disciplinary actions that the board of engineer

Topic:
1. Discuss the disciplinary actions that the board of engineer can take against its registered members. Discussion should also include; the action procedures and examples from of previous cases.
All Engineers around the world must register under Board of Engineer of their own country. For Malaysia, we have The Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) which is a statutory body constituted under the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 with perpetual succession and a common seal, which may sue and be sued. It was formed in 23rd August 1972. The primary role of BEM is to facilitate the registration of engineers and regulate the professional conduct and practice of registered engineers in order to safeguard the safety and interest of the public.
Since its inception in 1972, BEM has been a medium for the engineers to decide on matters relating to their professional conduct or ethics. Any matter concerning the professional conduct of registered engineers will be studied by the BEM to determine whether there is a breach of professional ethics or code. If the need arises, BEM will carry out investigations to establish whether there is a prima facie case against a registered engineer for contravening the Act. The procedures to follow are prescribed in Section 15 of the Act.
If there is a breach of professional ethics or code of conduct on the part of the engineer but such breach is not serious enough to warrant suspension or cancellation of registration, appropriate action, e.g. warning, censure or advice would be taken by BEM as deemed fit. Such measures should be viewed by the engineers at large as a concerned effort on the part of BEM to rid the black sheep of the engineering fraternity. Besides that, BEM also help in enforce the implementation of Continuing Professional Development (CPD), strengthen the penalty in the REA 1967 and the suspension period. So that engineering services provided in the country are of high quality, delivered with due diligence, conforming to professional ethics and benchmarked to the best practices.
There is a disciplinary case happen at New Delhi, India. Where Delhi Jal Board (DJB) suspended 14 engineers after CBI registered a case of cheating and forgery against them in the supply of sewerage equipment to DJB. These include superintending engineers, executive engineers and junior engineers. One of them has already retired from service.

CBI, along with these officials, has also named a private company in its FIR. "The case relates to the alleged supply of spurious and cheap motor pumps, gear boxes, machinery and spare parts used in sewage treatment plants at exorbitant rates by showing the firm as authorized dealer of a manufacturing firm on the basis of fake and forged documents," CBI officials said. Sources in DJB said the decision was not easy to take and CEO Vijay Kumar was reportedly against the order, citing shortage of staff. However, chief minister Arvind Kejriwal made it clear that there was no place for any corrupt official in the government.

Later on A junior engineer of Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and two other persons, chargesheeted by CBI for allegedly causing a loss of Rs 1.79 lakh to the exchequer by submitting a forged bill, have been summoned by a special court here. The court issued summons to Vinod Kumar, junior engineer of DJB, Vinod Gupta, proprietor of M/s Waterwell Drillers and Vinod Kumar Verma, one of the firm's employees, for February one after taking cognisance of the charge sheet filed against them by the CBI.

