NTR Ir Final 19-12-18

INVESTIGATION REPORT
Subject: Complaint against official (s)/ officer (s) of BSNL- Made by Mr.Arun
Kumar Gupta, Prop. M/s A.K.Brothers & Sri Rampati Prasad, DE (Retired).
CVO, BSNL, New Delhi File No. 6-317/NTP/2017-VM-I dated 11.10.2018

CVC file no. 018/P&T/018/396591
1. Source:-
A Complaint made by Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, Prop M/s A. K. Brothers & Sri Rampati
Prasad, DE (Retired) dated 05.12.2017 & 13.09.2018 (E-29 &E-31) was received in O/o
CVO, BSNL through CVC OM No. 018/P&T/018/396591 dated 01.10.2018 for submission
of Investigation report and in turn received in this office vide letter no. 6-317/NTP/2017-VM-I
dated 11.10.2018.
2. Gist of Allegation.
2.1 The letter of complaint made by proprietor of M/s A.K.Brothers , Dehradun dated
05.12.2017(E-29) and dated 30.06.2018(E-30) addressed to DE(AHQ) , O/O Addl GM TP,
NCR, New Delhi contains the following allegations:
2.1.1 That he submitted 6 bills amounting to Rs. 481302/- and surprised to note that
the bills disallowed a sum of Rs. 228303/- without any valid reason while all the bills
were prepared as per the MB’s done by the department on the basis of work done by
him in response to various tenders as per specifications of the tenders.
2.1.2 That a sum of Rs. 221175/- was shown as recoverable on the false plea of
excess paid in previous bills while the previous bills were passed as per the MB done
by the department on the basis of work done/ completed by him in the year 2012 in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the tenders allotted to him.That in this
way Rs. 4,49,478 (228303+221175) was deducted out to total amount of his 6 bills
amounting to Rs. 481302/-.
2.1.3 That all this was done with malafide intentions to harass him because he had
refused to accept the illegal demands of officers concerned and have complained
about their corrupt practices to higher officials.
2.1.4 In his letter dated 30.06.2018(E-30) addressed to DE(AHQ), O/o DGM(TP),

NCR, New Delhi he has made objection to the intimation in reference to letter no.
DGM/TP/NCR/Complaint/2017-18/24 dated 11.06.2018(E-01/7) regarding deduction /
short payment in respect of his 15 nos. bill and alleged that “ this is all due to
corruption in your dept and demanding heavy commission to release our payment to
which I have not exceeded”.
2.2 The letter of complaint made by Sh. Rampati Prasad, Retd DE (Village Pakri,
Post Baurdih) dated 13.09.2018 contains following allegations :
1
(a) That charges are framed against Sh. Rampati Prasad , Retd DE and Sh.
Ravinder Prasad for the work entirely executed and bills passed by Sh.
Roopam Garg , DGM and Sh. Mukesh Mandal, DGM respectively. Sh
Roopam Garg influenced the Vigilance unit and in order to save Sh. Roopam
Garg fabricated charges were framed against him for the works executed
during period Sh Roopam Garg was DGM i.e. after his retirement.
(b) That charges are framed against Sh. Rampati Prasad , Retd DE , Sh
Ravindra Prasad and Sh Mukesh Mandal to save Sh. Roopam Garg , DGM
for work executed and payment made by Sh Roopam Garg, DGM after
retirement of Sh Ram Pati Prasad and transfer of Sh Ravindra Prasad &
Sh Mukesh Mandal.
3 FACT:
3.1.1 It has been alleged that the complainant has submitted 6 bills amounting to Rs.
481302/- , however the bills amounting to Rs. 228303/- were disallowed without any
valid reason while all the bills were prepared as per the MB’s done by the department
on the basis of work done by him in response to various tenders as per specifications
of the tenders.
The details of bill submitted by M/S A K Brothers are as follows (E-01/1 to E-01/6)
S.No Bill No. Bill Dated Amount in Amount in Bill(Rs.)

Complaint(Rs.)
1 AKB/16-17/02 26.09.2016 37592/- 37592/-
2 AKB/16-17/03 26.09.2016 125015/- 127067/-
3 AKB/16-17/04 26.09.2016 71808/- 71808/-
4 AKB/16-17/05 26.09.2016 36345/- 36345/-
5 AKB/16-17/06 26.09.2016 24444/- 26923/-
6 AKB/16-17/07 26.09.2016 186098/- 186098/-
Total 4,81,302/- 485833/-
The details of payment made and amount disallowed with detailed reason/speaking
order against above said bills were intimated to M/S A K Brothers vide letter no.
TP/NCR/AKB Ridge Road/2017-18 dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure E-1). Copies of
passed bills along with note sheet against the six bills are placed at E-01/1 to E-
01/6.
3.1.2 It has been alleged that a sum of Rs. 221175/- was shown as recoverable on
the false plea of excess paid in previous bills while the previous bills were passed as
per the MB done by the department on the basis of work done/ completed by him in
the year 2012 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tenders allotted to
him. It has been alleged that in this way Rs. 4,49,478/- (228303+221175) was
deducted out to total amount of his 6 bills amounting to Rs. 481302/-
In this regard the detailed reason for recovery of excess payment against these bills
(six nos.) have been intimated to M/S A K Brothers vide letter no. TP/NCR/AKB Ridge
2
Road/2017-18 dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure E-1). Copies of passed bills along with
note sheet against the six bills are placed at E-01/1 to E-01/6.
3.1.3 It has been alleged that all this was done with malafide intentions to harass him
because he had refused to accept the illegal demands of officers concerned and
have complained about their corrupt practices to higher officials.
Regarding this allegation no document or evidence found to sustain malafide

intention to harass M/S A K Brothers.
3.1.4 In his letter dated 30.06.2018 addressed to DE(AHQ), O/o DGM(TP), NCR,
New Delhi he has made objection to the intimation in reference to letter no.
DGM/TP/NCR/Complaint/2017-18/24 dated 11.06.2018 regarding deduction / short
payment in respect of his 15 nos. bills (9 nos. + 6 nos. final bills). From the details of
DGM(TP) letter dated 11.06.2018 (Placed at E-01/7) it is observed that M/s A K
Brothers has been intimated regarding payment of 15 nos. bills.
M/S A K Brothers vide his letter dated 30.06.2018 has objected to the
deduction made bill/ payment disallowed and was intimated vide DGM(TP) letter
dated 11.06.2018.
Regarding allegation that “ this is all due to corruption in your dept and
demanding heavy commission to release our payment to which I have not exceeded”
no document or evidence found to sustain the allegation.
VO,NTP has already intimated M/s A.K Brothers that various complaints of him
were properly instigated by CGM NTP through a High power Committee and all the
information stands conveyed to M/s A K Brothers vide letter dated 12.07.2018 (E-47).
3.2.1 It has been alleged by Sh Rampati Prasad that charges were framed against
him and Sh. Ravinder Prasad for the work entirely executed and bills passed by Sh.
Roopam Garg , DGM and Sh. Mukesh Mandal, DGM respectively. Sh Roopam Garg
influenced the Vigilance unit and in order to save Sh. Roopam Garg fabricated
charges were framed against him for the works executed during period Sh Roopam
Garg was DGM i.e. after his retirement.
From the copy of bills attached with the complaint it is evident that the
complaint relates to tower erection / painting under T006 & T004 and earthing work
under T050. In this connection the copy of charge sheet issued to Sh Rampati
Prasad, Sh Ravindra Prasad and Sh. Mukesh Mandal has been called and placed at
E-16, E-17 & E-18. From the perusal of charges against the above named officers, it
relates to several works / tender along with some tower works and earthing at
various tower sites done in year 2010 to 2012 under Tender no. T006, T004 & T050
(in which some RA (Running Account) bills payment were processed during the
period of Sh. Roopam Garg, then DGM(TP), NCR (from 27.09.2012 to 17.03.2015).
Posting details of officers under the complaint are as given below in the Table.
Sl. Name of officer/ designation Period of posting Remarks
3
No.
1. Sh Mukesh Mandal , DGM TP, June 2007 to 27.09.2012
NCR, New Delhi
2. Sh Roopam Garg, DGM TP, NCR, 27.09.2012 to 17.03.2015

New Delhi
3. Sh. Ram Pati prasad DE(AHQ),O/o May 2007 to 18.06.2012

DGM TP, NCR, New Delhi
4. Sh. Rabindra Prasad, SDE(Plg), May 2007 to 20.11.2012

O/o DGM TP, NCR, New Delhi
The details of call of tender and approval for tender T006, T050 & T004 during
the period of Shri Mukesh Mandal, then DGM(TP), NCR (Posted June 2007 to
27.09.2012 ( except from June 08 to 29.08.2008 (E-34 to E-35)) are as given below.
Sl. NIT No. Details of work Date of Date of Date of Remarks

No. submission of TOC/TEC Rate
tender/openin recommend approval/
g of tender ation agreeme
nt
1. T-006 Tender for erection 19.05.2010 19.05.2010/ 01.07.20 Amendment in
Dated of Towers(4 upto 15.06.2010 10 approved rate of tower
19.04.20 legged) and other 14:00hrs. painting per MT per
10 miscellaneous Date of coat – 23.11.2011
(Annexure E-2). As per
works i/c Earthing, opening
tender document and
Painting, 19.05.2010 at rate approval dated
Microwave 15:00 hrs 01.07.2010 rate for the
Antenna & (after item of tower painting
Waveguide amendment) were per MT
Hoisting and (Annexure E-3).
orientation etc.
2. T-050 Tender for 18.02.2011 22.03.2011/ 11.04.20 As per NIT schedule
Dated Earthing at IAF & upto 05.04.2011 11 of rate , rate for item
22.01.20 Metro projects 14:00hrs. of ring earth was
11 Date of Each station,
opening however as per Rate
18.02.2011 at approval item was
15:00 hrs made Each
station/earthing
(Annexure- E-4)
3. T-004 Tender for erection 24.08.2012 31.08.2012/ 20.09.20 (i) Tender for one no.
dated of Heavy Weight upto 18.09.2012 12 tower done
31.07.20 Microwave towers 14:00hrs. separately after this
12 (4 legged) i/c Date of work not executed in
painting etc. at opening T-006.
various Air Force 24.08.2012 at (ii) As per tender
site in Delhi. 15:00 hrs document/financial bid
rate for item of tower
painting was per MT
4
(Annexure E-5).
However in rate
approval rate of tower
painting per MT per
coat – 20.09.2012
(Annexure E-5/1).
(iii) Unit for item 2f(i)
was per MT as per
tender schedule,
TEC/TOC report but in
rate approval unit is
mentioned as Per Mtr
(Annexure E- 5 & E-
5/1).
3.2.2 The rates for Tender T-006,T-004 and T-050(E-3,E4&E-5) were approved during
the period of Sh. Mukesh Mandal ,the then DGM TP NCR. Sh Roopam Garg was
posted as DGM(TP), NCR from 27.09.12 to 17.03.2015. Details of payment made to
the contractor against work done under tender no. T006, T004 & T050 during the
period of Sh. Roopam Garg, then DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi are as follows;
Sl Tender no./ Bill no./ date Bill amount/ Details of bill

no. Brief details passing
date
th
1. T-006 , (i) 4 RA bill for Rs. In the bill item 5 f(i) {GI pipe
Erection of erection of 80 M 22,720/- / 63mm dia} & 5g(ii) {wave
heavy weight H/W tower at 14.06.2013 guide} items were paid.
M/W Towers Ridge Road /
& other 05.04.2013
miscellaneous (Placed at E-07)
works (ii) 3rd RA bill for Rs. In the bill item 5 f(i) {GI pipe
erection of 40 M 61,871/- / 63mm dia},
H/W tower at WAC Not 5f(ii) {GI pipe erection} &
/ 05.04.2013 mentioned 5g(ii) {wave guide} items
(Placed at E-08) were paid.
th
(iii) 4 RA bill for Rs. Item 5g(ii) wave guide were
erection of 40 M 17,406/- / paid in this bill.
H/W tower at WAC 13.08.2013
/ 03.08.2013
(Placed at E-09)
(iv) 3rd RA bill for Rs. 8795/- / Tower painting item 4(b)
erection of 7/3.5M 19.09.2014 with 03 coats were paid.
H/W tower at
Paryavaran
Bhawan & Vayu
Bhawan/
25.03.2014
(Placed at E-10)
5
2. T-004 (i) 1st RA bill for Rs. Item 1(a) {Tower erection}
Erection of erection of 60 M 2,63,919/- / was paid in this bill.
heavy weight H/W tower at R K 06.12.2013
M/W Towers PURAM /
& other 22.11.2013
miscellaneous (Placed at E-11)
works (ii) 2nd RA bill for
Rs. Item 1(b),1(c), 1(d) & 2(b)
erection of 60 M 2,22,694/- / {Tower painting, Provision of
H/W tower at R K 19.03.2014 Ring earth with 50mm
PURAM / x3mm GI strip, P/F GI strip
02.01.2014 50mm x3mm to ring earth &
(Placed at E-12) Aviation light} were paid in
this bill.
3. T-050 (i) 3rd RA bill for Rs.54,961/- Bill for one no. pit earth at
Earthing for earthing / /14.06.2013 WAC paid in this bill.
IAF and metro 05.04.2013
projects (Placed at E-13)
(ii) 4th RA bill for Rs. Bill for 03 nos. pit earth
earthing / 1,64,882/- / each at WAC, Aya nagar,
22.07.2013 08.08.2013 Basant nagar paid in this
(Placed at E-14) bill.
th
(iii) 5 RA bill for Rs. Bill for 03 nos. pit earth at R.
earthing / 1,64,883/- / K. Puram paid in this bill.
22.11.2013 27.12.2013
(Placed at E-15)
3.2.3 Details of Pit earth as per rate approval dated 11.04.2011(E-04) in tender
T050, executed during the period of Sh Roopam Garg, then DGM(NCR),TP
are as given below:
6
Sl. Name of IAF station Pit earth done Pit earth done Total no. of
No. where earthing done during period of during period of pit earth
Sh. Mukesh Sh. Roopam Garg made in
Mandal T006
1. Ridge Road 4 Nil 4
2. WAC 1 2 3
3. Aya Nagar 1 1 2
4. Basant Nagar 1 1 2
5. Paryavaran Bhawan 2 Nil 2
6. R K Puram Nil 3 3
Total 09 nos. 07 nos. 16 nos.
It has been observed that multiple pit earth as detailed above has been created / done
during the period of Sh. Roopam Garg, then DGM(TP). In this regard following key
points have been observed: -
1. Sr. GM(TP), New Delhi had accorded approval for creation of 02 Nos. of extra
earthing at same station with rate per earthing for each newly created
independent earth at R K Puram vide note sheet dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure E-
21) .
2. The CGM(NTP), New Delhi vide letter no. NTP/Plg./10-26/AT//2007-08/67 dated

29.02.2016 (Placed at E-22) granted relaxation for not having ring earth
connection with Equipment, Power plant and tower due to non-BSNL building/
separate earthing for Airforce equipments.
3. Sh. S K Satpathy, Gr Capt AFNET vide his letter No. Air HQ/S.21648/25/AFNET
dated 08.10.2018 received vide letter no. NTP/VIG/109-239/2017-18 dated
28.11.2018 (Annexure E-23) has replied pointwise on issue of (a) creation of
multiple earth pits, (b) Location, termination of each earth, current status /
utilization of these earths , (c ) Pit earth for tower in place of ring earth at AF
M/W stations. Sh S K satpathy, Gr Capt IAF in his letter dated 08.10.2018 (E-23)
mentioned that “Multiple earth pits were created at IAF stations to achieve the
desired earth resistance value and to provide earthing requirements to associated
telecom equipments along with tower ….. pit earth was planned for IAF stations
due to prevailing terrain and geographical conditions ,space availability and
distances between the towers/Equipment rooms ……”.
4. DE(A/T), QA & Inspection Circle, New Delhi vide letter no. INSP/ND/DE?VIG-
QRY/2018-19/02 dated 20.08.2018 (Placed at E-24) had submitted reply
regarding A/T of multiple earths at one station which is reproduced as under.
“ Multiple earth arrangements are done by installer/PO issuing authority after

taken in considerations the local prevailing condition at site as well as others
telecom/Infrastructure equipments are to be installed along with tower. Multiple
earths may be used to meet desired value of earth resistance”.
7
From the above said documents it seems multiple earth were created at
various Indian Air Force (IAF) premises (non-BSNL sites ) as per their requirement and
payment had been made as per rate approval Each station/earthing dated 11.04.2011.
3.2.4 Regarding allegation that Sh Roopam Garg influenced the Vigilance unit and in
order to save Sh. Roopam Garg fabricated charges were framed against him (Sh
Rampati Prasad, DE(Retired) for the works executed during period Sh Roopam Garg
was DGM i.e. after his retirement. The Copy of charge sheet issued to Sh Mukesh
Mandal, then DGM,TP, NCR, Sh. Rampati Prasad, DE(Retired) and Sh Ravindra
Prasad , SDE received in this office vide O/o CVO, BSNL letter no. 6-31/NTP/2017-
VM-I dated 26.10.2018 (Placed at E-16, E-17 & E-18 respectively) have been
examined in the light of allegation.
A) In the charge sheet issued to Sh. Mukesh Mandal, then DGM,TP, NCR
there are 07 article of charges. In some of the charges as mentioned below there
are some mismatches in period/No./ words.
(a) Article 1(h) reads as

