15.07.2014 Views

Vigilance Compedium - CCL

Vigilance Compedium - CCL

Vigilance Compedium - CCL

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Case Study -05<br />

Sub:<br />

Purchase of gum boots in an improper manner<br />

1. It was alleged that poor quality gum boots were purchased in an improper manner at<br />

one of the Regional stores of <strong>CCL</strong> were made in one of the complaints received in<br />

<strong>CCL</strong> <strong>Vigilance</strong>:<br />

2. A detailed investigation into the above allegation revealed the following<br />

lapses/irregularities on part of the dealing officials:-<br />

Purchase of non-DGMS approved type/non-ISS certified Gum Boots<br />

2.1 The procured Gum Boots were neither ISI/BIS marked nor did it carry any DGMS<br />

approval, which was essential as Gum Boots were to be used in Mines. But still the<br />

SO (Safety) had passed the above gumboots for use in mines during inspection of the<br />

same.<br />

Deficient indent:<br />

2.2 The indent raised for the procurement of said Gum boots were grossly deficient. Gum<br />

boot is a safety item and therefore need to be DGMS approved type/ISS certified, if<br />

intended to be used in the mine. But in the indent raised for the procurement of Gum<br />

Boots, no reference was made for the procurement of DGMS approved Gumboots,<br />

although it was mentioned in the indent that the supply of Gumboots was must for<br />

safety purpose and to avoid any unwanted incident etc.<br />

Purchase of centralized item from the Area<br />

2.3 It was confirmed by CGM (MM) that the gumboot is a centralized item and therefore<br />

should have been purchased from the <strong>CCL</strong> (HQ). But in the instant case the said<br />

gumboots were purchased at the Area level itself without obtaining competent<br />

approval for the same. The following deviations were observed:-<br />

a. First of all it was incorrectly written in the proposal note sheet by the dealing<br />

Purchase Officer that Gum-Boots were de-centralized item<br />

b. No competent approval was obtained for the purchase of centralized items at Area<br />

level<br />

c. In total, 560 pairs of gum-boots were available in the central store on the date on<br />

which the proposal of gum-boots was moved for tendering. Surprisingly the above<br />

available stock of Gum-Boots in the Central Store was not verified, in spite of the fact<br />

that:-<br />

• Initiation of action for procurement of Gum Boots indented by the concerned Area in<br />

its annual MB and allocation of 225 pairs if gumboots against the indented quantity in<br />

the MB were communicated to the concerned regional store.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!