See Full Document Text
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A B S T R A C T
Public Services- I & CAD Department - Disciplinary action initiated against Sri N.
Prasada Rao, AEE, and 12 others for the irregularities in execution of Handri
Neeva Sujala Sravanthi (HNSS) canal including CM & CD works in package 23 in
Kurnool district – Disciplinary finalized - Imposing a penalty of withholding of one
increment without cumulative effect – orders issued.
=================================================================
IRRIGATION & CAD (SER.X.1) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Rt.No: 189 Dated: 17-02-2012
Read the following:
1. G.O.Rt.No.148, I & CAD (Ser.X.1) Dept., dt. 01.02.2008.
2. G.O.Rt.No.892, I & CAD (Ser.X.1) Dept., dt. 16.7.2008.
3. From the GA(COI-CK) Dept., D.O.lr.No. 1255/COI-CK/A1/2008, dt.
21.01.2010.
4. Memo. No. 19363/Ser.X.1/2006-23, Dt: 04.10.2010
5. Representation of Sri Prasada Rao, AEE, NHSS Anantapur,
dt.15.11.2010
&&&
ORDER:
It was brought to the notice of the Government that certain irregularities took
place in execution of works in package No. 23 of Handri-Neeva Sujala Sravanthi
Project, and Sri N. Prasada Rao, Assistant Executive Engineer, HNSS Anantapur and
12 other personnel of Irrigation Department were responsible for the irregularities.
Therefore Government have initiated disciplinary action against Sri N. Prasada Rao,
Assistant Executive Engineer, and 12 others and issued Articles of Charges against
them. After detailed examination of the WSSDs of the Charged officers, the case was
entrusted to the COI appointing Smt. Chandana Khan , IAS, as Inquiry authority to
conduct detailed Inquiry on the charges framed against Sri N. Prasada Rao, Assistant
Executive Engineer, and 12 others vide reference 2nd read above. The Inquiry officer
has submitted the inquiry report in the reference 3rd read above
Government after careful examination of the inquiry report, have disagreed with
the findings of the inquiry officer, and communicated the Inquiry report to Sri N.
Prasada Rao, Assistant Executive Engineer, under Rule -21, of APCS (CCA) Rules,
1991, along with the observations thereof, with a direction to submit his explanation if
any in the matter within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Memo., failing which it
was to be construed that there was no explanation to submit and further action was to
be taken exparte.
“As per the Measurement Books, he had signed the following measurements
recorded by the Agency, as a token of acceptance.
Bill No. M.B.No. Page No. Measurement Length Remarks
signed signed (m)
LS VII 1 BB 30 Km 8.900 to 325 Signed
& Part Km 9.225
The hydraulic particulars of the package reach were approved by the Chief
Engineer, Central Designs Organization, Hyderabad. The agency has recorded the
measurements of the reach from Km. 8.900 to Km 9.225 on page numbers 30 of
Measurement Book No. 1 BB. The AEE had signed at the end of the recorded
measurements as a token of acceptance of the measurements.
Contdd. Page. 2.//2//
The unit length for payment as per agreement conditions was 250 mts. The
Assistant Executive Engineer had not ensured this condition before signing the
recorded measurements. He simply accepted the measurements recorded for a
completed length of 325 mts as shown below which was in violation of agreement
conditions.
The Third Party Quality Control agency issued quality certificate by mentioning
the canal reaches stating that the work had been completed as per designs and
specification, though the work was not completed as per the agreement conditions
(unit length or designs). The quality certificates were issued with out verification in the
site and with out conducting relevant tests.
Even though, the Third Party Quality Control had issued quality certificates
stating that the work had been completed as per designs and specifications, it was the
prime responsibility of the Assistant Executive Engineer to verify and satisfy himself
that the portion of reaches for which measurements were signed as token of
acceptance were completed in all respects / unit length as per agreement conditions
before furnishing for the check measurements were signed as token of acceptance
were completed in all respects / unit length as per agreement conditions before
furnishing for the check measurement of the higher authorities.
During the verification, if he found any deviation from the agreement conditions
in respect of the recorded measurements, such apportions of work were to be deleted
from the purview of the payment. But this was not done while signing the
measurements recorded by the Agency as a token of acceptance in Lump Sum VII &
Part bill which clearly shows that the Assistant Executive Engineer had consciously
accepted the recorded measurements knowing pretty well that the work was not
completed as per unit length.
In the reference 5th read above, Sri N. Prasada Rao, Assistant Executive
Engineer , has submitted representation stating that there was no procedural and
financial lapses in the reach mentioned against him. He has therefore requested to
exonerate him from the charges .
Govt. after careful examination of the matter, has decided, and hereby order to
impose a penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect on Sri N.
Prasada Rao, AEE, for the irregularities in execution of Handri Neeva Sujala
Sravanthi (HNSS) canal including CM & CD works in package 23 in Kurnool district, as
the explanation submitted by the C.O to the show cause notice was not convincing .
The Engineer-In-Chief (Admn.Wing), I & CAD Department, Hyderabad, shall
take necessary action accordingly.
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNER OF ANDHRA PRADESH)
SHAILENDRA KUMAR JOSHI
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
To
Sri N. Prasada Rao, Assistant Executive Engineer
through the Engineer-In-Chief (Admn.Wing)
I & CAD Dept., Hyderabad.
Copy to :
The Engineer-In-Chief (Admn.Wing) , I & CAD Dept.,
Hyderabad.
//FORWARDED: : BY ORDER//
SECTION OFFICER