“Sh. Mukesh Mandal while functioning as the then DGM (TP) NCR, being supervisory
& approving authority, allowed the time extension for erection of 40M H/W at WAC
and R K Puram for the period 19.07.2013 to 18.01.2013 while the tender agreement
No. TP.NCR/Tender.MW/TowerErection/T-006/10-11 dated 19.04.2010 for such
work has been expired on 18-07-2012 as well as contractor was not willing to extend
the agreement further. Moreover, running bills have also been paid for work done
beyond the validity of tender without invoking penalty clause:
i. Bill dated 24.09.2012 for measurement period 26.03.2012 to 18.08.2012 of

amount Rs. 1,93,594/-.
ii. Bill dated 05.04.2013 for measurement period 03.10.2012 to 05.10.2012 of
amount Rs. 61,871/-.
iii. Bill dated 03.08.2013 for measurement period 28.05.2013 to 29.05.2013 of
amount Rs. 17,416/-.”
Out of eight sub-part of Article of charge 1 in the above article 1(h) period
mentioned in I(h)(ii) & I(h) (iii) above do not pertains to period of Sh. Muksh Mandal,
then DGM, TP, NCR.
(b) Article-III reads as:
“That Sh. Mukesh Mandal while functioning as the then DGM (TP) NCR during the period
from May-2007 to 27.09.2012 (except from May-2008 to 29.08.2008), he was expected to
strictly adhere to follow the policy guidelines of tendering and procedures scrupulously while
approving/ allowing one or more activities such as processing, opening, evaluating,
approving, awarding, issuing the work order / purchase order, making payment or any
other activities pertaining to NIT No. TP/NCR/Tender/Earthing/T-050/10-11 dated
22.01.2011 for the earthing at Air Force stations and DMRC. (Annex-3-1.1 to 3-1.3)
As per the said NIT, tender was floated for 14 IAF and Metro stations and as per the letter
No. TP/NCR/PE/Tower Errection/AFNET/2010-11 dated 24.09.2013 (Annex-3-2.1)
approval for 2 Nos. of extra earthing at Airforce Station R K Puram was issued by
8
SDE(Plg). Further, work order DETP-1/ND/Earthing for (5) IAF and DMRC station/4 dated
18.07.2011 (Annex-3-3.1 to 3-3.2) was issued for earthing for five IAF stations (1. Ridge
Road 2. Basant Nagar, 3. Pariyavaran Bhavan, 4. Aya Nagar 5. WAC) & DMRC stations with
target date 31.12.2011 without mentioning the number of earthings per station. As per the
scope of work defined in tender document earthing mean ring earth to be created around the
tower, which indicate one earth per station but it is observed that multiple earth were
created in a single Airforce station. (Annex-3-4.1 to 3-4.5). Details of earths for which
payment were made are below:
Name of station (all are IAF) No of earths

1. Ridge Road 04
2. Basant Nagar 02
3. Pariyavaran Bhawan 02
4. Aya nagar 02
5. WAC 03
6. R K Puram 03
Total 16
Based on above, payment for total 16 earthing work @Rs. 54,350 was made. It is pertinent to
note that no earth was made at any DMRC site. No justification or clarification regarding
multiple earthing is available in tender or payment file. Total payment of Rs. 7,82,640/- was
made through various running bills for these 16 earthings against the approved amount of Rs.
7,60,900/- .
As per the scope of work defined in tender document of the said tender, only one earth per
station was made but 10 numbers of extra earthing were made at six Air force station which
leads to financial loss of Rs. 4,89,150/- to BSNL.”
In the above para Number of earthing mentioned are factually incorrect as 07 nos.
earth out of 16 were not done during the period of Sh. Mukesh Mandal. Furtherline
containing “ letter No. TP/NCR/PE/Tower Errection/AFNET/2010-11 dated 24.09.2013
reagrding approval for 2 Nos. of extra earthing at Airforce Station R K Puram was issued
by SDE(Plg)” does not pertain to period of Sh. Mukseh Mandal.
B) In the charge sheet issued to Sh. Ravindra Prasad, then SDE(Plg.), O/o DGM,TP, NCR
there are 08 article of charges. In some of the charges as mentioned below there are some
mismatches in period/No./ words.
(a) Article 1 of charge is having Nine sub-parts, out of which Article 1(i) reads as,
“Sh. Ravindra Prasad while functioning as the then SDE (Plg.), being supervisory &
processing authority, processed the time extension for erection of 40M H/W at WAC
No. TP.NCR/Tender.MW/Tower Erection/T-006/10-11 dated 19.04.2010 for such
i. Bill No.AKB/2012-13/13 dated 24.09.2012 for measurement period
26.03.2012 to 18.08.2012 of amount Rs. 1,93,594/-.
ii. Bill No.AKB/2013-14/03 dated 05.04.2013 for measurement period 03.10.2012
to 05.10.2012 of amount Rs. 61,871/-.
9
iii. Bill No.AKB/2013-14/03 dated 03.08.2013 for measurement period 28.05.2013
to 29.05.2013 of amount Rs. 17,416/-. “
Out of nine sub-part of Article of charge 1 , in the above article 1(i) period
mentioned in 1(i) (ii) & 1(i) (iii) do not pertain to Sh. Ravindra Prasad. Other parts are
relevant to him.
More over, CVO, BSNL, New Delhi vide letter no. 6-305-NTP-2016-VM-I(Pt-II) dated
28.03.2018 intimated CVO,DOT regarding this article of charge (Placed at E-28) as
reproduced below.
Para Issue raised by Sh Mukesh Comments

no. Mandal vide his letter dated
08.02.2018
Para The report includes works Apparently, this aspect is relevant to sub-para (h) of
2(a)(v) executed even after transfer Article I. More than 2/3rds of the work was executed
of us from office of during his period vide bill dated 24.09.2012 for Rs.
DGM(TP) 1,93,594 and the said work was executed through
extension granted by Shri Mandal. No mala fide is
discerned in extension granted by Shri Mandal and
non-invocation of the penalty clause against the
contractor on his part. Sub-para(h) of Article I may
not, therefore, hold good during inquiry proceedings.
Thus it is observed that BSNL Vigilance had already taken his stand in the article of charge that
no mala fide is discerned in extension granted by Shri Mandal and non-invocation of the penalty
clause against the contractor on his part. Sub-para(h) of Article I may not, therefore, hold good
during inquiry proceedings.
Accordingly extension of validity of agreement without invocation of penalty clause during the
period of Sh. Roopam Garg ( in bill dated 05.04.2013 & 03.08.2013) has no mala fide and granted
based on hindrances recorded by field officers.(E-48)
(b) Article II of Chargesheet reads as
“That Sh. Ravindra Prasad while functioning as the then SDE (Plg.) NCR during the period
from May-2007 to 20.11.2012, he was expected to strictly adhere to follow the policy
guidelines of tendering and procedures scrupulously while processing/ allowing one or more
activities such as processing, opening, evaluating, approving, awarding, issuing the work
order / purchase order, making payment or any other activities pertaining to NIT No.
TP/NCR/MW/Tower Erection/T-004/2012-13 dated 31.07.2012 for the Erection of 60M
H/W tower at R K Puram and associated work however he was allowed and processed the
rate of item 1(b) in Per MT per coat instead of per MT as specified in tender document for the
said tender. Further 295% more payment was approved/ processed for payment against
item 1(b) without taking the approval of competent authority.”
In the above article word ‘processed’ for payment only is not appropriate, as the bills for T-
004 were not processed in the period of Sh. Ravindra Prasad, then SDE (plg.) and other
part pertains to him.
C. Article III of the charge sheet reads as,

10
“That Sh. Ravindra Prasad while functioning as the then SDE (Plg) NCR during the period from
May-2007 to 20.11.2012, he was expected to strictly adhere to follow the policy guidelines of
tendering and procedures scrupulously while processing one or more activities such as
processing, opening, evaluating, approving, awarding, issuing the work order / purchase
order, making payment or any other activities pertaining to NIT No.
TP/NCR/Tender/OFC/Earthing/T-050/10-11 dated 20.01.2011 for the earthing at Air Force
stations and DMRC.
As per the said NIT, tender was floated for 14 IAF and Metro stations and as per the letter No.
TP/NCR/PE/Tower Erection/AFNET/2010-11 dated 24.09.2013 approval for 2 Nos. of extra
earthing at Air force Station R K Puram was issued by SDE(Plg). Further, work order DETP-
1/ND/Earthing for (5) IAF and DMRC station/4 dated 18.07.2011 was issued for earthing for
five IAF stations (1. Ridge Road 2. Basant Nagar, 3. Pariyavaran Bhavan, 4. Aya Nagar 5.
WAC) & DMRC stations with target date 31.12.2011 without mentioning the number of
earthings per station. As per the scope of work defined in tender document earthing mean ring
earth to be created around the tower, which indicate one earth per station but it is observed
that multiple earth were created in a single Air force station. Details of earths for which

1. Ridge Road 04
2. Basant Nagar 02
4. Aya nagar 02
5. WAC 03
6. R K Puram 03
Total 16
7,60,900/- .
In the above para many of the points seems not to pertain to Sh.
Ravndra Prasad, then SDE(Plg.). However, in the light of the new fact (E-23) , it
is now seen that Earthing were done as per requirement of Air Force (E-23). A copy of the
report is being marked to DOT who may take necessary action to appraise IO suitably.
C) In the charge sheet issued to Sh. Ram Pati Prasad, then DE(AHQ), O/o DGM,TP, NCR
there are 04 article of charges. None of charges relates to the tender under this
complaint/ allegation.
3.2.5 Fact same as 3.2.1 above.
11
4. Observation
4.1.1 In the allegation the complaint has submitted 6 bills amounting to Rs. 481302/- ,
however the bills amounting to Rs Rs. 228303/- were disallowed without any valid
reason while all the bills were prepared as per the MB’s done by the department on
the basis of work done by him in response to various tenders as per specifications of
the tenders.
The details of bill submitted by M/S A K Brothers are as follows:
S.No Bill No. Dated Amount in Amount in Bill(Rs.)

Complaint(Rs.)
1 AKB/16-17/02 26.09.2016 37592/- 37592/-
2 AKB/16-17/03 26.09.2016 125015/- 127067/-
3 AKB/16-17/04 26.09.2016 71808/- 71808/-
4 AKB/16-17/05 26.09.2016 36345/- 36345/-
5 AKB/16-17/06 26.09.2016 24444/- 26923/-
6 AKB/16-17/07 26.09.2016 186098/- 186098/-
Total = Rs. 4,81,302/- 485833/-
The details of payment made and amount disallowed with detailed reason against
above said bills were intimated to M/S A K Brothers vide letter no. TP/NCR/AKB
Ridge Road/2017-18 dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure E-1). Copies of passed bills along
with note sheet against the six bills are placed at E-01/1 to E-01/6.
From the above facts it is observed that the recovery of overpayment

made to the contractor owing to rate modification post award of tender in unit
of item for painintg of tower has been made in final bills submitted by
contractor. The contractor has been intimated through speaking order about
the recovery of excess payment made during running account bills vide
Annexure – E1. Hence no anamaly observed.
However in case of any dispute/ griveance in payment of bills, the
contractor is at liberty to resort to dispute redessal mechanism as per the
agreement.
4.1.2 The complainant has been alleged that a sum of Rs. 221175/- was shown as
recoverable on the false plea of excess paid in previous bills while the previous bills
were passed as per the MB done by the department on the basis of work done/
completed by him in the year 2012 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
tenders allotted to him. It has been alleged that in this way Rs. 4,49,478
(228303+221175) was deducted out to total amount of his 6 bills amounting to Rs.
481302/-.
In this regard the detailed reason for recovery of excess payment against
these bills (six nos.) have been intimated to M/S A K Brothers vide letter no.
TP/NCR/AKB Ridge Road/2017-18 dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure E-1). Copies of
passed bills along with note sheet against the six bills are placed at E-01/1 to E-
01/6.
12
In the light of above facts it is observed that the contractor has been
intimated by the DE(AHQ.) , the resaon for recovery against the bills, and hence
no anamaly observed. However in case of any dispute/ griveance in payment of
bills, the contractor is at liberty to resort to dispute redessal mechanism as per
the agreement.
4.1.3 It has been alleged that all this was done with malafied intentions to harass him
because he had refused to accept the illegal demands of officers concerned and
have complained about their corrupt practices to higher officials.
Regarding this allegation no document or evidence found to sustain melafide

intention to harass M/S A K Brothers against any official.
From the above facts it is observed that the above said complaint seems
to be made out of dispute in settlement of bills. Hence the allegation does not
sustain.
4.1.4 From the details of DGM(TP) letter dated 11.06.2018 (Placed at E-01/7) it is
observed that M/s A K Brothers has been intimated regarding payment of 15 nos.
bills. In this regard it has also been observed that the claim of payment in bills
submitted by M/s A K Brothers have been examined by the committee formed by the
CGM(TP), New Delhi and based on the recommendation of the committee bills of
M/S A K Brothers have been settled. Hence, no anomaly found in this regard and as
such allegation does not sustain.
Regarding allegation that “ this is all due to corruption in your dept and
demanding heavy commission to release our payment to which I have not exceeded”
no document or evidence found to sustain the allegation.
From the above facts it is observed that the above said complaint seems to be
made out of dispute in settlement of bills.
4.2.1 It has been alleged by Sh Rampati Prasad that charges were framed against
him and Sh. Ravinder Prasad for the work entirely executed and bills passed by Sh.
Roopam Garg , DGM and Sh. Mukesh Mandal, DGM respectively. Sh Roopam Garg
influenced the Vigilance unit and in order to save Sh. Roopam Garg fabricated
charges were framed against him for the works executed during period Sh Roopam
Garg was DGM i.e. after his retirement.
From the charge sheet issued to Sh Rampati Prasad, Sh Ravindra Prasad and
Sh. Mukesh Mandal it has been observed that the charges relates to the many
works/tender with some charge/part of charge relates to tower work and earthing at
various tower sites done in year 2010 to 2013 under T006, T004 & T050 in which
some payment has been released during the period of Sh. Roopam Garg, then
DGM(TP), NCR.
13
4.2.2 Details of payment made to the contractor(s) against work done under tender T-
006, T004 & T-050 during the period of Sh. Roopam Garg, then DGM(TP), NCR ,
New Delhi are as follow;
Sl Tender no./ Bill no./ date Bill amount/ Details of bill Remarks
no. Brief details passing date
th
1. T-006 , (i) 4 RA bill for Rs. In the bill item Unit of item 5f(i)
Erection of erection of 80 M 22,720/- / 5 f(i) {GI pipe mentioned in Rate
heavy weight H/W tower at 14.06.2013 63mm dia} & approval is per MT
M/W Towers & Ridge Road / 5g(ii) {wave in tender (financial
other 05.04.2013 guide} items bid),TEC/TOC
miscellaneous (Placed at E-07) were paid. report and rate
works approval dated
(ii) 3rd RA bill for Rs. In the bill item 01.07.2010
erection of 40 M 61,871/- / 5 f(i) {GI pipe (Annexure E-3).
H/W tower at Not 63mm dia}, Payment processed
WAC / 05.04.2013 mentioned 5f(ii) {GI pipe measuring item in
(Placed at E-08) erection} & Metre in
5g(ii) {wave measurement book
guide} items directly multiplying
were paid. rate per MT i.e.
(iii) 4th RA bill for Rs. Item 5g(ii) without converting
erection of 40 M 17,232/- / wave guide the measurement in
H/W tower at 13.08.2013 were paid in MT (Copy of MB
WAC / 03.08.2013 this bill. placed at E - 06) by
(Placed at E-09) the concerned
SDE/DE.
(iv) 3rd RA bill for Rs. 8795/- / Tower painting Payment processed
erection of 7/3.5M 19.09.2014 item 4(b) with as per rate per
H/W tower at 03 coats were MT/coat approval
Paryavaran paid. accorded by Sh.
Bhawan & Vayu Mukesh Mandal then
Bhawan/ DGM(TP), NCR
25.03.2014 dated 23.11.2011
(Placed at E-10) (Annexure E-2)
2. T-004 Erection (i) 1st RA bill for Rs. Item 1(a) -
of heavy erection of 60 M 2,61,280/- / {Tower
weight M/W H/W tower at R K 06.12.2013 erection} was
Towers & other PURAM / paid in this bill.
miscellaneous 21.11.2013
works (Placed at E-11)
(ii) 2nd RA bill for Rs. Item 1(b),1(c), Tower paining with
erection of 60 M 2,20,467/- / 1(d) & 2(b) multiple coat were
H/W tower at R K 19.03.2014 {Tower paid as per rate
PURAM / painting, approval per MT
02.01.2014 Provision of per coat date
(Placed at E-12) Ring earth with 20.09.2012 accorded
50mm x3mm during period of Sh.
GI strip, P/F GI Mukesh Mandal,
14
strip 50mm then DGM(TP),
x3mm to ring NCR (Annexure E-
earth & 5/1).
Aviation light}
were paid in
this bill.
rd
3. T-050 Earthing (i) 3 RA bill for Rs.54,961/- / Bill for one no. Payment of earthing
for IAF and earthing / 14.06.2013 pit earth at had been processed
metro projects 05.04.2013 WAC paid in as per rate approval
(Placed at E-13) this bill. Each Station/
th
(ii) 4 RA bill for Rs. Bill for 03 nos. earthing accorded by
earthing / 1,64,882/- / pit earth each at Sh. Mukesh Mandal
22.07.2013 08.08.2013 WAC, Aya then DGM(TP),
(Placed at E-14) nagar, Basant NCR dated
nagar paid in 11.04.2011
this bill. ( Annexure E-04)
th
(iii) 5 RA bill for Rs. Bill for 03 nos.
earthing / 1,64,883/- / pit earth at R.
22.11.2013 27.12.2013 K. Puram paid
(Placed at E-15) in this bill.
4.2.3 Regarding allegation that Sh Roopam Garg influenced the Vigilance unit and in order to
save Sh. Roopam Garg fabricated charges were framed against him (Sh Rampati Prasad,
DE(Retired) for the works executed during period Sh Roopam Garg was DGM i.e. after his
retirement. The Copy of charge sheet issued to Sh. Mukesh Mandal, then DGM,TP, NCR, Sh.
Rampati Prasad, DE(Retired) and Sh Ravindra Prasad , SDE received in this office vide O/o
CVO, BSNL letter no. 6-31/NTP/2017-VM-I dated 26.10.2018 (Placed at E-16, E-17 & E-
18 respectively) have been examined in the light of allegation.
A) In the charge sheet issued to Sh. Mukesh Mandal, then DGM,TP, NCR there are
07 article of charges. In some of the charges as mentioned below there are some
(i) Article 1(h) reads as

