{"id":116,"date":"2019-09-02T17:35:41","date_gmt":"2019-09-02T12:05:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/?p=116"},"modified":"2019-09-02T17:36:40","modified_gmt":"2019-09-02T12:06:40","slug":"railway-board-vigilance-misguided-cvc-to-favour-ghanshyam-singh","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/?p=116","title":{"rendered":"Railway Board Vigilance misguided CVC to favour Ghanshyam Singh!"},"content":{"rendered":"

Form 26AS of 2014-15 & 2015-16 were purposely removed from the file<\/strong><\/p>\n

The observation is given by Pvt. advocate was not only wrong but also against Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this report the vigilance looks like the TC member, not the Vigilance investigating Authority<\/strong><\/p>\n

Vigilance Report not only misguided the CVC but also misinterpreted & violated all the guidelines<\/strong><\/p>\n

Railway Samachar Bureau<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"Report of \u2018Railway Samachar\u2019 on 80 Page Report prepared by Railway Board Vigilance for CVC<\/strong>\u00a0regarding bypass in the tender no. 64-Dy.CCE\/C\/MB\/14-15 Dated 22.05.2015 in which M\/s Quality Engineers and Contractors was in L-1 position.<\/p>\n

As Per \u2018Railway Samachar\u2019\u00a0this 80 Page Report which was in favour of Ghanshyam Singh\u00a0not only misguided the CVC but also misinterpreted & violated all the Railway Board and CVC guidelines issued by them time to time as and when it arose.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In spite of fulfilling the technical and financial eligibility criteria as per laid down conditions in the tender no. 64-Dy.CCE\/C\/MB\/14-15, where Ghanshyam Singh earlier worked as CEE\/C\/TKJ\/N.Rly, now working as GM\/Eastern Railway has bypassed M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors and awarded the contract to the L-2 bidder.<\/p>\n

The above important report of Railway Board Vigilance is kept in safe custody of \u2018Railway Samachar\u2019.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This Vigilance report was prepared by Railway Board Vigilance to favour Ghanshyam Singh and disfavor M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors the pointwise details by \u2018Railway Samachar\u2019 is as under;<\/p>\n

1) As per tender clause 1.1.3.7 (tender page-9) (SN-29), all Page of Tender documents was signed Satish Sudhakar Mandaokar, partner M\/s. Quality Engineers & Contractors.<\/p>\n

2) As per tender clause 1.1.4.1 (tender page-9) M\/s. Quality Engineers & Contractors had submitted partnership deed signed between the partners Satish Sudhakar Mandaokar and Mrs. Shubhangi Satish Mandaokar. This deed was prepared in the month of August’2011. However, the firm M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors had submitted the copy of partnership deed along with a copy of fee receipt for Rs.750\/- issued from Registrar of Firm Dated 15.10.2011.<\/p>\n

3) As per tender clause 1.1.4.2 (Tender page-9) (SN-29)<\/p>\n

M\/s. Quality Engineers & Contractors can be submitted power of attorney at the later stage also.<\/p>\n

4) 3.3.7 As per tender clause 1.1.4.4 (B) (Tender page- 10) (SN-33)<\/p>\n

Refer the tender Para 1.1.4.4 (B) which states registered\/Notarized Partnership deed (i.e. either registered or notarized). The Railway Samachar would like to give information that M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors had submitted documents in relation to an already constituted Partnership firm prior to opening of tender i.e. Partnership firm constituted on 20.08.2011 vide Partnership deed dated 20.08.2011. The copy of said Partnership deed was not Notarized however it is a duly registered entity with the REGISTRAR OF FIRMS (as provided under Indian Partnership Act Section 58) vide money receipt no 48498 dated 15.10.2011. The said money receipt for payment towards registration fee was also attached with the tender document by Quality Engineers and Contractors.<\/p>\n

5) 3.3.8 As per clause 1.1.4.5 of the tender (Tender page- 11) (SN-27)<\/p>\n

M\/s. Quality Engineers & Contractors can be submitted power of attorney at the later stage also.<\/p>\n

6) During TC Proceeding<\/p>\n

After gone through the Vigilance report by\u2018Railway Samachar\u2019<\/strong>they gave their comments that in this report the vigilance looks like the T.C. member, not the Vigilance investigating Authorities. The finding of vigilance was not credible they were in favour of the concerned Tender Committee (TC) Member and Tender Accepting Authority (TAA)Ghanshyam Singh<\/strong>\u00a0and simply gives a clean chit to the Electrical department.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0\u2018Railway Samachar\u2019<\/strong>findings of how Vigilance department bias hence gives clean chit to K. K. Garg, CLA\/Const \/KG without taking following investigations;<\/p>\n

