Policy Corruption: Disclosure of Criminal Collusion Between Unscrupulous RDSO Officials and Private Entities, Endangering the Integrity of Train Operations and Maintenance

Admin
  • We are deeply concerned about the criminal collusion between corrupt RDSO officials and private entities, putting the integrity and safety of train operations at risk
  • RDSO oversees critical railway items but has allowed a sinister alliance to compromise safety
  • RDSO’s approval system is tainted with favoritism and disregard for safety protocols
  • Certain vendors exploit regulatory gaps to secure approvals without evaluating their product’s performance
  • The removal of crucial safety checks is highly suspicious and calls for a thorough investigation
  • RDSO officials have abandoned fairness, impartiality, and safety for personal gain
  • Despite past accidents, RDSO shows a lack of responsiveness and accountability
  • We demand an immediate, impartial investigation by CBI and justice for these grave allegations
  • Corrective measures must reinstate safety checks and hold those responsible accountable
  1. It is our solemn obligation to write this #article with the utmost gravity and a profound sense of responsibility, driven by our unwavering commitment as a conscientious #citizen of our esteemed nation. The primary objective of this #article is to draw railway authorities esteemed attention to a matter of immense concern – the revelation of a sinister alliance involving certain covetous individuals within the Research Designs and Standards Organization (#RDSO) and #private enterprises. This #alliance presents an imminent peril to the #Safety, #Security and #Integrity of railway #operations and #maintenance.
  2. The #IndianRailways, in its operational endeavours, undertakes the #procurement of a wide spectrum of over 4000 distinct items that hold pivotal roles in the #production and #maintenance of its assets. Within this vast array, the Research Designs and Standards Organization (#RDSO) exercises jurisdiction over a modest subset comprising merely 211 items. Within this domain, #RDSO shoulders the weighty responsibility of devising #specifications, setting #standards, and granting #approvals to #vendors. It is imperative to emphasize that the selection of these specific items is anchored in their inherent criticality and their direct impact on #passenger_safety. Any compromise in the quality of these items invariably introduces an imminent threat to the lives of the traveling public.
  3. RDSO classifies approved vendors into two distinct categories: #Developmental and #Approved. Under this framework, Developmental sources collectively qualify for a maximum procurement allocation of 20% of the total quantity, contingent upon their quoted rates being lower than those put forth by Approved sources. In stark contrast, Approved sources are entitled to a minimum allocation of 80% of the procurement quantity, irrespective of any differential in their offered rates. This #allocation ratio of 20:80 serves as a pivotal delineation, highlighting the significant import and financial advantages inherent in the transition from developmental status to approved status.
  4. It is pertinent to highlight that a relatively small proportion, approximately 10%, of items necessitate the successful completion of field trials as a prerequisite for attaining developmental source approval. In contrast, for the remaining 90% items, the concept of field trials remains absent. Nevertheless, to staunchly guard against the unbridled infiltration of untested and unverified #Safety materials into the system, the following specific conditions were rigorously enforced for the elevation from developmental to approved source status:

(i) A developmental source was mandated to supply the specified minimum quantity for the respective item.

(ii) The quantity supplied was mandated to undergo a minimum 12-month period of active service.

(iii) During this stipulated period, the incidence of warrantee failures was to remain within the confines of those observed with the existing approved sources.

