PART VII EXTRAORDINARY
PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
(VIG.I)
ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF EAS FUNDS IN
TRIBAL WELFARE DIVISION, RAMPACHODAVARAM IN EXECUTION OF
C.D.WORKS
ON
ROAD
FROM
A.M.KOTA
TO
PATHAKOTA
-
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST SRI N.ARUN KUMAR,
FORMER
ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER,
EAST
GODAVARI
DISTRICT - ENQUIRY CONDUCTED - COMMUNICATION OF ENQUIRY REPORT -
EXPLANATION CALLED FOR.
Ref
:
1.
G.O.Rt.No.998,
PR&RD (Vig.I) Department, Dt: 14.11.2014.
2.
From Sri K. Sahadeva Reddy, D.O.Lr.No. 18/COI.KSR/2015, Dt: 15.11.2017.
***
Memo No. 2056/Vig.I/2005,- Government have appointed Sri K.Sahadeva
Reddy, Commissioner of Inquiries, General Administration (COI.KSR) Department
as Inquiry officer to conduct enquiry into the charges framed against Sri N.Arun Kumar,
former Assistant Executive Engineer, East Godavari District, in respect of
allegations of corruption and misappropriation of EAS funds in Tribal Welfare
Division, Rampachodavaram in execution of C.D.works on road from A.M.Kota to
Pathakota, vide reference 1st cited.
[ 1 ]
Registered No. HSE-49/2016
No.23
AMARAVATI, TUESDAY , JULY 17, 2018
G.389
NOTIFICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT
--x--
Sri K.Sahadeva Reddy, Commissioner of Inquiries, General Administration
(COI.KSR) Department has submitted the Inquiry Report, vide reference 2nd cited.
A copy of Inquiry report is herewith communicated to Sri N.Arun Kumar, former
Assistant Executive Engineer, East Godavari District, now dismissed from service
and He is directed to submit his representation, if any, on the enquiry report,
within (15) days from the date of receipt of this Memo, failing which, it will be
construed that he has no explanation to offer and necessary action will be taken
against him, based on the material available on record, as per rules.
Report of inquiry into the charges framed against Sri N.Arun Kumart
Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj in I.T.D.A. (U/S), Rampachodavaram,
East Godavari District.
Memo No. 2056/Vig.I/2005,- The Government in Panchayat Raj & Rural
Development (Vig.II) Dept., vide G.O.Rt.No.1086, Dated: 11.07.2008, in exercise
of powers conferred under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control 8, Appeal) Rules, 1991 have appointed
Dr. Prasanta Mahapatra, I.A.S., as Inquiring Authority to conduct Inquiry into the
charges framed against Sri G.Sudarsanam, formerly Deputy Executive Engineer
(Tribal Welfare), Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District and Sri N.Arun
Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (U/S), East Godavari District.
The Government have also appointed the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj,
Kakinada, East Godavari District, as Presenting Officer to present the case on behalf
of the Disciplinary Authority, under sub-rule (5) of Rule 20 of APCS (CCSA) Rules, 1991.
Government have issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.1356, PR & RD (Vig.II) Dept., Dt:
19.09.2009, appointing Sri A.B.Venkateswara Rao, I.P.S., Commissioner of
Inquiries as Inquiring Authority in place of Dr. Prasanta Mahapatra, I.A.S. Government
have also issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.1825, PR & RD (Vig.II) Dept., Dt: 30.11.2010,
appointing Dr. Subhrendu Bhattacharya, I.A.S., Commissioner of Inquiries as Inquiring
Authority in place of Sri A.B.Venkateswara Rao, I.P.S. Government in G.O.Rt.
No.451, PR & RD (Vig.II) Sept., Dt. 17.03.2012 have re-assigned the case to Sri Jitender,
Commissioner of Inquiries as Inquiring Authority in place of Dr. Subhrendu
Bhattacharya, I.A.S. In the mean whife Govt, vide U.O.Note No.2056/Vig.II/A2/
2005-19, Dt.05.01.2013 have informed that the Hon’ble APAT, Hyderabad in its
orders Dated:15.03.2012 in O.A.No. 1658/2011 has quashed the Charge Memo.
