Forgery in Locomotive Factory Project by General Electric Company covered up by India's Railway Ministry - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:59 PM
Subject: Cover-up of complaint of forgery made by whistleblower Seema Sapra against General Electric Company - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831
To: "sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in" <sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in>, "sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in" <sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in>, "dcbi@cbi.gov.in" <dcbi@cbi.gov.in>, "pmosb@nic.in" <pmosb@nic.in>, "sg.rmaithani@sci.nic.in" <sg.rmaithani@sci.nic.in>, "president@whitehouse.gov" <president@whitehouse.gov>, "sho-gk-dl@nic.in" <sho-gk-dl@nic.in>, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>, "sho-crpark-dl@nic.in" <sho-crpark-dl@nic.in>, "sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in" <sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in>, "EthicsAndCompliance@starbucks.com" <EthicsAndCompliance@starbucks.com>, "ny1@ic.fbi.gov" <ny1@ic.fbi.gov>, "sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in" <sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in>, "cp.ggn@hry.nic.in" <cp.ggn@hry.nic.in>, hschultz <hschultz@starbucks.com>, "banmali.agrawala@ge.com" <banmali.agrawala@ge.com>, "chairmanoffice@sec.gov" <chairmanoffice@sec.gov>, "fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov" <fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov>, "cp.amulyapatnaik@delhipolice.gov.in" <cp.amulyapatnaik@delhipolice.gov.in>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Suhel.Daud@ic.fbi.gov" <Suhel.Daud@ic.fbi.gov>, "cmdelhi@nic.in" <cmdelhi@nic.in>, "lggc.delhi@nic.in" <lggc.delhi@nic.in>, "ashish.sawkar@ic.fbi.gov" <ashish.sawkar@ic.fbi.gov>, "sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in" <sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in>, "lhelm@starbucks.com" <lhelm@starbucks.com>, "customercare@tatastarbucks.com" <customercare@tatastarbucks.com>, "sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in" <sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in>, "jeff.immelt@ge.com" <jeff.immelt@ge.com>, "sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in" <sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in>, "NDwebmail@state.gov" <NDwebmail@state.gov>, "jeffrey.immelt@ge.com" <jeffrey.immelt@ge.com>, "john.flannery@ge.com" <john.flannery@ge.com>, "sho-defenceclny-dl@nic.in" <sho-defenceclny-dl@nic.in>, "sumi.ghosh@starbucks.com" <sumi.ghosh@starbucks.com>, "sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in" <sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in>, sho-saket-dl@nic.in, sho-cp-dl@nic.in, "cvc@nic.in" <cvc@nic.in>, "advamit.sharma@gmail.com" <advamit.sharma@gmail.com>, "kirti_uppal@yahoo.com" <kirti_uppal@yahoo.com>, Scba India <scbaec@gmail.com>, "mr@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mr@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "crb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <crb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, gopi krishnan <jgopikrishnan@yahoo.com>, rajiv.vc@nic.in, tmb.vc@nic.in, fmo@nic.in, "hm@nic.in" <hm@nic.in>, "help@sec.gov" <help@sec.gov>, "newhaven@ic.fbi.gov" <newhaven@ic.fbi.gov>, Subramanian Swamy <swamy39@gmail.com>, Prashant Bhushan <prashantbhush@gmail.com>, pmosb <pmosb@gov.in>, Amit Shah <amitshah.bjp@gmail.com>, "helpline@eda.admin.ch" <helpline@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Vertretung-New-Delhi <ndh.vertretung@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-VISA New-Delhi <ndh.visa@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Etat Civil New Delhi <ndh.etatcivil@eda.admin.ch>, "vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "emb@rusembassy.in" <emb@rusembassy.in>, indconru indconru <indconru@gmail.com>, "web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk" <LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk>, "delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu" <delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu>, "re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca" <re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca>, "info@new-delhi.diplo.de" <info@new-delhi.diplo.de>, "delamb@um.dk" <delamb@um.dk>, "emb.newdelhi@mfa.no" <emb.newdelhi@mfa.no>, "chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "InfoDesk@ohchr.org" <InfoDesk@ohchr.org>, "Press-Info@ohchr.org" <Press-Info@ohchr.org>, "civilsociety@ohchr.org" <civilsociety@ohchr.org>, "webmaster@ambafrance-in.org" <webmaster@ambafrance-in.org>, "VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "indne@unhcr.org" <indne@unhcr.org>, "ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it" <ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it>, "chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn>, "chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "webmaster@mfa.gov.cn" <webmaster@mfa.gov.cn>, "in@mofcom.gov.cn" <in@mofcom.gov.cn>, "delhihighcourt@nic.in" <delhihighcourt@nic.in>, info@group30.org, poststelle@sta.berlin.de, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, webmaster.greco@coe.int, info@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@generalbundesanwalt.de, jthuy@eurojust.europa.eu, ejn@eurojust.europa.eu, collegesecretariat@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@bgh.bund.de, secretariat@cepol.europa.eu, CP@ohchr.org, zentrale@bundesnachrichtendienst.de, info@ivankatrump.com, india@mofa.go.kr, consular2@newdelhi.mfa.gov.il, info@newdelhi.mfa.gov.il, mumbai@amchamindia.com
Cc: seema sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>

