We now come to another anomaly reported by the media against IIT Kharagpur and few of its administrators. This generated lot of ruckus in IIT kharagpur circle.
The news article - http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/IIT-Kharagpur-pushing-pricey-laptops/Article1-659087.aspx
Let me now show the other side of the same with documented proofs. (Each documents provided can be clicked to get more clear enlarged view)
The article states "The correspondence shows the IIT administration had asked senior computer science professor Rajeev Kumar to either purchase the laptop under the institute rates, or not purchase it at all. “We are only insisting that institute-determined rates are followed in the purchase. The institute rates are official, those obtained by individual faculty members are not,” an administrator said."
Let me show the document from the administration and show what EXACTLY administration told Prof Rajeev Kumar.
Now to come with the next communication with Rajeev Kumar on 22 Dec 2010
In the scan document above read the line underlined red. Isn't the administration telling the PI (Rajeev Kumar in this case) clearly that there is NO "Rate Contract".
Now lets read through the blue underlined part. Aren't we all aware of this basic rule in govt procurement that single quotations are not valid. You need to give more than one quotation, the numbers depend upon as per that particular organisation rules, and the lowest one is sanctioned. IIT administration seems to have clearly pointed out this discrepancy to the PI and asked him to submit documents as per IIT norms, which incidentally is followed by any govt organisation.
Now for the final document which was sent to the PI cancelling his laptop order.
Again when we see the document, its clear that the PI is told about "No available rate Contract" for purchase of laptop (Red underlined part). Infact the administrator asked him to follow all purchase rules as per IIT Kharagpur. The rules states that he need to submit more than one quotation and not single. If he felt his requisition carried the lowest quotation for the specific laptop, what stopped him from providing other quotations? Rule states any purchase requisition made should need to be recommended by the Purchase Committee Chairman. Check document -2 (Green Underlined part) and you'll get the PI was requested to get this passed by the Purchase Committee Chairman. Yet he ignores the request. The most conclusive deduction that can be formed from this, the PI himself wants IIT Kharagpur to flout purchase rules in his particular case.
Few more documents released by IIT Kharagpur in a complaint to the HT Editor and also its own faculty show more discrepancies with this order. Below is the Del Quotation that Rajeev Kumar obtained and submitted to IIT Kharagpur while submitting his requisition for the laptop.
The two portion that brought attention to IIT Kharagpur administration have been marked by red and blue circles.
Check the red circled part. Which govt office allows purchase of things at the organisation while shipping made at another destination, in another town, completely out of the organisation administrative area. You place an order at Kharagpur IIT and ask IIT to deliver the product at Hyderabad, is that according to rules of any govt purchase norms?
Now coming to the blue circle. Order valid for - 1 days. Have you ever seen a purchase quotation being submitted where the validity period of the quotations given is for just 1 day? No purchase committee would pass such a requisition for the very fact that even if all paper work gets completed in one day and order placed next, the rates may vary.
It is now upon the readers to come to conclusion as to what really is happening.
I leave the conclusion for the readers to come out with.
By the way, IIT Kharagpur administration did stumble upon a very interesting point during the process of investigation. The requisition made by Rajeev Kumar with DELL quotations (Document - 4) had a phone number where this laptop is to be delivered. The number 8008299686, official inquiries were made as to who this belongs to. The phone number belongs to Mr Sanchit Bansal, Microsoft India Pvt Ltd. We are given to understand that Prof Rajeev Kumar's son's name is Mr Sanchit Bansal. And during the period when this requisition was made, Mr Sanchit Bansal, son of Prof Rajeev Kumar was employed at Microsoft India Pvt Ltd and placed at Microsoft Campus, Hyderabad.
Interesting must say!!!
Cheers and have a good day.
The news article - http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/IIT-Kharagpur-pushing-pricey-laptops/Article1-659087.aspx
Let me now show the other side of the same with documented proofs. (Each documents provided can be clicked to get more clear enlarged view)
The article states "The correspondence shows the IIT administration had asked senior computer science professor Rajeev Kumar to either purchase the laptop under the institute rates, or not purchase it at all. “We are only insisting that institute-determined rates are followed in the purchase. The institute rates are official, those obtained by individual faculty members are not,” an administrator said."