CBI had charge sheeted the accused for the offences under various sections of the IPC, including 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 477-A (falsification of accounts) and under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
"Prima facie offences under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy), IPC read with section 420... are made out against accused Vinod Gupta and Vinod Kumar Verma of M/s Waterwell Drillers and offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as substantive offence and offences under section....are made out against accused Vinod Kumar, junior engineer, DJB," Special CBI Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
The CBI, in its charge sheet, had alleged that a bill was forged by Verma at the instance of Vinod Gupta who had claimed an extra amount of Rs 1.62 lakh by showing purchase of a 60 meter pipe and its use for re-boring a tubewell at Palam village.The agency said that Rs 1,79,400 was given by the DJB to Vinod Gupta, who was proprietor of the private firm which had entered into a contract agreement with the DJB for the work.
It alleged that as per the conditions of the agreement, the contractor was required to use slotted pipes of 'Johnson' make in the borewell but Gupta had submitted a forged bill for Rs 2,28,080 purportedly showing purchase of items, including a 60 meter pipe for an amount of Rs 1,62,000.
This is a serious corruption case happen in India which all engineer that involve is this cases no matter what position he is will be face the justice of court. Since this corruption cases just happen in 27 January 2014 that disciplinary action upon them is not sure yet. But before that, there are case 3 MTNL engineers given 3 yrs jail term in corruption case. An executive engineer and two other officials of the MTNL were sentenced to three years in jail for paying over Rs 3 lakhs to some private builders for repairing the floors of a Sanchar Haat, which was never done.
Special CBI Judge Dinesh Kumar Sharma gave jail terms to Executive Engineer Nihal Chand, Assistant Engineer R C Bansal, and Junior Engineer Anil Kumar after convicting them for committing offences of cheating and forgery under the IPC and also those under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court also awarded two years' jail term to private contractor Gulshan Kumar, owner of M/s Sarvodaya Construction Private Ltd here, who was only convicted for the criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery along with them. In the present case, Nihal Chand, R C Bansal and Anil Kumar being public servant abused their position and got pecuniary advantage for Gulshan Kumar by raising forged and fabricated bills.
Accused persons also entered into conspiracy and cheated the state by dishonestly inducing for making the payment. The accused persons also in the conspiracy committed forgery by preparing a bill, document for transfer of the money and also used the forged bills as a genuine document," the court said, imposing a cost of Rs 60,000 on three officials and Rs 40,000 on Kumar.
The CBI had alleged that the accused officials, all posted with the Civil Wing of MTNL, had passed two bills totalling Rs 3,98,936 in favour of Kumar on January 21 and September 12, 2003 as "payment" for repair work done at Sanchar Haat in Shakti Nagar here. Finally.The CBI in 2006 had charge-sheeted four MTNL officials including Senior Engineer P K Bhalla. He, however, was discharged from the case due to lack of evidence against him.
The agency had said investigation into the matter had revealed that the officials had not followed any legal formalities to award the work Kumar. The charge sheet alleged that Kumar was paid the amount despite lack of any documentary or physical evidence to show that the repairs were actually carried out. To me the penalty of jail is to light for those who involve in corruption. This kind of mistake is unforgivable because human life may be the worst consequence and all this is avoidable is they do not taking bribe. They are too money minded and put their ethics and moral aside so they should put in jail and learn the lesson of what they have done.
Not only corruption will face disciplinary action, but issued to licensees, citations issued for unlicensed practice, and criminal actions. Examples of disciplinary action are fine or penalty, suspension, probated suspension, license revoked, Cease and Desist and other. Some cases like the firm’s registration expired will face administrative penalty. For more serious cases like Mr. William J. Harris, Jr., P.E case, (Spring, Texas; Case Number: D-33361) He signed and sealed several windstorm inspection forms (WPI-2-BC-2) submitted to the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI). Mr. Harris was unable to provide all requested documentation to TDI in a timely manner, and thus TDI was unable to certify the subject properties as eligible for windstorm insurance from the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association. Therefore, it was determined that Mr. Harris signed and sealed engineering documents that may not have complied with existing codes and failed to fully document his engineering certification. Therefore one year probated suspension effective November 21, 2013, a $1,300.00 administrative penalty, and successful completion of an engineering ethics course.
Another case is Dr. Don Anyanwu, PhD., P.E.(Dallas, Texas; Case Numbers: D-31880, D-31963 and B-31881.) he signed and sealed an engineering plans for an addition to a retail store which did not meet code requirements as to wall and roof framing elements; he also designed, and sealed numerous plans for a church including electrical, plumbing mechanical, structural and landscaping elements which did not conform to code requirements and failed city inspections; and, he performed engineering work while his firm registration was lapsed. Therefore, it was determined that Dr. Anyanwu’s actions were misleading and contrary to generally accepted engineering standards, and that he failed to perform these engineering assignments in a careful and diligent manner. Finally he have to face six year suspension with all but the first 12 months to be fully probated, a $15,000.00 administrative penalty, and successful completion of an engineering ethics Level III course and also after the active suspension is completed,
After the active suspension is completed, Dr. Anyanwu will restrict his practice to mechanical engineering and will provide five completed projects to the Board for review every six months while he is on probation. This is more serious because involve several mistakes and may cause fatal on human therefore more heavy penalty is upon Dr. Anyanwu.
The next engineer that was found guilty is McKINNEY, EARL F a
Mechanical Engineer. In 23 August 2002, he gets his license suspended, suspension stayed and two years on probation.