Dated: 25.05.1998 served on the applicant (Charged Officer-1). The Government
in PR & RD (Vig.II) Dept., have requested the GA (COI.J) Dept, not to conduct
Inquiry against Sri G.Sudarsanam, Deputy Executive Engineer (Retd.), Panchayat Raj
(CO-1) in this case. Govt. have also implemented the orders of Hon’ole APAT
releasing all the retirement benefits in accordance with law to the Charged Officer-l
vide G.O.Rt. No.149, PR & RD (Vig.II) Dept., Dt:30.01.2013. As the case stood
thus, the Government have issued orders appointing Sri C.Sammi Redcy, IFS (Retd.),
Commissioner of Inquiries as inquiring authority in this case !n place of Sri Jitender,
IPS, vide G.O.Rt.No.1910, PR & RD (Vig.II) Dept., Dt: 25.11.2013. At this stage the
case was reassigned to me vide G.O.Rt.No.998, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development
(Vig.I) Department,. Dt:14.11.2014. Notices were issued by this forum and the CO-2
2
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
[Part-VII
has not turned up for the inquiry. The Presenting Officer vide his Letter Dated:
02.03.2013 has informed that the CO-2 has absconded from duty and his
subsistence allowance has been paid upto 31.07.2010 and his address could not
be traced. The Presenting Officer vide his letter Dt.28.05.2015 has informed that
the CO-2 is dismissed from service vide G.O.Ms.No. 153, PR & RD (Vig.I) Dept.,
Dt:15.12.2014. This forum has requested the Disciplinary Authority to examine
whether it is appropriate to proceed with the inquiry urder CCA Rules since the CO
is dismissed from service. The Disciplinary Authority vide U.O.Note No.2056/
Vig.1/2005, Dt: 01.01.2016 has nformed that the CO was dismissed in another
case and requested this forum to proceed further with the inquiry as per APCS
(CC&A) Rules, 1991 and to conduct ex-parte enquiry basing on the material
available, if the whereabouts of the CO are not known. Even after issue of several
notices, the CO has not turned up. The Presenting Officer has filed his written
brief/written arguments on 25.G3.2017. In view of the clarification received from the
Disciplinary Authority vide U.O.Note No.2056/Vig.1/2005, Dt: 01.01.2016 and since
the PO has already filled his Written Brief/Written Arguments, I have prepared the
inquiry report pased on the material available on record as per sub-rule 17 and 18 of
Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 as under which consists of:
1.
Case of the Disciplinary Authority.
2.
Case of the Charged Officer.
3.
Analysis and Assessment and
4.
Findings.
Case of the Disciplinary Authority:
The case of the Disciplinary Authority consists of (1) Articles of Charge framed
against Charged Officer by the Disciplinary Authority (2) Written brief / arguments
of the Presenting Officer filed before the Inquiring Authority in respect of the charges
framed against the Charged Officer.
Statement of Articles of Charge framed against Sri N.Arun Kumar, Assistant
Executive Engineer, Panchayat Rai in I.T.D.A. (U/S) Rampachodavaram, East
Godavari District :
The following Articles of Charge were framed against Sri N.Arun Kumar,
Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj in ITDA (U/S), Rampachodavaram,
East Godavari District vide Memo.No.l3052/Estt.I (l)/98-5, PR & RD (Estt.I) Dept.,
Dated: 25.05.1998.
Charge - I :
That Sri N.Arun Kumar, during his tenure as A.E.E., Panchayat Raj in
Rampachodavaram has caused a overall loss of Rs.7.50 lakhs by executing anc
recording sub-standard works in M.B.Nos.38/TW/94-95 and M.B.No.139.B/TW/93.
July 17, 2018]
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
3
Basis of the Charge :
As per the report of the Executive Engineer & QC & Vig. (TW), Hyderabad
Sri N.Arun Kumar, A.E.E. was entrusted with the execution of 4 C.D. works departmentally
in Road from A.M. Kota to Pathakota, at an estimate cost of Rs.12.00 Lakhs at the
rate of Rs.3.00 Lakhs to each of C.D. work as detailed below;
1.
C.D. work on the above road between 8/4 to 8/6 KM (Est.cost Rs.3.00 Lakhs).
The work was executed with substandard concrete and excessive honey
combing is observed. Due to substandard execution, the culvert is not put to
use and the vehicles are taking diversion, defeating the very purpose of
sanction of the culvert. The value of work done to a tune of Rs.1,98,690/- has
become infructuous and a loss to the Department. The work was also not
check measured by the Dy. Executive Engineer.
