The Central Bureau of Investigation has conducted searches in connection with the alleged procurement of substandard digital display systems at inflated costs through a scientist and a technical officer of the Pune-based Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM).
The systems comprising 12 outdoor, true-colour LED display boards were supplied by Video Wall India Private Limited, which bought them from a Chinese company for about ₹38 lakh but allegedly supplied the same to the IITM for ₹2.98 crore.
Among those named as accused are former scientist Gufran Beig, senior technical officer Vipin Mali, Managing Director of Video Wall India Anil Chandrakant Girkar, firm director Manisha Anil Girkar and unknown public servants.
“The searches were conducted on the residential and official premises of the accused persons in Pune and Mumbai,” said a CBI official.
It is alleged that Dr. Beig, then scientist in the Physical Meteorology and Aerology division of the IITM and Mr. Mali, who was SAFAR project in-charge, conspired with the Girkars to extend favour to the company during 2011-18.
Rules violated
The company was awarded the contract for the supply, commissioning and maintenance of the digital display systems allegedly violating procurement rules and disqualifying other bidders on flimsy grounds.
According to the CBI, the accused officials accepted substandard made-in-China equipment that was below the required specifications. Dr. Beig allegedly issued bogus reports, falsely certifying that the items had been tested and they were as per specifications, and recommended that the bills be passed.
It is alleged that the company representatives falsely claimed that it was the original equipment manufacturer though it was importing products and accessories from Chinese companies and assembling the systems as per requirement. The company did not provide the make and model of each item, the manuals and technical diagrams. Dr. Beig and Mr. Mali did not flag the issue.
There was a delay of more than a year in installing the systems. As per the terms and conditions, the company was liable to pay liquidated damages for the delay. However, the accused officials did not impose any cost on the company and recommended that the payments be made without any deductions.