: Circumventing the mandatory competitive bidding process and defying procedures, officials of the Haryana agriculture department purchased three sugarcane harvesters under a state plan scheme – Technology Mission on Sugarcane (TMS)- at an inflated price.
Competitive bids invited through a tender would have helped the department discover a fair market price of the cane harvesters. A departmental committee constituted subsequently to assess the correct market price of the machines during an inquiry found that the cane harvesters were purchased at inflated prices.
“A huge variation in price billing by manufacturing firm ( ₹ 82 lakhs including GST) and dealer billing price ( ₹ 95 lakh including GST) leave no doubt about the overpricing of the machine. An appropriate price fixation procedure could have saved ₹ 13-14 lakhs per unit to the state exchequer,” said the August 2 report signed by four officials.
The deviations in the purchase procedure have created a tricky situation. Three custom hiring centres (CHC) or farmers producer’s organisations (FPOs) to whom machines stand delivered have shelled out 40% cost ( ₹38 lakh each) of the machines but the 60% subsidy has been held back by the government. Part payments have also been made by four more CHCs/FPOs to the dealers but the machines have not been delivered for want of government subsidy.
Top officials said that the additional chief secretary (ACS), agriculture has recommended a probe either by the state vigilance bureau or by a retired judicial officer in the matter. “The file is with the chief minister’s office for a decision,’’ said an official.
{{/usCountry}}Top officials said that the additional chief secretary (ACS), agriculture has recommended a probe either by the state vigilance bureau or by a retired judicial officer in the matter. “The file is with the chief minister’s office for a decision,’’ said an official.
{{/usCountry}}Documents accessed by Hindustan Times showed that the original proposal of buying the three sugarcane harvesters through the high-powered purchase committee by inviting bids and hand them over to government run co-operative sugar mills for demonstration purposes was altered by the department officials at their own level.
Documents showed that agriculture department on April 19, 2021 submitted a proposal to the state government for administrative and financial sanction for Technology Mission on Sugarcane for 2021-2022. It was proposed to sanction purchase of sugarcane harvesters for sugar mills for demonstration at a full cost of ₹ 1 crore per unit. The administrative-cum- financial sanction was granted on June 11, 2021. Thus, only three high-cost sugar cane harvesters were to be purchased through high-powered purchase committee and be given to the government run co-operative sugar mills for demonstration purposes.
No approval taken from CM, agriculture minister
“However, the department at its own level decided to provide the sugar cane harvesters to custom hiring centres (CHC) or farmers producers organisations (FPO) on 60% subsidy. It also decided to give subsidy to the firms instead of CHC or farmers. Further, the price of these machines, quantum of subsidy, all detailed terms and conditions, beneficiaries of subsidy (the firms), numbers of targets initially for three machines, and then revised to 12 by diverting budget from another subsidy component were all decided without seeking approval of the agriculture minister, the chief minister at any stage. No mechanism or procedure for price discovery was carried out,’’ reads the file noting of ACS, agriculture, Sumita Misra.
The ACS further wrote that while the harvesters were to be purchased by the department through the high-powered purchase committee and were to be given to sugar mills only, the department practically changed all the terms and conditions, percentage of subsidy at 60% for such a costly machine ( ₹ 1 crore each) and issued permits to farmers societies.
“It then decided to provide subsidy to manufacturing firms of the machines at the rate of ₹ 60 lakh per machine at its own level with no tenders. During the whole episode, neither any approval of the state government or higher authorities was obtained nor the department thought it necessary to inform the government,’’ the ACS wrote.
Action proposed against officials
The ACS said that the dealing officials of sugar cane branch along with the supervisory officer - the additional cane commissioner - failed to discharge their duties in a transparent and proper manner which seems to be both intentional and willful. She proposed suspension and charge-sheeting of agriculture development officer (cane), Pramod Khichi.
The ACS also proposed that additional cane commissioner, Jagdeep Singh Brar who was the head of the division be chargesheeted under Rule 7 of HCS (Punishment and Appeal) Rules as he failed to seek necessary approval, contravened the approved scheme and concealed facts and information from a superior officer, all leading to a murky picture of misconduct. The ACS said that Brar has an incorrigible tendency to conceal facts and misguiding senior officers. Therefore, the charge of additional cane commissioner as well as all other assignments be withdrawn from him.
While the chief minister ordered that agriculture development officer (cane), Pramod Khichi be placed under suspension and charge-sheeted, additional cane commissioner, Jagdeep Brar got a temporary reprieve as he was only divested of the charge of additional cane commissioner. Officials said the CM was informed that the release of subsidy was done with the approval of DG, agriculture. As the exercise on assessment of market price of cane harvester machine was being undertaken, it was ordered that the facts be resubmitted for CMs decision thereafter, they said.