2. C.D. work on road from A.M. Kota to Pathakota at K.M.17/0 Est.cost of Rs.3.00 Lakhs).
The A.E.E. Sri N. Arun Kumar by fraudulent means, recorded
foundations excavation and mass concrete with 1:4:8 proportior to a thickness
of 30 Cms 2~a substructjre body walls to a height of 90 Cms whereas during
inspection no traces of the said work so recorded could be traced. This clearly
indicates that trie A.E.E. has misappropriated the funds to a tune of
Rs. 1,45,172/- as recorded. The work recorded by the A.E.E. in the M.B.
was not check measured by the Deputy Executive Engineer.
3. C.D. work in Road from A.K. Kota to Pathakota in KM 19/0 (Est. cost of Rs.3.00 lakhs).
The A.E.E. who is incharge of the work and supposed to execute good
quality of wcrk, constructed the C.D. work with substandard concrete with
excessive honey combing. Having constructed the culvert, he has not
attempted to form approaches on either side of the culvert. There by the
culvert has become unusable apart from substandard construction and
the value of work executed Rs.1,99,864/- recorded in the M.B. has become
in fructuous and a loss to the Department. The work was not check
measured by the Dy. Executive Engineer.
4. C.D. work in Road from AM Kota to Pathakota at KM 25/0 (Est. cost of Rs.3.00 lakhs).
As in the case of the above C.D. works the culvert was executed
with substandard material and the value of work executed Rs.2,06,274/- as
recorded in tne M.B. has become in fructuous. The work was not check
measured by the Deputy Executive Engineer.
Charge - II :
That Sri N.Arun Kumar, A.E.E., Panchayati Ra; has drawn huge advances to
an extent of Rs.29.55 lakhs and adjusted only Rs.16,79,582/- and thus
temporarily misappropriated Rs.12,75,418/-.
4
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
[Part-VII
Basis of the Charge :
As seen from the report of the Executive Engineer (TW), Rampachodavaram
vide Lr.No.Rc.EE/TW/EAS/96, Dt: 22.94.1998, the incumbent has drawn huge advances
to an extent of Rs.29.55 lakhs and adjusted Rs.16,79,582/- only, leaving a
balance of Rs.12,75,418/-. The A.E.E. being responsible section officer, should have
rendered the accounts, duly remitting the accounts. Thus he has temporarily
misappropriated the Government funds which warrants deterrent action for his
failure to render accounts.
List of documents bv which the Articles of Charge framed against
Sri N.Arun Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj in ITDA
(U/S), Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District are proposed to be
sustained :
1
Abstract of the Report of the Executive Engineer (TW), Quality^ Control & Vigilance,
Hyderabad received through Lr.No.AEE2/681/Vig/TW-RCV/97, Dt.,
2
Executive Engineer (TW), Rampachodavaram Lr.No.Rc.No.EE/TW/EAS/96,
Dt: 22.04.1998.
List of Witnesses by which the Articles of Charge framed against
Sri N.Arun Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchavat Raj in ITDA (U/S),
Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District are proposed to be sustained :
—NIL—
Written Arguments filed bv the Presenting Officer :
The Presenting Officer has submitted his written brief / arguments as
follows:
“ Charge 1
In this charge it is alleged that the Charged Officer Sri N. Arun Kumar during
his tenure as AEE Panchayat Raj in Rampachodavaram has caused a overall loss of
Rs.7.50 lakhs by excuting and recording sub-standard works in M.B No.38/TW/94-95
and M-B.No.139B/TW/93.
BASIS OF THE CHARGE
As per the report of the Executive Engineer and QC & Vig. (TW) Hyderabad
Sri N. Arun Kumar, AEE was entrusted with the execution of 4 CD works
departmentally in Road from AM Kota to Pathakota at an estimated cost
Rs.12.00 lakhs @ Rs.3.00 lakhs each CD work as detailed below.
July 17, 2018]
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
5
Name of the work: Read from AM kota to Pathakota Est. Cost of Rs.12.00 lakhs for
4 No. of CD works.
Road work between
Est. Cost. Rs.
Loss caused to
in Lakhs
Government in Rs.
1]
Road work between 8/4 to 8/6 km
3.00
198690
2]
Road work between 17/0 km
3.00
145172
3]
Road work between 19/0 km
3.00
199864
4]
Road work between 25/0 km
3.00
206274
Total:
12.00
750000
1]
CD WORK ON THE ABOVE ROAD BETWEEN 8/4 TO 8/6 KM Est. cost
Rs. 3.00 lakhs)
The work was executed with sub-standard concrete and excessive honey
Combing is observed. Due to sub-standard execution the Culvert is not put to use
and the vehicles are taking diversion, defeating the very purpose of sanction of
Culvert. The value of work done to tune of Rs.198690/- has become infructuous
and a loss to the department. The work was also not check measured by the Dy. EE.