Let me show the document from the administration and show what EXACTLY administration told Prof Rajeev Kumar.
 |
| Document -1 :This is the first communication with Rajeev Kumar on his request for the laptop. |
Now to come with the next communication with Rajeev Kumar on 22 Dec 2010
 |
| Document -2 |
In the scan document above read the line underlined red. Isn't the administration telling the PI (Rajeev Kumar in this case) clearly that there is NO "Rate Contract".
Now lets read through the blue underlined part. Aren't we all aware of this basic rule in govt procurement that single quotations are not valid. You need to give more than one quotation, the numbers depend upon as per that particular organisation rules, and the lowest one is sanctioned. IIT administration seems to have clearly pointed out this discrepancy to the PI and asked him to submit documents as per IIT norms, which incidentally is followed by any govt organisation.
Now for the final document which was sent to the PI cancelling his laptop order.
 |
| Document - 3 |
Again when we see the document, its clear that the PI is told about "No available rate Contract" for purchase of laptop (Red underlined part). Infact the administrator asked him to follow all purchase rules as per IIT Kharagpur. The rules states that he need to submit more than one quotation and not single. If he felt his requisition carried the lowest quotation for the specific laptop, what stopped him from providing other quotations? Rule states any purchase requisition made should need to be recommended by the Purchase Committee Chairman. Check document -2 (Green Underlined part) and you'll get the PI was requested to get this passed by the Purchase Committee Chairman. Yet he ignores the request. The most conclusive deduction that can be formed from this, the PI himself wants IIT Kharagpur to flout purchase rules in his particular case.
Few more documents released by IIT Kharagpur in a complaint to the HT Editor and also its own faculty show more discrepancies with this order. Below is the Del Quotation that Rajeev Kumar obtained and submitted to IIT Kharagpur while submitting his requisition for the laptop.
 |
| Document - 4 :The DELL Quotation for the laptop as submitted by Rajeev Kumar to IIT Kharagpur |
The two portion that brought attention to IIT Kharagpur administration have been marked by red and blue circles.
Check the red circled part. Which govt office allows purchase of things at the organisation while shipping made at another destination, in another town, completely out of the organisation administrative area. You place an order at Kharagpur IIT and ask IIT to deliver the product at Hyderabad, is that according to rules of any govt purchase norms?
Now coming to the blue circle. Order valid for - 1 days. Have you ever seen a purchase quotation being submitted where the validity period of the quotations given is for just 1 day? No purchase committee would pass such a requisition for the very fact that even if all paper work gets completed in one day and order placed next, the rates may vary.
It is now upon the readers to come to conclusion as to what really is happening.
- Is it that the PI here is forcing IIT Kharagpur to NOT follow rules in his case? If yes then why, cause he is a whistleblower and should be given this exclusive treatment?
- Or is it a meticulously planned issue where the PI is making sure to get the order cancelled so as to take up the issue in the media and tarnish the Institutes image?
- Or maybe it is a murky plan where some/one specific individual from the IIT administration is targeted to tarnish his/her image and reputation?
I leave the conclusion for the readers to come out with.
By the way, IIT Kharagpur administration did stumble upon a very interesting point during the process of investigation. The requisition made by Rajeev Kumar with DELL quotations (Document - 4) had a phone number where this laptop is to be delivered. The number 8008299686, official inquiries were made as to who this belongs to. The phone number belongs to Mr Sanchit Bansal, Microsoft India Pvt Ltd. We are given to understand that Prof Rajeev Kumar's son's name is Mr Sanchit Bansal. And during the period when this requisition was made, Mr Sanchit Bansal, son of Prof Rajeev Kumar was employed at Microsoft India Pvt Ltd and placed at Microsoft Campus, Hyderabad.
 |
| Phone Bill copy of the phone number 8008299686 |
Interesting must say!!!
Cheers and have a good day.
No comments:
Post a Comment