(i) Misinterpretation of clause no 1.1.4.1, 1.1.4.2, 1.1.4.4 (B) & 1.1.4.5 and declare Partnership deed of M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors invalid.<\/p>\n

(ii) Why REGISTRAR OF FIRMS money receipt no. 48498 dated 15.10.2011 of M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors not taken into consideration before giving a legal opinion?<\/p>\n

(iii) CLA should have asked the original copy of partnership deed to M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors as the date was not clearly visible on a photocopy of partnership deed submitted by M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors but he did not do so.<\/p>\n

What action was recommended\/taken by Vigilance against K. K. Garg, CLA\/Const\/KG? The Vigilance department gives the clean chit to K. K. Garg, CLA\/Const\/KG and motivated him for further corruption.<\/p>\n

(iv) Why and under which SOP K. K. Garg, CLA\/Const\/KG was asked to nominate Mrs. Geetanjali Mohan, Sr. Advocate for taking an expert legal opinion on 29.7.2015?<\/p>\n

Who was the Mrs. Geetanjali Mohan? Why was partnership deed of M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors sent to her? Why was partnership deed of M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors not sent to in-house Railway Board Legal Cell?<\/p>\n

Under which clause of tender CLA\/Const\/KG was nominated Mrs. Geetanjali Mohan, Sr. Advocate (Private)? Is there was any Railway Board guideline available to nominate any private Advocate? Whether GM or competent authority approval was taken by a tender committee member to take legal advice from outside private Advocate?<\/p>\n

It seems that TC member set outside advocate to take legal opinion as per their convenience so that they can easily bypass L-1 offer for their vested interest.<\/p>\n

M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors were requested to Dy.CEE\/C\/MB and CEE\/C\/TKJ\/NDLS vide letter no. QEC\/ Tender\/2014-15\/58 Dated 01.08.2015 to refer the matter to Railway Board legal cell rather than outside agency; for the Railway Board legal cell shall be able to take cognizance of the matter in the light of the relevant tender conditions and extant instructions in this regard in Railways.<\/p>\n

Keeping in view the upholding of principle transparency in TC proceedings, It is also requested by M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors to carry out vigilance vetting in addition to legal vetting so that vigilance can also scrutinize the matter in the backdrop of relevant tender conditions and extant instructions in this regard in the Railways. If any investigation was done by Vigilance department to take legal opinion from outside agency\/private advocate? Why does Vigilance not enquire anything about this? The vigilance does not trust on the in-house legal cell?<\/p>\n

The Vigilance department not investigated anything about the above matter and simply give a clean chit to K. K. Garg, CLA\/Const\/KG to favour not only TC members but also Ghanshyam Singh, TAA of TC.<\/p>\n

As per Tender Clause No. 1.1.12 credentials of Tenderer;<\/strong><\/p>\n

M\/s. Quality Engineers & Contractors in support of 35% technical eligibility criteria of similar nature of work had submitted provisional completion certificate issued from Dy.CEE\/Const.\/Churchgate\/Mumbai for the work design, supply, erection, testing and commissioning of 25KV single phase AC traction OHE for an open route in the yard between Amalner to Dharangaon stations in connection with doubling of Udhana-Jalgaon section of Western Railway. Awarded cost of the work was Rs.5,54,17,769\/- (SN-42) which was more than the 35% value of advertised cost of the tender i.e. Rs.3,07,66,368\/- (Advertised cost of the tender was Rs. 87903908.28. Since the work was for design, supply, erection, testing and commissioning of 25KV single phase AC traction OHE therefore, this work was of similar nature as per tender stipulation. Therefore, the firm M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors was meeting 35% of technical eligibility criteria.<\/p>\n

As per Vigilance report, it comes to know that 26AS of 2014-15 and 2015-16 was purposely removed from the file as per instruction of Ghanshyam Sing to decide that M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors was not fulfilling Financial Criteria. The 26AS issued from Income Tax department and available online for verification. The certificate of chartered accountant in support of financial turnover was also available on (SN-38) for Verification.<\/p>\n

\"\"Financial Capacity 1.1.12 (j) & (k)<\/strong><\/p>\n

As per Tender Clause No 1.1.12 (j) & (k)<\/p>\n

Financial Criteria of having received a payment of Rs.13,18,55,862.42 (150% of advertised cost of Rs. 8179,03,908.28) in last 3 Financial years.<\/p>\n

M\/s. Quality Engineers & Contractors in support of 150% financial eligibility criteria had submitted a copy of form 26AS issued from Income Tax department (online Print) under the official seal and signature of M\/s. Quality Engineers & Contractors. These form 26AS are for the financial year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.<\/p>\n