2] CD WORK ON ROAD FROM AM KOTA TO PATHAKOTA AT KM 17/0,
Est. Cost of Rs. 3.00 lakhs.
The AEE, Sri N. Arun Kumar by fraudulent means recorded foundations
excavations and mass concrete with 1:4:8 proportions to a thickness of 30mts and
substructure body walls to a height of 90mts where as during inspection no traces
of the said work so recorded could be traced. This clearly indicates that the
AEE has misappropriated the funds to tune of Rs.1,45,172/- as recorded. The work
recorded by the AEE in the M.B was not check measured by the Dy. EE.
3] CD WORK IN ROAD FROM AM KOTA TO PATHAKOTA IN KM 19/0 (Est. cost of Rs.3.00
lakhs)
The AEE who is incharge of the work and supposed to execute good quality
of work constructed the CD work with sub-standard concrete with excessive honey
combing. Having the constructed the Culvert he has not attempted to form
approaches on either side of the culvert. There by the culvert has become
unusable apart from sub-standard construction and value of wcrk executed 1,99,864/-
recorded in the M.B has become infructuous and a loss to tne department. The work
was not check measured by the Dy. EE.
4]
CD WORK IN ROAD FROM AM KOTA TO PATHAKOTA AT KM 25/0 (Est. cost, of
Rs.3.00 lakhs)
As in the case of above CD works the Culvert was executed with substandard
material and the value of work executed Rs.2,06,274/- as recorded in the M.B. has
become infructous. The work was not check measured by the Dy. EE.
6
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
[Part-VII
On the charges framed against the Charged Officer has submitted his Written
Statement of Defence directly to the Principal Secretary to Govt. PR & RD Dept.
In the Written Statement the A.O has submitted that in Annexure (1) para (1) the
charges were made for the work done for Rs. 1,98,960/- that substandard
concrete and excessive honey combing is observed. Due to unskilled labour of the
work may be seemed to be uneven. But the work was executed in the presence
of Dy. Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare and the higher technical officers belongs to tribal
welfare visited and inspected the work oftenly during the progress of work the work finished
before 21/2 years (March- 96). Due to further advances were not released the approaches are
not finished. hence it may not be in use. But of further advance will make the useful for
transportation.
Further the A.O has submitted in para (2) of Annexure (1) the work at 17/0 was executed
up to bed level. The work was executed as per the instructions received from Executive
Engineer, Tribal Welfare. The Height of 90Cms, in the recording indicates tnat the depth of
scour. Hence it may be silted up with debris, sand etc. during the rainy season, but up to 1/97
when I relieved the work was shown by tribal welfare higher officers and no report has been
made against that work.
In the para 3rc and 4th of the Annexure (1), the CD Works at 19/9 and 25/0 are constructed
upto top level except top cushioning with cc (1:2:4). The both works were executed in presence
of Dy. Executve Engineer, Tribal Welfare And was proposed to provide approaches it advances
were released, but tne materials used are also inspected and approved by tribal welfare
officials. The all payments made were by both team leader and Section Officer.
Charge-II
That Sri N.Arun Kumar, AEE, PR has drawn huge advances to an extent of Rs.29.55
lakhs and adjusted only 16,79,582/- and thus temporarily misappropriated Rs.12,75,418/-
BASIS OF THE CHARGE:
As seen from the report of the Executive Engineer, T.W.Rampachodavaram
vide a letter No.Rc.EE/T.W/EAS/96, Dt. 22.4.1998. The incumbent has drawn huge
advances to an extent of Rs.29.55 lakhs and adjusted Rs.16,79,582/- only leaving a
balance of Rs.12,75,418/-. The AEE being responsible section officer should have
rendered the accounts duly remitting the accounts. Thus he has temporarily
misappropriated the Govt. funds which warrants deterrent action for his failure to
rendered accounts.
Reply of the Charged Officer
The accused office has submitted that he was received an advance of
Rs.29.55 lakhs on 18 Nos of works and stated that he submitted bills up to Rs.20.59
lakhs are adjusted. Further work bills up to 7.50 lakhs were (already mentioned
works in the charge-1) bills submitted but pending due to charges framed against
him. The total value is 20.59+7.50 = 28.09 lakhs. Remainirg balance materials are
available at site.
July 17, 2018]
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
7
Report of the Presenting Officer :
It is submitted that the above charges I & II have been framed by the Govt.
against the Charged officer during May, 1998. As per the charge No.I the Charged
officer has given his written statement that certain road material was stacked at
road point at that time as such it is very difficult to assess cost of material at present
as this case relates to long long ago i.e., about 19 years.
