successor) is a Contract employee, who has no experience - he has also been recruited after age bar. He has been given promotion equal to a Class I Gazetted Officer in about 2 years from recruitment on Contract basis (did any one heard such practice in Government organisation). He was Purchase Officer until the Contract worth Rs.240.00 Cr. is concluded and then he has been re-designated as Accounts Officer when the payment to Contractor is to be attended.

The team has got spilt in to two branches one team joined with Contractor responsible for 3rd party inspection and other person switched over to Accounts Officer (from Purchase Officer).

Another fact is Finance Council and Governing Council (Top most body in this organisation recommended not to continue with Contract appointment.

Another Project after spending hundred crores of rupees got closed without even testing the capital equipment.

In another Project defective goods were imported - in the team responsible for such import - part of them resigned and one person was made In-charge (Head) of Purchase Stores.

There were lot of equipment reported missing and procurements were procured but not accounted in the inventory (Stores Register)

Like this I have made my on lot of points.

I took VR (from senior Class I Gazetted Officer) from a prestigious Government Department - then unfortunately I took re-employment in this autonomous Institution and served them for a brief period - unable to adjust with the environment - I have resigned the Job of top most post in Purchase & Stores.

At the time of proposal for procurement of TDV VESSEL (estimate was Rs.150.00 crores - lowest tender value was Rs.320.00 crores) Then the price specification was negotiated after Techno-commercial Bid at stage and then Price bid opening, and Contract was finalised for Rs.240.00 croes. and deleted items were procured separate. Unanswered in the case, the number of bay and physical character of the ship can never be matched withj Original specification.

The estimated cost, specifications were made tentative at the time of tendering.

Sensing the trouble, the moment I took up the case for tendering, I objected the wrong practice and served my resignation notice and got relieved before finalising technical committee's recommendation - just to save my skin.

Thereafter (about 3 years back I reported the case to Head of Office, and to all authorities including Vigilance Officer, and Secretary of concerned Department. Then only I have preferred the complaint to CVC, CAG, and CBI.

Initially CVC in its web site reported "Administrative Action has been taken" - then CVC web site updated "Commission ordered closure of the case"

I have filed papers under RTI Act (after paying prescribed fee) and also requested their "no object for filing PIL on this case - for which reply was received stating under the Law, there are not bound to give "No objection". Subsequently only CVC web site got updated as "Commission ordered closure of this case from March 2007 -- but such update was done after lapse of one year that is during April 2008.

“As a result of such delay, the possibility cannot be ruled out of loss of important evidence, because of fading of memory witnesses. The problem of delay stares us all and the whole system would get crushed under its weight.”

One can note that only on yesterday Eurepean Countries black listed India for participating in Defence Tenders, as Tender finalising process is not transparant.

Do our Country's image continue to suffer like this.

Somehow as a professional in Materials Management, Contract Management, I am unable to bear such insults.

If RTI community cooperate and ask for information, my complaint details, and action taken, etc., under RTI Act, some justice will be done for the cause which I have taken-up without bias.

For this reason only I have brought to the notice of learnt RTI community.


sincerely,
psnswaminathan

Thanks for the very prompt response.

As suggested by your goodself, I have already filed application (with the prescribed fee) under Right to Information Act, requesting for status and "no objection" for filing PIL (for the delay).

CVC stated that as per law they cannot give "no objecting" In respect of status, CVC update was updated stating "Commission ordered for closure".

In a way, CVC has positively responded to my applicatication under RTI Act.

The mute question is the following:-

1) CVC first update was "Administrative Action has been taken.
[p.s.] the fact is when CVC/CAG examining the cases, all the offcials involved in the case have all resigned. some of them took employment at Contractor Branch Office at Chennai - the contractor is 3rd party Design and Inspection Agency for the Ship contract for which Complaint is made. Vigilance Officer has also resigned.

2) CVC states that the Commission ordered for closure during March 2007 - but CVC updated their web site after lapse of one year i.e. only during April, 2008.

