Inconsumercomplaints.com » Miscellaneous » Review / complaint: Indane - High scale bribery in allotment of Phagwara I & Phagwara II distributorship of Indane | News #313366

Indane
High scale bribery in allotment of Phagwara I & Phagwara II distributorship of Indane

& On Wed, 2/18/09, rajneesh madhok wrote:

From: rajneesh madhok

Subject: Fw: Kindly inquire about the allegations of bribery in allotment of Indane Gas dealership in Phagwara II

To: "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]"

Date: Wednesday, February 18, 8:25 AM

To

The Honourable Officials,

Kindly look in to the following application received by me regarding allotment of Indian Oil Corporation distributorship in Phagwara I & Phagwara II.

Regards,

Rajneesh Madhok,

B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar, ST. no. 2,

Railway Road,

Phagwara-144401 (Pb)

Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415

Tele-fax: 01824-262569, E-mail: [email protected]

To

The Senior Area Manager, Date :- 13/02

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(Marketing Division)

Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Bhawan,

Plot No. 6A, Sector 19B,

Madhya Marg,

Chandigarh.

Subject: Complaint under clause 21 of the Brochure titled as selection of Indane Distributorship for

Phagwara-II.

Dear Sir,

Reference your advertisement in the newspapers for award of Indane Distributorship at Phagwara-II on 18/09 where the undersigned applied and was subsequently called for interview as a candidate, the undersigned begs to lodge its complaint against decisions of the interviewing committee as follows

1. That the applicant submits his complaint as envisaged under clause 21 of the brochure and narrate the facts in chronological order.

2. That Indian oil corporation (herein after to be called IOC) called for application for the distribution of LPG Gas distributorship for Phagwara-II, Distt. Kapurthala in the state of Punjab.

3. That IOC inserted that in the respect of an advertisement in the Punjab Kesri Jalandhar on 18.9.2006.

4. That the complainant as applicant made his application complete in all respect to IOC. & filed with the department on 17-10.

5. That IOC conducted an interview for all the candidates for Phagwara-II on 8.7.2008 in which the complainant appeared.

6. That thereafter, the screening committee of IOC again conducted the same on 22.9.2008 in which the complainant also participated.

7. That thereafter, the result has been declared on 23.1.2009 in which the complainant has been placed at Sr. No. 3 with 90 marks and Mr. Saiyad Mohammad Raihan and Mr. Rajinder Kumar have been shown in the brackets and as such placed at Sr. No. 1 & 2 respectively with 91 marks each.

8. That as per the Brochure, titled selection of Indane Distributorship, there is little scope for subjective satisfaction of interview committee. In fact the Brochure is self-contained system providing for the allotment of numbers under various heads.

9. That the complainant has no grouse or complaint in regard to the marks awarded to the complainant in regard to (a) Capability to provide infrastructure (b) capability to provide finance (c) educational qualification (d) age.

EXPERIENCES :-

10 (A) That the complainant highly disputes and challenges and attacks the award of numbers under the head of (e) experiences. In fact the complainant challenges the same on following grounds, which can neither be disputed nor repudiated by any in any manner as the same based on documents provided with application.

(i) Because the complainant was also an applicant for Phagwara-I and the result of the same has been declared on 13.3.2008. (The copy of the same has been enclosed herewith for your reference). In that result the complainant has been awarded two marks under the head experience. As such now it is too bitter swallow that in the result of Phagwara-II, the complainant has been awarded zero number under the head experience. This anomaly / contradiction cannot be reconciled / digested in any manner.

(ii) Because the same are the parameters for applicants in regard to Phagwara-I and Phagwara-II.

(iii) Because if the applicant is granted two marks under the head experience as granted earlier in the evaluation conducted for Phagwara-I then the complainant tops the lists for allotment of LPG Distributorship. As the distribution of marks under the head experience is purely based on the documents placed with the application and there is no discretion can be used.

(iv) That the applicant has provided same documents for experience for Phagwara-II that has been provided for Phagwara-I. So the applicant should provide the same two marks as granted in Phagwara-I result.

(v) That the complainant also challenge the 4 marks awarded to Mr. Syed Mohammad Raihan under the head Work Experience as per the knowledge of complainant, Mr. Syed is an Agriculturist & documents produced by him in support of his work experience should be scrutinised properly and investigation should be done about his EXPERIENCE..