It is sjbmitted that as per the charge No.II it is the fact that the Charged
Officer has taken an advance of Rs.29.55 Lakhs on 18 works and out of that an
amount of Rs.16,79,582/- was adjusted leaving a balance of Rs.12,25,418/- are
still pending for adjustment.
Further it is submitted that in the reference 6th and 7th cited, a notice was issued
to the charged officer by way of registered post Ack. Due to two different
addresses but the covers was returned by the postal authorities with their remarks
stating that the individual is not residing in the address.
Further it is also submitted that in the GO Ms.No.153, PR & RD (Vig.l) Dept,
Dt: 15.12.14 the charged officer was awarded major punishment on misuse of Govt.
funds to tune of Rs.2,70,500/- while he is in charge of the post of MPDO
Maredumilli of Rampachodavaram agency by dismissing him from the service
besides recovery of misappropriated amount.
In this connection it is submitted that a major punishment was already awarded
by the Govt, dismissing the charged officer from the service.
This is submitted for favour of information.
Written Statement of Defense submitted by Sri N.Arun Kumar, Assistant
Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj in ITDA (U/S), Rampachodavaram,
East Godavari District to the Disciplinary Authority :
In the written statement of defense submitted to the Disciplinary Authority
the Charged Officer has stated as below:
“With reference to the memo first cited charges have been made in
Annexure (1) stating that I have caused a overall loss of 7.50 lakhs by executing
and recording sub-standard works in M.B.No.38/T/94-95 and M.B.No.139B/T/93. Thus it
was noticed as serious irregularities, hence charges framed and asked me for
proper reply.
In the reference 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th, the same was endorsed by Engineer-
in-Chief, Superintending Engineer, Kakinada, Executive Engineer, P.R., Rajahmundry
and Dy. Executive Engineer, P.R., Rampachodavaram and same was received by
me on 24.07.1998.
Hence, I submit that, respected higher authorities please have a look on
me administrative grounds and then please consider my reply with excuses if I write
any un-necessary or excessive matter regarding this.
I, Nandanar Arun Kumar, posted as Assistant Executive Engineer,
Panchayat Raj, Maredumilli (Section) under control of Maredumill Sub-Division
8
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
[Part-VII
(now shifted) under Control of Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Rampachodavaram
(Now shifted) on 03.10.1994. I allocated to attend Panchayat Raj Dept, works at
Maredumilli section. I never wanted to go on deputation to any other department
including Tribal Welfare. But within 10 days of my posting at Maredumilli, Z.P.Section,
I was deputed to Tribal Welfare department by Project Officer, I.T.D.A.,
Rampachodavaram issuing orders on 10/94 for a period of 15 days, so that I have
to keep my Head Quarters at Daragadda village of Y.Ramavaram Mandal which
is 70 K.Ms. away from Rampachodavaram. (Actually the village Daragadda located
near to place at which 7 Nos. of I.A.S., Officials Kidnapped).
I was deputed there to attend work of Ghat Road between Daragadda and
Gurthedu (19/0 to 20/500). Even though Tribal Welfare Department having full
strength of Section Officers (AEEs & AEs) they are all allotted to same interior
place and rejected to go there then they are all allotted near Road points. Everybody
hesitate to go there. Then I was entrusted to Daragadda works.
I further submit as I think of the work “Ghat Road” between Gurthedu and
Daragadda by putting my residence at Daragadda Village, further I was allotted to
Road work between Gurthedu and Pathakota Village boarder (Visakhapatnam District
boarder) in deep forest). (25/0 to 33/0).
At the time of starting of my work the higher officials told me to work first.
In those interior places the people are not interested in participating in Road
work due to unseen problems. But any how I put my residence at Daragadda
and started working as soon as the work goes on, I found that it is very difficult
and loss to work there. But the higher officials told me that Don’t bother about losses
and first of all we have to provide communications to such interior places. I was
proceeded and completed Ghat Road between (Gravel Road) Daragadda and
Gurthedu and road between (Gravel Road) Gurthedu and Pathakota limits.
Furrher I was allotted C.D.works also. I attend those works with the labour
available there only because no skilled labour from plain areas will come to work
at such interior places. Hence with the use of labour available there (due to lack
of skillness) and other technical problems the work may be seen to uneven. But
standards are same as all other works. Further I was suddenly droped from
deputation on 27.01.1997 by the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram.