I have also made one more application to Appellate Authority during April 2008 (immediately when CVC updated their web site.

I think I have answered the question raised by the Member of RTI comunity.

I request the SUPPORT of RTI community - by applying for informations including the details of my complaint, actions taken, reasons for closure of the case under RTI Act.
by the way, members will come to know the gravity of the case.

I believe CAG and CBI will not be coming under perview of RTI Act. CVC authorities are not exempted from RTI Act.

My legal council feels that I can approch the Court when my application is disposed by the Appellate Authority.

Let us the state of affairs - Many defence suppliers from European Countries banned India for the defence deal for the reason of lack of transparancy in Tender finalisation process.

Is it not our duty to protect the image of our great democratic country, where RTI Act support us.

I earnestly request RTI community to support my cause by applying for all information in connection with the case registered by CVC under their Ref: 611/05/10.

This action will give me moral support in pursuing the case further to get the justice in bringing out transparancy in fair administrative process.

Thanks to entire RTI community.

regards

sincerely

psnswaminathan

That was really a noticeable effort from you. However, delay has already disturbed it all. I hope this small community will do its part as you requested.

thanks for the response.

the help what I wanted is, friends who come across this article, can approach CVC under RTI Act and get my complaint copies, action taken and the reasons for closure of the case.

As I have already filed my papers to appellate authorities, CVC may look into the case much seriously, number of people have come to know the complaint.

Community help will improve my moral confidance.

[p.s.] at one place the complaint Regn. No. has erroneiously typed as No.611/01/10 -- [size=10pt][size=10pt]correct CVC Ref: is 611/05/10 (REPEAT 611/05/10). I regret for the error.[/size][/size]

with kind regards

sincerely
psnswaminathan

this can't be true

Respected Sir,

I should respect every one's response - I should respect more when response is not in agreement with my statement and do retrospection and also reconcile and find out what are the short fall in my statement. In fact I should be happy with dissents as any one WHO object a statement they should have gone through the subject MORE CAREFULLY and. To make my statement more consistent, congruous to settle/resolve dissent I must reconcile the differences in a more friendly and harmonious manner for the sake of giving accurate information - as coin will have two sides and both sides should be read and issues should be addressed beyond any doubt.