NOTE ON FORGERY BY GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (GE)

I present below some additional facts about my complaint that the customer certificate for Kazakhstan Railway submitted by GE with its RFQ application to the Railway Ministry on 12 July 2010 for the second (aborted) tender for the Marhowra diesel locomotive factory was a tampered and therefore forged document.

I made the complaint of forgery to the CVC by email dated 11.01.2011.

The Central Vigilance Commission registered a complaint on this email complaint, numbered the complaint as complaint no. 107/11/1 and informed me about it by CVC letter dated 30.5.2011. This letter is attached.

No further action took place on this letter.

Thus, when I filed Writ Petition 1280/ 2012 in the Delhi High Court against GE, the Railway Ministry and the CVC, I also pleaded that the CVC had not acted further on complaint no. 107/11/1 after registering it.

Notice was issued to both the Railway Ministry and the CVC (among other respondents) by the Delhi High Court on 7 March 2012.

Note that initially no lawyer appeared for the CVC and no affidavit was filed for the CVC despite service of the court notice.

On 2 July 2012, a counter affidavit signed by a Railway Officer Nihar Ranjan Dash was filed for the Railway Ministry which was respondent no. 4. This was filed through a lawyer R N Singh, who claimed to be the Standing Counsel for Railways.

Fraud No. 1

This affidavit was described as an affidavit not only on behalf of the Railway Ministry but also as an affidavit on behalf of the CVC.

A railway officer has no authority or legal standing to file an affidavit on behalf of the CVC and the description of this affidavit as the CVC affidavit constitutes perjury, fraud and deception of the highest order committed against the Delhi High Court.

Paragraph 3 of this Railway Affidavit dated 2 July 2012 read as under:

"3. That the Central Vigilance Commission vide its letter No. 117/RLY/16/124624 dated 11.04.2011 had forwarded to Railway Board a copy of e-mail complaint dated 11.01.2011 received in the Commission from Ms. Seema Sapra, Advocate, New Delhi in which the complainant alleged that fake Customer Certificate was submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. in connection with Request for Qualification (RFQ) for setting up Diesel Locomotive Factory at Marhowra, District – Saran, Bihar. On receipt of the complaint, the matter was got thoroughly investigated and the investigation has revealed that Clause 3.2 related to "Technical Capacity', inter-alia, mentioned that the applicant firm should have manufactured and supplied at least 1000 Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over the period of last ten years. Scrutiny of the tender file revealed that as per the Customers' Certificate attached at page 63 to 113 of the RFQ submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd., the company had designed, manufactured and supplied total 2326 mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over a period of last ten years. Thus, it is noticed that even if the Customer Certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railway for 10 No. of locomotives supplied by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. is discarded, the firm was fulfilling the 'Technical Capacity' criteria, as the requirement as per clause 3.2 of the RFQ is only 1000 locomotives over the period of last ten years. Thus, investigation has found that the firm M/s. Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. has not derived any advantage by submitting the scanned copy. Therefore, no substance was found in the allegation. The report of investigation was sent to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Central Vigilance Commission after perusal of the Investigation Report and the comments of the administrative authorities thereon has advised closure of the case vide CVC's ID No. 117/RLY/16/145435 dated 19.09.20111 (Annexure R-1).