I submit that during 8/96, the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare,
Rampachodavaram has written a letter to the Project Officer, I.T.D.A.,
Rampachodavaram requesting to issue further advances because the issued
advances are spent on collection materials and labour charges. Hence to make
proper record it is necessary to issue further advance to utilize the acollected
materials
for
the
proposed
work.
But
the
Project
Officer,
I.T.D.A.,
Rampachodavaram has not released any further advances. In such conditions
how can I made a proper record.
I further submit that it was already become 2 years time when the work
last done. During this period of 2 years, I have requested the Tribal Welfare
Engineering Officers to please continue the balance works with the collected
materials available at the work spot. But during this 2 years the most of the collected
materials may be washed out because of heavy rains in hillock places. How can I
responsible when I was dropped at middle of the work. At the time of my dropping
July 17, 2018]
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
9
there were no remarks on my works. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Executive
Engineer, Rampachodavaram are visited my works. They have not commented or
they never issued a memo to me for executing sub standard work. They have
shown the expenditure on progress reports on the works executed by me by
visiting my works and checking the accounts.
Respected Sir, it is not easy to construct a concrete bridge work within one
week or one month. During the progress of work it is a formal duty to section officer to
intimate the position of work and date of concrete to my higher technical officer and
it is also formal duty to concreting work in the presence of chek measuring officer
also. My check measuring officers will not commit expenditure of a concrete work
on progress report if they are not satisfied with work.
In such interior places due to lack of skilled labour it may not be seem to
be even surface before finishing’s done.
I submit during the starting of EAS works instructions were given in the
reference (6) mentioned that the financial responsibility is fixed on team leader
and Section Officer, all the payments are made by Team Leader and Section
Officers both were present. The works duly inspected by the Deputy Executive
Engineer, Tribal Welfare, and Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare. Then only the
progress reports also prepared by Deputy Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare
and Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare. And also allotted one no. of liason worker
from local tribal village for each work fixing a monthly salary of Rs.600/-. The duty of
liason worker to mibilise the required labour to each work and to attend the
work spot to guide the labour during the work with help of section officer.
I further submit that in Annexure (1) para (1) the charges were made for the work done
for Rs. 1,98,960/- that substandard concrete and excessive honey combing is observed.
Due to un-skilled labour of the work may be seemed to be uneven. But the work was executed
in the presence of Dy.Ex.Engineer, Tribal Welfare and the higher technical officers belongs
to tribal welfare visited and inspected the work oftenly during the progress of work the work
finished before 21/2 years (March, 96). Due to further advances were not released the
approaches are not finished. Hence it may not be in use. But of further advance will make the
culvert useful for transportation.
I further submit in para (2) of Annexure (1) the work at 17/0 was executged upto bed
level. The work was executed as per the instructions received from Executive Engineer,
Tribal Welfare. The Height of 90 Cms. in the recording indicates that the depth of scour.
Hence it may be silted up with debris, sand etc. during the rainy season, but upto 1/97 when
I relieved the work was shown by tribal welfare higher officers and no report has been made
against that work.
In the para 3rd and 4th of the Annexure (1), the C.D. works at 19/9 and 25/0 are
constructed upto top level except top cushioning with c.c. (1:2:4). The both works were
executed in presence of Deputy Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare and was proposed to
provide approaches it advances were released, but the materials used are also inspected
and approved by tribal welfare higher officials. The all payments made were by both team
leader and Section Officer.
10
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
[Part-VII
I further submit that the above works are located in deeper area. It is very
difficult to transport the materials to such deeper areas. Even though I have tried
my best and constructed with the materials approved by Tribal Welfare higher
technical officers. Until upto 1/97 when I got believed from Tribal Welfare department
I was not received any memo from tribal welfare department or any other regarding
standard of materials used work done.
I was forcibly deputed to tribal welfare department and worked with fear day
by day due to situations in such interior places and worked there without any memo,
but now after 2 1/2 years of work done the works are not washed out they are as
same as they were constructed 21/2 years back. In agency areas if “Konda Vagu”
raised during rainy season by huge trees also washed out, but the works are
strong and there without any damage.
I submit that there are plenty of tribal welfare works constructed into incomplete
shape which are not useful to proposed purpose. They are started years back from
my works started. But the quality control departments of Tribal Welfare department not
commented on those works stating waste of construction causing losses to department.
Sir, I am from below middle class family from Scheduled Caste. I have no supporters
or big hands to violate Rule (6) of memo ir reference (1).
