HYDERABAD: The State Vigilance Commission has advised the Irrigation department to take action against 57 engineers, both serving and retired, for irregularities in the construction of the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme. It has also recommended action against the contractor, L&T-PES JV, including recovery of the cost of replacing Block-7 of the Medigadda barrage.
The commission’s report, submitted in March, was made public on Monday. The state government had ordered a Vigilance probe into the scheme’s irregularities in January 2024.
Alongside recommending action against officials and the contractor, the panel issued guidelines for future projects. It faulted the department for engaging newly recruited, inexperienced engineers in the Kaleshwaram works.
Criminal proceedings have been advised against 17 engineers whose actions allegedly led to the sinking of the Medigadda barrage and caused substantial financial loss. The commission cited provisions under Sections 120(B), 336, 409, 418, 423 and 426 of the IPC, along with relevant provisions of the PC Act, 1988, the Dam Safety Act, 2021, and the PDPP Act, 1984.
Additionally, it recommended initiation of major penalty proceedings under Rule 20 read with Rule 24 of the TCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 against 33 engineers.
Similar action was suggested against seven retired officials. The government was advised to entrust the case to the Commissioner of Inquiries at an appropriate stage.
Panel for penal action on two Finance officials
The commission also recommended penalty and criminal proceedings against two Finance department officials. It further reminded the Irrigation department that the Supreme Court has held there was no legal bar on initiating disciplinary proceedings concurrently with police investigations or ongoing criminal cases.
Key recommendations
Criminal proceedings against 17 engineers, including former Engineer-in-Chief C Muralidhar, Bhupathi Raju Nagendra Rao (ENC, Operations and Maintenance), and several Chief Engineers from Adilabad, Ramagundam, and other areas involved in the scheme.
Penalty proceedings against 33 serving and seven retired Irrigation officials.
Action against contractor L&T-PES JV for claiming completion certificates despite failing to meet obligations under the RE-I supplemental agreement. The agency had also signed the RE-II agreement valued at `4,613 crore, with works under both agreements still pending.
Recovery of Block-7 replacement costs from L&T-PES JV due to faulty secant pile execution that led to structural failure through the formation of cavities beneath the raft.
Strict adherence to agreement terms during project execution. Clauses should be cross-checked to avoid contradictions — for instance, where de-watering provisions were included in Schedule-A, despite the General Conditions of Contract requiring bailing-out at the contractor’s expense.
Guidelines for State Level Standing Committee (SLSC) members to ensure collective responsibility and avoid financial loss, instead of placing the onus solely on the chief engineer (projects).
Violation of GO Ms No 12 (Dt. 20.02.2016) by the chief engineer in approving deviations beyond 15% without informing the government. Officials urged to understand the intent behind GOs, memos and circulars.
Serious view to be taken against any violation by senior officers resulting in financial loss.
Systemic concerns noted:
Many Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) posted to Medigadda were new recruits who had not undergone mandatory training. They accepted execution methods proposed by the contractor without scrutiny.
Foundation concrete and secant piles were executed in an unorganised manner. Measurement Books (MBs) maintained by these AEEs showed overwriting and corrections due to lack of familiarity with codal provisions.
Commission recommended training and guidance before deploying AEEs on major projects.
Execution of new works
Any new item introduced during execution, outside of Schedule-A, must be awarded only after verifying the contractor’s competency in similar works. In the Medigadda case, the department failed to verify L&T’s experience in constructing secant pile cutoffs.
No IS code exists for secant pile cutoffs. Their use at Medigadda, instead of Z-type sheet piles or RCC diaphragms, was a new concept. However, the Central Designs Organisation (CDO) failed to share construction methodology, leaving field officers to follow the contractor’s approach without an approved quality assurance plan.
Adoption of new technology or construction methods must be preceded by a thorough departmental review of design and execution procedures