The following are the facts of the case -
[1] I have lodged the complaint to Central Vigilance Commission [CVC], Delhi and the complaint has been registered by CVC under Ref:611/05/10.
[2] I have also given all the inputs covering my complaints from time to time to CAG and CBI - as all these three Government agencies viz CVC/CAG/CBI are constituted by government to assure corruption free transparent governance.
[3] Central Vigilance Commission vide their Office Memorandum No.Conf./611/05/23340 dated 2nd Mary 2006 recorded "The Commission has examined the matter and has observed that complaint is vindicated to the extent that the REPEATED NEGOTIATIONS with L1 for prices for WATERED DOWN SPECIFICATIONS were undertaken VIOLATING the NORMS for PUBLIC PROCUREMENMT. It ALSO INDICATES THAT THE COST ESTIMATES AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION FINALISATION was not worked out properly in the initial stages. All these raise GENUINE DOUBTS about the merit and fairness of the tendering process. In the circumstances, the correct course would be retender with revised specifications. The present process otherwise would call for IDENTIFICATIONS OF LAPSES ON THE PART of the OFFICIALS responsible leading to DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS for CODAL VIOLATIONS.
[4] CVC in its public domain [CVC web site] updated status of the case as "Administrative action has been taken"
[5] When CVC/CAG was examining the case Ministry of Earth Sciences -- National Institute of Ocean Technology awarded the contract causing loss to government to the extent of Rs.400.00 crores. Can we call this arbitrary action of Ministry of Earth Sciences as legal or illegal. The Contract is for acquiring Scientific Technology demonstration Vessel - TDV Vessel for the scientific research purpose. Government sanctions the budget/grant only Rs.98.00 crores for the Vessel - whereas Contract is awarded for Rs.230.00 crores. While awarding the contract, the concerned administrative Ministry has reduced the super structure, reduced the bays, reduced the crew accommodation, reduced the electric propulsion, changed the noise standard and Vessel has been contracted deleting scientific package -- worst case is Government sanction is for third party configuration/design/inspection [say by appointed M/s.VikSandvik, Norway] whereas Ministry accepted ship builders configuration and the ship when delivered has not even been inspected by the appointed/existing third party viz. M/s. VikSandvik, Norway. In this process Government lost about Rs.400.00 crores because of exchange rate [between Euro and US DOLLARS], HIGHER PRICE FOR WATERED-DOWN SPECIFICATION, relieving M/s. VikSandvik from professional liabilities, etc.,
[5] After awarding the contract to M/s. Fincantiere [Italian Shipbuilder] and during the course of CVC/CAG/CBI examining the case all Officials viz., Mr. Janakiraman, [Indentor] his PA Ms. Rajeswari, other technical people like Mr. Shajahan and few others have all resigned and took up employment with M/s. VikSandvik, Norway [third party designer/inspection agency for TDV ship] - the worrying fact is M/s. VikSandvik Norway have opened their branch office at Chennai, TN India and taken these officials as employees. Other notable Officials who resigned is Mr. PremKumar who was Vigilance Officer. As per Government rules employees should not take-up employment with the Contractors which whom they have dealing while there were in the service - Is this not serious violation of code of conduct of the Officials who awarded the contract and resigned and accept employment with the contract - Is it ethical at least.
[6] My appeal for review of the case has not been taken-up by CVC especially when CVC itself recorded that my original complaint is vindicated and Ministry have violated codal norms.
[7] To put the case more precisely I personally met [with specific prior appointment] official of CBI and also explained the case over phone [that too with specific appointment with prior submission of agenda for telephone discussion] to CVC appellate authority to the level of Additional Secretary CVC.
[8] Central Vigilance Commission, Delhi vide their Office Memorandum No.Conf/611/05/52545 dated 29.03.2007 conveys that " Ministry of Earth Sciences may refer to their letter No.19/JS&CVO/2005 dated 29.01.2007 on the above cited subject [Sub: Complaints against officials of NIOT, Chennai, Ministry of Earth Science] -- [Para 2] The reference made by the Ministry has been examined by the Commission. It is observed that the STANDS TAKEN by the MINISTRY that there was no change in the scope of work as compared to the global tender for the acquisition of the Technology Demonstration Vessel [tdV] and the work order placed on the ship builder is not correct. The original price quoted by M/s. Fincantiere for the scope of work mentioned in the tender was Euro 54,000,000 [i.e. Rs.320,97,60,000/-] as against estimate cost of Rs.155/- crores. The quoted price was higher. The price negotiation Committee in its meeting held on 01.03.2005 negotiated with M/s. Fincantiere after adopting a strategy that the scientific package or such packages that can be retrofitted may be contracted at a later sage/date, when the government makes the additional funds available thereby reducing the cost of vessel. After negotiations, the party submitted four configurations, out of which configuration 3 was chosen. It would be seen that there was a difference of Euro 20,400,000 [Rs.121,25,76,000/-] between the configuration chosen and the configuration 4, which was as per tender [except Noise standard, which was as per Fincantiere technical proposal]. It is surprising that despite reducing the scope of work by Rs.121.25 crores i.e. by about 40% [the price quoted for configuration4], Ministry is taking a stand that there was no change in the scope of work. As regards estimate, the Ministry has stated that the revised estimate of the project was due to subsequent cost escalation; change in foreign exchange rate etc., and not due to wrong projections in the initial stage. It is however noted that while the scope of work was reduced drastically, the estimate was not reduced correspondingly. The Ministry's stand is contrary to the factual position. [para 3] In view of final approval of the project, the Commission would allow the matter to rest.
[9] CVC have detailed procedure for closing the case/complaint - Can we say when CVC recorded in its internal documents/file that Commission would allow the matter to rest - can be interpreted that "Commission advised closure of the case" CVC Official documents say case is at rest whereas CVC in it public domain CVC web site update the status of the case as "Commission advised closure of the case" - both statement are contradictory to each other.
[10] In Europe there is a case of unfair trade practice by M/s.Fincantiere [Italian Ship Yard] and the details are available in the web site.
[11] The Minutes/ recommendation of awarding the contract has not even been signed and approved by any member of the Negotiation Committee - it has been signed only by the Indentor [Mr.Janakiraman] who has also resigned from the service and took up employment with NIOT contractor.
[12] On this case loss to the government is Rs.400.00 crores.
[13] Another project called OTEC [Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion] Project has been closed after spending about Rs.100.00 crores for the last 14 years - the capital equipment like Power Turbine, etc., procured have not even been tested and trial commissioned - if Power turbine is tested the Barge [ship like thing without propulsion] may even sink because of vibration. That is why it has not gone for vibration test because of waival of vibration test. There is a question in the Honorable Rajya Sabha on this project.
[14] Let NIOT bring a white paper about their performance of their projects where they have spent thousand of crores, then Government will certainly realize how public money are getting wasted.
[15] Shortly there will be a PIL/writ petition on these case when Honorable Court will examine/try the case and give judgment.
[16] now that I have obtained all documents/evidences under RTI Act [all documents have been obtained only under RTI Act] I could explain the case with more evidences.