“Sh. Mukesh Mandal while functioning as the then DGM (TP) NCR, being supervisory
& approving authority, allowed the time extension for erection of 40M H/W at WAC
No. TP.NCR/Tender.MW/TowerErection/T-006/10-11 dated 19.04.2010 for such
i. Bill dated 24.09.2012 for measurement period 26.03.2012 to 18.08.2012

of amount Rs. 1,93,594/-.
ii. Bill dated 05.04.2013 for measurement period 03.10.2012 to 05.10.2012 of
amount Rs. 61,871/-.
15
iii. Bill dated 03.08.2013 for measurement period 28.05.2013 to 29.05.2013 of
amount Rs. 17,416/-.”
Out of eight sub-part of Article of charge I , in the above article I(h) period
mentioned in I(h)(ii) & I(h) (iii) above do not pertains to period of Sh. Mukesh
Mandal, then DGM, TP, NCR. Also period date mentioned above as 19.07.2013
should have been 19.07.2012 as per record and had typographical error.
More over CVO, BSNL, New Delhi vide letter no. 6-305-NTP-2016-VM-I(Pt-II) dated
reproduced below.

no. Mandal vide his letter dated
08.02.2018
Thus it is observed that BSNL Vigilance had already taken his stand in the article of charge that
no mala fide is discerned in extension granted by Shri Mandal and non-invocation of the penalty
clause against the contractor on his part. Sub-para(h) of Article I may not, therefore, hold good
during inquiry proceedings.
period of Sh. Roopam Garg ( in bill dated 05.04.2013 & 03.08.2013) has no mala fide and granted
based on hindrances recorded by field officers (E-48).
(ii) Article-III reads as:

“That Sh. Mukesh Mandal while functioning as the then DGM (TP) NCR during the period
from May-2007 to 27.09.2012 (except from May-2008 to 29.08.2008), he was expected to
strictly adhere to follow the policy guidelines of tendering and procedures scrupulously while
approving/ allowing one or more activities such as processing, opening, evaluating,
approving, awarding, issuing the work order / purchase order, making payment or any
other activities pertaining to NIT No. TP/NCR/Tender/Earthing/T-050/10-11 dated
22.01.2011 for the earthing at Air Force stations and DMRC. (Annex-3-1.1 to 3-1.3)
As per the said NIT, tender was floated for 14 IAF and Metro stations and as per the letter
No. TP/NCR/PE/Tower Errection/AFNET/2010-11 dated 24.09.2013 (Annex-3-2.1)
approval for 2 Nos. of extra earthing at Airforce Station R K Puram was issued by
SDE(Plg). Further, work order DETP-1/ND/Earthing for (5) IAF and DMRC station/4 dated
18.07.2011 (Annex-3-3.1 to 3-3.2) was issued for earthing for five IAF stations (1. Ridge
Road 2. Basant Nagar, 3. Pariyavaran Bhavan, 4. Aya Nagar 5. WAC) & DMRC stations with
target date 31.12.2011 without mentioning the number of earthings per station. As per the
16
scope of work defined in tender document earthing mean ring earth to be created around the
tower, which indicate one earth per station but it is observed that multiple earth were
created in a single Airforce station. (Annex-3-4.1 to 3-4.5). Details of earths for which

1. Ridge Road 04
2. Basant Nagar 02
4. Aya nagar 02
5. WAC 03
6. R K Puram 03
Total 16
7,60,900/- .
In the above para Number of earthing mentioned are factually incorrect as 07 nos.
earth out of 16 were not done during the period of Sh. Mukesh Mandal. Furtherline
containing “ letter No. TP/NCR/PE/Tower Errection/AFNET/2010-11 dated 24.09.2013
regarding approval for 2 Nos. of extra earthing at Airforce Station R K Puram was issued
by SDE(Plg)” does not pertain to period of Sh. Mukseh Mandal.
Out of 07 Article of charges some discripancy/ mismatch has been observed in 03 rd

part of Artcle of charge III as mentioed above. However large part of this charge pertains
to Sh. Mukesh Mandal. From the content of charge III it seems that is was due to flaws in
framing tender document & call of tender and work order without mentioning no. of earth
at each station.From the new fact it is now seen that Earthing were done as per
requirement of Air Force (E-23).A copy of the report is being marked to DOT who may take
necessary action to appraise IO of COs suitably.
B) In the charge sheet issued to Sh. Ravindra Prasad, then SDE (Plg.), O/o DGM,TP, NCR
there are 08 article of charges. In some of the charges as mentioned below there are some
(c) Article 1(i) reads as,

“Sh. Ravindra Prasad while functioning as the then SDE (Plg.), being supervisory &
processing authority, processed the time extension for erection of 40M H/W at WAC
No. TP.NCR/Tender.MW/Tower Erection/T-006/10-11 dated 19.04.2010 for such
17
i.Bill No.AKB/2012-13/13 dated 24.09.2012 for measurement period 26.03.2012 to
18.08.2012 of amount Rs. 1,93,594/-.
ii. Bill No.AKB/2013-14/03 dated 05.04.2013 for measurement period 03.10.2012 to
05.10.2012 of amount Rs. 61,871/-.
iii. Bill No.AKB/2013-14/03 dated 03.08.2013 for measurement period 28.05.2013 to
29.05.2013 of amount Rs. 17,416/-. “
Out of nine sub-part of Article of charge 1 , in the above article 1(i) period
mentioned in 1(i) (ii) & 1(i) (iii) do not pertain to Sh. Ravindra Prasad.Other parts are
relevant to him. Also period date mentioned above as 19.07.2013 should have been
19.07.2012 as per record and had typographical error. Further observation made above
in case of Sh. Mukesh Mandal holds good in this case also.
(d) Article II of Chargesheet reads as
“That Sh. Ravindra Prasad while functioning as the then SDE (Plg.) NCR during the period
from May-2007 to 20.11.2012, he was expected to strictly adhere to follow the policy
guidelines of tendering and procedures scrupulously while processing/ allowing one or more
activities such as processing, opening, evaluating, approving, awarding, issuing the work
order / purchase order, making payment or any other activities pertaining to NIT No.
TP/NCR/MW/Tower Erection/T-004/2012-13 dated 31.07.2012 for the Erection of 60M
H/W tower at R K Puram and associated work however he was allowed and processed the
rate of item 1(b) in Per MT per coat instead of per MT as specified in tender document for the
said tender. Further 295% more payment was approved/ processed for payment against
item 1(b) without taking the approval of competent authority.”
In the above article word ‘processed’ for payment only is not appropriate, as the bills for T-
004 were not processed in the period of Sh. Ravindra Prasad, then SDE (plg.) and other
part pertains to him.
C. Article III of the charge sheet reads as,
“That Sh. Ravindra Prasad while functioning as the then SDE (Plg) NCR during the period from
May-2007 to 20.11.2012, he was expected to strictly adhere to follow the policy guidelines of
tendering and procedures scrupulously while processing one or more activities such as
processing, opening, evaluating, approving, awarding, issuing the work order / purchase
order, making payment or any other activities pertaining to NIT No.
TP/NCR/Tender/OFC/Earthing/T-050/10-11 dated 20.01.2011 for the earthing at Air Force
stations and DMRC.
As per the said NIT, tender was floated for 14 IAF and Metro stations and as per the letter No.
TP/NCR/PE/Tower Erection/AFNET/2010-11 dated 24.09.2013 approval for 2 Nos. of extra
earthing at Air force Station R K Puram was issued by SDE(Plg). Further, work order DETP-
1/ND/Earthing for (5) IAF and DMRC station/4 dated 18.07.2011 was issued for earthing for
five IAF stations (1. Ridge Road 2. Basant Nagar, 3. Pariyavaran Bhavan, 4. Aya Nagar 5.
WAC) & DMRC stations with target date 31.12.2011 without mentioning the number of
earthings per station. As per the scope of work defined in tender document earthing mean ring
earth to be created around the tower, which indicate one earth per station but it is observed
that multiple earth were created in a single Air force station. Details of earths for which
18
1. Road 04
2. Basant Nagar 02
4. Aya nagar 02
5. WAC 03
6. R K Puram 03
Total 16
7,60,900/- .
In the above para, many of the points seems not to pertain to Sh. Ravndra
Prasad, then SDE(Plg.).
From the new fact it is now seen that Earthing were done as per requirement of Air Force
(E-23).A copy of the report is being marked to DOT who may take necessary action to
appraise IO of COs suitably.
C) In the charge sheet issued to Sh. Ram Pati Prasad, then DE(AHQ), O/o DGM,TP,
NCR there are 04 article of charges. None of charges relates to the tender under this
complaint/ allegation.
It has been observed that there are 08(Eight ) Article of charges against Sh. Mukesh
Mandal, then DGM(TP), NCR in the charge sheet dated 06.12.2017 out of which two nos. of
charges have been looked into in view of present complaint. Out of the two charges which
some processing/ typographical error has been observed in Charge I(h)(ii), I(h)(iii) and III as
mentioned against the charges above.
Similarly it has been observed that there are 09(Eight ) Article of charges against Sh.
Ravindra Prasad, then SDE(Plg.) , O/o DGM(TP), NCR in the charge sheet dated 15.05.2017
out of which three nos. of charges have been looked into in view of present complaint. Out of
the three charges , two has some processing/ typographical error in Charge I(i)(ii), I(i)(iii) &
II and Article III does not seem to pertain to him.
However, none of charges in the Charge sheet dated 17.03.2016 issued to Sh. Ram
Pati Prasad relates to the tender under this complaint/ allegation.
It seems there were some error in processing charge sheet to Sh. Mukesh Mandal &
Sh. Ravindra Prasad. However from the charge sheet of all above officers it is observed that it
contains several other charges in respect of various works other than the three works pertaining
to tender no. T006, T040 & T050. So the charge sheet issued to Sh. Mukesh Mnadal nad Sh.
Ravindra Prasad is found to be deficient only to the extent mentioned above.
19
Thus the allegation that Sh Roopam Garg influenced the Vigilance unit and in order to
save Sh. Roopam Garg, fabricated charges were framed against Sh Rampati Prasad,
DE(Retired) , Sh Ravinder Prasad ,SDE (Plg) and Sh.Mukesh Mandal then DGM TP NCR
for the works executed during period Sh Roopam Garg was DGM i.e. after his retirement does
not seem to have any substance.
4.2.4 From the scrutiny of bills processed and paid during the period of Sh. Roopam Garg,
then DGM, NCR, following observation has been made. Details of bill paid during the
period of Sh. Roopam Garg, then DGM(TP), NCR in respect of tender T006, T004 &
T050 are as given in para 4.2.2 above.
(i) In tender T-006 , Erection of heavy weight M/W Towers & other miscellaneous works
04 nos bills as mentioned above were paid to contractor M/S A K Brothers during the
period of Sh. Roopam Garg, then DGM(TP),NCR which consists mainly item 5 f(i) {GI
pipe 63mm dia}, 5f(ii) {GI pipe erection} & 5g(ii) {wave guide} for Ridge road and
WAC sites & Tower painting item 4(b) with 03 coats for Paryavaran Bhawan & Vayu
Bhawan. It has been observed that the item of painting item 4(b) with multiple coats
paid in Running bill as per approval/ corrigendum in rate issued by Sh. Mukesh
Mandal, then DGM(NCR)(Annexure E-2).
In respect of tender T-004 Erection of heavy weight M/W Towers & other
miscellaneous works at R K Puram, the unit for item 1(b) (Tower painting) was Per
MT per / coat as per TEC/TOC report and Rate approval dated 20.09.2012 processed
and approved during the period of Sh. Mukesh Mandal, then DGM(TP), NCR
dated 20.09.2012 (Placed at E-19). The rate approval was forwarded to concerned
DE(TP) for making agreement and issuing work order. In this regard it is observed that
the approval for agreement has not been routed through DGM (TP), NCR as per
existing procedure (Copy of Note sheet (E-43) and rate approval letter mention the
fact is Placed at E-5/1). Thus though the agreement for the work under T004 was
executed by then DE(TP) during the period of Sh. Roopam Garg, then DGM(TP), NCR
but no approval for making agreement and work order was sought by DE concerned nor
approved by Sh. Roopam Garg. Further from the 2 nd RA bill for the work it has been
observed that item 1(b) tower painting three coats has been measured and paid as per
the rate approval in tender per MT/coat issued dated 20.09.2012 (Annexure E5).
However, the same was not in consonance with specification of the item as bid
document.
However, during final bill it was noticed by the concerned authority that rate
for item 1(b) should have been per MT as per specification and not Per MT per coat;
accordingly the payment for item 1(b) has been revised in final bill as per tender
unit/ specification (Annexure- E-1/1) for all works under T006 and T004.
(ii) Details of Pit earth as per rate approval dated 11.04.2011 in tender T050, executed
during the period of Sh Roopam Garg, then DGM(NCR),TP are as given below:
Sl. Name of IAF station Pit earth done Pit earth done during Total no. of
No. where earthing done during period of period of Sh. Roopam earth made
20
Sh. Mukesh Garg
Mnadal
1. Ridge Road 4 Nil 4
2. WAC 1 2 3
3. Aya Nagar 1 1 2
4. Basant Nagar 1 1 2
5. Paryavaran Bhawan 2 Nil 2
6. R K Puram Nil 3 3
Total 09 nos. 07 nos. 16 nos.
It has been observed that multiple pit earth as detailed above has been created / done
during the period of Sh. Roopam Garg, then DGM (TP). In this regard following key
points have been observed: -
1. Sr. GM(TP), New Delhi has granted approval for creation of multiple earthing at
same station with rate per earthing for each newly created independent earth
vide notesheet dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure E- 21) .
2. The CGM(NTP), New Delhi vide letter no. NTP/Plg./10-26/AT//2007-08/67 dated

29.02.2016 (Placed at E-22) granted relaxation for not having ring earth
connection with Equipment, Power plant and tower due to non-BSNL building/
separate earthing for Airforce equipments.
3. Sh. S K Satpathy, Gr Capt AFNET vide his letter No. Air HQ/S.21648/25/AFNET
dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure E-23) has replied pointwise on issue of (a) creation of
multiple earth pits, (b) Location, termination of each earth, current status /
utilization of these earths , (c ) Pit earth for tower in place of ring earth at AF
M/W stations. Sh S K satpathy, Gr Capt IAF in his letter dated 08.10.2018
mentioned that “Multiple earth pits were created at IAF stations to achieve the
desired earth resistance value and to provide earthing requirements to associated
telecom equipments along with tower”.
4. DE(A/T), QA & Inspection Circle, New Delhi vide letter no. INSP/ND/DE?VIG-
QRY/2018-19/02 dated 20.08.2018 (Placed at E-24) had submitted reply
regarding A/T of multiple earths at one station which is reproduced as under.
“ Multiple earth arrangements are done by installer/PO issuing authority after

taken in considerations the local prevailing condition at site as well as others
telecom/Infrastructure equipments are to be installed along with tower. Multiple
earths may be used to meet desired value of earth resistance”.
It has been observed from the above said documents that multiple earth
were created at IAF premises (non-BSNL ) as per their requirement and payment
has been made as per rate approval per station/earth dated 11.04.2011(E-04).
21
From the new fact it is now seen that Earthing were done as per requirement of
Air Force (e-23).A copy of the report is being marked to DOT who may take
necessary action to appraise IO of COs suitably.
(iii) On scrutiny of Running Account bills/final bills paid in respect of 2 nd RA bill, 3rd RA
bill (E-08) and final bill (E-01) 40m H/W tower at WAC and 4 th RA bill(E-07) & final
bill for Ridge road under tender T006, some other discrepancy have been noticed. In the
item 5f(i) some mismatch in unit for the item in rate approval & bill payment have been
observed. Unit of the item 5f(i) mentioned in Bid document, TEC/TOC report & Rate
approval is per MT(E-3). In the measurement in MB by concerned JTO/SDE the item
5f(i) has been measured in metre (m). It has been observed that the measurement of
item in metre has been multiplied by rate per MT and paid to the contractor i.e.
payment of the item 5f(i) has been made to contractor without converting the
measurement into MT. In the contractor’s bill and contractor ledger unit of item has
also mentioned in MT except few places it has been mentioned as metre.
The 2nd RA bill, 3rd RA bill (E-08) for 40m H/W tower at WAC and 4 th RA
bill(E-07) for Ridge road under tender T006 containing this item had been prepared by
Sh.P C S Yadav, then SDE(TP-I) & forwarded by Sh Ashok Kumar, then DE(TP) after
due test check and processed by Sh. Yogendra Kumar, AO and finally passed by Sh.
Mukesh Mnadal (2nd RA bill WAC) and Sh. Roopam Garg, then DGM(TP), NCR (3rd
RA WAC & 4th RA Ridge Road) Copy of bill dated 05.04.2013 Placed at E-07, E-08)).
Final bills for all the work had been processed by Sh.C G Morya, then JAO, Sh. J N
Pandey, AO; Sh. Hiamnsu Mishra, JTO(Plg) and Sh Mahipal Singh, DE(AHQ) and
finally passed by Sh S N Yadav, DGM(TP), NCR.
However, unit for item 5f(i) mentioned in the estimate was Per Mtr with
quantity 50, but in bid document/financial bid quantity of this item has been mentioned
as 194 with unit Per MT. This mismatch in quantity and unit of item could have been
noticed by SDE(Plg), DE(AHQ) and NIT approving authority. Tender for the work was
processed and approved during the period of Sh. Mukesh Mandal, then DGM (TP),
NCR. No approval for variation in quantity in estimate vis a vis tender schedule was
available in the file. Similarly, quantity of item no. 2(d) was 60 in estimate and 80 as
per financial bid. Further item 5(i) (duplicate) has been additionally taken in estimate.
No estimate revising above changes have been found in the concerned file nor has any
approval for making these changes in NIT been found in the file. Tender and it approval
were processed by Sh. Ravindra Prasad, then SDE(Plg), forwarded & recommended by
Sh. Ram Pati Prasad, then DE(AHQ) and approved by Sh. Mukesh Mandal, then
DGM(TP), NCR. Total quantity of this item executed was 178.8 M against quantity
mentioned in rate approval as 194.
Further, it is observed in respect of item 5f(i) in T006 that provision in the