BUSINESS ABILITY / ACUMEN & PERSONALITY :-

10 (B) (i) Because as per the norms for evaluating the candidates for business ability / acumen and personality based on interview Mr. Rajinder Kumar Has been allotted 7 marks out of 7 under these two heads that is 100% marks. These marks might be allotted rarely and in very very exceptional circumstances. It is astonishing to know that a person who is running a bare halwai shop has been awarded 7 marks out of 7, in case of Business acumen and personality against 3 marks to the complainant who is a chartered accountant by profession for more than last 20 years (i.e. since 1987) and has been interacting and dealing with the top intellectual and strata of the society and who was justifiably awarded 6 marks out of 7 in the last interview for Phagwara-I.

(ii) That it is most humbly submitted that an extraordinary 100% marks were granted to the owner of a sweet shop is a clear-cut favour to place that candidate above the complainant and mere 3 marks out of 7 i.e. just 50% of the last time score for Phagwara-I to the undersigned in order to favour Mr. Saiyad Mohammad Raihan and Mr. Rajinder Kumar.

Honorable Sir, it is clearly an act of misuse of position by the interviewing committee members against which I request you to hold an enquiry and to get marks reallocated through an impartial committee to do justice to all. You will very kindly appreciate that in no way a sweet shop owner can have a much better personality than a practicing chartered accountant as has been reflected in the marking of the interviewing committee.

RESULT OF PHAGWARA-I & PHAGWARA-II AT A GLANCE

PHAGWARA-I :-

First interview held on :- 7th Jan. and 8th Jan. 2008

Screening Committee Interview held on :- 29th Jan. 2008

Final Result declared on :- 13th Mar. 2008.

Sr. No. Name of Candidates Marks based on Documentary Marks based

Evidence on Interview Rank

Total=89 Experience=4 Total=93 Total=7 Grant Total=100

(a) (b) (c)=(a) (b) (d) (c) (d)

obtained obtained obtained obtained obtained

1. Rakesh Gupta 87 2 89 6 95 2

2. Syed Mohammad 84 4 88 5.5 93.5 4

3. Rajinder Kumar 84 -- 84 4.92 88.92 6

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&--

PHAGWARA-II :-

First interview held on :- 8th July

Screening Committee Interview held on :- 22nd Sep. 2008

Final Result declared on :- 27th Jan. 2009.

Sr. No. Name of Candidates Marks based on Documentary Marks based

Evidence on Interview Rank

Total=89 Experience=4 Total=93 Total=7 Grant Total=100

(a) (b) (c)=(a) (b) (d) (c) (d)

obtained obtained obtained obtained obtained

1. Rakesh Gupta 87 -- 87 3 90 3

2. Syed Mohammad 84 4 88 3 91 1

3. Rajinder Kumar 84 -- 84 7 91 2

COMPARISON CHART OF RESULT OF PHAGWARA (PGW) - I & PHAGWARA (PGW) - II.

SNo. Name of Candidates Marks based on Document Marks based on Interview Rank

attached with application Effect

PGW-I PGW-II Difference PGW-I PGW-II Difference Net Diff.

(a) (b) (c)=(b)-(a) (d) (e) (f)=(e)-(d) (c) (f)

1. Rakesh Gupta 87 2=89 87 0=87 (-)2 6 3 (-)3 (-)5 2 3

2. Syed Mohammad 84 4=88 84 4=88 -- 5.5 3 (-)2.5 (-)2.5 4 1

3. Rajinder Kumar 84 0=84 84 0=84 -- 4.92 7 ()2.08 ()2.08 6 2

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%__

Important Notes :-

(A) Both the applications (Phagwara-I and Phagwara-II) filed on the same day and with the same manner.

(B) All the documents which enclosed with the application of Phagwara-I is also attached with Phagwara-II.

(C) That the final result of Phagwara-I is declared around 4 months before the 1st interview held for Phagwara-II.

(D) That the result of Phagwara-I is available with every interested party and It can’t be said that it is an independent marking of Phagwara-I and Phagwara-II.

(E) That the result of Phagwara-II declare more than 4 months later, after conducting the interview of screening committee of Phagwara-II.

Honorable Sir, you are humbly requested to make the justice with the complainant & allot the complainant two marks under the head experience as has been already awarded in the marking of Phagwara-I (result of the same is enclosed herewith) and please also get remarked the marks of Business Acumen and Personality, as clearly it is visible from above that the committee has done its utmost to favour the two applicants and to deprive me of my legitimate right for which I have a claim as per the norms of your organisation.

That the present complaint is being filed within one month of the declaration of the result and as envisaged under 21.3 up to the final disposal of this complaint, the letter of intent should not be issued to the first candidate.