Thanks to everyone for giving me an opportunity to explain the case with clear evidences - I am also open to accept dissents.

Respected Sir/Madam,

When one take effort to fight against corruption/non-transparancy in the governance - it can be considered that it is on public overall interest - interest of the nation - and the individual should not be left as single man/lone soldier to fight for common cause. In my case I fought while in service and when I failed I resigned and reported the case to all responsible agencies. Not that I should win the case, I am satisfied that I have acted as a resonsbile citizen to report the case to CVC/CAG/CBI who have also registered the case and on prima-facies recorded that the complaint is vidnicated and passed stru=ictures on Government tht Ministry have violated codal norms and conveyed its hjudgement that diciplinary actions should be inititated on the officials for lapses.

While I will persue the case it is also requested that who ever against corruption should find out the truth and voice for rightious action to eradicate corruption and secure fair, transparent governance on public interest

with kind regards

sincerely

p.swaminathan

When I first read this post, I did not get idea but from your another post found here, I understood then.

Respected Sir/Madam,

Thanks for reply

regards

sincerely

p.swaminathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psnswaminathan

Sir,
I have preferred a complaint with Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and they have registered the complaint under CVC Ref: 611/05/10. Initially CVC web site exhibteed that "Administrative Action has been taken" when I wrote for details, CVC web site updated stating "Commission ordered closure of the case" and now CVC web site gives error message.
Am I to close the case or is there any away to reopen the case. The casse is now 3 years old involving several hundereds of Crores - I took so much risk in reporting complaint. The way the case has been unceremoniously closed really hurt me - as I have choosen unbiased way of reporting systematically to all Officials including CAG, CBI and the case is very genuine. One can get the informations from CVC (quoting their Ref:611/05/10) under RTI Act and they will get to knopw the seriousness of the case, which has been ordered to be closed.

---

RTI Act provides relief to every Indian who is seeking information about corruption by attending each complaint and replying it within one month's time. They can not close the case merely by taking administrative action against the defaulters. You are eligible for getting the complete information as it relates to corruption charges and your request thus can not be overlooked. Delay of three years does not make any difference in this case.

In most of the cases CVC does not take any action againt the big fishes but it is prompt in action on the basis of false reports to show that CVC is prompt in action against the corruption.

We can hardly expect any action from CVC where complaint exposed corruption involving crores of rupees losses to Government. It appears not advisable to complaint to CVC if corruption involves huge losses to Government.