Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

Probe into Sports Complex construction finds two PUDA officials guilty

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • Divisional and Sub-Divisional engineers caused a loss of over Rs 46 lakh to PUDA by manipulating tenders, says inquiry report

    A departmental inquiry into alleged irregularities in the construction of a Sports Complex opposite the Punjab Cricket Association’s stadium in Sector 63, Mohali, has indicted two officials of the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA). The officials have been accused of “causing huge losses to PUDA by manipulating tenders to favour a private construction company”.

    Inquiry officer Capt Narinder Singh, a retired IAS officer, has held PUDA divisional engineer R K Jaidka and sub-divisional engineer, Ludhiana, Gurdev Singh guilty of “knowingly transgressing their authority/power by violating the provisions of PWD code, PUDA policy and other regulations... to favour M/s R S Construction Company...despite having enough experience and (being) fully aware of the provisions of law”.

    Ads by Google

    The inquiry was ordered by PUDA Chief Administrator A K Sinha on February 13.

    In a 19-page report (Newsline has a copy) submitted to Sinha recently, the inquiry officer examined seven charges against Jaidka and five charges against Singh, besides going through the documents and evidences placed on record.

    According to the records, with an estimate of Rs 2.8 crore, the tender notice for the construction of boundary wall/ gates of Sports Complex was issued on August 6, 1998. But the tender was allotted to M/s R.S. Construction Company for Rs 2.68 crore.

    The probe found Jaidka deviating from the established procedure by issuing tender form to an ineligible firm and guilty of non-compliance of instructions laid down in the PWD code — issuing tender forms before approval of DNIT from competent authority. Besides, Jaidka was found guilty of tampering with the records by making changes in the specifications and quantities after issuance of tender forms and giving undue benefit to the contractor.

    “It is on record that Jaidka made allotment of works in favour of M/s R.S. Construction Company on the basis of reduced quantities without considering the effect of other tenders at reduced quantities,” Capt Singh observed in the report. “Gurdev Singh, without applying his mind, acted in haste in connivance with Jaidka and is equally responsible for this act.”

    “When the tenders were opened with changed specifications, the charged officers with their full wisdom and knowledge of the facts, while preparing comparative statement, projected M/s R S Construction Company with lowest rates (and) showed them 3.94 per cent higher than the DNIT amount, whereas M/s A C E Builders happened to be the lowest bidders with their rates 3.90 per cent higher that DNIT rates,” the inquiry officer ruled.

    “By making illegal recommendations and allotting work with a mala fide intention, the charged officers caused a huge loss of over Rs 46 lakh to PUDA,” Capt Singh said in the report, while establishing that “M/s R S Construction Company was neither a shortlisted firm nor (the) lowest bidder, despite which it was awarded the work”.

    Confirming that he has received the inquiry report, PUDA Chief Administrator A K Sinha said, “The copies of the report have been served to indicted officers for filing their replies, if any, after which, further action will be decided.”

    Same company involved in similar case
    M/s R S Construction Company was earlier found involved in another case in which it was awarded the contract to build the boundary and retaining walls of the stadium for a whopping Rs 7.32 crore. The company’s name had surfaced after a preliminary inquiry had indicted PUDA officials of disregarding all norms and established procedures to award tender, which were found manipulated, to the company. The then PUDA Chief Administrator Sanjay Kumar had ordered the inquiry in 2004 after taking cognisance of media reports on the irregularities. However, no action has been taken in the case so far.

    Comments
    Post comment

    Be the first to comment.

    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.