PANCHAYATI RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA.
(VIG.IA)
Memo.No.385/Via.IA/2003-ll
Dated:18-3-2010
ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF GOVT, FUNDS
UNDER VARIOUS SCHEMES AGAINST SRI N.V. RAMANA REDDY, FORMER
AEE, RWS, VINJAMUR, NELLORE DISTRICT - PLACED BEFORE TRIBUNAL
FOR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - ENQUIRY COMPLETED - COMMUNICATION
OF ENQUIRY REPORT - EXPLANATION CALLED FOR - REGARDING.
[1]
Ref:
1.
Govt. Memo.No.385/VS-I/A2/2003-2 PR & RD (VS-I) Dept.,
dt. l6-6-2003.
2.
From the Secretary, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Lr.Dis. No.
S/13/2009, Dated: 9,12.2009.
In the reference first cited, Sri N.V. Ramana Reddy, former AEE, RWS,
Vinjamur, Nellore District was placed on his defence before the Tribunal for
Disciplinary Proceedings to conduct Inquiry Into the allegations of corruption and
misappropriation of Government funds under Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Tribunal for
Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1989.
2.
In the reference 2nd cited, the Secretary, Tribunal for Disciplinary ’roceedings,
Hyderabad has furnished the enquiry report in this matter in TEC No. 150 of 2003 on the
file of II Member of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad against Sri N.V.
Ramana Reddy, former AEE, RWS, Vinjamur, Nellore District.
Registered No. HSE-49/2016
W.No.47
AMARAVATI, TUESDAY , NOVEMBER 27, 2018
G.591
PART VII
--x--
NOTIFICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT
2
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE, November 27, 2018
3.
A copy of the Enquiry Report is herewith communicated to Sri N.V. Ramana Reddy,
former AEE, RWS, Vinjamur, Nellore District and he Is directed to submit his explanation,
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 further action
will be taken against him based on the material available as per rules in force.
M.V.P.C. SASTRY,
Prinicipal Secretary to Government
To
Sri N.V. Ramana Reddy, former AEE, RWS, Vlnajamur, Nellore District through the
Englneer-ln-Chief, PR, Hyderabad (w.e.).
The EngineerTin-Chief, PR, Hyderabad (with a request to serve the memo and
furnish the dated acknowledged copy)
Copy to:
The DG, ACB, AP, Hyderabad.
The Secretary to VC, APVC, Hyderabad.
//FORWARDED BY ORDER//
Sd/-.,
SECTION OFFICER
Government of Andhra Pradesh
Office of the Enpneer-in-Chief (PR) Hyderabad.
Endt. No. Vig.(3)3376/10
Date 27.09.2010
‘Communicated’
B. Shyam Babu,
Engineer-in-Chief (PR), Hyd.
To
Sri N.V Ramana Reddy, formerly AEE,RWS, Vinjamuru, Through Superintending
Engineer,PR, Nellore
Copy to Superintending Engineer,PR, Nellore (in duplicate) He is requested
to serve the Memo to the individual and return the duplicate served copy
with dated acknowledgement. He is also requested to obtain and furnish
explanation of the individual.
Copy to S.F
// f.b.o //
Sd/-.,
SUPERINTENDENT
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE, November 27, 2018
3
Office of the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Nellore,
Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District.
Endt. No. EC3/815/10
Date 11.10.2010
‘Communicated’
S. RAMAKOTA REDDY,
Superintending Engineer,
Panchayat Raj, Nellore,
SPSR Nellore District.
To
Sri. N.V. Ramana Reddy, Assistant Executive Engineer, o/o EE. P.R, Kavali
(Through the Exe.Engineer, P.R, Kavali).
Copy to the Exe.Engineer, PR, Kavali ( In duplicate)
He is requested to serve the memo to the individual and return the
duplicate served copy with dated acknowledgement and also furnish the
explanation of the individual to this office.