tender/agreement (i.e. Quantity 194, unit Per MT) and the rate quoted by L1 & L2
bidder (i.e. Rs. 790/- and Rs. 800/- respectively) clearly indicates that the unit MT
refers to Metre only. If the same were considered as 194 Metric Tonne, it would
approximately correspond to 30,000 metres (i.e. 30 Km) which would be unrealistic
figure and therefore it appears that there was typographical error in writing unit as per
22
MT. However this error was not noticed by any officers right from SDE(plg.), DE(Plg.),
AO, SDE(TP), DE(TP) & DGM(TP).
(iv) In tender for tower work at R K Puram (T-004), the item for Supply of GI pipe item
2f(i) unit of item was found as per MT in blank bid document available in the file
(Original financial bid not available as intimated by VO, NTP, New Delhi vide letter
no. NTP/Vig/109-177/ VOL-VII/2018-19/56 dated 04.12.2018 Placed at E- 27.),
TEC/TOC report, but in rate approval the unit had been mentioned as Per Mtr without
any corrigendum mention/ approval on note sheet. Tender for the work was processed
and approved during the period of Sh. Mukesh Mandal, then DGM (TP), NCR dated
20.09.2012. The rate approval for the tender was processed by Sh. Ravindra Prasad,
then SDE(Plg), Sh. Ram Pati Prasad , then DE(AHQ) now retired and approved by Sh.
Mukesh mandal, then DGM(TP), NCR dated 20.09.2012 (Placed at E - 19). This may
also be considered case of typographical error owing to the reason mentioned in
para (iii) above. In the bill processed in item no. 2f(i) in the tender T004 , the
measurement of item has been made in metre (M) and also paid as Mtr as per rate
approval dated 20.09.2012 (Placed at E- 5). The quantity of this item executed was
10M against quantity mentioned in rate approval as 14.
(v) From the 2nd RA bill for tender T004 it has been observed that item no. 1(C) -
Provision of Ring earth with 50mmx3mm GI strip had been measured and paid but
actually this item was not executed under this agreement as per available document.
Further, the execution of similar item 1(C), 2(C), 3(C) in Tender T006 has also been
examined. It is observed that the quantity of work executed under item 1 (d), 2(d) &
3(d) i.e. providing and fixing 50mmx3mm GI Strip had exceeded with respect to the
quantity in the tender / agreement. The rate of item 1(c)/2(c) and 1(d)/2(d) were Rs.
295/- & Rs. 245/- respectively per Mtr and item 3(c) & 3(d) were Rs. 295/- & Rs. 260/-
respectively per metre in Tender T006. Item 1(C), 2(C) & 3(C) were for ring earth and
included supply of GI Strip of same specification. The vendor was allowed payment
for the actual quantity of item 1(d). This was done during the tenure of both Shri
Mukesh Mandal and Shri Roopam Garg and was specifically approved by Sh Mukesh
Mandal vide letter dated 20.09.2012 (placed at E-20).
In case of tender T004 (i.e. R.K. Puram) the item had been shown as 1(c) +
1(d) both in MB and bill by Sh. P C S Yadav, then SDE(TP) & Sh. Ashok Kumar, then
DE(TP). Based on the reply to the questionnaire received from the concerned officers,
it is noted that it was actually enhancement in quantity for 1(d) for which part quantity
had been shown under 1 (c) as the rate was same (i.e. Rs. 360/- per Mtr.) and approval
of Sh Mukesh Mandal existed in respect of tender T006. The work was actually not
done under 1 (c). This is a non mala fide error done with the purpose of payment to the
vendor in respect of actual quantity being more than the estimated quantity for item
1d. It is not a case of overpayment to the contractor or extending any benefit to him /
loss to Government. As per final bill actual quantity shown in item 1( c) is 58.2 Mtr
and in item 1(d) as 78.6 Mtr and actually measured/paid is 136.8 Mtr.
23
5. Response
5.1 Questionnaire issued to Sh. P.C.S. Yadav, presently workings as SDE O/o DGM (TP)
(NCR) New Delhi dated 05.11.2018.
Question No.1 Please identify yourself viz. Name, Answer: My name is P.C.S.Yadav. My HR No. is
Designation, staff No./HR.No. status at present 198705675 and presently workings as SDE O/o DGM
working place? (TP) (NCR) New Delhi.
Question No.2 Whether you were associated with Answer: With reference to above mention works, I was
Erection, painting & misc. works of M/w towers at associated with all of them.
R.K.Puram, Ridge Road, WAC, Pariyavaran
Bhawan & Vayu Bhawan, Basant Nagar etc under
Tender T-006, T004 & T050. Please provide the
details of works in which you were actually
associated and measured / checked the bill and
processed payment.
Question No.3 Please check the measurement, bill Answer: Per MT (Per metric ton)
and rate approval. In respect of tender No. T006, 4th
RA bill for execution of 80m M/W tower at ridge
road dated 05.04.2013 and reply following queries.
i. Item No. 5f (i)
(a)what was the unit of measurement as per
Rate Approval/ Agreement .
(b) in which unit you measured the quantity of the Answer: Per Metre.
item.
(C ) in which unit/ rate bill for the item was Answer: Per MT (Per metric ton)
processed.
(d) Did you observe any discrepancy in the mode Answer: I did not observe any discrepancy at that
of measurement, payment mode, rate approval via a time. However I could not raise any queries regarding
vis tenders If yes, the what action has been taken mismatch in item 5 f (i).
by you to rectify the same.
Question No. 4 Please check the measurement bill

and rate approval in respect of tender No. T004, 2 nd
Running account bill for execution of 60M H/W
towers at R.K.Puram dated 02.01.2014. In this
regard please reply following queries.
Answer: No, Pit Earth was done in another agreement
i. Whether item 1(C) providing ring earth (T-050) for obtaining desired resistance less than 1
has been done vide this agreement. if not reason ohm.
thereof.
iii. If item 1 (c) has been utilized in some other Answer: As the approval was given by DGM (TP)
way say connecting legs of tower other what is the (NCR) ND for utilization of 1 (C) to 1 (d) vide
justification of the measurement made to the extent approval date 25.03.2011 for the tender T-006, the
of , what is the justification made in the item 1 (c). item G.I. strip 50mm * 3 mm was utilized in
connecting for tower legs for tower work vide tender
24
T-004.
5.2 Questionnaire issued to Sh. Deepak Kumar Kapoor, presently workings as AO, O/o GM
(NFS) CTS Compound, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi dated 05.11.2018.
Question No.1 Please identify yourself viz. Name, Answer: My name is Deepak Kumar Kapoor. My HR
Designation, staff No./HR.No. status at present No. is 198117069 and presently workings as AO O/o
working place? GM (NFS) CTS Compound, Netaji Nagar, New
Delhi.
Question No.2 Whether you were associated with Answer : I was only associated with work of Earthing
Erection, painting & misc. works of M/w towers at of IAF Stations & DMRC Stns T-0050/2010-11. The
R.K.Puram, Ridge Road, WAC , Pariyavaran tender and rate finalization not done in my period .
Bhawan & Vayu Bhawan, Basant Nagar etc under The bill was processed from the concerned unit i.e DE
Tender T-006, T004 & T050. Please provide the (TP-II) and processed for payment.
details of works in which you were actually
processed payment.
5.3 Questionnaire issued to Sh. Santosh Kumar, presently workings as DE (TP) Meerut O/o
DGM (TP) Agra dated 05.11.2018.
Question No.1 Please identify yourself Answer: My name is Santosh Kumar. My HR No. is 199209435
viz. Name, Designation, staff and presently workings as DE (TP) Meerut O/o DGM (TP)
No./HR.No. status at present working Agra.
place?
Question No.2 Whether you were Answer: As far as above three tenders are concerned, No tender
associated with Erection, painting & was processed or approved in my period. Further no bill was
misc. works of M/w towers at processed by me for the above said tenders except extension of
R.K.Puram, Ridge Road, WAC , time period.
Pariyavaran Bhawan & Vayu Bhawan,
Basant Nagar etc under Tender T-006,
T004 & T050. Please provide the details
of works in which you were actually
associated and measured / checked the
bill and processed payment.
5.4 Questionnaire issued to Sh. Mangej Kumar Meena, presently working as DE (DSPT) O/o
DGM (SCP) New Delhi dated 09.11.2018.
Question No.1 Please identify yourself viz. Name, Answer: My name is Mangej Kumar Meena. My
Designation, staff No./HR.No. status at present working HR No. is 198106259 and presently working as
place? DE (DSPT) O/o DGM (SCP) New Delhi. The
look after (Additional) charge of post of DE
(HQ) NCR was given to me for March 2014
only. My period of stay on present post is from
July 2011 to till date.
25
Question No.2 Whether you were associated with Answer: I was only associated with noting sheet
Erection, painting & misc. works of M/w towers at of 2nd running bill of R.K.Puram 60M HW tower.
R.K.Puram, Ridge Road, WAC , Pariyavaran Bhawan & This bill was received by me from Account
Vayu Bhawan, Basant Nagar etc under Tender T-006, section and same was forwarded to Addl.GM
T004 & T050. Please provide the details of works in (TP) NCR ND for approval.
which you were actually associated and measured /
checked the bill and processed payment.
Question No. 3. Please check the measurement bill and

rate approval in respect of tender No. T004, 2 nd Running
account bill for execution of 60M H/W towers at
R.K.Puram dated 02.01.2014. In this regard please reply
following queries.
Answer: The above pertains to Field staff, as I
i. Whether item 1(C) providing ring earth has had been working with planning unit.
been done vide this agreement. if not reason thereof.
Answer: NA
ii. From the 2nd Running account bill for the T-
004 dated 2/01/2014 the item 1 (C) has been shown as
executed and paid. Whether the same is in order and if
not reason for making such irregular payment.
iii. If item 1 (c) has been utilized in some other Answer : NA

way say connecting legs of tower other what is the
justification of the measurement made to the extent of ,
what is the justification made in the item 1 (c).
5.5 Questionnaire issued to Sh. Ashok Kumar then DE(TP), NCR retired as SDE (NFS) O/o GM (NFS)
NTP New Delhi dated 12.11.2018.
Question No.1 Please identify yourself viz. Name, Answer: My name is Ashok Kumar. My HR No. is
Designation, staff No./HR.No. status at present working 198306632 and got retired as SDE (NFS) O/o
place? GM (NFS) NTP New Delhi . My stay period as
Look after DE (TP-I) O/o DGM (TP) (NCR) New
Delhi was from 10.11.2009 to 27.12.2013.
Question No.2 Whether you were associated with Answer: While functioning as then DE (TP-I), I
Erection, painting & misc. works of M/w towers at was associated with all the above mentioned
R.K.Puram, Ridge Road, WAC , Pariyavaran Bhawan & works with Erection, painting and Misc works of
Vayu Bhawan, Basant Nagar etc under Tender T-006, these towers. The measurement of these works
T004 & T050. Please provide the details of works in was test check by me as per guidelines and
which you were actually associated and measured / measurements of these works were done by
checked the bill and processed payment. SDE /JTO.
Question No.3 Please check the measurement, bill and

rate approval. In respect of tender No. T006, 4 th RA bill
for execution of 80m M/W tower at ridge road dated Answer: the unit of measurement of this item was
05.04.2013 and reply following queries. per metre however inadvertently it was
mentioned as per metric ton in rate approval,
i. Item No. 5f (i) contractor bill , contractor ledger and other
26
(a)what was the unit of measurement as per Rate related documents.
Approval/ Agreement .
(b) in which unit you measured the quantity of the item.
Answer: The quantity of item was measured in
per metre.
(C ) in which unit/ rate bill for the item was processed. Answer: The unit / rate bill for this item was
processed in per metre.
(d) Did you observe any discrepancy in the mode of Answer : I did not observe any discrepancy at
measurement, payment mode, rate approval via a vis that time. However I could not raise any queries
tenders If yes, the what action has been taken by you to regarding mismatch in item 5 f (i).
rectify the same.
Question No. 4 Please check the measurement bill and

rate approval in respect of tender No. T004, 2 nd Running
account bill for execution of 60M H/W towers at
R.K.Puram dated 02.01.2014. In this regard please reply
following queries. Answer: The said item of providing ring earth
was not done as per agreement. However laying
i. Whether item 1(C) providing ring earth has GI Strip around tower leg was executed.
been done vide this agreement. if not reason thereof.
ii. From the 2nd Running account bill for the T- Answer: In this regard it is intimated that
004 dated 2/01/2014 the item 1 (C) has been shown as approval was given by DGM (TP) (NCR) ND for
executed and paid. Whether the same is in order and if utilization of I (C ) to 1 (d) vide approval date
not reason for making such irregular payment. 25.03.2011 for the tender T-006. The same
approval was applied for the tender No. T-004
and for utilization of 1 (C ) to 1 (d).
iii. If item 1 (c) has been utilized in some other way say Answer: The measurement of item 1 (C) along
connecting legs of tower what is the justification of the with 1 (d) having same rates and GI strips in
measurement made in the item 1 (c). item 1 (C) was utilized inadvertently in
connecting tower legs.
Question No. 5 : Any further facts or comments you like No comments

mentioned on above queries ?
5.6 Questionnaire issued to Sh. Ram Bilas Das the then DE (HQ) O/o DGM (TP) (NCR) New Delhi
12.11.2018
Question No.1 Please identify yourself viz. Name, Answer: My name is Ram Bilas Das, the then
Designation, staff No./HR.No. status at present working DE (HQ) O/o DGM (TP) (NCR) New Delhi . I
place? got retired on January 2014. My period of stay
as DE (HQ) was from Feb 2012 to January
2014 approximately.
Question No.2 Whether you were associated with Answer: During my tenure as DE (HQ) no bill
Erection, painting & misc. works of M/w towers at was processed my me for the above mentioned
R.K.Puram, Ridge Road, WAC , Pariyavaran Bhawan & works except tendering of T-004.
27
Vayu Bhawan, Basant Nagar etc under Tender T-006, T004
& T050. Please provide the details of works in which you
were actually associated and measured / checked the bill
and processed payment.
Question No.3 Please check the measurement, bill and rate

approval. In respect of tender No. T006, 4 th RA bill for
execution of 80m M/W tower at ridge road dated
05.04.2013 and reply following queries.
i. Item No. 5f (i) Answer: This bill was not processed during
(a)what was the unit of measurement as per Rate my tenure.
Approval/ Agreement .
(b) in which unit you measured the quantity of the item. Answer: Not Applicable for me
(C ) in which unit/ rate bill for the item was processed. Answer: Not Applicable for me
(d) Did you observe any discrepancy in the mode of Answer: Not Applicable for me
measurement, payment mode, rate approval via a vis
tenders If yes, the what action has been taken by you to
rectify the same.
Question No. 4 Please check the measurement bill and rate Answer: Relating to T-004 no bill was
approval in respect of tender No. T004, 2 nd Running processed by me. However, I only processed
account bill for execution of 60M H/W towers at the tender.
R.K.Puram dated 02.01.2014. In this regard please
mention whether this bill was processed by you ?.
Question No. 5 : Do you like to comment or mention No comments

any other facts or information regarding the case ?
5.7 Questionnaire issued to Sh. Yogendra Kumar presently workings as AO O/o CGM (NTP) New Delhi
and the then AO (TP) O/o DGM (TP) (NCR) New Delhi 12.11.2018
Question No.1 Please identify yourself viz. Name, Answer: My name is Yogendra Kumar. My HR No. is
Designation, staff No./HR.No. status at present 198105386 , and presently workings as AO O/o
working place? CGM (NTP) New Delhi and the then AO (TP) O/o
DGM (TP) (NCR) New Delhi . My period of stay as
AO (TP) was from 16.04.2012 to 21.04.2017.
Question No.2 Whether you were associated with Answer: In this regard the questionnaire had already
Erection, painting & misc. works of M/w towers at been raised and thereafter the charge sheet was
R.K.Puram, Ridge Road, WAC , Pariyavaran served vide No. NTP/VIG/Yogendra Kumar/109-
Bhawan & Vayu Bhawan, Basant Nagar etc under 246/17-18/02 dated 21.04.2017 and final order had
Tender T-006, T004 & T050. Please provide the been issued vide DA letter No.NTP/VIG/Yogendra
details of works in which you were actually kumar/109-246/2017-18/30 dated 05.05.2018.
processed payment.
Question No.3 Please check the measurement, bill

28
and rate approval. In respect of tender No. T006, 4 th
RA bill for execution of 80m M/W tower at ridge
road dated 05.04.2013 and reply following queries.
i. Item No. 5f (i)

(a)what was the unit of measurement as per Answer: per MT
(b) in which unit you measured the quantity of the Answer: Not applicable as I was posted as AO.
item.
(C ) in which unit/ rate bill for the item was Answer: Metre
processed.
(d) Did you observe any discrepancy in the mode of Answer: No, I did not observe any discrepancy.
measurement, payment mode, rate approval via a vis
tenders If yes, the what action has been taken by you
to rectify the same.
Question No. 4 Please check the measurement bill

and rate approval in respect of tender No. T004, 2 nd
Running account bill for execution of 60M H/W
towers at R.K.Puram dated 02.01.2014. In this
regard please reply following queries.
i. Whether item 1(C) providing ring earth Answer: Not applicable for me.
has been done vide this agreement. if not reason
thereof.
ii. From the 2nd Running account bill for the

