The “Lampbah” story brought 5 Chemistry Authority officials to trial

In one of the strange and curious cases that the court witnesses, specifically within the Council of State, the Disciplinary Court of the upper managerial level was in an appointment with a case in which 5 officials of the Chemical Authority were accused of negligence, negligence and deviations from the commissioners of labor duties, all these “labor” charges faced by the five officers were triggered by a “light bulb.”

The case in which the court issued various judgments was due to the repair and installation of a lamp for the textile factory without referring to the stores to indicate the availability of the item or not, since the judgment included penalizing “AY”, procurement specialist of the General Administration of Purchases and Stores of the Department of Chemistry, and director of “BM” The Department of Wool Fibers and the Director of the Department “FS” deducted from their salary the salary of 15 days. The warning sanction was directed to “FA”, the General Director of the General Administration of Purchases and Stores, and the court fined “HS” the director of the Department of Insulation and Cotton Textiles previously with a fine equivalent to 15 days of his work salary, the sentence was handed down by the councilor Hatem Daoud, vice president of the Council of State and the secretariat of Muhammad Hassan.

The administrative accusation attributed to the first store the request for contracting by direct order on the maintenance, repair, supply and installation of 2 light bulbs for the textile factory without referring to the stores, to indicate whether the item is available or not, or to present to the commission for repair, maintenance and technical and economic decision on the offers presented in such a way as to contract the entity. The administration is responsible for purchasing and supplying the items available in the stores and claiming the opposite of the truth and reality. Install 2 bulbs in a lighting fixture even though the fixture is equipped and a lamp has been installed in it.

The second neglected to supervise and review the work of the first store, which resulted in a direct contract with an electronics company to buy, supply and install 2 lamps with an industrial lighting device in the textile factory, in violation.

The third, fourth and fifth approved the conformity of the offers presented for the repair and technical and economic maintenance of the industrial lighting device of the Textile Factory, despite their not belonging to the technical and financial decision committees and the status of the Offers presented include the supply and installation of 2 bulbs while the device in question is equipped and supplied with one bulb, which resulted in damage. And to facilitate the seizure of public money in the event of a contract, contrary to the truth, by supplying and installing 2 lamps with lighting device, with a value of 16,800 pounds, excluding value added tax.

The beginning of the incident occurred with the report of the Chemical Authority on the process of repair and installation of a lamp for the textile factory, and the suspicion of financial and administrative corruption it contained.