M\/s. Quality Engineers & Contractors were fulfilling financial criteria in partnership firm as well as Proprietorship firm which was mentioned as Table \u2018A\u2019 (Partnership firm) = 19.19 Cr & Table \u2018B\u2019 (Proprietorship firm) = 17.13 Cr.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Tender Committee (TC) Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) The TC members had not investigated anything based on the report of K. K. Garg, CLA\/Const\/KG they simply bypass L-1 offer and passed to L-2 as per the instruction of Big Boss then CEE\/C\/TKJ\/NDLS Ghanshyam Singh (TAA of TC).<\/p>\n

2) As per M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors contention, there partnership deed was register with Registrar of Firm since they submitted the copy of partnership deed along with a copy of fee receipt for Rs.750\/- issued by Registrar of Firm dated 15.10.2011. The Railway\u2019s contention was also same regarding M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors partnership deed was register with Registrar of Firm.<\/p>\n

\"\"The dispute between M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors and railways was tender Para 1.1.4.4 (B) which states registered\/Notarized Partnership deed (i.e. either registered or notarized).<\/p>\n

In view of above during the time of TC proceedings, the bypass of L-1 offer on the basis of Attestation\/Notarized partnership deed was correct? Vigilance was not enquired this particular thing and give a clean chit to TC Members.<\/p>\n

3) The Vigilance unnecessary discusses the Tender clauses of Attestation\/Notarized partnership deed which was already contradictory. The Vigilance as per their convenience interpreted different clauses and the different term and conditions of Tender (i.e. Attestation\/Notarized partnership deed rather than registered\/Notarized partnership deed).<\/p>\n

4) Since the cause of the tender was contradictory hence depends upon the name of L-1 contractor definition of the clause were changed and interpreted accordingly to favour their pet contractor. Whether Vigilance had investigated this particular thing?<\/p>\n

5) Let us assume\/agree that at the time of TC proceedings the partnership deed was not in order, although the partnership deed was not verified by Registrar of Firm. Then as per clause no. 1.1.4.5 why the tender was not awarded to M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors on proprietorship firm?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Tender Clause No. 1.1.4.5 if above-mentioned document (as applicable) are not enclosed along with tender documents, the tender shall be treated as having been submitted by the individual who has signed the tender documents.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Why was TC not consider as per Clause No. 1.1.4.5 and finalized the tender in proprietorship firm? Why was the tender not awarded to M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors on proprietorship firm? Why was it not investigated by Vigilance? Why the misinterpretation of proprietorship firm was also not verified by Vigilance.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Tender Committee (TC) Member was also not discuss anything about clause no. 1.1.4.5 and simply bypass M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors most Eligible, Competitive L-1 offer and passed to L-2 and recommended for acceptance of TAA.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Tender Accepting Authority (TAA) Ghanshyam Singh was also not given any remark\/recommendation regarding clause no. 1.1.4.5 and simply accept the TC and awarded the contract to L-2 for his vested interest.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is very surprising that this matter was also not investigated by vigilance and given clean chit to the Electrical department. Hence it\u2019s proved that vigilance also protecting the corrupt officer Ghanshyam Singh.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Conclusion :<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The above Vigilance report was totally biased and to favour the Electrical department and disfavour to M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0The ED\/Vig\/Elect\/Railway Board R. K. Rai\u00a0<\/strong>is the tool working in the hand of Ghanshyam Singh to manage the vigilance proceedings forwarded by CVC. M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors allegation was Substantiated by ED\/Vig\/Elect\/Railway Board R. K. Rai.<\/p>\n

3. In the entire vigilance report,\u00a0the ED\/Vig\/Elect\/Railway Board R. K. Rai<\/strong>\u00a0had done all the work of TC committee and try to resolve the mistakes done by the TC Members and Accepting Authority of Tender (TAA) Ghanshyam Singh.<\/p>\n

4. The ED\/Vig\/Elect\/Railway Board R. K. Rai\u00a0<\/strong>has done all the above thing because it was known to Indian Railways that Ghanshyam Singh is the best friend of him and he will get better posting after Ghanshyam Singh becomes Member Traction, Railway Board.<\/p>\n

5. Hence As per the tender clause 1.1.15 suspension of business of M\/s Quality Engineers & Contractors for one year was not applicable and it is against Law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Form 26AS of 2014-15 & 2015-16 were purposely removed from the file The observation is…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":25,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"koo_publish_custom_meta":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-116","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-main-story"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/railsamachar.com\/english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/rail-bhavan-1.jpg?fit=715%2C431&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=116"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":119,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116\/revisions\/119"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/25"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}