// t.c.f.b.o //
Sd/-.,
Deputy Executive Engineer
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
TRIBUNAL FOR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS:HYDERABAD
PRESENT:- SRI J.SHYAM SUNDAR RAO, B.Com., B.L.,
FAC II MEMBER, CHAIRMAN, STAT
HYDERABAD
DATE : 30.11.2009
TRIBUNAL ENQUIRY CASE No. 152 OF 2003
REPORT
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development
Department in its Memo.No.385/VS-l/A2/2003-2, Dated: 16-6-2003 have decided to entrust
the case against Sri M.Kotaiah, Senior Assistant and 3 others of MP Vinjamur. Nellore
District to this Tribunal to conduct an enquiry into the allegations relating to corruption
Sri Nagireddy V.Ramana Reddy,
formerly Assistant Executive Engineer,
R.W.AS,
Vinjamur Mandal.
Nellore Dist.
Charged Officer
4
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE, November 27, 2018
and misappropriation of government funds and to submit the report to the Government.
2.
After receipt of the relevant records, the reference against Sri Nagireddy
V.Ramana Reddy, formerly Assistant Executive Engineer, R.W.AS,Vinjamur Mandal,
Nellore District was registered as TEC.No. 152/2003 and the following charge was framed
against him.
CHARGE:- ‘That you, Sri Nagireddy V.Ramana Reddy while working as Assistant
Executive Engineer, RWAS, Vinjamur Mandal, Nellore Dist. were actuated
by corrupt motive and in abuse of your official position connived with your
Departmental Officers misappropriated various amounts collected from
beneficiaries and mis-utilized the Govt. funds under individual low cost
sanitation scheme and thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the
meaning of Rule 2 (b) of A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings
Tribunal) Rules, 1989 framed under the A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Act. 1960 as amended in 1993.”
3.
The charge which contains the statement of allegation and list of witnesses has
been communicated to the Charged Officer (hereinafter called as CO) along with notice
for his appearance. After service of charge, the’CO appeared before this Tribunal and
charge has been read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and
claim to be tried.
4.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
A surprise check was conducted by the officials of the A.C.B., Nellore Range on the
office of the Mandal Parishad Office. Vinjamur Mandal, Nellore District on 30-10- 2000,
which revealed that Sri M.Venkateswarlu, MPDO (FAC), Vinjamur Mandal, Nellore
District and 5 others have committed certain irregularities by manipulating the entries
in Cash Book and misappropriated one day salary contribution by the officials
of M.P.Office, Vinjamur towards Kargil funds, P.F. amounts, Schemes under
Jeevandhara/JRY wells and individuals Low Cost Sanitation Schemes etc.
Mediators’ report dt.30-10-2000 relates to the surprise check made by the ACB
Officials, according to which the CO and his Department Officials dealt with the
subject of ILCS during the year 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 and lapses found in the
records were also discussed in the mediator’s report.
Mediators’ Report dt 23-4-2002 relates to physical verification relating to
the beneficiaries regarding whom a detailed discussion was made for receiving
the cheque either by means of thumb impressions or signatures in Mediators’ Report
dt. 30-10-2000 at Vinjamur in the presence of mediators, Panchayat Secretary and
Pump Operator of Vinjamur Panchayat Office.
During the enquiry it was revealed that the beneficiaries Viz., Kongi K.Ratnamma.
G.Pitchamma. G.Puilaiah. G.Pullamma, G.Ramanaiah, B.Bujjamma, B.Vengamma.
G.Chinna Vengaiah S/o Obaiah. G.Vengamma, G.Venkamma, G.Chinna Vengaiah.
S/o Musalaiah and Kota Ratnamma. constructed own houses under A.P.Housing
Scheme though they are not eligible for sanction of latrines and though they
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE, November 27, 2018
5
did not construct any latrines, they were given cheques for Rs.2,000/- and also
the persons who received cheques for Rs 2.000/- did not construct the latrines.
The Xerox copy of Ledger Extract relating to Pinakini Grameena Bank, Vinjamur
SB A/c No.6171 shows that it was opened on 24-9-1998 for maintaining the
payments relating to ILCS Scheme. In it entries were made from 24-9-1998 to
16-5-2000. Up to 3-8-1999 cheques were issued for Rs.2,200/-. From 3-8-1999
onwards cheques were issued for Rs.2,000/- which is irregular. Rs.2,200/- relates
to the individual contribution of Rs.200/- and also the Government contribution of
Rs.2,000/-. Hence, the beneficiary should be paid only Rs.2,200/- by 16-5-2000
there was balance of Rs.3,610/-. Cheques bearing Nos. 571992 for Rs.2,200/-
and 642578 for Rs.2,000/- were encashed on 2-8-1999 and 4-8-1999 respectively.