  1. It is imperative to reiterate that these aforementioned conditions were instituted with the express purpose of ensuring that the widespread proliferation of safety-critical items would only be countenanced subsequent to a comprehensive assessment of the performance of items supplied by developmental sources.
  2. However, in September 2022, a coalition of developmental firms, spearheaded by a western India based supplier of signalling cables, wielded significant influence over RDSO officials. This influence ultimately culminated in the removal of the field performance #criterion as delineated in #Paragraph 4(ii) above. The timing of this criterion’s removal, precisely on September 22, 2022, followed promptly by the conferment of “approved” status upon the aforementioned entity on October 10, 2022, without any accompanying performance assessment, cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence. These events unequivocally substantiate the existence of a questionable alliance and a criminal-nexus involving the implicated RDSO officials and a private vendor. This situation necessitates a thorough investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (#CBI). It is undeniably evident that such overt favouritism, which directly impacts safety, did not occur spontaneously or in isolation. I trust that your judgment coincides with the rational conclusions that a reasonably prudent person would naturally reach.
  3. Consequently, from September 2022 onwards, #Developmental sources could attain the status of #Regular sources solely by fulfilling the stipulated minimum #quantity requirement, irrespective of the #quality performance of the items they supplied. It is crucial to emphasize that authorizing developmental entities to supply substantial quantities of these crucial #Safety items without evaluating their performance could lead to catastrophic consequences.
  4. Furthermore, in accordance with the current policy, developmental vendors become eligible for upgrades as soon as they fulfil the prescribed minimum quantity requirement. This effectively nullifies the significance of the condition outlined in #Paragraph 4(iii) regarding warranty failures, as vendors qualify for upgrades immediately upon completing their supply obligations. The matter of warranty failures will only arise after the item has been put into service, which is not applicable since the prerequisite of a 12-month service period has been eliminated. Consequently, the absence of warranty failures is an inevitable outcome, thereby discrediting any suggestion to the contrary as nothing more than a feigned assertion or mere pretence.
  5. Of particular concern is the deliberate approach adopted by specific developmental sources. These entities, as part of a calculated strategy, exploit a regulatory gap by delivering the minimum specified quantity in a single consignment, thus securing #eligibility for approved source status without subjecting even a single piece of their product’s performance to evaluation. The underlying purpose of this maneuver is to preempt any potential future instances of #warranty failures that may arise when the item is ultimately put into operational use. It is worth noting that the matter of warranty failures only becomes relevant post-deployment, a scenario they effectively circumvent by providing the required quantity in a solitary delivery and subsequently seeking immediate up-gradation approval from the #Railway. This approach prevents any opportunity for the Railway to assess the product’s #performance (OF NOT EVEN A SINGLE PIECE) under actual operating conditions before considering their request for up-gradation.
  6. Remarkably, this substantial prerequisite was eliminated with a single decisive action, likely motivated by a substantial #bribe. On official records, this overt act of #favouritism, despite its adverse implications for railway safety, was justified on the premise that items, in any case, undergo field trials before attaining developmental status. Consequently, subsequent performance assessments for upgrade considerations were deemed redundant. However, in the course of these actions, the involved RDSO officials deliberately turned a blind eye to the #fundamental facts at hand. The necessity for a successful field trial applies to a very limited number of exceptional items. Therefore, this rationale is only applicable to the exceedingly rare instances (constituting no more than 10% of cases) where a field trial serves as a prerequisite for approval as a developmental source. Consequently, if it was considered necessary to remove such a significant #condition, it should have been rescinded exclusively for those select items. Unfortunately, it was uniformly revoked for all items under the purview of the RDSO. Consequently, firms are being elevated to ‘Approved’ source status without undergoing either a successful field trial at the point of developmental source approval or any performance assessment during the upgrading process.
  7. Another crucial aspect demands attention in this matter. According to Paragraph 13.1 of #RailwayBoard directive no. 2021/RS(G)/779/7, dated 18.01.2022, the #RDSO is under a strict #obligation to complete the process of granting developmental status to vendors within a 60-day timeframe, commencing from the moment their applications are received. However, the imposition of a successful field trial requirement at the developmental status granting stage would render it nearly impossible to adhere to this prescribed timeline. This is precisely why, as outlined in #Paragraph 8.1 of the aforementioned circular, field trials are mandated only for ‘few selected items’. For all other items, #Paragraph 13.4 of the same #circular emphasizes an alternative approach, underscoring the need to expedite #vendor development by ensuring that supplies received against developmental orders are promptly employed and given priority in terms of monitoring. It is of utmost importance to emphasize that the primary focus lies in evaluating performance post-deployment as a prerequisite for the transition from developmental to approved status. However, despite the clarity of these explicit directives, actions contrary to the prescribed directives were taken, appearing to be motivated by personal gain.
  8. The following pivotal and interconnected inquiries demand thorough investigation by an Impartial independent Agency like #CBI :

(i) Why, on what basis, was the universal elimination of the post-12-month service performance review requirement justified, when this justification, cantered on prior field trials, was applicable only to an exceptionally rare category of items? As a result, #developmental entities are currently being elevated to #approved source status without the need for either field trials (prior to their classification as developmental sources) or performance assessments (before attaining approved source status).

(ii) How was the glaringly simple matter of rendering the pre-existing condition on warranty failures redundant when a developmental source fulfils the sole condition of supplying the entire specified quantity for an upgrade and subsequently applies for such an upgrade, inexplicably disregarded? It is manifestly clear that, without the implementation of the in-service condition for the stipulated minimum period, the issue of any warranty failures naturally does not arise. What led to the negligent oversight of this fundamental issue?

(iii) Why was the practice, where developmental #suppliers deliver the complete designated quantity in a single consignment and promptly thereafter request an upgrade of their status from ‘developmental’ to ‘approved’, not subjected to the scrutiny and contemplation it undeniably deserved? This practice is of paramount concern due to the vendors’ calculated awareness that it constitutes a mechanism, stemming from the policy’s deficiencies, for potentially evading warranty deficiencies. Within this context, the existing framework for evaluating warranty shortcomings in the context of upgrading loses its substantive significance and amounts to nothing more than a facade. What explains the failure to address this apparent and concerning matter with the requisite scrutiny?