Fraud No. 2

Annexure R-1 to this affidavit is a single page numbered as internal page 14 in the affidavit and is attached.

Note that this alleged CVC document does not mention the complaint number assigned by the CVC to my complaint of forgery, i.e., complaint no. 107/11/1.

Note also that this document has an internal page number printed on top by hand which reads "-10-". This single page is therefore in fact the last page (page no. 10) of a 10-page document. The first nine pages of this document are missing.

Note that this alleged CVC document is not on the CVC letter-head. It is signed by one R C Arora who is described as "Director". The absence of a letter-head on this document is also consistent with this being the last and 10^th page of a ten-page document.

It is also quite clear that the Railway Ministry affidavit has fraudulently produced before the Delhi High Court the last page of a 10-page CVC letter issued with respect to some other complaint (not complaint no. 107/11/1 pertaining to GE), as a complete CVC document and has used this to lie to the Delhi High Court that the CVC had advised closure of the forgery complaint against GE. This affidavit and the fraudulent production of this incomplete CVC document and the intent to pass off this document as pertaining to the GE complaint amounts to and constitutes perjury, forgery, fraud and deception of the highest order against the Delhi High Court.

Note also that this alleged CVC document does not mention the complaint number assigned to the GE complaint, does not mention the undersigned (the complainant), does not mention GE, and does not mention the word forgery or the words Kazakhstan customer certificate. It has no discussion of the complaint of forgery against GE or of any alleged investigation of that complaint.

This alleged document mentions an investigation report, comments of the administrative authorities thereon, and a Railway Board communication dated 12.08.2011, neither of which were produced before the Delhi High Court.

On 19 August 2017, I checked the status of complaint No. 107/11/1 on the CVC website. A screenshot of the search result is attached. According to the search on the CVC website, the CVO report in respect of complaint No. 107/11/1 was received by the CVC on 16/8/2011 and the CVC advised closure of the case on 19/9/2011.

Now Annexure R-1 has another discrepancy if compared to the information available on the CVC website. Annexure R-1 states "Railway Board's ID No.2011/VC/RB/10-CVC dated 12.08.2011 refers and its file is sent herewith."

So, the document produced as Annexure R-1 is an incomplete CVC document that advises closure of a complaint where the CVO report was received on 12.8.2011, whereas according to the information available on the CVC website, the CVO report in respect of Complaint No. 107/11/1 was received only on 16/8/2011. This further establishes that the document produced as Annexure R-1 along with the Railway Ministry affidavit does not pertain to Complaint No. 107/11/1.

Fraud No. 3

Also note that paragraph 3 of the Railway Affidavit dated 2 July 2012 (which has been reproduced above) itself contains several false and misleading statements.

Paragraph 3 states that GE did not require the Customer Certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railway for 10 No. of locomotives for fulfilling the 'Technical Capacity' criteria, toward meeting the RFQ requirement for supply of 1000 locomotives over the period of last ten years.

This statement is misleading and false. GE did require the Kazakhstan certificate to meet the additional RFQ requirement that the 1000 locomotives should be of different variants, i.e., locomotives with either gauge or service application variations, and that the supply should have been to three or more countries.  GE did not meet the requirement for two variants and supply to three countries prescribed by Clause 3.2.1 of the RFQ without the Kazakhstan Railways customer certificate.

Clause 2.2.2 (A) prescribed five separate requirements to establish eligibility for technical prequalification. The first two are relevant for the present purpose and are reproduced below.

"2.2.2 To be eligible for prequalification and short listing, an Applicant shall fulfill

the following conditions of eligibility:

(A) Technical Capacity: For demonstrating technical capacity and experience

(the "Technical Capacity"), the Applicant shall, have:

i. over the past 10 (ten) years, designed, manufactured and supplied 4000

or higher HP IGBT Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives;

ii. over the past 10 (ten) years, designed, manufactured and supplied at

least two (2) Variants of Mainline Diesel Locomotives and such

supply should have been to three (3) or more countries;

iii. …."

Clause 3.2.1 (a) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ is also relevant and is reproduced below.

