Kaleshwaram scam: Action advised against 57 engineers, L&T JV
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC judge calls for deeper engagement with law
Dimapur: Justice Y Longkumer, judge of Gauhati High Court, Kohima bench, on Friday called for deeper engagement with law, greater professional development and renewed commitment to justice by the lawyers. She said the panel lawyers, who often serve as the first line of access to justice for the marginalised and under-represented, now play a unique and essential role as educators, advisors and counsellors for common citizens at a time when the Indian legal system is undergoing a pivotal transition with the introduction of new criminal laws. Longkumer was speaking at the one-day orientation programme organised by the Nagaland State Legal Services Authority on new criminal laws — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) — for panel/retainer lawyers and Legal Aid Defence Counsel System lawyers in Kohima. She said the Indian criminal justice system is undergoing significant reforms with the introduction of the BNS, BNSS and BSA, replacing the IPC, CrPC and Indian Evidence Act. "These new legislative reforms are not just mere cosmetic changes but represent a new way of thinking on how the justice system is perceived, delivered and experienced by the common citizens," Longkumer said. She said the lawyers, who serve in the legal services panel, are often the first line of access to justice for the marginalised and under-represented, and their role now is more important than ever. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top Cardiologist Says This Food Can Do Wonders For Your Health Gundry MD Learn More Undo "You have to learn to adapt to changes with professionalism and as it is with any legal transition, there will be challenges and uncertainties in the interpretation," the judge said. On existing practical difficulties, Longkumer cited the existence of different interpretations and sources, questions and the practical burden of unlearning and relearning while observing that now they have to change their mindset and start to unlearn the IPC, CrPC and learn the new laws.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
When Sledging Turns Deadly: Cricket Spat Ends in Murder, Nine Get Life
Chennai: Sledging during a village cricket match in rural Tamil Nadu triggered a cycle of revenge that ended in bloodshed and life sentences. Seventeen years after a 20-year-old was hacked to death with sickles and killed using country bombs in full public view, a trial court sentenced nine men to life imprisonment, holding the murder as premeditated and executed with deadly precision. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The incident traces back to late 2007, when a match at Koothankuli Polytechnic Ground turned ugly. During the match, Siluvai Anthony Reagan (the deceased) and his friend Elton were assaulted with a cycle chain by Ganesan (alias Ganesh), son of Gandhi, and another player, whose name is also Raegan. Though elders mediated a truce, Ganesan's subsequent jibes at a hotel reignited tensions. The deceased, along with Elton and another youth, retaliated. A police case was filed against them, and they began reporting daily to Kudankulam station as per bail conditions. It was after one such routine police visit on January 22, 2008, that Reagan, Elton, and the complainant boarded a truck back to their village. Around 6.15 pm near Vijayapathi Rice Mill, their vehicle was intercepted by Ganesh's group—armed and waiting. Two motorcycles blocked the front and rear, and others emerged from thorn bushes with sickles. Gandhi (father of Ganesh) hurled a country bomb that hit Elton's right ankle, seriously injuring him. Ganesh followed with another bomb that exploded on the road. Siluvai Anthony Reagan was dragged out of the truck and attacked by multiple assailants. The court noted in forensic detail how each of the accused, including Simbu, John Paul, and others, inflicted targeted cuts using sickles—on his neck, shoulder, and torso—causing instant death. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Based on confessions, police later recovered 48 country bombs—38 from Gandhi and 10 from Simbu. Convicting nine accused—Gandhi, Ganesh, Simbu, John Paul, Vinod, Sanjay, Anran (son of Aeronimus), James, and Michael (son of Aeronimus)—the Tirunelveli Sessions Court sentenced them to life imprisonment under IPC Sections 302, 148, and 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act. Gandhi and Ganesh received additional sentences under Sections 326 and 5(a), with all terms to run concurrently. Others were acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Man hides past divorces, loses current plea in HC
Kolkata: Calcutta High Court has set aside the divorce decree granted to a man 5 years ago on the basis of cruelty and desertion, as he hid his prior two divorces from the wife. The couple married in in Jan 2010 but it did not last more than six months. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A child was born to them in Sept 2010. The couple have been living separately for nearly 15 years now. In 2019, the trial court granted the divorce, upholding the allegations of cruelty and desertion posed by the husband against the wife. While the husband claimed to have disclosed that he was a divorcee, the wife claimed that he did not disclose his two divorces prior to marrying her. The husband claimed that the wife left him after six months of marriage and kept complaining to everyone, including his employer, which led to him being fired. A part of his claim rested on the wife's purported neglect of household duties, her prioritisation of her legal profession as a practising advocate, and repeated threats to file false cases, which, according to him, resulted in a case under Section 498A of IPC. The wife's version was that she was driven out of the house while she was pregnant, and when she tried re-entering after giving birth, she was not allowed. She claimed that the husband questioned her "moral character". To support her claims, the wife submitted documents of the husband's two prior marriages and her approaching the protection officer in Howrah, showing her efforts to seek reconciliation and resume cohabitation. She approached the High Court, stating that the trial court "egregiously erred by equating her legitimate pursuit of legal redress" with cruelty, without any proof of it being false or with malicious intent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On June 11, The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar held: "We conclude that a divorce decree cannot be granted to a party (petitioner) who perpetrated foundational cruelty (eg, deliberate marital deception) of greater magnitude than any alleged misconduct by the other spouse, even if the marriage is irretrievably broken down, as it would constitute a miscarriage of justice and violate the principle of 'clean hands'. " On the fact that the wife resorted to legal means for genuine grievance, the bench held that it cannot be automatically branded as "having committed cruelty" unless there is malicious intent shown.