(iv) Why was such a crucial approval prerequisite, one directly influencing safety, eliminated without soliciting input from any of the #Technical Directorates?
 
(v) If the need for removing the performance review prerequisite had been genuinely recognized, shouldn’t the #technical-directorates have been consulted to assess the appropriateness of individual items for field trials as an alternative mechanism? The precondition should only have been lifted after a thorough review and confirmation by the technical directorates, with the changes taking effect at a specified future date (e.g., nine months or a year later). Unfortunately, this established #procedure was bypassed, leaving them in the dark. This approach is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse, resulting in the unregulated introduction of ‘untested-safety-materials’ on a massive scale into the railway system. Why was such a reckless course of action chosen?
 
(vi) Pursuant to #RailwayBoard directive No. 2021/RS(G)/779/7 dated 18.01.2022, #RDSO was entrusted with the responsibility for conducting #field-trials in developmental orders. However, it is deeply regrettable that over the past 20 months, RDSO has failed to issue a single developmental order. Consequently, in flagrant violation of established directives, the burden of field trials has been shifted to #ZonalRailways, which encounter significant challenges in procuring dedicated funding for the placement of developmental orders. The case of #EM-Pads trials against revised drawings stands as a stark example of this predicament, substantiated by available records. Therefore, a pressing question arises: Why was there an unjustifiable rush to eliminate the performance review prerequisite during the upgrade process?

(vii) As per the aforementioned circular, it was explicitly mandated that #RDSO receive a dedicated budget for the initiation of developmental orders. Additionally, #RDSO was entrusted with the responsibility of formulating comprehensive procedures for the execution of developmental orders, particularly concerning field trials. Astonishingly, despite the passage of 20 months, these mandated responsibilities remain conspicuously unfulfilled. While one hand failed to execute what was unequivocally prescribed for #RDSO, the other hand recklessly dismantled the performance review prerequisite. The answer to this confounding situation is unequivocal: responsible officials succumbed to the allure of personal gain, compelling them to disregard established #protocols and #integrity, and act in favour of the developmental sources. Consequently, these sources acquired approved status without undergoing any service performance review. Why was such a flagrant breach of protocol and integrity permitted to occur?

  1. The foregoing facts undeniably substantiate that #RDSO has strayed from its fundamental tenets of #fairness, #impartiality, and #consistency, opting instead for a #capricious, #arbitrary, and, regrettably, #discriminatory approach. In their relentless pursuit of personal gain, they have shown a stark disregard for the #safety of railway operations and maintenance. These newfound #traits have inadvertently nurtured an environment ripe for #corruption and #nepotism. It is irrefutable that #RDSO has become susceptible to manipulation and, whether consciously or inadvertently, has become a pawn in the hands of influential and well-connected individuals.
  2. It is conspicuously apparent that #RDSO has astonishingly persisted in its pattern of failing to extract any meaningful lessons from the alarming sequence of catastrophic accidents attributed to the ostensibly dependable #BMBS in recent incidents. This persistent lack of responsiveness raises significant concerns and merits immediate attention.
  3. Given the gravity of these substantial allegations and the far-reaching implications they hold for public safety, #Railwhispers beseech Hon’ble Minister for Railways and Chairperson, Railway Board to discharge their duty and obligation to investigate diligently and provide justice and equity, which are not only ours entitlements but also their solemn responsibility.
  4. #Railwhispers have summoned the courage to hold a mirror before the Hon’ble Minister for Railways and Chairperson, Railway Board and it is their solemn duty to get it examined it closely and take immediate following corrective measures, while holding those responsible accountable-

(i) In accordance with the #regulatory framework that was prevailing and was in effect prior to September 2022, it is imperative to establish either a successful field trial or a post-deployment performance evaluation spanning a period of 12 months as #mandatory prerequisites for all items under the jurisdiction of the #RDSO for respective #vendors to become eligible for up-gradation as #approved sources qualified for bulk order #procurement. It is of utmost importance that at least one of these two prerequisites is strictly enforced before authorizing the extensive mass-scale utilization of any such highly safety item. The #RDSO should draw valuable lessons from a series of catastrophic #accidents in the recent past, stemming from the failures of the #BMBS.

(ii) Those individuals found responsible for deliberate acts of omission and commission in this matter must be dealt with heavy hands.

Compiled & Edited by Suresh Tripathi