Satykam Mohanty – one of the four to be arrested in the Louis Berger bribery scam – was promoted as the company’s vice-president in India in 2010, he was kept away from all its operations, communications, transactions, etc.
The reason now seems obvious! The ‘rebellious’ employee often protested the company’s shoddy services offered to Indian clients besides the ‘nefarious activities’ of senior vice-president James McClung.
In a confidential inter-office correspondence to McClung two months before his promotion on March 7, 2010, Mohanty had categorically objected to being treated as a ‘clerical staff’ with no control over functions and performance of other personnel.
“It pains to see that LB collects huge billing rates from the Indian clients and offers such shoddy services. In fact, I have noticed that our project staffs even try to skip some requirements of the scope of services,” an extract from his email communication to James, a copy of which is with Herald, said.
In the interest of the work, Mohanty had recommended outsourcing majority deliverables such as surveys and investigations and subsequently, to review the works done by another agency for quality control and future risk avoidance but in vain.
The MBA graduate had also pointed out that some business development staff refused to report to him on client meetings and interactions especially on the water, aviation and rail projects under the excuse that they had direct permission from James to keep such projects confidential from him.
“I am not sure what some staffs are doing in projects as they all have a similar claim of reporting directly to you – unfortunately. Some clients do call me but only to complain of non-performance and even long absences of our staff, on whom I have no control… my interactions remain limited to NHAI. If that’s what you desire, then let us officialise it,” the pained employee had written adding he is just a signatory on documents which have James’ instructions.
Mohanty’s resignation mail explained how frustrating the entire functioning was as he had merely a designation without any authority while also stating that he never played and is incapable of playing politics within the company. Moreover, the appraisal system is painful, he added.
His habitual objections and clarifications to works had reportedly threatened the company’s prospects in India, as a result of which it preferred to by-pass him for any approval.
“Any issue that I raise an objection or query to, I am told that it has your instruction or permission. This makes me feel redundant as a post office boy with a power of attorney… despite the nominal position on paper, I continue working as a clerical staff taking instructions from you (James) as my boss but with no control over functions and performance of other personnel,” he stated.
In an interesting revelation, Mohanty was initially appointed to handle the JICA water and sewerage developmental projects but was later handed over to the now-witness and former regional director of the company Sanjay Jindal. “…on the basis of specific power of attorney he entered in the JV (joint venture) contract and was directly reporting all day to day activities to McClung who is found guilty for paying bribe,” he has said adding that he never met any politician or minister or government official during the pendency of the project.
Mohanty had tendered his resignation on October 27, 2011 for the very reason that he was not satisfied with Clung’s working and the clear organisational structure. But the US head office did not relieve him and instead sent him to London on an educational course. It was at this time that Mohanty suspected ‘nefarious activities’ by James and finally resigned in March 2012. His resignation letter was this time mailed to LB group’s chief operating officer Jim Bach and group vice president Carlos Marcenaro.
“The role of the applicant,” his bail plea to the district court states, “in such contracts was limited to the tune of preparation of the presentation and thereafter he was not involved… had he been part and parcel of the beneficiary of the alleged payment being made to this project in Goa he would not have resigned from the company.”
The freelancer to some Indian consultancies stated that he voluntarily joined the investigation and anticipates his arrest was to force him in making a statement before a magistrate. He claims there is no incriminating evidence against him.