The two acquittance registers were badly maintained. There is no continuity
of Sl.Nos. of beneficiaries and also page numbers and total number of beneficiaries
and also page numbers and total number of beneficiaries are not tallying with each
register. At Sl.No.4 on page No.3 in Register No.3 entry was made in respect
of the beneficiary by name Smt. Chebrolu Subbamma, Pathuru regarding issue of
cheque No.571995, dt.31-7- 1999, but there is neither thumb impression nor
signature showing the receipt of the cheque. But, as per Ledger entries in the
Ledger of SB Account, this cheque was encashed on 2-8-1999. Hence, this cheque
was not received by Smt. Chebrolu Subbamma and it was encashed by somebody.
The name of Petluru Narasimhulu was entered vide Sl.No.80 of both
registers and there is signature in token of receipt of the cheque No.642578 for
Rs.2,000/- and this was encashed on 4-8-1999. Thus, though there is no person
in the name of Petluru Narasimhulu, the cheque was issued in his name. Thus,
these two cheques were encashed with the connivance of CO and other officers.
During the course of surprise check 1) Correspondence file maintained in
MPDO’s Office containing 32 pages, 2) Cash book maintained from 18-8-1999,
3) Deposit Refund Register-II, 4) Register relating to particulars of individuals
sanitary latrines, 5) Cash book for 2000-2001, 6) Deposit Refund Register from
May, 2000, 7)
Cash book maintained from 28-9-1999, 8) Certificates of
Constructing Individual
Latrines 9) Applications and constructions of individual
latrine certificate and correspondence file, 10) Construction certificate regarding
individual latrines given by the AEs of Vinjamur Mandal Parishad Office,
11) Correspondence, Proceedings, constructions certificates file 12) 16 used
cheque books given by Pinakini Grameena Bank, Vinjamur Branch, and
13) Beneficiaries Contribution Receipt Books were seized.
The CO connived with .others mis-utilized and misappropriated the Government
Funds by effecting payments to those who were not eligible and also not
constructed latrines relating to ILCS Scheme funds and also contribution amounts.
5.
During the course of enquiry, the Prosecution has examined PWs.l to 8 and
marked Exs.P-1 to P-34. In Defence, no witnesses were examined and no exhibits
were marked on behalf of the CO.
6
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE, November 27, 2018
6.
The Addl. Government Counsel and Counsel for the CO filed their Written
Arguments. Perused the material papers on record.
7.
Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the Prosecution is able to
substantiate and prove the charge levelled against the CO or not?
8.
The Prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the CO all in all
examined PWs. l to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-34. The gist of PWs. l to 8 is
as follows:-
PW-1 Panchayat Secretary Sri Ch.Varaprasada Rao stated in his evidence that
the ACB people came with some others to the Gram Panchayat with list with a request to
show the structures and accordingly they all went to the houses of the applicants and
inspected the latrines constructed. It is also his evidence that statements were recorded
by the ACB people. This witness was treated hostile and cross-examined by the AGC.
PW-2 Sri B.Venkateswara Rao, Pump Operator also stated to the same effect.
It is his evidence that panchanama was prepared by the ACB with the assistance of
mediators for the verification of the latrines. He was also declared hostile and
cross- examined by AGC.
PW-3 Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, Electrician stated in his evidence that some
people came to Gram Panchayat and on the instructions ol Village Secretary, he
took them to the houses as per the list brought by them and he showed the houses,
This witness was cross- examined by the learned AGC.
PW-4 T.Malayadri, Beneficiary stated in his evidence that he and his brother
constructed two lavatories by investing Rs.l 1,000/- and that they were paid Rs.4,400/-
by the Government. It is also his evidence that they paid advance of Rs.200/- each.