Respected Sir, I had got an advance of Rs.29.55 lakhs on 18 Nos. of I have submitted
bills upto Rs.20.59 lakhs are adjusted. Further work bills upto 7.50 lakhs were (already
mentioned the works in charges) bills submitted but pending due to charges
framed against me. The total value is 20.59 + 7.50 = 28.09 lakhs. Remain balance
materials are available at site. The expenditure particulars are hereby enclosed
1, 2 and 3.
Finally, I submit that all of the works are duly inspected by my higher technical
officers as per the instructions given in circular as per reference 6th cited.
Hence I request the authorities to please consider my case as per
administrative problems and technical problems I have put into your kind notice.
The Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram has written a letter
to the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Rampachodavaram about technical difficulties
to settle the party completed works due to lack of issuing advances.
Hence, I am requesting the Higher Authorities to please kindly consider my
case and please excuse if I had written any odd or unnecessary thinks and
please excuse me for not prepared and submitted my work records at proper
required shape due to works are not in a shape to record in Measurement
book and the existing materials at site and labour charges and transportation
charges paid are cannot be recorded in measurement book. The all technical
problems are already explained to higher officials. Hence I request the higher
authorities to have a please look on my matter and please excuse me for
this time and please relieve me from the charges framed against me.”
July 17, 2018]
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
11
Written Brief/Arguments Submitted bv Sri N. Arun Kumar, _Assistant Executive
Engineer, Panchayat Raj in ITDA (U/S), Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District
to the Inquiring Authority.:
—Not furnished—
Analysis and Assessment :
The disciplinary case pertains to certain irregularities alleged to have
been committed by Sri G.Sudharsanam, formerly Deputy Executive Engineer, Tribal
Welfare, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District, Charged Officer-1 (CO-1) ard
Sri N.Arun Kumar, the then Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (U/s)
East Godavari District, Charged Officer-2 (CO-2).
The Charge Memo issued against Sri G.Sudharshanam formerly Deputy
Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District,
Charged Officer-1 (CO-1) was quashed by the Hon’ble APAT, Hyderabad in its order
Dated: 15.03.2012 in O.A. No.1658/2011 as informed by the Disciplinary Autheritry
vide U.O.Note No.2056/Vig.II/A2/ 2005-19, Dated: 05.01.2013. The Disciplinary
Authority has requested the Inquiring Authority not to conduct inquiry against CO-1
and the government have also implemented the orders of Hon’ble APAT vide G.O.Rt.
No.149, PR & RD (Vig.II) Dept., Dated: 30.01.2013. As such the matter pertaining to
the CO-1 in this disciplinary case was not inquired into.
The Inquiry into the articles of charges framed against Sri N. Arun Kumar,
the then Assistant Executive Engineer, PR (U/s), East Godavari District, Charged
Officer-2 (CO-2) was taken up. The CO-2 has not responded to the multiple notices
sent by this forum. The Presenting Officer (PO) vide his letter Dt: 23.05.2015 has
informed that the CO-2 has been dismissed form service vide G.O.Ms.No.153..
PR & RD (Vig.I) Dept., Dated: 15.12.2014. On a request from this forum to the
Disciplinary Authority to examine whether it is aporopriate to proceed with the Inquiry
against the CO-2 who is dismissed from service, the disciplinary authority vide
U.O.Note No.2056/Vig.I/2005, Dated: 01.01.2016 has informed that the CO was
dismissed in another case and requested this forum to proceed further with the
inquiry and to conduct ex-parte inquiry basing on the material available if the
whereabouts of the CO are not known. As such the inquiry into the alleged
irregularities committed by the CO-2 was proceeded with.
The case of the disciplinary authority against the CO-2 as per Charge-I is that
he has allegedly caused a overall loss of Rs.7.5 lakhs by executing and recording
substandard works in M.B.No.38/TW/94-95 and M.B.No.139.B/TW-93. It is stated
that the CO-2 was entrusted with the execution of four C.D. works departmentally
from A.M. Kota to Pathakota at an estimated cost of Rs. 12.00 lakhs @ Rs.3.00 Lakhs to
each of the four C.D. works. It is alleged that the first C.D. work on the road between
KM 8/4 to KM 8/6 was executed with substandard concrete as a result of which
the culvert was not put to use defeating very purpose of sanction of the work and
the value of the work done to a tune of Rs.1,98,690/- has become infructuous.
It is also alleged that the second C.D. work at KM 17/0 was fraudulently recorded
12
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
[Part-VII
by the CO-2 and he has misappropriated the funds to a tune of Rs.1,45,172/-.
