ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SRI M.A.KALEEM, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND THE THEN MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER (FAC) OF SIDDIPET MUNICIPALITY.

click here for IIIF manifest

[Price: ` ` ` ` `. 5-00 Paise.

R.N.I. No. TELMUL/2016/73158.

HSE No. 1051/2017-19.

THE TELANGANA GAZETTE

PART- I EXTRAORDINARY

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 207 ] HYDERABAD, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2018.

NOTIFICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT

–––x–––

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

(Vig.II)

ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SRI M.A.KALEEM, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND THE THEN MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER (FAC) OF SIDDIPET MUNICIPALITY.

[G.O.Rt.No.191, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (E2), 6th February, 2014.]

It is proposed to hold an enquiry against Sri M.A.Kaleem, Deputy Executive Engineer and the then Municipal Commissioner (FAC) of Siddipet Municipality in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

The statement of articles of charges and statement of imputations of misconduct, misbehaviour in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed Annexure-I. A list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charges proposed to be sustained are also enclosed Annexure II & III.

Sri M.A. Kaleem, Deputy Executive Engineer and the then Municipal Commissioner (FAC) of Siddipet Municipality is directed to submit his written statement of his defence within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Sri M.A.Kaleem, Deputy Executive Engineer and the then Municipal Commissioner (FAC) of Siddipet Municipality is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charges as are not admitted. He should , therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge.

Sri M.A.Kaleem, Deputy Executive Engineer and the then Municipal Commissioner (FAC) of Siddipet Municipality is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of defence on or before the date specified in para 3 above further action will be processed based on the material available.

Attention of Sri M.A.Kaleem, Deputy Executive Engineer and the then Municipal Commissioner (FAC) of Siddipet Municipality is invited to Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (conduct) Rules, 1964, under which no Government Servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government. If any representation is received on his behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt within these proceedings it will be presumed that above said Sri M.A.Kaleem, Deputy Executive Engineer and the then Municipal Commissioner G-265.

[ 1 ]

(FAC) of Siddipet Municipality, is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule-24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The Director of Town & Country Planning, Hyderabad is directed to make available documents related to the case, for perusal to the above said Sri M.A.Kaleem, Deputy Executive Engineer and the then Municipal Commissioner (FAC) of Siddipet Municipality, if he chooses so, on his written representation, within the stipulated time.

ANNEXURE -I

Statement of articles of charge framed against

Sri M.A.Kaleem, Dy. E.E. and the then Municipal Commissioner (FAC), Siddipet Municipality

ARTICLE I:

That the said M.A. Kaleem, Dy.E.E., while functioning as Municipal Commissioner (FAC) in

Siddipet Municipality, during the period of his officiation, had not taken any action for the demolition of

the unauthorized constructions made in deviation from the sanctioned plan and thereby held responsible

for the same.

BASIS OF THE CHARGE:

1) Residential building in D.No.8-4-12, Markandeya Temple Lane, Siddipeta belonging to Smt, Katta

Bhoolaxmi, W/o, Sankaraiah:

In this case, the builder / owner constructed the ground floor violating the sanctioned plan in respect of front setbacks. The builder had not maintained the front setback as per the sanctioned plan. Further, as per the approved plan, the built-up area is 8.83 sq mts, whereas on ground, it is found 12.11 sq. mts. Thus, the deviation in area is 3.28 sq. mts. excess.

Apart from the deviations from the sanctioned plan in the construction of the building, the builder is using the building for commercial purpose for running shops though he obtained approval for residential purpose.

2) Residential building in D.No. 8-4-12, Markandeya Temple Lane, Siddipeta belonging to Smt. Kondaparty

Krishnaveni, W/o Srinivas:

In this case, the builder constructed the ground floor violating the sanctioned plan in respect of front setbacks. The builder had not maintained the front setback as per the sanctioned plan. Further, as per the approved plan, the built-up area is 8.83 sq. mts. whereas on ground, it is found 11.88 sq. mts. Thus, the deviation in area is 3.05 sq. mts. excess.

Apart from the deviations from the sanctioned plan in the construction of the building, the builder is using the building for commercial purpose for running shops though he obtained approval for residential purpose.

3) Residential building in D.No. 8-4-11, Markandeya Temple Lane, Siddipet, belonging to

Sri D. Shantharam, S/o Peddulu:

In this case, the builder constructed the ground floor violating the sanctioned plan in respect of front setbacks. The builder had not maintained the front setback as per the sanctioned plan. Further, as per the approved plan, the built-up area is 29.42 sq. mts. whereas on ground, it is found 39.43 sq. mts. Thus, the deviation in area is 10.01 sq. mts. excess.

Apart from the deviations from the sanctioned plan in the construction of the building, the builder is using the building for commercial purpose for running three shops though he obtained approval for residential purpose.

4) Residential building in D.No. 8-4-38 (Old), 8-4-55 (New), Markandeya Temple Lane, Siddipet belonging

to Sri Balagoni Chandran Mohan Goud, S/o. Bhagawan Goud:

In this case, the builder constructed the ground floor violating the sanctioned plan in respect of front setbacks. The builder had not maintained the front setback as per the sanctioned plan. Further, as per the approved plan, the built-up area is 13.86 sq. mts. for Ground floor and 13.86 sq,mts. for First floor, whereas on ground, it is found 16.00 sq. mts. Thus, the deviation in area is 2.14 sq. mts. excess and first floor has not been constructed.

Apart from the deviations from the sanctioned plan in the construction of the building, the builder is using the building for commercial purpose for running two shops though he obtained approval for residential purpose.

