X hits on this document

Word document

Tale of Whistleblowers in Hindustan Petroleum - page 2 / 3

10 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

2 / 3

Vigilance Commission) under Govt. of India’s resolution for “Whistle Blower Protection’ against victimization, yielded no result, on the contrary, CVC in their order dt 30th oct 2008 , advised  both the officers that they will not be accorded protection of  whistle blowers’ and treated as a plain complainant. It is shocking that CVC has overlooked a Rs. 200 cr. fraud and refused to accord protection to 2 upright, honest, bold and courageous officers who have dared to expose corruption in high places specially against their own Ministry and Minister under whom they are working, and the corporations which claim to have compliance of clause 49 of corporate governance and a signatory of pact with ‘Transparency international’. The Oil PSU’s have blatantly violated the Vigilance manual and guidelines on purchase procedures and placed Purchase orders on nomination basis, one such example in Shell’s refinery up gradation which has drained hundreds of crores from Govt’s exchequer, which is used for subsidizing OMC’s losses by way of Bonds. In fact OIL PSU’s are shielding and camouflaging their inefficiencies, wasteful, imprudent , unproductive expenditures and extravaganza in the garb  of under recoveries (ET‘s news dt 8th may 2009) It is reliably learnt that Investigating Agencies have commenced investigations, however no visible action has been taken so far (Indian Express news dt 24.12.08) .The young Gen. Secy. Of the ruling party has himself confessed in a recent press conference that CBI has been misused by the ruling parties, hence CBI’s selective inaction is explainable, still despite court orders oil companies placed order for 3 months from ( 1.10.08-31.12.08) and marker doping was continued. Reasons best known to MOP&NG, Marker doping was abruptly discontinued from 31.12.08 .

HPCL management   who were looking for an opportunity to remove R.P.Sriavstava  suspended  him alleging his involvement in the Oil  sector strike during  7- 9th Jan 2009. (Incidentally HPCL was the only company ,which had not participated in the strike), HPCL finally dismissed both the officers from service on 12th march 2009, after a show of conducting a slip-shod enquiry in the May 2008 incident and in violation of corporation’s own statuary provisions of CDA rules. Both the officers demanding ‘whistle blower protection’  filed writ petitions in April 2009  in  Mumbai high court seeking justice against CVC ‘s order ,HPCL Management, Minister of Petroleum for quashing of their compounding punishment in the hands of HPCL Management.CBI has already Registered  PE in the Marker  case on 29.4.09 against then Secy. Petroleum ,Private supplier Authentix, SGS and unknown OMC officials

(TOI News dt.  16.6.09) stated that it was  also established by HPCL appointed R&D advisor Dr. A.K.Bhatnagar in the Presentation made in Petrotech 2005 that the Marker  was carcinogenic in nature(could cause cancer in human being)

Minister of Petroleum Shri Murli Deora contacted both the officers in June 2009, and committed to them at his Delhi  residence that they should withdraw the case from Mumbai High court and he will ensure that they are reinstated in HPCL with all their benefits including promotion. They both reluctantly withdrew their petitions on 2.7.2010 , despite his  categorical assurance Mr. Deora  backed out immediately after withdrawal of the case . A statuary appeal to HPCL preferred by both the officers was rejected by

Document info
Document views10
Page views10
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 05:04:14 UTC 2016
Pages3
Paragraphs9
Words1193

Comments