T-004 dated 2/01/2014 the item 1 (C) has been Answer: Not applicable for me.
shown as executed and paid. Whether the same is in
order and if not reason for making such irregular
payment.
iii. If item 1 (c) has been utilized in some other way
say connecting legs of tower other what is the Answer: Not applicable for me.
justification of the measurement made to the extent
of , what is the justification made in the item 1 (c).
5.8 Questionnaire to Sh. G S Saini, then AO,O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi now AO(Taxation), O/o
CGM, NTP, New Delhi dated 15.11.2018.
Question No.1 Please identify yourself viz. Name, Answer: My name is G S Saini. I am AO(Taxation),
Designation, staff No./HR.No. status at present NTP Circle, O/o CGM, NTP, New Delhi and the
working place? Please intimate your duration of then AO(TP), NCR, New Delhi O/o DGM(TP)
posting in DGM (TP), NCR (NCR), New Delhi. My HR No. is 198206492. My
stay period as AO(TP), NCR, New Delhi was from
August 2008 to March 2012.
Question No.2 Whether you were associated with Answer: I was only associated with Tender no. T006
tender for the work Erection, painting & misc. works and T050. I was associated with TOC/TEC only. 1 st
of M/W towers at R.K.Puram, Ridge Road, WAC , running bill of T006 and T050 was processed
29
Pariyavaran Bhawan & Vayu Bhawan, Basant Nagar during my period.
etc under Tender T-006, T004 & T050. Please
provide the details of works in which you were
actually associated and measured / checked the bill
and processed payment.
Question No.3 Please check and write the unit of Answer :- Unit per M.T, and quantity 194.
measurement and quantity of item 5f(i) in respect of
tender No. T006.
Question No. 4 Have you processed any bill in
respect of T006 containing item 5f(i) during your Answer:- No
posting in O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi.
Please check from relevant file and reply.
Question No. 5 Any other fact you want to NIL
mention.
5.9 Questionnaire to Sh. Ram Pati Prasad, then DE(AHQ.,O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi– through
email dated 15.11.2018. Till date no reply received.
5.10 Questionnaire issued to Sh. Roopam Garg, GM (NFS-HQ) NTR ND then DGM(TP), NCR, New
Delhi dated 15.11.2018
Question No. 1 : Please identify yourself Ans : My Name is Roopam Garg. My Staff no. is 20643 and
viz. Name, designation, Staff no./HR no., HR no. is 199603464. I am presently working as GM(NFS-
Status at present working place ? HQ) in the O/o CGM NFS, BSNL Corporate office, New
Delhi. I worked as DGM TP NCR w.e.f. 28.09.2012 to
17.03.2015.
Question No. 2 : Whether you were Ans : It is pertinent to mention about the procedure being
associated with Erection, painting & misc. followed for open tender in DGM TP NCR unit prior to and at
works of M/w towers at R. K. Puram, the time of my joining. This is required, to be indicated, as it
Ridge Road, WAC, Paryavaran Bhawan & appears from your query that ‘What was the unit of
Vayu Bhawan, Basant Nagar etc under measurement as per rate approval/agreement’ or ‘In which
Tender T-006, T-004 & T-050. Please unit the measurement of the quantity was made’ or ‘ In which
provide the details of works in which you unit/rate bill for the item was processed’ etc. This shall be
were actually associated and helpful in figuring out the roles & responsibilities of
measured/checked the bill and processed individual officers. The said procedure (also applicable at the
payment. time of processing of 4th RA in T-006 and 2nd RA in T-004) is
summarized as below:-
The activities from framing the tender specifications, floating
of tender, opening & evaluation, finalization, award of tender
were done in DGMTP NCR office by processing the tender by
Planning & Accounts officers and finalization of tender on the
basis of the recommendation of Tender Evaluation committee
(consisting of officers from Engineering and accounts wing).
The rates approval letter based on finalization of tender were
being issued by O/o DGMTP NCR. After the award of tender,
Divisional Engineer (DE) of field was signing the agreement
with the approved contractor and was issuing the work order
to contractor. Further SDE & DE were getting the work
executed as per the terms & conditions of the tender and
recording measurements in MB. Necessary certificates were
30
endorsed on bills after due checking/verification of works
(100% by SDE and 10% by DE) and ensuring the provisions
in estimate/tender. The bills submitted by DE to Accounts
section were getting processed, checked (on the basis of
documents submitted along with the bills by field unit(s))
and payments were settled in DGM office after due financial
concurrence of IFA. The major checks carried out in DGM
office were – the validity of contract, financial discipline i.e.
expenditure within financial budget/estimate/tender,
approval of deviation, if any required on genuine & justified
ground’ and taking the measures for early completion of the
project.
The activities of signing of agreement with the contractor,
issuance of work order and the primary execution at site as
per tender terms and conditions, recording of measurements
and prescribed test checks, checking of bill and necessary
certifications on bill vis-à-vis tender & estimate provisions
was the prime responsibility of field Division i.e. DE(TP).
None of the above mentioned three tenders T-006, T-004 and
T-050 were floated and finalized during my period. All the rate
approvals in the said tenders were issued prior to my joining
in the unit. I was not responsible/associated with execution at
site or measurements of works at site. Only few running bills
of these tenders were processed during my period and the
proposals were settled on the basis of submitted documents
after due scrutiny of bills by field officers as well as Planning
& Accounts officers (including IFA) of the DGM office as per
the procedure prescribed above and approval was accorded.
Moreover, the final bills of these three tenders were not
presented during my period due to non-completion of
Acceptance Testing (A/T) of works.
Question No. 3 : Please Check the

measurement, bill and rate approval. In
respect of tender no. T006, 4th RA bill for
execution of 80m M/W tower at Ridge
Road dated 05.04.2013 and reply following
queries- Ans : The said tender was not floated and finalized during my
(i) Item no. 5f(i) period. Neither the rate approval was issued, nor the
(a) What was the unit of measurement agreement was signed during my period. As per the rate
as per rate approval/agreement? approval dated 19.05.2010 of tender T-006, the unit of item
5f(i) is ‘per MT’
(b) In which unit measurement of the Ans : The measurement was recorded and checked by
quantity was made? SDE/DE of field unit. The entry in relevant MB may kindly be
referred.
(c) In which unit/rate bill for the item Ans : The bill is found in ‘MT’. It is submitted that the
was processed? measurements in MB were recorded & certified by SDE &
DE (Field officers) and accepted by contractor.
(d) Did you observe any discrepancy Ans: Kindly refer to my reply in query no.2 above
in the mode of measurement, regarding clarity on roles and responsibility of individual
payment mode, rate approval vis-a- officer(s), the bills submitted by DE after necessary
31
vis tenders? If yes, what action has certifications were processed by accounts section and checked
been taken by you to rectify the on the basis of submitted documents along with the bill. Due
same. scrutiny of bills was done by field officer(s) as well as
Planning & accounts officers of the DGM office. The
expenditure was within the provisions of tender/estimate and
was having financial concurrence of IFA, so approval was
accorded. No such discrepancy was pointed out by any of the
officer.
After going through the tender file of T-006, following

observations are hereby made for your kind consideration
pl.-
1. In the tender T-006, the eligibility criteria at page
5/58 of tender vide note 2 clearly spells that ‘The work shall
be awarded to L1 bidder only’. Even the tender was
approved by the competent authority on note sheet for
award of work to L1 bidder on the recommendation of IFA.
Subsequently, L2 bidder was given counter offer to work on
L1 rates vide letter no. TP/NCR/Tender/Microwave/Tower
Erection/T-006/2009-10 dated 22.06.2010. The said tender
was not floated and finalized during my period & rate
approval was not issued during my period.
Question No. 4: Please check the

measurement bill and rate approval in
respect of tender no. T004, 2nd running
account bill for execution of 60M H/W
towers at R K Puram dated 02.01.2014. In
this regard, please reply following Ans : The measurements in MB were recorded & certified
queries- by SDE & DE (Field officers) and accepted by contractor. As
per my observation on seeing MB now, item 1(c) has been
(i) Whether item 1(C) providing ring found added with item 1(d) in MB.
earth has been done vide this
agreement. If not, treason
thereof.
(ii) From the 2nd running account bill Ans : Following is submitted in this regard -
for the T-004 dated 02/01/2014, the item 1. Kindly refer to my reply in query no.2 above regarding
1(C) has been shown as executed and clarity on roles and responsibility of individual officer(s), it
paid. Whether the same is in order and if is intimated that after issuing the work order, SDE & DE got
not, the reason for making such irregular the work executed as per the terms & conditions of the
payment.
tender and recorded the measurements in MB. Necessary
certificates were endorsed on bills after due
checking/verification of works (100% by SDE and 10% by
DE) and after ensuring the provisions in estimate/tender.
The bills were processed through concerned
officer(s)/officials in the office i.e. DA, JAO, AO, SDE(Plg),
32
DE(HQ) for settlement of claims on the basis of submitted
documents along with the bill. So due scrutiny of bills was
done by field officer(s) as well as Planning & accounts
officers of the DGM office. The expenditure was within
the provisions of tender/estimate and was having
financial concurrence of IFA, so approval was accorded.
No such discrepancy was pointed out by any of the officer.
2. It is further mentioned that Section V of the tender

document i.e “General (Commercial) conditions of the
contract” clause no. 11.1.1.3 & 11.1.2 mentions regarding
the treatment of bills as running bills and final bills. The
section narrations are reproduced as - “…….Against any
running bill, payment to the extent of only 90% shall be
made which shall be treated as an advance to the
contractor. …”. Further, As per tender clause 11.1.2
regarding Procedure for preparation, processing and
payment of final bill, “Adjustment of amount received
against running bills. “ exists for taking care of all
adjustments of prior bills.
On seeing the 4th and final bill dated 27.09.2016 of R K

Puram in T-004 tender, item 1(c) is not shown, while the
contractor ledger shows both the item 1(c) and 1(d)
items individually. Final bill was not presented and settled
during my period. In a project, usually, all the
settlements, and adjustments are made as per the
treatment of the final bill, which if done, is indication of
the closure of the final settlement.
3. It is further submitted that on instructions of BSNL

Corporate office, CGM NTP was asked to take up erection
work of Seven towers of NCR area. The towers were
procured from Telecom Factory Jabalpur for Indian Air
Force (IAF). All the seven towers were planned to be
erected through the tender T-006. The provision of 1(c)
available in tender T-006 for all the towers was
utilized/converted to 1(d) in almost all the other 6 towers
before my joining in the unit (except R. K. Puram which
was erected through the tender T-004). In this regard, the
approval of the then DGM TP NCR on request of DE(TP-I)
letter dated 25.03.2011 may kindly be seen. Then
separate tender for seventh tower i.e. T-004 was floated
and finalized before my joining in the unit.
After erection of these towers, the A/T of AFNET towers and
earthing was accepted by Inspection Circle and A/T memo
was released. All the seven AFNET Towers along with
associated equipments, earths etc were taken over by IAF
33
without any objection. The expenditure on the project were
borne by IAF.
(iii) If item 1(C) has been utilized in Ans : Kindly refer to my reply in query no.2 above
some other way say connecting legs of regarding clarity on roles and responsibility of individual
officer(s), accordingly measurements were taken by field
tower other what is the justification of officers and accepted by the contractor. After erection of the
the measurement made to the extent tower, the A/T was accepted by Inspection Circle and A/T
of, what is the justification made in the memo was released. All the AFNET Towers along with
item 1(C)? associated equipment(s) etc were taken over by Indian Air
Force i.e. the user, without any objection (Memo of Handover
by BSNL & Takeover by IAF may kindly be referred). The
expenditure on the project were borne by IAF.
The work was got executed by SDE & DE in close
coordination with user as per their requirement and was
finally taken over by him without any objection.
Taking/recoding measurements at site doesn’t fall under the
role and responsibility of DGM.
It is further submitted that with reference to the

questionnaire vide VO NTP office letter no. NTP/Vig./109-
177/Vol-VII/21 dated 16.08.2018 regarding work execution
in DGMTP NCR unit, the reply was submitted by
undersigned on 17.09.2018. Subsequently, additional
questions were asked vide VO NTP letter no. NTP/Vig./109-
177/Vol-VII/36 dated 27.09.2018 and the same were replied
by the undersigned on 24.10.2018. My both the replies may
also be considered for detailed reply/clarification.
5.11.1 Questionnaire issued to Sh. S.N.Yadav, DGM TP NCR New Delhi dated 12.11.2018. Reply
received on 19.11.2018.
Question No.1 Please identify yourself viz. Name, S.N.Yadav (198208950) DGM TP, NCR working as
Designation, staff No./HR.No. status at present DGM TP, NCR since 16.06.2017.
working place?
Question No.2 Whether you were associated with No, I was not associated with Erection , Painting
Erection, painting & misc. works of M/w towers at & Misc. work of M/w Tower at R.K.Puram , Ridge
R.K.Puram, Ridge Road, WAC , Pariyavaran Bhawan Road, WAC , Prayavaran Bhawan & Vayu Bhawan,
& Vayu Bhawan, Basant Nagar etc under Tender T- Basant Nagar etc under T-006, T-004 & T-50. I was
006, T004 & T050. Please provide the details of actually associated with the payment of final bills of
works in which you were actually associated and T-004 & T-006 only.
measured / checked the bill and processed payment.
Question No.3 Please check the measurement, bill On checking the measurement , 4th RA Bill dated
th
and rate approval. In respect of tender No. T006, 4 05.04.2013 for executing 80M M/W Tower at Ridge
RA bill for execution of 80m M/W tower at ridge Road and rate approval in respect of Tender No.T-
road dated 05.04.2013 and reply following queries. 006, reply is as below:
Regarding item no. 5f(i)
i. Item No. 5f (i) (a) Unit of Measurement as per Rate
(a)what was the unit of measurement as per approval is MT
34
(b) in which unit measurement of the quantity was (b) Measurement is made in Meters as per MB
made.
(C ) in which unit/ rate bill for the item was (C ) Bill of item was processed in MT.
processed.
(d) Did you observe any discrepancy in the mode of (d). 4th Running Account bill dated 05.04.2013 was
measurement, payment mode, rate approval via a vis neither processed nor paid in my period
tenders If yes, the what action has been taken by you
to rectify the same.
Question No. 4 Please check the measurement bill On checking the measurement, 2nd RA bill dated
and rate approval in respect of tender No. T004, 2 nd 02.01.2014 for executing 80M M/w Tower at
Running account bill for execution of 60M H/W and approval in respect of tender No. T-004
towers at R.K.Puram dated 02.01.2014. In this regard reply is as below:
please reply following queries.
(i) , (ii) & (iii) The work of ring earth was
i. Whether item 1(C) providing ring earth has completed 3-4 years back before my joining on
been done vide this agreement. if not reason thereof. 16.06.2017. Payment of 2nd running bill dated
02.01.2014 of T-004 was neither processed nor paid
ii. From the 2nd Running account bill for the T-004 in my period.
dated 02.01.2014 the item 1 (C ) has been shown as
executed and paid. Whether the same is in order and
if not reason for making such irregular payment.
iii. If item 1 (c) has been utilized in some other way
say connecting legs of tower other what is the
justification of the measurement made to the extent
of , what is the justification made in the item 1 (c).
5.11.2 Supplementary Questionnaire to Sh.S.N.Yadav, DGM (TP ) NCR New Delhi as on

19.11.2018. Reply received on 24.11.2018
Question No.1. The final bills for tower Regarding item no. 5f(i)
work under T-006 have been made during The payment of item No. 5 f (i) for Ridge Road Station
your period. It has been noticed that item was done in 4th Running bill & for WAC Station in 2 nd
No.5f (i) (Supply of 63 mm dia B Glass GI and 3rd Running bills. I was not associated with the
pipe) has been measured in MB as per
payment of said running bills of tender T-006.
metre whereas payment has been made in
MT (as per rate approval) without
converting item measured in metre to MT. - Only final bill was processed during my period.
Thereby excess payment has been made to - Final bills of the said tender received in this office
the contractor against this item in various from Divisional Engineer TP-II, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
bills compared to approved rate of the item. with complete certificates and documents.
In this connection please submit your reply - Regarding item No.5f(i) , both M & MT were
regarding discrepancy in bill payment and understood as Meter due to following reasons:-
remedial action taken by you.
a. As per SOR/Estimate cost of Tender attached with
agreement in bill file, unit of measurement is in Per
Meter and duly accepted by the contractor (Copy
35
attached).
b. As per MB, measurement has been made in M (Copy
enclosed).
c. In many documents of final bill, unit of measurement
was in M and somewhere it is found as MT and also in
Mtr/Meter.
d. Moreover final bills of T-004 and T-006 processed
simultaneously, unit for similar item i.e item No. 2f (i)
(Supply for GI pipe for support) in T-004 was in meter.
As bills were processed at the same time in this office
with many other recoveries of T-004 and T-006 so it was
assumed that unit of Measurement is in Meter either it is
written as MT, M or Mtr/Meter.
5.12 Questionnaire to Sh. C.G.Morya, (HR.No. 198906696) AO TP O/o DGM TP, New Delhi
Dated 20.11.2018. Reply received on 24.11.2018
Question No.1 Please identify yourself viz. Name, Sh.C.G.Morya (198906696) working as AO TP O/o
Designation, staff No./HR.No. status at present DGM TP New Delhi since 06.07.2018. I was posted
working place? Please mention period of your as JAO TP NCR O/o DGM TP NCR w.e.f 01.02.2017
posting i.e. O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi. to 05.07.2018.
Question No.2 Whether final bill for works under Yes, final bill was processed for payment during
tender T006 have been processed by you? my posting as JAO TP NCR O/o DGM TP NCR.
Question No.3. The final bills for tower work under Regarding item no. 5f(i)
T-006 have been made during your period. It has The payment of item No. 5 f (i) for Ridge Road
been noticed that item No.5f (i) (Supply of 63 mm Station was done in 4th Running bill & for WAC
dia B Glass GI pipe) has been measured in MB as Station in 2nd and 3rd Running bills. I was not
per metre whereas payment has been made in MT associated with the payment of said running bills
(as per rate approval) without converting item
of tender T-006.
measured in metre to MT. Thereby excess payment
has been made to the contractor against this item in
various bills compared to approved rate of the item. - Only final bill was processed for payment
In this connection please submit your reply during my period.
regarding discrepancy in bill payment and remedial - Final bills of the said tender received in this
action taken by you, if any. office from Divisional Engineer TP-II, Karol
Bagh, New Delhi with complete certificates
and documents.
- Regarding item No.5f (i) , both M & MT were
understood as Meter due to following
reasons:-
a. As per SOR/Estimate cost of Tender attached

with agreement in bill file, unit of measurement
is in Per Meter and duly accepted by the
contractor (Copy attached).
b. As per MB, measurement has been made in M
(Copy enclosed).
c. In many documents of final bill, unit of
36
measurement was in M and somewhere it is
found as MT and also in Mtr/Meter.
d. Moreover final bills of T-004 and T-006
processed simultaneously, unit for similar item
i.e. item No. 2f (i) (Supply for GI pipe for
support) in T-004 was in meter.
As bills were processed for payment at the
same time in this office with many other
recoveries of T-004 and T-006 so it was assumed
that unit of Measurement is in Meter either it is
written as MT, M or Mtr/Meter.
5.13 Questionnaire issued to Sh. J. N. Pandey (HR No.198503810) AO TP/IFA O/o GM TP

