Govt servants joining activists in War Against Corruption: a live example

Dear fellow activists,

Hindustan Construction Company evaded making Employees Provident Fund contributions of Rs 4.44 crore between April 2005 and March 2008. See paragraph marked in red on page 29 of this file: http://tinyurl.com/HCCs-evasion

These figures pertain to construction of Bandra Worli Sea Link (details on Page 8-12, and 28), it appears that the evasion is wider. “A huge evasion of membership has been unearthed at all the work areas/sites of the said establishment” i.e. in about 15 places around the country, including three places in Maharashtra, besides Mumbai. See blue-highlighted paragraph on page 12.

According to Section 6 of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, “The contribution which shall be paid by the employer to the Fund shall eight and one-third per cent of the basic wages dearness allowances and retaining allowance (if any) for the time being payable to each of the employees (whether employed by him directly or by or through a contractor) and the employees' contribution shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him…” This document suggests that Hindustan Construction Company, headed by Ajit Gulabchand, deliberately did not keep its end of the bargain.

Now someone please ask, How did I get my hands on this internal government document, which pertains to a Vigilance enquiry against a Regional Provident Fund Commissioner? Did I file an RTI application for this?

The answer is, No, not RTI. A central government insider called me and gave it to me after he read my blog, titled “Maharashtra Govt lets Lavasa & Amby Valley piss into Pune’s water-supply”http://tinyurl.com/Pune-drinks-Lavasa-piss He felt that the documents concerning Hindustan Construction Co’s evasion in paying its Provident Fund dues needed to be in the public domain. He wanted to blow the whistle, and he wanted my help in doing so. And so, as promised, here I am, putting these documents in the public domain.

From all this, I am getting the feeling that large numbers of government servants are eager to ally with RTI activists and civil society members in exposing corruption and wrongdoings. We just need to reach out to these government insiders and whistleblowers, and encourage them to join hands with us. If we build a relationship of trust, I think hundreds of skeletons will start tumbling out of government cupboards. And when the government sees that its own employees have joined the war against corruption, things will change a lot more rapidly.

Mr Prime Minister Sir, are you listening? Are you reading the writing on the wall?

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

Anti-Corruption Act Full & abridged versions

Prevention of Corruption Act in two versions -- Full and abridged (simplified)

THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988

SIMPLIFIED & ABRIDGED Prevention of Corruption Act 1988:

Originally 6045 words, we reduced it to 3,324 words, and made sentences short and easy.

Please note:

1) It gives a wide scope to the concept of “public servant”. The term includes judges, arbitrators, election officials, employees of public corporations, selection committee members and anybody in the “service and pay of local authority”, office bearers of cooperative societies of various kinds, and recipients of government funding. It is applicable to Information Commissioners and other quasi-judicial authorities.

2) As PCA 1988 includes judges and judge-like authorities, it seems to nullify some of the wide protection to judges under Judges Protection Act 1985.

3) It also gives wide interpretation to “gratification other than legal remuneration” and “criminal misconduct”. Thus, it is not necessary to prove that a public servant actually sought a bribe in cash, or was actually given. It is enough to show that undue favour or disfavor (or undue service or disservice) were given or sought to be given.

4) It spreads the net wide by including abetment of the offences and conspiracy, and thereby includes private parties such as touts and dalals, besides superiors, colleagues and others who assist indirectly and collude in the corrupt practices.

5) It has provisions for granting immunity from prosecution to bribe-givers or bribe-takers who turn into whistle-blowers and assist in the prosecution.

6) It provides for a summary trial, and restricts the scope for appeals before higher courts.

7) Offences under this Act will be tried by a Special Judge with special powers to attach the offender’s properties etc.

8) It mandates hearings on a daily basis.

Limitation of PCA 1988: After FIR is registered and after the police investigation is complete, the prosecuting authority ie. Anti Corruption Bureau must seek approval from the State or Central Government, or from competent authority, to prosecute the corrupt official. According to ACB Maharashtra website, this approval requires three months.

Vinita, please study Chapter III, which consists of the various offenses. These are the sections to be used in making our an FIR.

Regards,
Krish