PW-5 R.Bhaskar Reddy stated in his evidence that he constructed a latrine tor
their purpose but no amount was paid to him by the Revenue Authorities in this regard. It
is stated by him in cross-examination that his father-in-law Masthan Reddy told him that
once he went to Mandal Office and received money for construction of the latrine.
PW-6 Sri Ch.Subba Rao stated in his evidence that he paid advance of Rs.200'-
to the CO in TEC.No. 150/2003 in order to obtain cheque but no amount was paid to him
in this connection. It is suggested to him that MPDO’s Office paid Rs.2,200/- towards
construction of latrine.
PW-7 A.Chandrasekhara Rao, Retd.Dy.EE, Irrigation Department stated in his
evidence that along with ACB people he went to Nellore for detecting certain irregularities
committed by the CO and other COs and a mediators report was drafted tor the facts
took place in their presence, it is his evidence that some amount was misappropriated
for purchasing sewing machines and some amount was misappropriated towards Kargil
fund. It is also his evidence that except the treasury challans showing PF instalments and
the details of remittance were not available. It is also stated by him money was
misappropriated under the scheme if ILCS, Jeevanadhara welIs etc.
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE, November 27, 2018
7
PW-8 P.Venkatarami Reddy, Investigating Officer deposed in his evidence in
respect of the investigation conducted by him. It is his evidence that the CO connived
with the CO in TEC.No.150/2003 and 17/2005 misappropriated the funds under ILCS
scheme and he examined Yellala Chalamareddy, K.Lakshmamma, Sanivarapu Venkata
Ramanamma, T.Malayadri, PW-5, V.Jayamma, W/o.Raghavareddy, G.Jayamma,
W/o.Penchala Reddy, Gunnam Jayamma, W/o. Ramana Reddy, PW-6, Suram
Dhanalakshmamma, Sk.Masthan, Karra Haimavathi, Chebrolu Subbamma, Sk.Dasthagiri,
F3.Guramma, G.Ramanaiah, G. China Yerukalaiah, B.Bujjamma, K.Ramanamma,
B.Sharada and G.Vengaiah. It is also his evidence that he physically verified the
construction of the latrines as well as the wells in the presence of mediators. It is his
evidence that cheques were issued for Rs.2,000/- instead of issuing @ Rs.2.200/-
for the construction of the latrines. It is also his evidence that, acknowledgements were
not taken for issuing cheques. It is also his evidence that beneficiary by name
P.Narasimhulu is not available in the village.
9.
The charge against the CO is that he connived with other C.Os and
misappropriated various amounts collected from the beneficiaries and misutilized the
government funds under Individual Low Cost Sanitation (ILCS) Scheme. The CO is Asst.
Executive Engineer in RWS, Vinjamur Mandal. The learned AGC filed Written Arguments
stating that the charge is proved. The learned Advocate appearing for the CO filed Written
Arguments stating that the charge is not proved. It is revealed during cross- examination
that he is not entrusted with the work of collection of money @ Rs.200/- from the
bcneficiaries and he is also not concerned with the issuing of the cheques @
Rs.2,200/- to the beneficiary. His duly is only to verify and certify if latrines were
constructed by the beneficiaries. A bunch of certificates issued by the CO and another
CO were marked as Exs.P-32 and P-33 with photographs of some certificates relating
to the beneficiaries showing the photograph of latrine also.
10.