ND dated 20.11.2018. Reply received on 26.11.2018.
Question No.1 Please identify yourself viz. Sh.J.N.Pandey (198503810) working as AO TP/IFA O/o
Name, Designation, staff No./HR.No. status at GM TP, New Delhi since 06.07.2018. I was posted as AO
present working place? Please mention period TP NCR O/o DGM TP NCR w.e.f 18.07.17 to 05.07.18
of your posting i.e. O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New
Delhi.
Question No.2 Whether final bill for works Yes , final bill was processed for payment during my
under tender T006 have been processed by posting as AO TP NCR O/o DGM TP NCR.
you?
Question No.3. The final bills for tower work Regarding item no. 5f(i)
under T-006 have been made during your The payment of item No. 5 f (i) for Ridge Road
period. It has been noticed that item No.5f (i) Station was done in 4th Running bill & for WAC
(Supply of 63 mm dia B Glass GI pipe) has Station in 2nd and 3rd Running bills. I was not
been measured in MB as per metre whereas associated with the payment of said running bills of
payment has been made in MT (as per rate
tender T-006.
approval) without converting item measured in
metre to MT. Thereby excess payment has been
made to the contractor against this item in - Only final bill was processed during my period.
various bills compared to approved rate of the - Final bills of the said tender received in this office
item. In this connection please submit your from Divisional Engineer TP-II, Karol Bagh, New
reply regarding discrepancy in bill payment Delhi with complete certificates and documents.
and remedial action taken by you, if any. - Regarding item No.5f (i) , both M & MT were
understood as Meter due to following reasons:-

with agreement in bill file, unit of measurement is
in Per Meter and duly accepted by the contractor
(Copy attached).
(Copy enclosed).
measurement was in M and somewhere it is found as
MT and also in Mtr/Meter.
37
simultaneously, unit for similar item i.e item No. 2f
(i) (Supply for GI pipe for support) in T-004 was in
meter.
5.14 Questionnaire issued to Sh. Himansu Mishra (HR No. 201001532), JTO (Plg) O/o DGM TP
NCR dated 20.11.2018. Reply received on 24.11.2018.
Question No.1 Please identify yourself viz. Sh. Himanshu Mishra (201001532) working as JTO (Plg)
Name, Designation, staff No./HR.No. status at O/o DGM TP NCR since 01.08.2014
present working place? Please mention period
of your posting i.e. O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New
Delhi.
Question No.2 Whether final bill for works Yes, final bill was processed during my posting as
under tender T006 have been processed by JTO (Plg).
you?
under T-006 have been made during your The payment of item No. 5 f (i) for Ridge Road
period. It has been noticed that item No.5f (i) Station was done in 4th Running bill & for WAC
(Supply of 63 mm dia B Glass GI pipe) has Station in 2nd and 3rd Running bills. I was not
been measured in MB as per metre whereas associated with the payment of said running bills of
payment has been made in MT (as per rate
tender T-006.
approval) without converting item measured in
metre to MT. Thereby excess payment has been
made to the contractor against this item in - Only final bill was processed during my period.
various bills compared to approved rate of the - Final bills of the said tender received in this office
item. In this connection please submit your from Divisional Engineer TP-II, Karol Bagh, New
reply regarding discrepancy in bill payment Delhi with complete certificates and documents.
and remedial action taken by you. - Regarding item No.5f (i) , both M & MT were
understood as Meter due to following reasons:-
a. As per SOR/Estimate cost of Tender attached with

agreement in bill file, unit of measurement is in Per
Meter and duly accepted by the contractor (Copy
attached).
(Copy enclosed).
measurement was in M and somewhere it is found as
MT and also in Mtr/Meter.
simultaneously, unit for similar item i.e item No. 2f
(i) (Supply for GI pipe for support) in T-004 was in
meter.
5.15 Questionnaire issued to Sh. Mahipal Singh, (HR.No. 198107577), DE (AHQ) O/o DGM
(TP), NCR ND dated 20.11.2018 received on 24.11.2018.
38
Question No.1 Please identify yourself viz. Name, Sh.Mahipal Singh (198107577) DE (AHQ) O/o DGM
Designation, staff No./HR.No. status at present TP NCR since 27.08.2016
working place? Please mention period of your
posting i.e. O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi.
Question No.2 Whether final bill for works under Yes, final bill was processed during my posting as
tender T006 have been processed by you? DE (AHQ)
under T-006 have been made during your period. The payment of item No. 5 f (i) for Ridge Road
It has been noticed that item No.5f (i) (Supply of Station was done in 4th Running bill & for WAC
63 mm dia B Glass GI pipe) has been measured in Station in 2nd and 3rd Running bills. I was not
MB as per metre whereas payment has been made associated with the payment of said running bills
in MT (as per rate approval) without converting
of tender T-006.
item measured in metre to MT. Thereby excess
payment has been made to the contractor against
this item in various bills compared to approved - Only final bill was processed during my period.
rate of the item. In this connection please submit - Final bills of the said tender received in this
your reply regarding discrepancy in bill payment office from Divisional Engineer TP-II, Karol
and remedial action taken by you. Bagh, New Delhi with complete certificates
and documents.
- Regarding item No.5f (i) , both M & MT were
understood as Meter due to following
reasons:-

with agreement in bill file, unit of measurement is
in Per Meter and duly accepted by the contractor
(Copy attached).
(Copy enclosed).
measurement was in M and somewhere it is found
as MT and also in Mtr/Meter.
d. Moreover final bills of T-004 and T-006
processed simultaneously, unit for similar item i.e
item No. 2f (i) (Supply for GI pipe for support) in
T-004 was in meter.
5.16 Questionnaire to Sh. Mukesh Mandal, GM,UP(W) then DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi – through
email dated 17.11.2018, 20.11.2018 and followed by speed post dated 20.11.2018. Reply received on
29.11.2018.
Question No.1 Please identify yourself Name Mukesh Mandal, GM (Immarsat II), Staff no. 20516.
viz. Name, Designation, staff No./ HR.
No. status at present working place?
Please intimate your duration of posting
as DGM(TP),NCR.
Question No.2 Whether you were I was posted as DGM (TP) during the period tenders T-
associated with tender for the work 006, T-004 & T-050 were called. My role and responsibility
Erection, painting & misc. works of M/w as DGM was to approve the tender based on
towers at R.K.Puram, Ridge Road,
39
WAC , Pariyavaran Bhawan & Vayu recommendation of TEC. After tender was called TOC was
Bhawan, Basant Nagar etc under Tender constituted and assigned the duty to open the tenders and
T-006, T004 & T050. Please provide the then TEC was constituted with members drawn from
details of works in which you were technical & finance stream for Techno-commercial
actually associated and measured / evolution of bids submitted by the bidders. TEC submitted
checked the bill and processed payment.
its recommendation, which was processed by officers of
planning cell in DGM (TP) office. Subsequently TEC
recommendation was evaluated / examined by internal
Financial Advisor (IFA) to DGM (TP). Based on advise of
my IFA , the TEC recommendation were approved by me as
DGM (TP).
It is pertinent to mention that DGM (TP) discharge his
assigned duty on the basis of aid and advice tendered by
his subordinate officers including his IFA. It is not possible
for DGM (TP) to check each and every word,
abbreviations used / typing errors in the whole document.
It is further clarified that DGM (TP) has no role in

execution of work. Prime responsibility of execution,
verification of works executed lies with JTO I/C (100%) ,
SDE I/C (50%) and DE concerned (10%) to check and
make corresponding entry of work in MB.
After execution of work and checking of works by field
units, the bill is submitted by vendor to the executing
officer, the quality and quantities are checked and certified
by executing officers as mentioned above & checked by
officers of independent agency (i.e Acceptance testing
wing) for quantity & technical compliance and checked by
planning for provision in estimate and by accounts section
for quantity , rates and calculation of amount. DGM (TP)
dispenses its approving function on the aid and advise
tendered by his subordinates viz field unit (for verification
and certification of quality and quantity of works executed)
, planning section (for estimation of quantity etc,
preparation of estimate and tender documents) & Accounts
section (for checking the cost and calculation etc related to
accounts) after they have checked as mentioned above.
During my tenure few bills of works executed in T-006 &
T-050 were processed by unit of payment. The balance
works in T-006 & T-050 were executed and bills were paid
after my transfer in Sep 2012. In T-004 no agreement with
contractor and no execution was done during my tenure.
Question No.3 Please check and write the As explained above I had no role in preparation of tender
unit of measurement and quantity of item document. However on perusal of document it is opined
5f(i) in respect of tender No. T006. that (the unit of measurement of length of GI pipe is in
40
Question No.4 Did you observe any meter) meter has been mentioned as mt, may be in short
discrepancy in the unit of measurement abbreviation or typing error and it is pertinent to point out
and quantity for item 5f(i). In case of that rates quoted by both the bidders appears to be in
discrepancy please explain the reason for meter as rate quoted as Rs.790 or Rs.800 can realistically
variation in quantity. be in meters only and not in other units like kilogram /
41
Question No. 5 Have you taken any Metric Ton ; as cost of GI per Metric Tonn would be
action regarding mismatch in around Rs.55000/- (Annexure -1) rates obtained from
quantity/unit for the item 5f(i). Please website) . The estimated cost available in tender
provide details. document is also in meter and are comparable. (It is
observed that that in estimate of tender document meter
is written as “meter ” and in SOR and TEC report meter
has been written as “MT”, but the rates in all documents
ie estimate , SOR , TEC report and bids submitted by both
the bidders are in meter and are comparable). And due to
writing meter as mt there is no undue advantage to either
bidder. Further it was an external project work being
executed for Indian Air force and there is no loss to BSNL
or any other department due to above.
As regards quantity mentioned for items 5 f(i), tender
document SOR would have been prepared as per actual
requirement (quantities must have been incorporated as
per actual/ tentative requirement estimated at the time of
preparing the tender document by field and planning unit),
and this variation in quantity between estimate and SOR of
tender will not result in variation of estimate by more than
10% , which required revision of estimate. The variation
was within 10% ie allowed provision.
Further on seeing the document it is opined that “ the unit
of measurement of item 5f (i) ie 63mm dia B class GI pipe
indented to be in meters only. The GI pipe/ PLB pipe is
procured by measurement in length and so length was
mentioned in meter by the planning unit & TEC. The item
5 f (ii) is for use of same pipe at 5 f (i) in installation of 50
nos of support for runway (with details mentioned in SOR
that 50 cm must be buried etc) . This was also understood
clearly by both the bidders as is clear from the bids
submitted by them. The quantity mentioned by planning/
executing unit in tender SOR was 194 meter (as tentative
quantity , as 50 supports for runway erection as mentioned
at 5 f(ii) was required to be made with this pipe and actual
length of support / GI pipe might not be know & could
have been arrived only at time of installation as per actual
field condition of Air force sites. The tender has the
provision of varying the quantities +-25% . In cases of
installation of towers at other than BSNL location like Air-
force the tender is called based on tentative quantity of
runways, earthing strips etc. as the actual site and
distances are known only at time team goes for installation
or few days prior to installation. The quantity in the
estimate was 50 meter and as mentioned above this
variation in the estimated quantity and tendered quantity
will not result in more than 10% variation of estimated
cost, which requires estimate revision.”
Though I have no role in preparation of tender document
but in view of the above, I am of firm opinion that:
42
Question No.6 Did you observe any As explained above I had no role in preparation of tender
discrepancy in the quantity for item 2(d) document. However on perusal of document it is opined
in tender document vis a vis estimate. that quantity mentioned for items 2 (d) in tender document
Please provide justification of this would have been prepared as per actual requirement
variation and approval of competent (quantities must have been incorporated as per actual/
authority for variation in quantity, if any.
tentative requirement estimated at the time of preparing
the tender document), and this variation in quantity
between tender estimate and tender SOR will not result in
variation of estimate by more than 10% which required
revision of estimate. The variation was within 10% ie
allowed provision. Further on perusal of document it is
also opined that the item no.2 (d) is providing and fixing
50 83 mm GI strip from spike at top of tower to earth
termination point fixed at the site. As the tower is of 60
meter high the GI strip required from top to tower to earth
termination point will be definitely more than 60 meter as
it will run along one of the leg of tower which is slanting
and having length more than 60 meter. Further this strip
will also depend on distance of earth termination point , so
extending this strip is to be from bottom of tower to earth
termination point will also add to length of strip ( the
length of strip will also depend on distance of earth
termination point from tower). So this quantity might have
been mentioned as 80 meter in the SOR of tender
document by executing / planning unit instead of 60 meter
mentioned in estimate, ( and document was put up for
approval and floated) as 60 meter strip cannot reach from
the lightening spike at top of tower to the earth termination
point.
Question No.7 One item 5(i) (last item) On seeing the document it is opined that this was a
has been added in the tender document miscellaneous item in the tender and must have been
for tender T006. Please provide included by the team preparing the tender document T-006
justification of adding this item in tender for unforeseen & exigencies of transportation of material
and approval of competent authority for between BSNL store and Airforce site. Though this item
the same, if any.
was included in the tender it was needed. By this
experience this item was not included in the tender T-004
during preparation of tender document, but during
execution the transportation was needed and the
transportation between BSNL Store and Airforce site was
carried out by calling quotation for transportation
(Loading/ unloading) . This proves that the team preparing
the tender document T-006 did not commit an error by
adding this miscellaneous item of transportation in tender.
Question No. 8 Please check and write As mentioned above for point no 3, 4 & 5 the unit of
the unit of measurement for item 2f(i) in measurement for item 2 f (i) in T-004 (same as item 5 f(i)
respect of tender No. T004 as per tender in T-006), ie 63mm dia B class GI pipe is meter. The TEC
schedule, TEC/TOC report and rate recommendation after recommendation of IFA was
approval. Did you observe any approved by me. After approval of TEC recommendation
discrepancy in the unit for the item in
the rate approval was issued by subordinates and this rate
various document such as tender
43
schedule, TEC/TOC report and rate approval was not in my notice or was not issues after
approval. Please intimate the reason for putting up to me. It is observed from documents that in the
variation, if any and action taken by you rate approval the unit is mentioned as meter.
in the matter.
9. Any other fact you want to mention. -
5.17 Questionnaire issued to Sh. Ravindra Prasad, then SDE(Plg), O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi
now SDE(A/T), O/o PGM(QA), New Delhi - by hand on 15.11.2018 after showing original documents,
Copy of documents asked by him also handed over. As no reply received reminder was issued on
20.11.2018 followed by reminder on 24.11.2018. Till date reply to the questionnaire not received from
him, instead a letter received from him dated 22.11.2018 asking for lot of documents. Futher reply to
this office letter dated 24.11.2018 received vide his letter dated 28.11.2018 again asking for lot of
documets/ 10 days time, but did not comment on documents alresdy handed over to him. Reply to the
questionaire not received from Sh. Ravindar Prasad till date i.i. 01.12.2018.
6. COUNTER TO RESPONSE
6.1 Reply given by Sh. P C S Yadav regarding mismatch of unit of item 5f(i) of Tender
T006 and item 1(C) of tender T004 are as per fact with reference to available documents.
However, he should have been cautious enough to notice the discrepancy in unit of the item
5f(i) of tender T006 and should have been reconciled after taking approval from competent
authority before preparing/ processing bill. However, this may be considered as
typographical error in tender/ rate approval as discussed in para 4.2.4(iii) and 4.2.4(iv)
above. Also measuring and processing bill for item 1(c)+1(d) for utilizing GI strip
50mmx3mm of item 1(c) was procedurally wrong and it has been considered as non mala
fide error as discussed in para 4.2.4(v) above.
6.2 Reply of Sh. Deepak Kumar Kapoor is tenable as he was not associated with tender/
bill processing for tender T006 and T004.
6.3 Reply of Sh. Santosh Kumar is tenable as he has not processed tender /bill for T006 &
T004.
6.4 Reply of Sh. Mangej Kumar Meena is tenable as he was posted as DE(AHQ) and not
associated with the measurement of item as per available record.
6.5 Reply given by Sh. Ashok Kumar regarding mismatch of unit of item 5f(i) of Tender
T006 and item 1(C) of tender T004 are as per fact with reference to available documents.
However, he should have been cautious enough to notice the discrepancy in unit of the item
5f(i) of tender T006 and should have been reconciled after taking approval from competent
authority before preparing/ processing bill. However, this may be considered as
above. Also measuring and processing bill for item 1(c)+1(d) for utilizing GI strip
50mmx3mm of item 1(c) was procedurally wrong and it has been considered as non mala
44
6.6 Reply of Sh. Ram Bilas Das is tenable except while processing tender/ rate approval for
tender T006 , he should had been noticed mismatch in unit of item 2f(i) in
tender/TEC/TOC report and rate approval. However, this may be considered as
above.
6.7 Reply given by Sh. Yogendra Kumar regarding his association in works under T006,
T004 & T050 is not proper as he has mentioned in his reply that he had been issued
charge sheet in respect of the above works earlier and final order has been issued.
However, the point of mismatch of unit of item 5f(i) of Tender T006 has been noticed in
present investigation and was not included in investigation done in year 2015-16. Being
finance personnel he should have been cautious enough to notice the discrepancy in unit
of the item 5f(i) of tender T006 and should have been reconciled after approval from
competent authority before processing/passing of for the item bill. However, this may be
considered as typographical error in tender/ rate approval as discussed in para 4.2.4(iii)
and 4.2.4(iv) above.
6.8 Reply of Sh. G S Saini seems to be tenable as he has not processed any bill in respect of
tender T006.
6.9 No reply received from Sh. Ram Pati Prasad.
6.10 Sh. Roopam Garg has replied the queries indirectly and is found by and large in order
except being supervisory officer he should have been seen mismatch in unit of item 5f(i).
However, this may be considered as typographical error in tender/ rate approval as discussed
in para 4.2.4(iii) and 4.2.4(iv) above. Also measuring and processing bill for item 1(c)+1(d)
for utilizing GI strip 50mmx3mm of item 1(c) was procedurally wrong and being
supervisory officer he should have been seen the error. This has been considered as non mala
6.11 Reply of Sh. S N Yadav regarding unit of item 5f(i) seems tenable except during
checking/processing of final bill, bill is required to be checked in totality and in the tender
T006 item 1(a),2(a),3(a) &1(b), 2(b),3(b) had unit “per MT” meaning “per Metric Tonne”
and other items having unit “per Mtr” meaning “per metre” then in item 5f(i) simply
replying MT has been considered as Metre is not in order. However, this may be
6.12 Reply of Sh. C G Morya regarding unit of item 5f(i) seems tenable except during
replying MT has been considered as Metre is not in order. Being finance person he should
had been pointed out the ambiguity in unit to competent authority before processing of
45
bill. However, this may be considered as typographical error in tender/ rate approval as
discussed in para 4.2.4(iii) and 4.2.4(iv) above.
6.13 Reply of Sh. J N Pandey regarding unit of item 5f(i) seems tenable except during
replying MT has been considered as Metre is not in order. Being finance person he should
had been pointed out the ambiguity in unit to competent authority before processing of
bill. However, this may be considered as typographical error in tender/ rate approval as
discussed in para 4.2.4(iii) and 4.2.4(iv) above.
6.14 Reply of Sh. Himansu Mishra regarding unit of item 5f(i) seems tenable except during
6.15 Reply of Sh. Mahipal Singh regarding unit of item 5f(i) seems tenable except during
6.16 The reply of Sh. Mukesh Mandal seems by and large in order except, being
supervisory officer he should had been seen/checked the tender document/TEC/TOC
report and rate approval discreetly for error/ ambiguity in schedule of quantity, items
taken in the estimate & their units etc. However, error in unit of items has been
6.17 No reply received from Sh. Ravindra Prasad.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 From the above facts is has been observed that the recovery of overpayment in
Running account bills made to the contractor in Tender T006 & T004 owing to rate
modification post award of tender/ tendering in unit of item for painintg of tower had
been made in final bills submitted by contractor. Also 09 nos. other bill submitted by M/s
A K Brothers had been examined by the committee as detailed in para 4.1.4 and
46
accordingly claim of contractor has been settled/ being settled. The contractor has been
intimated through speaking order about the recovery of excess payment made during
running account bills vide Annexure – E1 and status of payment of 15 nos. bill has been
intimated to the contractor by DGM(TP) vide letter dated 11.06.2018 (Annexure E-01/7)
along with details. Hence no anomaly observed.
However in case of any dispute/ griveance in payment of bills, the contractor is at

