Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The measurements are recorded at a stretch, without verification of work. The entries in the measurement book do not reflect verification of work and the measurements shown in the measurement books are apparently false. The officer incharge of work had recorded the measurement book on the basis of estimates without verification of work.

3. In none of the CC Bills, name of the scheme, details of work already executed, details of payments already made and the work for which the present Bills were passed are forthcoming. The CC Bills do not bear the date of inspection of work by the officer in charge of work and verification of work by the jurisdictional Asst. Executive Engineer. The Incharge Executive Engineer, Panchayath Raj Engineering Division, Koppal, before passing the Bills, which runs to several crores of rupees had not bothered to verify the execution of works and record qualitative and quantitative satisfactory execution of works.

9. There is no proper certificate regarding verification of satisfactory qualitative and quantitative execution of work by the officer in charge of work.

10.The jurisdictional Asst. Executive Engineer, apart from affixing his signature has not certified that he had ever verified the work and recorded qualitative and quantitative satisfactory execution of work.

11.The details of work appended to CC Bills are nothing but reiterations of estimates. The details of work appended to CC Bills and the contents of Measurement books are inconsistent and contradictory. Some of the measurement books which were in stores are recycled for the purpose of recording measurements after the Bills were passed.

28.The works were not inspected at different stages by the officer in charge of work.

Even in relation to ongoing works, there was no periodical inspection of work. The Bills were passed by appending the replica of estimates to the CC Bills and thereafter, measurement books were written by reiterating the estimates. The measurements were recorded in the measurement books after the Bills were passed.

29.In the Schedule, details of work are furnished. In many Bills, the date of completion of work is left blank.

18. The particulars given in the detailed complaint disclose that there were allegations of bills relating to the Multiple Village Schemes being passed without verification of work, from which prima facie inference can be drawn that the bills were passed either without execution of work or verification of the same. There were also allegations in the complaint that measurements were recorded at a stretch, without verification of the work and the entries in the measurement books do not reflect the verification of work and the measurements shown in the measurement books were apparently false. The officer in-charge of the work had recorded the measurement books on the basis of the estimates without verification of work. The CC bills did not contain the details of the name of the scheme, details of the work already executed and details of the payments already made and the work for which the present bills were passed. Similarly, the CC bills do not bear the date of inspection of work by the officer in-charge of work and verification of work by the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer. It is specifically stated in the complaint that Multiple Village Schemes were on-going works and they were undertaken in several villages under Rajiv Gandhi Submission Water Supply Scheme. Some of the works were entrusted in the year 2008 and some works were entrusted in the year 2009 and 2010 and the bills for the same were passed by the in-charge Executive Engineers without verification of the work. There is also allegation in the complaint that the measurements in relation to several works stated to have been recorded on a single day, which is practically impossible. There are also allegations to the effect that in CC bills, seals were affixed to show that payments were made through cheques, inspite of the fact that the cash book showed that the payments were made through RTGS. Further there are allegations in the complaint that the E-stamp papers used for piece work agreements were ante-dated. The seals of piece work agreement affixed on the obverse of e-stamp paper were incomplete and the signatures of contractors were not tallying. Further allegation is that the work entrusted to several contractors on piece work basis ran into several lakhs of rupees and the works were split to entrust the same on piece work basis and to bring down the value of work within Rs.50,000/-. In relation to many of the bills, the piece work agreements were entered into on the previous day or on the day of passing of bills. There are also allegations in the complaint that in relation to supply of water to the Anganawadi Buildings and school buildings, laying of pipes, fixing of motors and overhead tanks (Synthetic tanks), the Bills were passed on the basis of photographs without verification of work, even without recording in the measurement books. It is alleged in the complaint that a sum of Rs.24 Lakhs was paid to M/s. Sirdi Sai Technical Consultants, Raichur towards consultancy charges and preparation of estimates without approval of the Superintending Engineer and the report/estimate submitted by M/s. Sirdi Sai Technical Consultants were not at all available in the office. It is also alleged that even agreement entered into between Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Koppal with M/s. Sirdi Sai Technical Consultants was not dated and the date was left blank and agreement did not contain the essential terms. The allegations in the detailed complaint pertain to serious irregularities suggestive of commission of various offences under IPC as well as under PC Act.