The evidence of the 10 shows that he examined number of beneficiaries who said
to have constructed the latrines with the government funds under ILCS Scheme. It is the
evidence of PW-8 that he examined and recorded the statements of 20 beneficiaries in
total. The duty of the CO is to verify and certify the construction of the latrine by the
beneficiary. During the cross-examination of PW-8, it is admitted by him that the verification
by them was conducted 2 or 3 years alter the construction of the latrine. The case of the
prosecution is that though some persons not in the village, in their name money was
drawn though latrine was not constructed, ll is also further case of the prosecution though
some of the beneficiaries are not eligible for this benefit of scheme, they were given that
benefit. But the CO is not entrusted with the duty of identifying the beneficiaries in the
village. He cannot be found fault if money was paid to ineligible persons. It is also not his
fault if money was paid to a non-existing person in the village The MPDO is the ultimate
authority for issuing cheques to the beneficiaries. He cannot be found fault if
Rs.2,000/- was paid to the beneficiary instead of Rs.2,200/-. His duty is only to clarify
construction of of the latrine made by the bencficiary. Now, it has been as to how far the
certification is bad under the evidence adduced by the Prosecution. The evidence of
PW-1 shows that as per the list they verified the construction of the latrines. PW-1 stated
8
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE, November 27, 2018
about certification was made by the CO. PW-2 stated to the fact that they verified
the construction of the latrines. The inmates of the houses when present in the
house their statements were recorded by the ACB. PW-3 stated in his evidence
that he showed the houses of the beneficiaries. PW-4 stated in his evidence
that he constructed two latrines and an amount of Rs.4,400/- was paid. The evidence
of PW-4 is not helpful to the prosecution on the other hand he supported the version
of defence. R.Bhaskar Reddy (PW-5) stated in his evidence that he built latrine for
their purposes in Kothur village but no amount was paid to him by the revenue
authority. But the CO is not concerned with the non-payment of the money. It is not
elicited from the evidence of PW-5 that any wrong certification made by the CO.
PW-6 one Ch.Subbarao stated in his evidence that he paid Rs.200/- to the CO in
TEC.No. 150/2003 but till to-day no amount was paid to him in this connection.
It is not stated by him that he constructed the latrine. Verification of the certificates
under Exs.P-32 and P-33 shows that the CO did not certify the construction of the
latrines said to have been made by PW-6. In the absence of certification of any
latrine belonging to PW-6, it is highly difficult to hold that the CO certified the
latrine of PW-6 though it was not constructed. It is not even elicited in the evidence
of PW-6 that he constructed the latrine. The evidence of PWs.7 and 8 is of no use
to the case of prosecution in the absence of the evidence of beneficiaries.
Though 20 beneficiaries were examined by the ACB Inspector and their
statements recorded and though they cited as witnesses in the charge sheet,
they could not examined before this Tribunal. In fact, efforts were made to examine
the beneficiaries in order to prove the charge against the CO. Summons as well as
bailable warrants were issued to the beneficiaries for their examination and
ultimately returned the un-served summons as well as the warrants stating that
the witnesses refused to Utke summons. Most probably they might have received
the money with or without construction of the latrines. Hence they might not have
inclined to give evidence against the CO.
11.
However, the mediators report drafted by the mediators at the time of
ground inspection conducted by the ACB Inspector clearly indicates that the CO issued
completion certificates of the latrines without actually and physically verifying them.
Of course, most of the latrines were constructed as per the mediators reports,
Ex.P-28 as well as under Ex.P-29. The statements of the beneficiaries were also
recorded at the time of physical inspection of the latrines conducted by the ACB
Inspector and the Mediators. Suram Hazrath Reddy constructed a pakka building
without constructing a latrine. In fact, this building was constructed by
AP Housing Corporation. When the building was constructed by AP Housing
Corporation, the beneficiary is not entitled the benefit under ILCS Scheme.
However, Rs.2,200/- was paid to him as per the statement made by S.Hazrath
Reddy in the presence of mediators before the Inspector, ACB. The statement
was separately recorded by ACB from S.Hazrath Reddy to the effect that no
latrine was constructed but Sl.No.81 of Ex.P-33 file clearly indicates that the CO
certified that Suram Hazrath Reddy has constructed individual latrine sanctioned
under Janmabhoomi Phase satisfactorily and he may be paid Rs.2,200/-.
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE, November 27, 2018
9
A cheque was issued in his favour and the same was received by him. Hence,
wrong certification was made by the CO though latrine was not constructed. Hence,
the CO is guilty of pan of the charge to the effect that though individual latrine was not
constructed by Suram Hazarath Reddy, he certified the construction of the same making
the MPDO Office to pay money to him.
12.
In view of my above discussion. I hold that part of the charge is proved against
the CO.
13.
Send the report to the Government.