It is further alleged that the CO-2 in the 3rd C.D. work on the road at KM 19/0
constructed the C.D. work with substandard concrete and he has also not
attempted to provide approaches on either side of the culvert thereby making the
culvert un-usable and the amount of Rs. 1,99,864/- spent on the works has
become infructuous. In the 4th CD. work at KM 25/0 of the road the CO has allegedly
executed the work of value of Rs.2,06,274/- with substandard material and the
amount spent on the work has become infructuous. The case of the Disciplinary
Authority against CO-2 as per Charge-II is that he has drawn huge advances to
an extent of Rs. 29.55 lakhs and adjusted only Rs. 16,79,582/- and thus
temporarily misappropriated Rs.12,75,418/-. The Presenting Officer in the
written brief arguments filed by him has stated that the CO-2 in his written statement/
defense submitted to the Disciplinary Authority has stated that certain road
material was stacked at road point and contended that it is very difficult to assess
the cost of the material at present in this case as the case relates to the
happenings that occurred 19 years age. The PO has stated that the CO-2 has
taken an advance of Rs.29.55 lakhs on 18 works and out of that an amount of
Rs. 16,79,582/- as adjusted leaving a balance of Rs. 12,75,418/-.
The CO-2 has submitted his written statement of defense to the Disciplinary
authority in response to the charge memo issued to him. He has net responded to
the several notices sent by this forum and he has not put forth any Defense before
this forum. Therefore, the findings of the present inquiry are based on the material
available on record. In the defense put forth by the CO-2 in the written statement
of defense submitted by him to the DA, he has stated that he was deputed to
work in Tribal Welfare Department against his will. He has stated that the works
are located in interior areas and he has worked against all odds. He has stated
that he was instructed by the Higher Officials to execute the works without bothering
about the losses. The CO-2 has stated that he has executed the works by
deploying the labour locally available because no skilled labour from plain areas
will come and work in the interior areas. He has contended that the works may
seem to be uneven due to lack of skills in the locally available labour deployed
and other technical problems. He has further stated that his deputation to Tribal
Welfare Department was terminated suddenly. The CO-2 stated that he requested
the Tribal Welfare Engineering Officials to continue the balance works with the
collected materials available at the work spot. He has contended that as a period
of two years lapsed most of the collected materials might have got washed away
because of rains. The CO-2 has stated that he has got an advance of Rs.29.55
lakhs on 18 works and he has submitted bills worth Rs.20.59 lakhs. He has
contended that work bills of value upto Rs.7.5 lakhs were also submitted by him
but were pending due to charges framed against him. He has stated that the total value of
bills accounted for by him is Rs.28.09 lakhs and for the remaining amount the materials are
available at the site. The CO-2 finally contended that his case may be considered in the light
of the administrative and technical problems faced by him.
The material on record reveals that admittedly the CO-2 has executed the
four C.D. works. Admittedly an amount of Rs.29.55 lakhs was drawn by him as
advance. The inspection report of Quality Control and Vigilance Division on works
July 17, 2018]
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
13
in Tribal Welfare Division, Rampachodavaram enclosed to letter No.C2/7252/
97-RCVM, Dt.17.03.1998 of Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare addressed to
the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department reveals that
the four C.D. works executed by the CO-2 are of substandard quality. In the
Written Brief/Arguments filed by the Presenting Officer who is a Superntending
Engineer of Panchayat Raj Department it is stated that the CO-2 has taken an
advance of Rs.29.55 lakhs on 18 works out of which an amount of Rs.16,79,582/-
was adjusted leaving a balance of Rs.12,75,418/- which is pending adjustment.
These facts available on record make the contention of the CO-2 untenable.
Therefore, Charge-I and II against the CO are substantiated.
Findings :
In view of the above, the Articles of Charge-I & Charge-II against the CO-2 are held
proved.
K. SAHADEVA REDDY,
Inquiring Authority.
Dr. K.S. JAWAHAR REDDY,
Dt: 22-02-2018.
Principal Secretary to Government (PR&RD).
To
Sri N. Arun Kumar,
former Assistant Executive Engineer,
East Godavari District,
now dismissed from service through Engineer in Chief,
Panchayat Raj,
Andhra Pradesh,
Vijayawada (w.e.)
---x---
14
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY
[Part-VII
Published and Uploaded by the Commissioner of Printing, Government of Andhra Pradesh at
Government Regional Press, Vijayawada, www.apegazette.cgg.gov.in