Fraud by Security Agencies and Official Liquidator

Dear brethren,

In nutshell what they do;
A.  If they employ one they claim salary of 10.
B. The salary of one is paid by theft of stocks and machine parts.see proof here;
C. In some cases they also give premises on rent to workers of nearby   factories and pocket the rentals.

In my article on Corruption by D P Ojha, Official Liquidator, Punjanb and Haryana High Court I had stated that D P Ojha is making payments against commission of 50% in the name of employees who have never been born and he has made payments of over crores of rupees After I brought it to the notice of secured creditors, an investigation was carried out by Additional Managing Director, Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation, a PCS Officer of State of Punjab. 

Following is the text of his report filed by Addtional Managing Director of PSIDC. Copy of this is filed in CP 53 of 2012.

 "Sub:  Payment of Watch & Ward Expenses for the security deployed at the premises of M/s. Punjab National Fertilizers Limited (In Liquidation). Period taken for verification from July 2005 to December 2008

In compliance of the Order dated 17.2.2012 passed in COCP No 2085/2011 by the Hon’ble High Court, a meeting of the committee was held in the office of Official Liquidator, Chandigarh on 12.3.2012. The COCP was filed for alleged disobedience of Order Dt 15.5.2009. The said order was made on petition related to payment of watch and ward expenses relating to security provided by Industrial Security Agency Bombay in the case of PNFC. Petition was filed in this case on 23.1.2009. At that time, request was for payment of pending bills for July 2005 to December 2008.

The present verification of records relates to claim of security agency for period July 2005 to December 2008 only.

Vide letter dated 28.9.2002, the security agency agreed to abide by the guidelines for empanelment of security agency. Para 5 of said guidelines is as under;-

“Names and permanent addresses of security guards deployed at the factory / office premises shall be supplied at spot, if possible, by the security agency, but latest within a week’s time  of such deployment to Official Liquidator”

In the Committee meeting held on 12.3.2012 it was admitted by representative of Security agency and Official Liquidator that names and permanent addresses of security staff deployed by security agency were never supplied to official Liquidator as per the terms and conditions of empanelment of security agencies accepted by the Security agency. Hence for this reason alone, security agency is not entitled to any payment for the period in question, for it having violated the accepted terms and conditions of their empanelment.

In the meeting Sh M L Sharma representative of Security agency gave photocopy of proof of 5 employees by way of bank accounts which were opened in the year 2010 in Bank of India branch at Chandigarh, though the employees were told to be working at Naya Nangal. No Bank Accounts were shown to be opened for the verification period from July 2005 to December 2008 and none have been shown to be opened at Naya Nangal where the employees are told to be working. Hence this proof is also not acceptable for being not logical.

Bank accounts opened in the year 2010 are not authentic record to prove that these employees were working at Naya Nangal during July 2005 to December 2008.  Accepted guidelines have been totally violated by the security agency. Hence for this solid reason, I cannot agree with the release of payment for the period July 2005 to December 2008 for these 5 employees also. Admittedly for the balance 36 employees (i.e. 41-5) there is no record what so ever.

After scrutiny of muster role it has been found that out of these 5 employees only three persons namely Mr Pankaj Singh, (July 2005 to March 2007 and \June 2008 to June 2011), Dhiraj Singh (July 2005 to June 2011) and Onkar chand (July 2005 to June 2011) were working with the company as per period mentioned against each employee. The remaining two worked only for short spell i.e. Mr Abhay Kumar Yadav ( September 2007 to May 2008) and Vikram Singh ( July 2005 to may 2008). Even this Muster Roll does not show in which shift individual employees was working. Regarding Muster roll, it seems on the face of it that it was got prepared in one go and that too when it was been given in the office of Liquidator and is thus not reliable

More over the agency has stated that they have made payments to their employees in July 2008 to the tune of Rs 41,03,398/- but this amount has not been shown by them withdrawn from their bank account before the payment was made. Industrial security agency is a corporate body and it has not shown proof of withdrawal from bank accounts to meet its requirements. Sh M L Sharma representative of security agency states that they raised private loan from a private person. Such type of statement is not acceptable. In such circumstances also, I cannot agree with the release of payment for the period July 2005 to December 2008.

AMD / PSIDC"

  Date 10-3-2012