liberty to resort to dispute redessal mechanism as per the agreement.
From the above facts it is observed that the above said complaint seems to be
made out of dispute in settlement of bills. Hence the allegation that “due to malafied
intentions to harass him because he had refused to accept the illegal demands of officers
concerned and have complained about their corrupt practices to higher officials” made by the
Contractor M/s A K Brothers does not sustain.
7.2 Investigation of complaint in respect of tenders/ bills ( in respect of tener T006, T050
& T004 along with several other works/ procurement etc) were done in year 2015-16 and
after conclusion of the investigation against various officers in NTP, the charge sheet
issued to Sh. Ram Pati Prasad, then DE(AHQ), O/o DGM,TP, NCR and there are 04 article
of charges. From the details of charge sheet issued to Sh Ram Pati Prasad , then DE(AHQ),
O/o DGM(TP), NCR now retired none of charges relates to the tender/ work exceution &
payment made under T006, T004 and T050, whereas Sh Ram Pati Prasad has alleged
enclosing paid running account bills against these tenders. Thus the allegation made by Sh
Ram Pati Prasad that “ charges are framed against him for the work entirely executed and
bills passed by Sh. Roopam Garg , DGM. Sh Roopam Garg influenced the Vigilance unit and
in order to save Sh. Roopam Garg fabricated charges were framed against him for the works
executed during period Sh Roopam Garg was DGM i.e. after his retirement.” does not
sustain.
After conclusion of investigation in year 2015-16 a Charge sheet was issued to Sh. Ravindra
Prasad , then SDE(Plg), O/oi DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi which contains Eight Article of
charges. Further Article of Charge 1 has nine parts. In the article 1(i) ii & iii some period
beyond his posting in O/o DGM(TP), NCR has been mentioned as stated in the observation
para 4.2.3 which seem to be processing error.
In the article of charge II word ‘processed’ for payment only is not appropriate, as the
bills for T-004 were not processed in the period of Sh. Ravindra Prasad, then SDE (plg.).
In the Artcle of charge III, many of the points seem not pertain to Sh. Ravndra
Prasad, then SDE(Plg.) as pointed out in observations.
Thus in the charge sheet issued to Sh. Ravindra Prasad, then SDE(Plg), NCR it is
concluded that some processing error had been there in Article of charge I part 9 ( partly) ,
Article of charge II & Article of charge III , which shall be taken care of by the Inquiring
Authority in his final report.
After conclusion of investigation in year 2015-16 a Charge sheet was issued to Sh.
Mukesh Mandal ,then DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi which contains Seven Article of charges.
Further Article of Charge 1 has Eight parts (a to h). In the article 1(h) ii & iii , some period
beyond his posting as DGM(TP), NCR has been mentioned as stated in the observation para
4.2.3 which seem to be processing error.
47
More over CVO, BSNL, New Delhi vide letter no. 6-305-NTP-2016-VM-I(Pt-II) dated
reproduced below.

no. Mnadal vide his letter dated
08.02.2018
Thus it is observed that BSNL Vigilance had already taken his stand in the article of charge
that no mala fide is discerned in extension granted by Shri Mandal and non-invocation of the
penalty clause against the contractor on his part. Sub-para(h) of Article I may not, therefore,
hold good during inquiry proceedings.
period of Sh. Roopam Garg ( in bill dated 05.04.2013 & 03.08.2013) has no mala fide and
granted based on hindrances recorded by field officers.
In the Article of charge III Number of earthing mentioned are factually incorrect as 07
nos. earth out of 16 were not done during the period of Sh. Mukesh Mandal.
Thus in the Charge sheet issued to Sh Mukesh Mandal Out of 07 Article of charges
some discripancy/ mismatch has been observed in 03 part of Artcle of charge as mentioed
above. it is concluded that some processing error has been there in Article of charge I part 8
partly ,Article of charge II & Article of charge III, which shall be taken care of by the
Inquiring Authority in his final report.
From the new fact it is now seen that Earthing were done as per requirement of Air Force
(E-23).A copy of the report is being marked to DOT who may take necessary action to
appraise IO of COs suitably.
Thus the allegation that charges are framed against Sh Ravindra Prasad and Sh
Mukesh Mandal to save Sh. Roopam Garg , DGM for work executed and payment made
by Sh Roopam Garg, DGM after transfer of Sh Ravindra Prasad & Sh Mukesh Mandal
does not sustain.
7.3 After examination of bills paid during period of Sh. Mukesh Mandal / Sh. Roopam Garg,
then DGM(TP), NCR in respect of tender T006, T004, T050 and consequently verifying the
facts from tender processing files and subsequent approval etc, following discrepancy noticed,
which had probably not surfaced during the investigation of complaint in year 2015-16.
48
From the payment of 4th Running Account bill for tower at Ridge Road dated
05.04.2013 Placed at E-07) and 2nd & 3rd RA bill for tower at WAC dated 05.04.2013 (Placed
at E-08) , the item 5f(i) (Supply of 63mm dia B Class GI pipe for support) the measurement
of item had been made by SDE in M (Mtr.) and the same has been multiplied by rate per MT
and paid to the contractor .i.e. payment of the item 5f(i) had been made to contractor without
converting the measurement of metre into into MT (Copy of MB placed at E-24). The
discrepancy had not been noticed by any of the officer in chain from technical to accounts
personnel. This may be considered as typographical error in tender/ rate approval as discussed
in para 4.2.4(iii) and 4.24(iv) above. Thus concerned officers processing payment in RA bills
and final bills are as given below.
(i) 2nd RA bill (WAC under tender T006) dated 24.09.2012 was processed by Sh. P C S
Yadav, then SDE(TP), test checked & recommended by Sh. Ashok Kumar, then
DE(TP), checked by Sh. Yogendra Kumar then AO and finally passed by Sh. Mukesh
Mandal, then DGM(TP), NCR.
(ii) 3rd RA bill (WAC under tender T006) dated 05.04.2013 and 4 th RA bill Ridge Road
( under tender T006) dated 05.04.2013 were processed by Sh. P C S Yadav, then
SDE(TP), test checked & recommended by Sh. Ashok Kumar, then DE(TP), checked
by Sh. Yogendra Kumar then AO and finally passed by Sh. Rupam Garg, then
DGM(TP), NCR.
(iii) Final bills for all the work had been processed by Sh.C G Morya, then JAO, Sh. J
N Pandey, AO; Sh. Hiamnsu Mishra, JTO(Plg) and Sh Mahipal Singh, DE(AHQ)
and finally passed by Sh S N Yadav, DGM(TP), NCR.
7.4 It has been noticed that unit for item 5f(i) mentioned in the estimate was Per Mtr with
quantity 50, but in bid document/financial bid quantity of this item has been mentioned as
194 with unit MT. This mismatch in quantity and unit of item could had been noticed by
SDE(Plg), DE(AHQ) and NIT approving authority. Tender for the work was processed
and approved during the period of Sh. Mukesh Mandal, then DGM (TP), NCR. No
approval for variation in quantity in estimate vis a vis tender schedule was available in the
file. Similarly, quantity of item no. 2(d) was 60 in estimate and 80 as per financial bid.
Further item 5(i) (duplicate) (Carriage of material) has been additionally taken in estimate.
No estimate incorporating above changes have been found in the concerned file nor any
approval for making these changes in NIT has been found in the file. Therefore, it is
concluded that there were error in processing of estimate /NIT under tender T006 by the
planning unit which gone un-noticed. It has also been observed that during the
examination of earlier complaint in year 2015-16 in respect of Tender T006, this
discrepancy has not been included in IR.
7.5 In tender for tower work at R K Puram (T-004), the item for Supply of 63mm dia B class
pipe item 2f(i) unit of item was found as Per MT in copy of blank bid document available
in file (as original financial bid are not available as intimated by VO, NTP, New Delhi
vide letter no. NTP/Vig/109-177/ VOL-VII/2018-19/56 dated 04.12.2018 Placed at E-
27.), TEC/TOC report, but in rate approval the unit has been mentioned as Per Mtr without
any corrigendum mention/ approval on note sheet. Tender for the work was processed and
49
approved during the period of Sh. Mukesh Mandal, then DGM (TP), NCR dated
20.09.2012. The rate approval for the tender was processed by Sh. Ravindra Prasad, then
SDE(Plg), Sh. Ram Pati Prasad , then DE(AHQ) now retired and approved by Sh. Mukesh
mandal, then DGM(TP), NCR dated 20.09.2012 (Placed at E - 19). This discrepancy
may be considered as typographical error as discussed in para 4.2.4.
In the bill processed in item no. 2f(i) in the tender T004 , the measurement of
item has been made in metre (M) and also paid as Mtr as per rate approval dated
20.09.2012 (Placed at E- 5). The quantity of this item executed was 10M against quantity
mentioned in rate approval as 14.
7.6 From the 2nd RA bill and final bill for tender T004 it has been observed that item no. 1(C)
- Provision of Ring earth with 50mmx3mm GI strip had been measured and paid but
actually this item was not executed under this agreement as per available document.
Further, the execution of similar item 1(C), 2(C), 3(C) in Tender T006 has also been
examined. It is observed that the quantity of work executed under item 1 (d), 2(d) & 3(d)
i.e. providing and fixing 50mmx3mm GI Strip had exceeded with respect to the quantity
in the tender / agreement. The rate of item 1(c)/2(c) and 1(d)/2(d) were Rs. 295/- & Rs.
245/- respectively per Mtr and item 3(c) & 3(d) were Rs. 295/- & Rs. 260/- respectively
per metre in Tender T006. Item 1(C), 2(C) & 3(C) were for ring earth and included supply
of GI Strip of same specification. The vendor was allowed payment for the actual quantity
of item 1(d). This was done during the tenure of both Shri Mukesh Mandal and Shri
Roopam Garg and was specifically approved by Sh Mukesh Mandal vide letter dated
20.09.2012 (placed at E-20).
In case of tender T004 (i.e. R.K. Puram) the item had been shown as 1(c) +
1(d) both in MB and bill by Sh. P C S Yadav, then SDE(TP) & Sh. Ashok Kumar, then
DE(TP). Based on the reply to the questionnaire received from the concerned officers, it is
noted that it was actually enhancement in quantity for 1(d) for which part quantity had
been shown under 1 (c) as the rate was same (i.e. Rs. 360/- per Mtr.) and approval of Sh
Mukesh Mandal existed in respect of tender T006. The work was actually not done under
1 (c). This is a non mala fide error done with the purpose of payment to the vendor in
respect of actual quantity being more than the estimated quantity for item 1d. It is not a
case of overpayment to the contractor or extending any benefit to him / loss to
Government. As per final bill actual quantity shown in item 1( c) is 58.2 Mtr and in item
1(d) as 78.6 Mtr and actually measured/paid is 136.8 Mtr.
8. RESPONSIBILITY
From the analysis of documents following officers are found responsible for lapses
mentioned in para 7 above.
8.1 Sh Ravindra Prasad (HR no. 199503913) , SDE(AT), O/o PGM QA, New Delhi then
SDE(Plg.), o/o DGM(TP), NCR - He should be careful enough in processing of NIT/ tender
50
T006 so that there is no discripancy in quantity of items along with corresponding units
would have been occured. He should had been taken approval from competent authority for
varying quantity in NIT, adding additonal item and modifying unit of item 5f(i). In processing
NIT for tender T004, unit for item 2f(i) was per MT as per schedule. As per TOC/ TEC report
also the unit for the item was per MT. However , at the time of issuing rate approval unit of
this item was mentioned as Per Mtr without taking approval from competent authority. Proper
care should had been taken by him while processing the tender/NIT.
8.2 Sh. Ram Pati Prasad (HR no. 197802797), then DE(AHQ), O/o DGM(TP), NCR now
retired - He should be careful enough in processing of NIT/ tender T006 so that there is no
discripancy in quantity of items along with corresponding units would have been occured. He
shoulds had taken approval from competent authority for varying quantity in NIT for items
5f(i) & 2(d), adding additonal item 5(i) and modifying unit of item 5f(i).
8.3 Sh. R B Das, then DE(AHQ), O/o DGM(TP), NCR now retired (Jan 2014) - In
processing NIT for tender T004, unit for item 2f(i) was MT as per schedule. As per TOC/ TEC
report also the unit for the item was per MT. However , at the time of issuing rate approval
unit of this item was mentioned as Per Mtr without taking approval from competent authority.
8.4 Sh. Mukesh Mandal ( Staff no. 20516), GM(INMARSAT-II), BSNL CO then
DGM(TP), NCR - Being competent NIT approving authority he should have guided properly
to the subordinates in processing of NIT/ tender T006 so that there is no discripancy in
quantity of items along with corresponding units would have been occured. He has also not
accorded approval for varying quantity in NIT, adding additonal item and modifying unit of
item 5f(i).In NIT for tender T004, unit for item 2f(i) was MT as per schedule. As per TOC/
TEC report also the unit for the item was per MT. However , in rate approval unit of this item
was mentioned as Per Mtr without mentioning any reason. Being supervisory officer he
should had been noticed the unit of measurement of item 5f(i) under tender T006 for the work
2nd RA bill (WAC) made by SDE/DE in Metre(M) in measurement book but while preparing
contractor ledger / bill mentioned quantity in MT without converting metre to MT.
8.5 Sh P C S Yadav (HR no. 198705675), then SDE(TP-1), O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New
Delhi – He has measured item 5f(i) under tender T006 for the work 4th RA bill (Ridge Road) ,
2nd, 3rd & 4th RA bill WAC in Metre(M) in measurement book but while preparing contractor
ledger / bill mentioned quantity in MT without converting metre(M) to MT. In the 2nd RA bill
for the work in tender T004 (Erection of HW tower at R K Puram) he has measured item 1(c)
+ 1(d) together in MB and bill whereas item 1(c) was providing Ring Earth around tower and
it was not created under this agreement as discussed in para 7.6.
8.6 Sh Ashok Kumar (HR no. 198306632), then DE(TP-1), O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New
Delhi now retired (June 2017) – He has checked the measurement of item 5f(i) under tender
T006 for the work 4th RA bill (Ridge Road) , 2 nd, 3rd & 4th RA bill WAC in Metre(M) in
measurement book but while preparing contractor ledger / bill mentioned quantity in MT
without converting metre to MT. In the 2nd RA bill for the work in tender T004 (Erection of
HW tower at R K Puram) he has measured item 1(c) + 1(d) together in MB and bill whereas
item 1(c) was providing Ring Earth around tower and it was not created under this agreement
as discussed in para 7.6.
51
8.7 Sh. Yogendra Kumar (HR no. 198105386), AO(TP), O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi
– He should had checked / verified unit of item 5f(i) from the rate approval before making
payment to contractor as the measurement of item 5f(i) under tender T006 for the work 4th
RA bill (Ridge Road) , 2nd , 3rd & 4th RA bill WAC in Metre(M) in measurement book but
while preparing contractor ledger / bill mentioned quantity in MT without converting metre to
MT.
8.8 Sh. Roopam Garg (HR no. 199603464), then DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi now
GM(NFS), New Delhi - Being supervisory officer he should had been noticed the
measurement of item 5f(i) under tender T006 for the work 4th RA bill (Ridge Road) , 3rd & 4th
RA bill WAC in Metre(M) made by SDE/DE in Metre(M) in measurement book but while
preparing contractor ledger / bill mentioned quantity in MT without converting metre to MT
(as rate was per MT as per rate approval). In the 2nd RA bill for the work in tender T004
(Erection of HW tower at R K Puram) SDE/DE had measured/checked item 1(c) + 1(d)
together in MB and bill whereas item 1(c) was providing Ring Earth around tower and it was
not created under this agreement as discussed in para 7.6. Being supervisory officer he should
have been seen the error as discussed in par 7.6. In 3 rd RA bill Paryavaran Bhawan & Vayu
Bhawan under tender T006 and 2nd RA bill R K Puram under tender T004 had been processed
and paid during the period in which multiple coat of paint on tower had been measured and
processed bill by concerned SDE/DE and allowed payment as per rate approval done during
his processor (Sh. Mukseh Mandal). However, he should have been seen the specification of
the item in the agreement before allowing such payment.
8.9 Sh. C G Morya (HR no. 198906696), then JAO now AO, O/o DGM(TP), NCR - He
should had been properly checked / verified unit of item 5f(i) from the rate approval before
making final bill payment to contractor as the measurement of item 5f(i) under tender T006
for the work 5th & final bill for Ridge Road and 6th & final bill for WAC in Metre(M) in
without converting metre to MT.
8.10 Sh. J N Pandey (HR no. 198503810), AO, O/o DGM(TP), NCR - He should have been
to checked / verified unit of item 5f(i) from the rate approval before making final bill payment
to contractor as the measurement of item 5f(i) under tender T006 for the work 5th & final bill
for Ridge Road and 6th & final bill for WAC in Metre(M) in measurement book but while
preparing contractor ledger / bill mentioned quantity in MT without converting metre to MT.
8.11 Sh. Himansu Mishra (HR no. 201001532), JTO(Plg.), O/o DGM(TP), NCR - He
should have been checked / verified unit of item 5f(i) from the rate approval before
recommending final bill payment to contractor as the measurement of item 5f(i) under tender
T006 for the work 5th & final bill for Ridge Road and 6th & final bill for WAC in Metre(M)
in measurement book but while preparing contractor ledger / bill mentioned quantity in MT
8.12 Sh. Manipal Singh (HR no. 198107577), DE(AHQ), O/o DGM(TP), NCR - He should
have been checked / verified unit of item 5f(i) from the rate approval before recommending
final bill payment to contractor as the measurement of item 5f(i) under tender T006 for the
work 5th & final bill for Ridge Road and 6th & final bill for WAC in Metre(M) in
52
8.13 Sh. S N Yadav (HR no. 198208950), DGM(TP), NCR - Being final bill passing
authority , he should had been noticed the measurement of item 5f(i) under tender T006 for
the work at Ridge Road 5th & final bill and WAC 6th & final bill in Metre(M) prepared by
SDE/DE in Metre(M) in measurement book but while preparing contractor ledger / bill
mentioned quantity in MT without converting metre to MT (as rate was per MT as per rate
approval).
9. Recommendation
Based on responsibility of various officers and lapses on their part following are herby
recommended.
9.1 Sh Ravindra Prasad (HR no. 199503913) , SDE(AT), O/o PGM QA, New Delhi then
SDE(Plg.), o/o DGM(TP), NCR – He may be counseled so that lapses mentioned in para 8.1
are not repeated in future.
9.2 Sh. Ram Pati Prasad (HR no. 197802797), then DE(AHQ), O/o DGM(TP), NCR now
retired – No action as he has retired on superannuation in year 2012.
9.3 Sh. R B Das, then DE(AHQ), O/oDGM(TP), NCR now retired (Jan 2014) – No action
as the officer has retired.
9.4 Sh. Mukesh Mandal ( Staff no. 20516), GM(INMARSAT-II), BSNL CO then
DGM(TP), NCR – He may be counseled so that lapses mentioned in para 8.4 are not repeated
in future.
9.5 Sh P C S Yadav (HR no. 198705675), then SDE(TP-1), O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New
Delhi – He may be counseled so that lapses mentioned in para 8.5 are not repeated in future.
9.6 Sh Ashok Kumar (HR no. 198306632), then DE(TP-1), O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New
Delhi now retired (June 2017) – No action as the officer has retired.
9.7 Sh. Yogendra Kumar (HR no. 198105386), AO(TP), O/o DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi
– He may be counseled so that lapses mentioned in para 8.7 are not repeated in future.
9.8 Sh. Roopam Garg (HR no. 199603464), then DGM(TP), NCR, New Delhi now
GM(NFS) - He may be counseled so that lapses mentioned in para 8.8 are not repeated in
future.
9.9 Sh. C G Morya (HR no. 198906696), then JAO now AO, O/o DGM(TP), NCR - He
may be counseled so that lapses mentioned in para 8.9 are not repeated in future.
9.10 Sh. J N Pandey (HR no.198503810), AO, O/o DGM(TP), NCR - He may be counseled
so that lapses mentioned in para 8.10 are not repeated in future.
53
9.11 Sh. Himansu Mishra (HR no. 201001532), JTO(Plg.), O/o DGM(TP), NCR - He may
be counseled so that lapses mentioned in para 8.11 are not repeated in future.
9.12 Sh. Manipal Singh (HR no. 198107577), DE(AHQ), O/o DGM(TP), NCR - He may
be counseled so that lapses mentioned in para 8.12 are not repeated in future.
9.13 Sh. S N Yadav (HR no. 198208950), DGM(TP), NCR - He may be counseled so that
lapses mentioned in para 8.13 are not repeated in future.
10. SYSTEMATIC IMPROVEMENT
NIL
AD(Vigilance)
NTR, New Delhi
54
3.2.2 Fact same as 3.2.1 above.
1. As per tender of tower T-004 there was provision of earthing (Ring earth)
having less rate than T-050. Execution of earthing in this agreement not got
done. Thereby loss to Govt. and consequent undue benefit to Contractor in
one earthing = 54350 - 60x360=Rs. 32,750/-
2. As per tender specification of earthing it is clearly mentioned that only one ring
earth shall be done and both tower and lightening spike shall be connected to
that earth as per the specification. Thus multiple/separate earth for tower and
lightening spike is not at all justified.
3. Details of tower earthing executed during the period of Sh Roopam Garg, then
DGM(NCR),TP are as given below:
Sl. Name of IAF station Total no. of Extra earth Remarks
No. where earthing done earth made done during
period of Sh.
Roopam
Garg
1. Ridge Road 4 Nil -
2. WAC 3 2 Not justified two
extra earth.
3. Aya Nagar 2 1 Second earth may
be for equipment.
4. Basant Nagar 2 1 Second earth may
be for equipment.
5. Paryavaran Bhawan 2 Nil -
6. R K Puram 3 3 No justification of
03 earthing. At the
most one earthing
for tower & spike
and one
additional earth
for equipment.
55
Sl Tender no./ Bill no./ dateBill amount/bill date Details of bill Remarks
no. Brief details and date of passing
1. T-006 , (i) Erection 1st RA bill/ 1 (a)
Erection of of 80 M H/W Rs.294921/-/04.03.201
heavy weight tower at 1/07.04.2011
M/W Towers Ridge Road
& other 2nd RA 1(b) x(3) , 1 (d)
miscellaneous bill/Rs.433505/-/15.05.2
works 012/21.05.2012
3rd RA 5(b), 5e (ii), 5f
bill/Rs.498328/-/21.09.2 (ii)
012/25.09.2012
4th RA bill Rs. 520794/- / In the bill item
05.04.2013/ 14.06.2013. 5 f(i) {GI pipe
63mm dia} &
5g(ii) {wave
guide} items
were paid and
5(a).
th
5 & final Rs.542574/- Item 5(a)
(corrected as claimed by
Rs.523074) contractor
29.06.2016/15.11.2017/ dated
01.01.2015
without mention
of bills serial
No.
st
1 RA 3 (a) , 3 (b) x 2
bill/Rs.136072/-/07.05.20
12/19.05.2012
56
(ii) 40 M H/W 2nd RA bill/ 3(b), 3 (d), 5
tower at Rs.327514/-/24.09.2012/ (b), 5e (ii), 5f
WAC 27.09.2012 (i) , 5 f (ii).
3rd RA bill/ 5f (i), 5f (ii), 5g
Rs.388698/-/05.04.2013/ (ii)
26.04.2013
4th RA bill/ 3(d)
Rs.405920/-/03.08.2013/
13.08.2013
5th RA bill/ Rs. 5(a)
6th final bill/ Rs. 423791/-/
5 (h) 5e (ii) 5f
26.09.2016/15.11.2017 (ii)
st
(iii) Erection 1 RA bill/ 4(a)
of 7/3.5M Rs.33000/-/05.11.2011/
H/W tower at 14.11.11
Paryavaran 2nd RA bill/ 3 (d)
Bhawan & Rs.72572/-/15.05.2012/
Vayu 21.05.2012
Bhawan) 3rd RA
bill/Rs.81358/-/25.03.20
14/19.09.2014
4th RA bill/ Rs. 5(a)
5th and final bill/ 5 (h) , 5 (b)

