Wall collapse: government suspends Executive Officer of Simhachalam temple
The Government of Andhra Pradesh on Thursday placed K. Subba Rao, Deputy Collector, working as Executive Officer of the Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam at Simhachalam in Visakhapatnam, under suspension on the basis of the inquiry commission's preliminary report, holding him accountable for the wall collapse during Chandanotsavam in the early hours of April 30.
A G.O. (RT No. 406) to that effect was issued by G. Jayalakshmi, Special Chief Secretary (Revenue - Vigilance).
It was stated that the inquiry commission informed the government that as Executive Officer, Mr. Subba Rao was responsible for all arrangements in the temple and that the temporary wall had been constructed as per his directions.
Mr. Subba Rao failed to ensure that the work was supervised by the engineers properly and as per the designs, and if all safety measures were taken or not. He was, therefore, liable for disciplinary action for gross negligence and dereliction of duty, the G.O. said.
Accordingly, the government ordered Mr. Subba Rao's suspension in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules of 1991.
Seven persons had been killed as the wall caved in on the unsuspecting devotees when they were waiting to have darshan on the auspicious occasion of Chandanotsavam due to incessant rains that lashed overnight in the area.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Ready for discussions with A.P. on Bankacherla, but Centre's step-motherly treatment towards Telangana not acceptable: Revanth
Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy has expressed his readiness to hold talks with Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu on the inter-State water disputes, particularly over the controversial Banakacherla project. In an informal chat with reporters in New Delhi on Friday (June 20), Mr. Reddy said he preferred dialogue over confrontation and inter-State water disputes can only be resolved through mutual understanding and cooperation. Mr. Revanth Reddy attributed the dispute to the Centre's unilateral acceptance of Andhra Pradesh's Pre-Feasibility Report (PFR) without consulting Telangana. 'The urgency with which Centre responded after A.P. submitted the PFR is a concern,' he pointed out stressing for a balanced approach in dealing with such sensitive inter-State issues. Mr. Reddy opined that if Mr. Chandrababu Naidu wants to regain power, diverting Godavari water is a key aspect. If Mr. Modi wants his seat, he needs Mr. Chandrababu's support. But such strategic interests must not undermine Telangana's rights,' he said. The Chief Minister, who is in New Delhi for the last two days to represent to the Central government, said such matters should be addressed through legal and technical evaluation, not political blame game. These disputes were between States and not individuals, he said. The Chief Minister clarified that the Banakacherla project was an ancillary project to Polavaram, the only project specifically permitted under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act. The new project cannot go ahead without Telangana's consent given its direct connection to the Godavari-Penna linkage. 'A.P. issued two GOs in 2016 and 2018. Based on these, WAPCOS presented a 150-page report. The Banakacherla project proposes transferring 400 TMC in 86 days. Telangana has been allocated 968 TMCft from the Godavari as an upper riparian State, and Telangana must be allowed to fully utilise its share first,' he said. The issue would be taken up at the Cabinet meeting scheduled for June 23.
