The work of supervision, measurements and authorization of payments was entrusted to the consultant. During inspection over-measurement of certain items was noticed. The material recovered on dismantling was not properly accounted and for the use of old materials proper cost adjustment was not made. For these lapses, Commission advised major penalty proceedings against the Chief Engineer.

The examination of work revealed irregularities like less thickness of the components and sub-standard execution of work. Commission advised minor penalty proceedings against the officials responsible for the lapse.

During examination of the work, certain irregularities have been observed and Commission advised minor penalty proceedings against the Assistant Engineer (Civil).

In case of purchase of stores, serious irregularities were noticed and the Commission advised major penalty proceedings against General Manager, Chief Store Keeper and Chief Engineer.

During inspection of the construction of staff quarters for DDA, it was found that sub-standard shutters have been used. The shutters were required to be replaced. But after long time DDA officials sanctioned Reduced Item Statement and expressed difficulty in replacement of the shutters. Considering that sub-standard work had been accepted, Commission advised major penalty proceedings against Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, and Junior Engineers.

The work regarding construction of houses and services scheme at Mangolpuri was inspected and quality of work was found very poor. The materials accepted were not tested and no recovery had been effected. The Commission advised recordable warning to Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineers concerned.

During examination of one of the works of DDA, 800 bags of cement were found to be not accounted and thus misappropriated. In addition, sub-standard work was also found to be executed. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer. Recordable warning for sub-standard work was advised against the Executive Engineer.

In one of the works inspected it was found that water used was not tested and concrete mix was poor. The concrete cover was also not adequate resulting into damage to the structural members. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer.

The work was not carried out as per specifications. A huge recovery of Rs.1.75 lakhs had to be made for sub-standard items. The Commission advised minor penalty proceedings against Executive Engineer and others. It was further observed that the Superintending Engineers in charge of the work did not inspect the works and Commission advised major penalty proceedings against the Superintending Engineers.

In one of the cases of DDA it was found that over-payments were made to the contractor since bills were not test checked properly. A recovery of about Rs. 1.33 lakhs was made for defective works but same was restored by the Arbitrator. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer.

Substandard work was executed and recoveries had to be made. The Commission advised minor penalty proceedings against Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer and others.

It was found that quality of the work was sub-standard and there was a delay in settlement of the Reduced Rate Statement and recovery of dues. During arbitration counter claims were not identified timely. For these lapses, Commission advised major penalty proceedings against the Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer.

During examination of the above work, it was found that Architect/Consultant had not been properly appointed. Abnormally high rates have been allowed resulting into excess expenditure. The execution of the work was not properly carried out and excess payment of Rs. 12.49 lakhs was detected. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against the CMD, Members of the Board, Chief Engineer and others.

During examination of this work, sub-standard conduits were found used. Recovery of Rs.1.65 lakhs was made. There were other sub-standard items accepted. Commission advised major penalty proceedings against the Manager concerned.

In the above noted work, an important line was missing in the contract which resulted into contractual implications. Commission advised issue of caution memo to Executive Engineer (Civil).

While purchasing office space, it was seen that care was not taken to verify the approval of plans and loan was sanctioned to the builder for a building under construction which was not being constructed as per approved bye-laws and sanctioned plans. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against the erring officials.

During examination of the work, it was found that payment had been made against the items which have neither been executed nor were required to be executed. Over-payment of Rs.85,000/- was detected. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against Superintending Engineer and others.

During examination of the work it was found that officials concerned have paid rates higher than the rates accepted by the competent authority and thus resulting into over-payment. The Commission advised minor penalty proceedings against the Project Engineer.

During examination of this work it was found that proper analysis of rates was not prepared and thus Tender Valuation Committee was misled in accepting higher rates. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against eleven officers responsible for the lapse.

During inspection of the work it was found that a loss of Rs.7.42 lakhs was caused due to less deduction of contract tax. The Commission advised minor penalty proceedings against the Chief Manager.

Action to forfeit the earnest money was not taken and undue benefit of Rs.75,400/- was extended to the contractor causing equivalent loss to NBCC. The Commission advised minor penalty proceedings against Deputy Project Manager, Resident Engineer and others.

The pre-qualification of the contractors was not carried out properly. The mobilisation advance was also paid in violation of the agreement. The Bank Guarantee obtained could not be encashed because of shortcoming. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against Chief Engineer, Chief Project Manager and Deputy Project Manager.

The pre-qualification was not properly carried out. The tender was accepted at much higher cost. The electricity and water charges along with security deposit were not recovered fully. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against Chief Engineer and Chief Project Manager.

Proper estimate was not prepared and care was not taken at the time of acceptance of the tender with the result that excess expenditure of Rs.5 lakhs and to be incurred. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against Deputy General Manager, Senior Manager and Managers for this lapse.

During examination of the flats it was observed that specifications to be followed during construction had not been adhered to. Over-payment had to be subsequently adjusted. The Commission advised minor penalty proceedings against General Manager and others.

During inspection it was found that proper market rate analysis had not been carried out and work was awarded at higher rates. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against the officials responsible for the lapse.

Measurements were not properly recorded and test checked, with the result that an over-payment of Rs.1.3 lakhs was detected. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against the officials responsible for the lapse.

The consultancy work was awarded considering a building of smaller size whereas a bigger building was constructed and thus very high consultancy fee had to be paid. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against the Superintending Engineer and others.

Limited tenders were invited from small number of firms and thus high rates were paid. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against Director (Operations) and General Manager(F&A) along with Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer.

A complaint regarding manipulation in the rates was received and investigated. It was found that rates were changed while processing the tenders and work was awarded to the second lowest tenderer at higher rates. The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against the Executive Engineer and others.

Sub-standard fire detectors were used and recovery was not made for a long time. Similarly, defective smoke detectors were allowed to be used thus extending undue benefit to the contractor.

The Commission advised major penalty proceedings against Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer and others.