Rs.114918/-/26.09.201
6/15.11.2017
(iv) Erection 1st RA 3 (a)
of H/W tower bill/Rs.115335/-/08.11.2
at Basant 011/14.11.2011
Nagar 2nd RA bill/ 3(b), 3 (d)
Rs.158302/-/15.05.201
2/21.05.2012
3rd RA bill/ 5 (b), 3 (b)
Rs.176671/-/27.08.201
2/03.09.2012
4th RA bill/Rs. 5 (a)
5th and Final bill/ Nil

Rs.185950/-/26.09.201
6/15.11.2017
(v) Erection 1st RA bill/ 3 (a)
of H/W tower Rs.116573/-/08.11.2011
at Aya Nagar /14.11.2011
Nagar 2nd RA bill/ 3 (d)
Rs.140935/-/15.05.201
2/19.05.2012
3rd RA Bill/Rs.180374/- 3 (b), 5 (b)
27.08.2012/03.09.2012/
57
4th RA bill/ Rs. 5 (a), 5( h),
5f( ii), 5e (ii)
5th and Final Bill/ Nil
Rs.200734/- /
26.09.2016/15.11.2017
2. T-004 (i) Erection 1st RA bill Rs. Item 1(a)
Erection of of 60 M H/W 2,69,086/-/22.11.2013/ {Tower erection}
heavy weight tower at R K 06.12.2013 was paid in this
M/W Towers PURAM bill.
& other
miscellaneous
works
2nd RA bill Rs. Item 1(b),1(c),
481204/-/02.01.2014/1 1(d) & 2(b)
9.03.2014 {Tower painting,
Provision of
Ring earth
with
50mmx3mm GI
strip, P/F GI
strip
50mmx3mm to
ring earth &
Aviation light}
were paid in
this bill.
(iii) 3rd RA Bill 2 (a), 2f(i), 2
e( ii)
(iv) 4th and final Bill Nil
Rs.657613/- / 27.09.2016
/ 15.11.2017
3. T-050 (i) Ist RA bill Rs.380450/-/05.11.201 Ridge Road (4)
Earthing for for earthing / 1/09.11.2011 Basant Nagar
IAF and metro 05.04.2013 (1),
projects (Placed at Parayavaran
E-) Bhawan (2)
(ii) 2th RA bill Rs. Aya Nagar (1),
for 489150/-/22.12.2011/23 WAC (1)
earthing / .12.2011
22.07.2013
(Placed at
E-14)
(iii) 3th RA bill Rs. 543500/- / WAC (1)
for earthing / 05.04.2013/ 14.06.2013
22.11.2013
(Placed at
E-
(iv) 4th RA bill Rs.
for earthing 706550/-/22.07.2013/0
58
8.08.2013
th
(v) 5 RA bill Rs.169600/-/22.11.201 R.K.Puram (3)
3/27.12.2013
8 6th and
Final bill
Sl. Post Incumbent 1 Incumbent Incumbent 3 Incumbent

No. 2 4
1. DGM TP, Sh Mukesh Sh Roopam Sh Rajeev Sh Sidh
NCR, New Mandal Garg Srivastava Nath
Delhi Yadav
Period June 2007 27.09.2012 20.02.2016 17.06.2017

to to to to till date
27.09.2012 17.03.2015 16.06.2017
2. DE(AHQ),O/o Sh. Ram Sh. R B Sh. Ashok Sh. Pavan Sh. Mahipal
DGM TP, Pati prasad Das Kumar Kumar Singh
NCR, New Sharma
Delhi
Period May 2007 to 18.06.2012 26.05.2014 07.10.2014 27.08.2016

18.06.2012 to to to to till date.
26.05.2014 07.10.2014 27.08.2016
3. SDE(Plg), O/o Sh. Sh. Rajesh Sh. R K Sh. Sh. Santosh

DGM TP, Rabindra Kumar Sinha Rabindra Kumar
NCR, New Prasad Saini Prasad
Delhi
Period May 2017 to May 2007 Approx 15 27.09.2012 21.11.2012

27.09.2012 to months to to
27.09.2012 period Apr 20.11.2012 07.10.2014
2007 to July
2008
SDE(Plg), O/o Sumesh H P Ravi M C Gupta
DGM TP, Kumar
NCR, New
Delhi
Period 07.10.2014 01.07..2015 13.04.2016

to to to
30.06.2015 13.04.2016 28.07.2018
4. AO, O/o DGM Sh. Ram Sh. R K Sh. Onkar Sh. G S Sh.Yogendra
TP, NCR, New Pal Singh Saini Nath Saini Kumar
Delhi
Period May 2007 to 25.06.2007 09.01.2008 Aug 2008 28.09.2012

25.06.2007 to to Aug 2008 to to
08.01.2008 16.04.2012 17.03.2015
AO, O/o DGM Sh. Deepak Sh. J N Sh. C G
TP, NCR, New Kumar Pandey Morya
Delhi Kapoor
59
Period 17.03.2015 18.07.2017 06.07.2018
to to to till date.
16.12.2016 06.07.2018
5. JAO O/o DGM Sh. Deepak Sh. C G
TP, NCR, New Kumar Morya
Delhi. Kapoor
Period Sep2013 to 01.02.2017

16.12.2016 to
06.07.2018
6. DE TP Sh. B P Sh. Ashok Sh. I.S.S. Sh. Satish
Meena Kumar Mishra Kumar
Period 18.09.2012 March 2014
to to
30.03.2014 17.03.2015
6. DE TP -2 Sh.Teja Sh. Jai Pal Sh. Sh. Pavan Sh. Ram
Singh Singh I.S.S.Mishra
Kumar Dhari Ram,
Sharma Mahipal
Singh ,
N.D.Ram
Period 2011-12 2013-14 2014-15 Ram Dhari
Ram (2015-
16)
7. SDE TP Sh. PCS Sh. PCS Sh. PCS Sh. PCS
Yadav , Yadav , Yadav Yadav
Arvind Arvind
Kumar, Kumar,
Sumesh Sumesh
Kumar, Kumar,
Ram Adhar, Ram Adhar,
H C Vema H C Vema
Period
7. SDE TP-2 Sh. Harpal Sh. Harpal Sh. Harpal Sh. Harpal
Singh , ND Singh , ND Singh , ND Singh, ND
Ram, Ram, Ram, HP Ram, Anil
Santosh Santosh Ravi, AK Kumar
Kumar, Kumar, Meena, Meena
Santosh Santosh Santosh
Kumar-II Kumar-II Kumar-II
Period
60

NTR Ir Final 19-12-18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NTR Ir Final 19-12-18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INVESTIGATION REPORT

CVO, BSNL, New Delhi File No. 6-317/NTP/2017-VM-I dated 11.10.2018

2.1.4 In his letter dated 30.06.2018(E-30) addressed to DE(AHQ), O/o DGM(TP),

S.No Bill No. Bill Dated Amount in Amount in Bill(Rs.)

Regarding this allegation no document or evidence found to sustain malafide

Sl. Name of officer/ designation Period of posting Remarks

2. Sh Roopam Garg, DGM TP, NCR, 27.09.2012 to 17.03.2015

3. Sh. Ram Pati prasad DE(AHQ),O/o May 2007 to 18.06.2012

4. Sh. Rabindra Prasad, SDE(Plg), May 2007 to 20.11.2012

Sl. NIT No. Details of work Date of Date of Date of Remarks

Sl Tender no./ Bill no./ date Bill amount/ Details of bill

2. The CGM(NTP), New Delhi vide letter no. NTP/Plg./10-26/AT//2007-08/67 dated

“ Multiple earth arrangements are done by installer/PO issuing authority after

(a) Article 1(h) reads as

i. Bill dated 24.09.2012 for measurement period 26.03.2012 to 18.08.2012 of

(b) Article-III reads as:

Name of station (all are IAF) No of earths

Para Issue raised by Sh Mukesh Comments

(b) Article II of Chargesheet reads as

C. Article III of the charge sheet reads as,

Name of station (all are IAF) No of earths

3.2.5 Fact same as 3.2.1 above.

The details of bill submitted by M/S A K Brothers are as follows:

S.No Bill No. Dated Amount in Amount in Bill(Rs.)

From the above facts it is observed that the recovery of overpayment

Regarding this allegation no document or evidence found to sustain melafide

(i) Article 1(h) reads as

i. Bill dated 24.09.2012 for measurement period 26.03.2012 to 18.08.2012

Para Issue raised by Sh Mukesh Comments

(ii) Article-III reads as:

Name of station (all are IAF) No of earths

Out of 07 Article of charges some discripancy/ mismatch has been observed in 03 rd

(c) Article 1(i) reads as,

(d) Article II of Chargesheet reads as

C. Article III of the charge sheet reads as,

2. The CGM(NTP), New Delhi vide letter no. NTP/Plg./10-26/AT//2007-08/67 dated

“ Multiple earth arrangements are done by installer/PO issuing authority after

Further, it is observed in respect of item 5f(i) in T006 that provision in the

Question No. 4 Please check the measurement bill

Question No. 3. Please check the measurement bill and

iii. If item 1 (c) has been utilized in some other Answer : NA

Question No.3 Please check the measurement, bill and

Question No. 4 Please check the measurement bill and

Question No. 5 : Any further facts or comments you like No comments

Question No.3 Please check the measurement, bill and rate

Question No. 5 : Do you like to comment or mention No comments

Question No.3 Please check the measurement, bill

i. Item No. 5f (i)

Question No. 4 Please check the measurement bill

ii. From the 2nd Running account bill for the

Question No. 3 : Please Check the

After going through the tender file of T-006, following

Question No. 4: Please check the

2. It is further mentioned that Section V of the tender

On seeing the 4th and final bill dated 27.09.2016 of R K

3. It is further submitted that on instructions of BSNL

It is further submitted that with reference to the

5.11.2 Supplementary Questionnaire to Sh.S.N.Yadav, DGM (TP ) NCR New Delhi as on

a. As per SOR/Estimate cost of Tender attached

5.13 Questionnaire issued to Sh. J. N. Pandey (HR No.198503810) AO TP/IFA O/o GM TP

a. As per SOR/Estimate cost of Tender attached

a. As per SOR/Estimate cost of Tender attached with