The Wire
2 days ago
- The Wire
A University That Punishes Dissent
The following is an open letter to JNU vice chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit (and if he cares to read it, ex-vice chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar). § Dear Professor Pandit, After an agonising wait of five years for my gratuity illegally withheld by the JNU administration, the Hon'ble Delhi high court has ordered JNU to pay the amount with interest of 6%. Previous to this, I had approached the same court for the recovery of my leave encashment dues, which were also illegally withheld by JNU. The court then (2022) awarded 9% interest. It is more than evident that JNU has acted illegally in withholding my dues (and those of other retired faculty). At the time of my retirement in January 2020, I received no written explanation for the same, despite many written and oral requests to the then-registrar Pramod Kumar. Finally, I was sent a letter on March 17, 2020, saying that I was refused leave encashment and gratuity pending an enquiry into misconduct (which incidentally had been stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi high court). The previous communication I received was on July 24, 2019, when I was informed that under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) (CCS/CCA) Rules, 1965, I would be subjected to an enquiry for 'misconduct'. The charge was violating Rule 7 of the CCS/CCA rules. The enquiry was purportedly about a silent and peaceful march on July 31, 2018 taken out by about 200 JNU faculty around the campus, for about half an hour, without disrupting any academic or administrative duties. Less than 50 of us were singled out for the show cause, and later, chargesheet. I referred to the service contract which I had signed when I joined JNU in September 2009. It speaks nowhere of CCS/CCA rules. It only says that I agree to 'Statutes, Ordinances, Regulation and rules for the time being in force in the University…' Since the matter regarding the applicability of CCS/CCA rules to JNU faculty is still pending, let me acquaint you with a brief history of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers' Association (JNUTA)'s struggle which began in February 2016, when Prof Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar had just been appointed as VC of JNU. This was no coincidence. The JNUTA had decided, through a democratic and consultative process, following the turbulence on the campus, and the arrest of some of our students under Section 124a of the IPC, that it would oppose the attempts of the administration to challenge and alter the long-established traditions of debate, dialogue and discussion, including dissent, and norms and practices that recognised seniority in administrative duties. It planned to do this in a number of peaceful and constructive ways. Also read | Chargesheets, Denied Pension, Leaves: JNU's Punitive Measures Against Dissenting Faculty One of these was a month-long series of lectures on nationalism which was held at the steps of the administration in February and March 2016. The events were extremely well-attended, live- streamed and eventually became a book entitled What the Nation Really Needs to Know. Both the YouTube lectures and the book have received widespread attention and use; the book has sold well over 10,000 copies in addition to being translated into many different Indian languages. I hasten to point out that this 'Teach In' was in addition to the classroom teaching, research, administrative work, etc which all JNU teachers continued without interruption. It was, in short, well in keeping with JNU faculty's commitment to innovative teaching and learning. The JNUTA organised a series of other creative and educative events in many parts of the campus (following the Delhi high court order forbidding such actions by students within 100 metres of the administration building). These have continued over the years. None of these were disruptive, noisy or at the cost of the teaching/evaluation/administrative responsibilities of teachers. Overall, the then-new JNU administration could not challenge the JNUTA academically or on any intellectual grounds. Its preferred mode was to seek the support of the judiciary, which has also largely failed. The two cases referred to above clearly show that the JNU administration did not have a legal leg to stand on. None of its executive orders have stood legal scrutiny in case after case, whether it is related to the denial of sabbatical leave, denial of pensions or denial of NOCs to those who wished to travel abroad for fellowships. But we have all learned that in 'New India/Naya Bharat', the process is the punishment, even when there is no wrongdoing. The university soon received adverse publicity nationwide, and there was severe erosion of its carefully built-up academic reputation, which the JNU administration did nothing to rectify. Instead, teachers were maligned in multiple ways for opposing the rapid changes to long-established norms in the university. For instance, chairpersons were appointed, no longer on the basis of seniority, which was the well-established norm, but in arbitrary fashion. Centre for Historical Studies faculty attempted in 2017 to persuade the newly appointed chair, who had superseded many other senior faculty (in direct violation of long-accepted norms) against accepting the responsibility. We failed. (Later, that out-of-turn appointment was reversed by the Hon'ble high court). Instead, as punishment, 12 or 13 of us were asked to appear before an enquiry committee at the Equal Opportunity Office in JNU in 2017/2018, ostensibly for having been discriminatory towards the chair. To date, the report of this committee and its findings have not been made public or shared with all those who repeatedly