"3.2 Technical Capacity for purposes of evaluation

3.2.1 Subject to the provisions of Clause 2.2, the Applicant shall:

a) over the period of last ten (10) years, have manufactured and supplied

at least 1000 Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives and:

i. such Locomotives should comprise at least 2 Variants; a

Variant for the purpose of this RFQ Document shall mean a

Locomotive with different gauge or with different service

application;

ii. the supply of such Locomotives should have been to three (3)

or more countries;

iii. 200 or more of such Diesel Electric Locomotives should be of

4000 HP (or higher) with AC-AC 3-phase and IGBT

technology;

iv. 25 or more of such Diesel Electric Locomotives should be of

6000 HP (or higher);"

Therefore, the following statements in paragraph 3 of the Railway Ministry are misleading and false.

1.     That the complaint of the fake customer certificate was thoroughly investigated.

2.     That the fake Kazakhstan certificate could simply have been discarded by the Railway Ministry.

3.     That GE did not derive any advantage by submitting the Kazakhstan Railway customer certificate.

4.     That therefore and for the above reasons alone there was no substance found in the allegation of forgery.

In addition, as already described above, the Railway Ministry officer Nihar Ranjan Dash was used to deceive the Delhi High Court by fraudulently filing an affidavit on behalf of the CVC and by fraudulently producing a fake CVC letter that allegedly advised closure of the forgery complaint against GE.

It is therefore amply clear that there has been no investigation by the CVC of this complaint of forgery against GE.

The judgment issued by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition 1280/2012 dated March 2, 2015 and which I have contended before the Supreme Court of India was issued without affording me a hearing, refers to and reproduces this very paragraph 3 in the Railway Affidavit dated 2 July 2012 after stating the following :-

"In fact, the petitioner had filed a complaint with CVC with regard to some of her allegations made in this petition, and the records of this court show that after replying to the petitioner that the complaint has been looked into, CVC ultimately had advised closure of the case and this is so stated in the counter- affidavit of respondents no. 2 and 4/Railways dated 2.7.2012 and the relevant para of the counter-affidavit is para 3 which reads as under:- "

Note that the Delhi High Court judgment dated March 2. 2015, fails to appreciate that the affidavit dated 2 July 2012 was signed by a Railway officer who had no authority to file an affidavit on behalf of the CVC.

The Delhi High Court judgment dated March 2, 2015 also fails to appreciate that para 3 of the counter affidavit dated 2 July 2012 does not state that the complaint of forgery was investigated and it instead falsely claims that GE did not require the Kazakhstan certificate to qualify and that the certificate could be "discarded". How could the Railway Ministry have simply discarded a forged customer certificate submitted by GE? Forgery constitutes a criminal offence and amounted to a fraudulent and corrupt practice under other clauses of the tender which would have rendered GE liable for disqualification and blacklisting.

The Delhi High Court judgment dated March 2, 2015 also fails to appreciate that Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit dated 2 July 2012 was an incomplete document with the first nine pages missing and that it did not contain the complaint number and that the Railway Affidavit had in fact filed a fake CVC letter.

The Delhi High Court judgment dated March 2, 2015 failed to therefore appreciate that the statement in the Railway counter-affidavit dated 2 July 2012 that the CVC had investigated and advised closure of the complaint of forgery by GE, was false and untrue.

All these facts had been pointed out by the Petitioner in multiple affidavits and applications but the Delhi High Court Bench that issued judgment dated March 2, 2015 did not permit the petitioner to argue the matter and she was not accorded a hearing. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court not only failed to hear the petitioner but also failed to even consider the court record including multiple affidavits and applications filed by the petitioner.

It is therefore clear that a grave fraud has been committed on the Delhi High Court and Railway Ministry officials were used to collude in covering of this complaint of forgery against GE.

As a matter of law, forgery of a customer certificate submitted with a Government tender is a serious matter and cannot be brushed under the carpet even if the 2010 Marhowra tender was cancelled.

Further, the perjury, fraud, forgery and deception committed by the Railway Ministry in its affidavit dated 2 July 2012 against the Delhi High Court to save and protect GE is also a very serious matter which also cannot be brushed under the carpet.

Seema Sapra

General Electric Company whistleblower