Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

“Whether any irregularity has been committed in any blocks of District Jammu in the execution of works during the year 2002-2003 particularly during the month of March, 2003 in the matter of observing the coral formalities viz. issuing of technical sanction, approval of estimates and allotment of works to mates, test checks etc.”

7. As noticed earlier, the appellant was working as the Executive Engineer at Jammu at the relevant time. Therefore, during the performance of his official duty, he was required to issue technical sanctions, approve estimates and allot work to mates as well as conducting test checks of the works allotted by the Block Development Officer. The conclusion recorded by the inquiry officer is as under:-

“The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Wing, Jammu has also confessed having accorded such sanctions on spot. All this clearly indicates that no proper records have been maintained by that office and some sanctions have been issued out of record. No record/register of bills/test checks has been maintained.
Regarding accord of back dated technical sanctions and delays, it could not be established with evidence that their existed some back dated technical sanctions or there were delays in accord of technical sanctions and clearance of bills. However, the casual and haphazard manner of maintenance of records could be a probable pointer towards the direction.”

8. The Inquiry Officer further records that Block Development Officers have taken up number of works without technical sanctions which was contrary to the standing rules governing execution of work. The Inquiry Officer further observed that the Executive Engineer, REW, Jammu, i.e. the appellant, has not maintained the proper record of technical sanctions and test checks. Non-maintenance of the important records has resulted in mismanagement owing to the issue of technical sanctions not adopting a proper procedure for the execution of works and test checks etc. It is a matter of record that even though this report was submitted on 22nd July, 2003, no action was taken on the basis thereof.

29. This now takes us to the other material on the basis of which the recommendation has been made by the High Powered Committee. It has been noticed by us earlier that the appellant was required, in the performance of his official duties, to recommend the sanctioning of technical approval to the construction of works of various projects. The allegation with regard to issuing back dated technical sanctions was duly inquired into. The conclusion ultimately reached by inquiry officer noticed in the earlier part of the order indicates that at best the appellant acted in a casual and haphazard manner in the maintenance of records. Such negligence on the part of the appellant cannot per se lead to the conclusion that the appellant was acting in such a manner with an ulterior motive. The conclusions reached by the High Powered Committee also do not co-relate to the assessment of work and integrity of the appellant in the annual performance report. As noticed earlier, in all the annual performance reports, the officer has been rated ‘very good’, ‘excellent’ and even ‘outstanding’.