But there's a catch.
ABC's firm-let us now call them govt contractors-will finish the work in 6 months and will give 1/6th of the "govt-sanctioned" money to X, a govt officer, who will then award the contract to A, B, and C's firm.
Work starts and 6 months later, some progress is made.
So, ABC request the govt that a part of the payment be released as some progress has been made and there are salaries and bills to pay.
After a number of visits to X's office and some chit chats over a cup of "Sarkari office" tea, X-the govt officer- finally agrees to release 2/6th of the payment.
One year into the project, ABC's firm is still not paid any extra penny. The firm isn't going anywhere and 'A' decides to pick up a 9 to 5 job, leaves the firm, and tells B and C that he can't go on.
Some 8 months later, A and B meet each other at a friend's wedding.
To his surprise, B tells A that there were no other payments made.
"A, you don't know the number of visits C and I made to X's office. All I can tell you is that X and his secretary took the rest of the unbilled amount, theives!"
Because A and his friends were part of a corrupt deal, they knew they couldn't do anything about it.
So here are some questions:
- Should A, B, and C have agreed to do the project at all?
- Was B right in calling the officer a theif?
3 comments:
I don't know about the first question, but the second, yeah..he was right in calling X a thief! There's no reason why a thief shouldn't be able to call a thief a thief! :D
i think D is the best among dem lot :P
Sundancer, i used to think on the same lines. But being A wasn't easy.. :D
Virgo, there was a 'D' factor in the whole thing. He'll be introduced very soon... :)
Post a Comment