Earl F. McKinney had subjected his Mechanical Engineer License M 18456 to disciplinary action pursuant to Business and Professions Code §141 in that he has been disciplined by the professional engineering licensing boards in numerous other states for actions which would constitute violations of the Business and Professions Code if committed in California. The Accusation also alleged the McKinney signed and stamped engineering documents during a period in which his license was expired due to nonpayment of renewal fees, in violation of Business and Professions Code §§6775(h), 6733, and 6787(e). It was further alleged that McKinney practiced electrical engineering without legal authority by preparing electrical engineering drawings without legal authority, in violation of Business and Professions Code §§6775(h) and 6730. McKinney, as a Licensed Mechanical Engineer, is not authorized to practice electrical engineering.

Effective August 23, 2002, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement as its decision in this matter. In this stipulation, McKinney admitted that his Mechanical Engineer license was subject to disciplinary action in California based on the disciplinary actions taken by other states. McKinney also admitted that he signed and stamped engineering documents while his license was expired. Furthermore, McKinney admitted that he signed and stamped electrical engineering plans as a Mechanical Engineer and that he was not legally authorized to sign and stamp electrical engineering documents since he is not licensed in California as an Electrical Engineer.
In mitigation, McKinney advised that, at the time he signed and stamped the electrical engineering plans, he believed they were incidental to the overall project, and, therefore, and Electrical Engineer's stamp was not required. McKinney agreed that he had subjected his Mechanical Engineer license to discipline based on these violations. In this decision, the Board ordered McKinney's license suspended for two years; however that suspension was stayed, and McKinney was placed on probation for a period of two years upon certain terms and conditions. Some of these conditions required McKinney to successfully complete and pass a Board-approved professional ethics course and the California Laws and Board Rules examination. McKinney is also required to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $9,458.00. Additionally, McKinney is required to advise the Board of any disciplinary action taken against his professional engineer licenses in other states and jurisdictions.
In this case show that is important for an engineer to be careful when they signed and stamped any document, there are Art and regulation to make sure all the electrical engineering plans or other mechanical plan is safe and quality to ensure do not endanger and human life or cause accident. Even he or she is enough knowledge or experience enough but still need to have license or Board-approved document for the plan or any drawing.
Unlicensed issue also is a serious criminal action. Clark, Thomas E which facing arrest warrant issued and $2,500 bail in 26 November 1996, three felony and three misdemeanor counts were filed against Thomas E. Clark in the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County. It is alleged that Clark violated Penal Code §§ 115(a) and 532(a) and Business and Professions Code § 6788 (felony counts) and Business and Professions Code §§ 6787(a),(b), and (f) (misdemeanor counts).

The felony charges specifically allege that Clark, in December 1995, willfully and unlawfully offered a false and forged instrument to be filed in a public office (engineering plans for a residence); that he knowingly, by false and fraudulent representations, defrauded consumers of money or property in an amount of $400.00; and that he committed a felony by violating Business and Professions Code § 6787 by offering or performing engineering services for the repair of damage to a residential structure caused by a natural disaster for which a state of emergency was declared. The misdemeanor charges allege that Clark unlawfully practiced or offered to practice civil engineering, which he unlawfully presented and attempted to file as his own the certificate of registration of another person, and that he unlawfully represented himself, and used the restricted title, as a professional engineer.
In Conclusion, all the registered members or engineer of any board of Engineer around the world should behave and act follow the law or regulation of the board. Even some time, we will still make mistake or breaking the law but corruption and unlicensed performing engineering services should be avoid in all cost.

Reference

http://www.bem.org.my/v3/printerfriendly/about.html#top http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-01-27/news/46684933_1_junior-engineer-djb-delhi-jal-board http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/DJB-suspends-14-engineers-for-corruption/articleshow/29021662.cms http://zeenews.india.com/news/delhi/three-mtnl-engineers-given-3-yrs-jail-term-in-corruption-case_817974.html https://engineers.texas.gov/disciplinary.htm http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/consumers/disc_m_z.shtml http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/consumers/convicted.shtml