CASE STUDY: UNETHICAL PRACTICE DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE

THE BACKGROUND

During the construction phase of one pipeline project, line pipes and flanges of various diameters were stored at one of the Base Camps. This Base Camp was located in an open field without any perimeter wall or fencing and with hardly any illumination during night. The exigencies of project called for high in / out bound movement of materials stored in the Camp which itself was in the middle of wilderness. The entire material was under the custody and security of the Consultant (one of the leading PSUs in consultancy service under Ministry of Petroleum).

THE CRIME

The area was notorious for dacoits as many gangs operated there. The overall security responsibility was of undersigned that used to carry out area patrolling during night time as on various occasions gangs were reported to have attempted to enter the Base Camp and steal whatever they could.

The striking fact emerged after analyzing past incidents that whenever group of personnel were reported in the vicinity and were challenged, the custodian of material i.e. the Consultant reported theft of various items which appeared to be false and fabricated. So much so that even when some imaginary people were challenged and gun rounds were fired in the area for dramatic effect, next morning Consultant invariably reported theft cases.

The Project In-charge was kept in confidence along with Executive Director (Security & Vigilance) and one night the store yards’ doors were sealed and various heavy items stacked outside were marked surreptitiously just to find out easily if anything was moved from there. As per the plan, during the night Security Gypsy with search lights on and armed security personnel challenging imaginary thieves moved in and around the Base Camp late in the night. Next morning, as expected, Consultant submitted written complaint of theft of about dozen of flanges of 36” diameter!

Soon after the Project In-charge was taken to the spot in the store yard, where those flanges were supposed to have been stored and reported to have been stolen from. One observation confirmed that from the site nothing was removed as markings put last night were intact. There were no foot prints, nor there were any marks of removing heavy 36” dia flanges which require at least four men to handle each of them.

MODUS-OPERANDI

The matter was further investigated and deep- rooted conspiracy emerged in which the Storekeeper of the Consultant was the master mind. The whole operation of misappropriation of the property was carried out with the following modus operandi:

* Same contractor was awarded the job of laying the pipeline by another Oil PSU also laying the pipeline of 36” dia. Same Consultant was providing consultancy to this Oil PSU also. The procurement source of flanges was also same in both the projects.
* The project of other Oil PSU was getting delayed due to damage and short supply of flanges of 36” dia whereas our project has sufficient spares.
* Even while receipt voucher indicated supply of number of flanges, there was deficient supply on ground. Thus, even while documents indicated certain number of supply of flanges on ground, the concerned Storekeeper actually received lesser numbers. Thus ground balance was always less than the record balance. This situation was created and used for adjusting the ground objects by blaming them on theft cases.
* Deficient supply was re-routed to the same Consultant and the same Contractor at project site of other Oil Sector PSU.

CONCLUSION

Striking similarities in modus-operandi and similarity in crime pattern must be given serious and closer look as most of the time a sinister plot might emerge out of misappropriation of valuable items causing not only the financial losses but also very expensive delay in project completion, thus harming market reputation of the organization beyond repair.