Sd/-.,
CHAIRMAN, STAT
FAC II MEMBER.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION :-
P.W-1 : Sri Ch.Varaprasada Rao, S/o Penchjalaiah, Panchayat Secretary, Vinjamur,
Nellore District.
P.W-2 : Sri Venkateswara Rao, S/o Sri Venkataiah, i^itter, Gram Panchayat Office,
Vinjamur, Nellore Dist.
P.W-3 : Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, S/o Sri Kotaiah, Electrician in Vinjamur Gram
Panchayat, Vinjamur, Nellore Dist.
P.W-4 : Sri G.Malayadri, S/o Sri Mala Kondayya, Talari in M.R.O’s Office Ravipadu
Nellore Dist.
P.W-5 : Sri R.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o Malakonda Reddy, Agriculture, Vinjamur (M)
Kothur Village, Nellore District.
P.W-6 : Sri Chebrolu Subba Rao, S/o China Subbaiah, Clerk in Saree Show Room
Pathur, Vinjamur (M), Nellore Dist.,
P.W-7 : Sri A.Chandrasekhara Rao, S/o Venkateswar Rao, Retd., Dy.E.E., Irrigation
Circle, Nellore.
P.W-8 : Sri P.Venkata Rami Reddy, S/o Venku Reddy, Inspector of Police, Macherla
Circle, Guntur Dist.
FOR DEFENCE :-
Nik
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P-1 :
: Mediators report date 30-11 -2000.
Ex.P-2 :
: Signature of P.W-3 in Ex.P-l.
Ex.P-3 :
: Statement of P.W-4 recorded by ACB Officials.
Ex.P-4 :
: Statement of P.W-5 recorded by ACB Officials.
10
ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE, November 27, 2018
Ex.P-5 :
: Statement of P.W-6 recorded by ACB Officials.
Ex.P-6:
: Women and Child Welfare Cash book 1995-96.
Ex.P-7:
: Page No.68 entry in Ex.P-25.
Ex.P-8:
: Audit report produced by Sr.Asst., O/o the Women & Child
Welfare Department.
Ex.P-9:
: Counter foils of Govt.Cheques bearing No.B-587827 of
Rs.31,326/-.
Ex.P-10:
: File relating to Kargil fund.
Ex.P-l 1:
: File relating G.P.F.Schedules.
Ex.P-l 2:
: Cash book of individual sanitary latrines.
Ex.P-l3:
: Cash book of 2000-2001 of M.P.D.O.,
Ex.P-14:
: Register relating to individual latrine.
Ex.P-l 5:
: Cash book individual latrine.
Ex.P-16:
: Acquittance register-1
Ex.P-17:
: Acquittance register-11.
Ex.P-18:
: Deposit refund register-1.
Ex.P-19:
: Deposit refund register-Il.
IEx.P-20:
: File relating to correspondence proceedings etc.,
Ex.P-21:
: Cancelled cheque prepared in the name of A.Tirupalu.
Ex.P-22:
: Cheque record slip pertain to cheque book No.642576 to 642600.
Ex.P-23:
: Relevant page in cheque record slip.
Ex.P-24:
: File relating to J.R.Y. Wells.
Ex.P-25:
: Rough file relating to J.R.Y. Wells.
Ex.P-26:
: Cheque books 7 in numbers.
Ex.P-27:
: Mediators report.
Ex.P-28:
: Mediators report:, dated 23-4-2002.
Ex.P-29:
: Mediators report, dated 23-10-2002.
Bx.P-30:
: Pinakini Grameena Bank i.e., Vinjamur S.B A/c Ledger Extract.
Ex.P-31:
: Correspondence Hie maintained at MPDO Office.
Ex.P-32:
: latrines.
Ex.P-33:
: File relating certificates of construction of individual latrne.
(Ex.P-51 in TEC. 151 /03)
Ex.P-34:
: Cheque record slip for cheque book 642526 to 642600
FOR DEFERENCE :-
Nil
R.VENKATESWARA RAO,
Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayati Raj,
Vijayawada.
Date : 9-7-2018
Published and Uploaded by the Commissioner of Printing, Government of Andhra Pradesh at
Government Regional Press, Vijayawada, www.apegazette.cgg.gov.in