It is therefore requested that the matter be examined thoroughly and since the complaint has specific and verifiable allegation and as such the same be redressed and the distributorship of Indane LPG may kindly be granted to the applicant.

Yours faithfully,

(MR. RAKESH CHANDER GUPTA)

S/O SH. RAM GOPAL AGGARWAL

VIDYA BHAWAN, NEW MODEL TOWN,

PHAGWARA, DISTT. KAPURTHALA

MOBILE NO.: 09888402920

& On Tue, 2/17/09, rajneesh madhok wrote:

From: rajneesh madhok

Subject: Kindly inquire about the allegations of bribery in allotment of Indane Gas dealership in Phagwara II

To: "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]"

Cc: "Cc: [email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]"

Date: Tuesday, February 17, 11:53 AM

To

The Honourable Chairman,

Indian oil Corporation ltd,

Head Office,

Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg,

Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051

CC 1. To Sh. H.S. Bedi, GM PSo-cum-PIO, Punjab State office,

Indian oil Coprporation Limited,

Punjab State Office,

Indian Oil Bhawan, Plot No. 3-A, Madhya Marg,

Sector 19-A, Chandigarh.

CC.2. To Shri Gautam Datta,

Executive Director (HR)

Indian oil Corporation Ltd,

Indian Oil Bhawan,

G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg,

Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

sub: kindly inquire about the allegations of bribery in allotment of Indane gas Phagwara-II.

Honourable Sirs,

Since the allegations of bribery in allotment of Indane Gas distributorship has come in to the knowledge of the citizens. To improve the functioning of Indane the enquiry should be initiated against the culprits considering the view points of the complaint received from Mr. Rakesh C. Gupta. I hope if the enquiry had been initiated against the malpractices of the officials of Indane then the corrupt officials will be unearthed, now it is the need that the officials be screened on the basis of the facts mentioned herein.

I am horrified to read the comments of Mr. Rakesh C. Gupta regarding the issue of personality. The Chartered Accountant practicing from the last 20 years got zero marks and the Halwayi who has no business experience got 7 out of 7 marks. I request the honourable authorities to intervene in the matter as there were malpractices in the allotment of dealership of Phagwara! &!! by the authorities.

Will Indane authoities explain the HASTE in allotment of distributorship in Phagwara 1 agency, if it was in time then why there is so much delay in allotment of distributorship for Phagwara II. Is it that the negotiations have been going on with the parties and the fabricated documents have been furnished by other parties other than Mr. Rakesh C. Gupta who applied for the distributorship on filmsy ground.

Whether the officials who decided the allotment of distributorship of Phagwara II inclined to give some extra benefit which came in surface and can be proved which till today had generated doubt that how the other persons got credibility and INTELLIGENCE MORE THAN A PRACTICISING CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT.

I feel ashamed of the fact that Indane Officials took it as hasty action of deciding the allotment of distributorship to the person who is not a domestic consumer of Indane Gas in Phagwara. Never got supply from Phagwara's Gas distributor. Is there any under the table dealing in the process of allotment, which is in surface at Phagwara. The inquiry should be intitiated.

I observe that the distributorship had not been alloted taking in to notice the rules and regulations framed by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Kindly record the statement of other entitled persons Kindly verify from the records, there is clear cut violation of rules and the records mention clearly that a person who gets 0 marks in Personality in Phagwara II had got 2 marks in Phagwara I distributorship. Is it not a malpractice. Why the officials favoured the other persons.

This is clear case of DEMORALIZING HONEST & COMPETENT JUNIORS AND IT IS A NATIONAL SHAME for many officials who serve the country with honesty. When High officials indulge in malpractices.

This is yet another case under the Jurisdiction of Indane Officials when MAFIA procured distributorship on FABRICATED DOCUMENTS OF EXPERIENCE TO disposes a capable Chartered Accountant from getting the distributorship.

I hereby request you to please order an enquiry from an investigating agency or Justice in to the rampant loot of distcoms and their corrupting of Indian Oil Officials, system of management and allotment of distributorship

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

(Rajneesh Madhok)

B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar,

St. No. 2, Railway Road,

Phagwara-144401 (Pb)

Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415

Tele-fax: 01824-262569, E-mail: [email protected]


Company: Indane

Country: India

Category: Miscellaneous

0 comments

Information
Only registered users can leave comments.
Please Register on our website, it will take a few seconds.




Quick Registration via social networks:
Login with FacebookLogin with Google