5) Residential building in D.No. 8-4-119, Markandeya Temple Lane, Siddipet belonging to

Sri S. Gurumurthy, S/o. Rajamallaiah:

In this case, the builder constructed the Ground floor violating the sanctioned plan in respect of front setbacks. The builder has not maintained the front setback as per the sanctioned plan. Further, the builder obtained permission for construction of ground floor only, he constructed first floor unauthorizedly. As per the approved plan, the built-up area is 64.92 sq. mts. whereas on ground, it is found 104.00 sq. mts. for ground floor abd 104.00 sq.mts. for first floor. Thus, the deviation in area is 143.08 sq. mts. excess.

6) Residential building in D.No. 8-4-130, Markandeya Temple Lane, Siddipet belonging to Sri A. Srinivas,

S/o. Narasaiah:

In this case, the builder constructed the second floor vilating the sanctioned plan in respect of front setbacks. Further, as per the approved plan, the plinth area of 2nd floor is 71.37 sq. mts. against sanctioned 24.54 sq. mts. The first floor has been constructed in excess by 46.83 sq. mts. to the sanctioned area.

7) Residential building in D.No. 8-1-25, 26 & 27, Subhash Road, Siddipet belonging to Smt. K. Chandrakala,

W/o. K. Chandrasekhar & K. Chandrasekhar, S/o. Venkatesham:

In this case, the builder constructed the first and second floors violating the sanctioned plan in respect of front setbacks. The builder had not maintained the front setback as per the sanctioned plan. Further, as per the approved plan, the plinth area of first floor is 38.00 sq. mts. and second floor is 38.00 sq. mts. whereas on ground, it is found 155.68 & 155.68 sq. mts. for first and second floor. Thus, the deviation for first and second floor area is in excess of 235.36 sq. mts.

8) Residential building in D.No. 4-4-97 (Old), Subhash Road, Siddipet belonging to Sri P. Ramaraju, S/o.

Raghuramaiah:

In this case, the builder constructed the Ground and First Floor violating the sanctioned plan in respect of front setbacks. The builder had not maintained the front setback as per the sanctioned plan. Further, as per the approved plan, the built-up area of ground and first floor is 86.94 sq. mts, whereas on ground, it is found 133.44 sq. mts. Thus, the deviation in area is 46.30 sq. mts. excess and the second floor is constructed without permission.

Apart from the deviations from the sanctioned plan in the construction of the building, the builder is using the building for commercial purpose though he obtained approval for residential purpose.

As evident from the above cases the builders resorted to deviations from the sanctioned plan in respect of setbacks as well as unauthorized construction of additional floors. However, the Charged Officer had not taken any action for the demolition of the said unauthorized constructions made in deviation to the sanctioned plans. He even not issued P.O. and C.O. notices against the said unauthorized constructions at the initial stage.

The Charged Officer, immediately on learning about the unauthorized constructions, should have issued notices to the owners of the buildings as per the APM Act, 1965 so as to bring the construction in conformity with the sanctioned plan, but failed to do so during his period of officiation as Municipal Commissioner (FAC) at Siddipet Municipality. Hence, the Charged Officer is responsible for the said lapse.

ARTICLE -II:

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office in the aforesaid post,

the said Sri M.A. Kaleem, Dy. E.E., had not taken action against usage violations and thereby held

responsible for the same.

BASIS OF THE CHARGE:

1) Residential building in D.No. 8-4-12, Markandeya Temple Lane, Siddipeta belonging to Smt. Katta

Bhoolaxmi, W/o. Sankaraiah:

2) Residential building in D.No.8-4-12, Markandeya Temple Lane, Siddipeta belonging to Smt. Kondaparty

Krishnaveni, W/o Srinivas:

3) Residential building in D.No. 8-4-11, Markandeya Temple Lane, Siddipet, belonging to

Smt, D, Shantharam, S/o. Peddulu:

4) Residential building in D.No. 8-4-38 (Old), 8-4-55 (New), Markandeya Temple Lane, Siddipet, belonging

to Sri Balagoni Chandran Mohan Goud, S/o, Bhagawan Goud:

5) Residential building in 4-4-97 (Old), Subhash Road, Siddipet belonging to Sri P.Ramaraju, S/o

Raghuramaiah:

In the above building cases, the building permissions were accorded purely for residential use purpose only by the Commissioner, Siddipet Municipality. However, the Charged Officer, during his period of officiation at Siddipet Municipality, had not taken action against the builders for putting the buildings to a different use from the permitted one i.e., to commercial use against the permitted residential use, to run shops as elaborated in the basis of the charge under Article-I, which is a serious lapse on the part of the Charged Officer. Hence, the Charged Officer is responsible for the said lapse.

ARTICLE -III:

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office in the aforesaid post,

the said Sri M.A. Kaleem, Dy. E.E., had failed to discharge his legitimate duties properly and sincerely

and thereby held responsible for the same.

BASIS OF THE CHARGE:

As evident from the above charges, the Charged Officer did not care to perform his official duties properly.

Hence, he failed to discharge his legitimate duties with due care and diligence and responsible for the said lapse.

ANNEXURE -II

List of documents by which the articles of charge framed against

Sri M.A. Kaleem, Dy. E.E. and the then Municipal Commissioner (FAC),

Siddipet Municipality are proposed to be sustained.

G.A. (V&E) Dept. Vigilance Report No. 10 (C.No.1278/V&E (DEV-II) /D1/2007), Dt. 30-01-2013.

ANNEXURE -III

List of witnesses by whom the articles of charge framed against

Sri M.A. Kaleem, Dy. E.E. and the then Municipal Commissioner (FAC),

Siddipet Municipality are proposed to be sustained.

-NIL-

Dr. S. K. JOSHI, Principal Secretary to Government.

–––x–––

Printed and Published by the Commissioner of Printing, Govt. of Telangana, at Govt. Central Press, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.