appeared before the committee, and also submitted explanations in writing. Clearly, there was nothing at all to substantiate these charges. The only goal was harassment. Such mental and psychic harassment continued on many fronts even as the 'dilution' of, and assault on, JNU's original mandate and formidable reputation as an institution of higher learning continued. The academic standing of this premier institution in social sciences and humanities, international relations, languages, and life and physical sciences was undermined in multiple ways. Despite all data indicating a steep fall in enrollments in engineering studies nationwide, Prof Jagadesh Kumar began an undergraduate engineering programme with neither faculty nor buildings. Likewise, a Management Studies Centre was established, once more without teachers and buildings, and student enrolments begun. Both of these efforts basically encashed JNU's carefully built-up brand value in social sciences and the humanities, while undermining it as an institution of higher learning. Finally, on January 5, 2020, having failed to academically or legally dent the formidable spirit of the JNU teaching and learning community, a physical attack, using an unruly armed brigade of 150 storm troopers, was launched on the JNU campus, at which many students and faculty were injured. Although CCTV cameras revealed the identity of the attackers, they were allowed to leave unscathed. To this day, five years later, neither the JNU administration nor the Delhi police have submitted their reports on what happened on that fateful day. We were hopeful that a new vice chancellor, and especially one who has had the privilege of studying in JNU, such as yourself, would restore the intellectual ethos, ethical values and uniquely forged civility that had been systematically undermined under Prof Jagadesh Kumar. You have gone on public record several times praising the achievements of this university. But, alas, you have not lived up to these expectations, and the dismantling of the institution has continued apace, as you have remained steadfastly loyal to your political masters. Also read: Political Intolerance and Declining Academic Freedom in India Prof Pandit, let me conclude with a few personal details. When I retired in January 2020, there was no one to teach the compulsory Capitalism and Colonialism course which I had co-taught with pleasure for a decade. I agreed, in February 2020, to deliver the lectures for the first half of this course. For this, I never asked for, nor was given, any remuneration (and not even a cup of tea was forthcoming from the then-chair of the department!) Thereafter, five of my PhD students remained in my supervision and in continuous touch, and I saw them through their doctoral degrees until their vivas were held (the last was in 2023). In other words, in the best spirit of an earlier JNU ethos, I did not abandon my students even when the institution I had loyally served was abandoning me. The harassment of currently employed faculty who were issued the chargesheet continues, in the form of promotions denied, and the denial of administrative responsibility, withholding permission for leave, etc. Here, again, the JNU administration is bound to lose legally, but the long-drawn-out process is itself the punishment. I have concluded, given the steadfast adherence to illegality by your administration and the previous one, that such recklessness arises from a complete lack of accountability on your part. It is, after all, the taxpayer's money that has to compensate the JNU teachers, such as myself, who were denied their retirement rights in time. I am painfully reminded of the senseless and illiterate noise regarding JNU students and their 'exploitation' of the low fee structure that was aggressively generated after 2016, in articles, WhatsApp messages and TV channels alike. The JNU administration did nothing to counter such relentless calumny. Where are those guardians of taxpayers' money now when lakhs of rupees are being paid out by JNU/the state, for interest on dues which should have been paid a long time ago and for lawyers' fees? Why have those who so long and loudly demanded 'accountability' from students now fallen silent about lakhs of rupees spent on cases which were a tactic to delay, not win? I am suggesting, Prof Pandit, that it will set a very good example and high standard for institutional and personal ethics, if you and Prof Jagadesh Kumar put your money where your mouth is. You should jointly agree to compensate the University – and the Indian state, and the beleaguered tax payer – for the lakhs of rupees in interest that have been paid to each of us for these illegally delayed retirement dues and lawyers' fees on both sides. That will usher in the 'Naya Bharat' that we so desperately need. Janaki NairProfessor of History (retd)JNU Janaki Nair taught at the Centre for Historical Studies, JNU. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Andhra Pradesh IT Minister Lokesh meets Tony Blair, seeks support in implementing education reforms
Minister for IT and Electronics and Human Resources Development, Nara Lokesh has met former British Prime Minister and founder of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), Tony Blair, in New Delhi on Thursday (June 19, 2025). This is their second meeting in just about a year, the first being in July last year in Mumbai, when Mr. Blair expressed his willingness to help the Andhra Pradesh (AP) government in adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other advanced technologies in the education sector and public service delivery through the TBI, for which the two sides had signed an agreement in December 2024. As per the agreement, the TBI has sent a team that is enabling the Andhra Pradesh Government to implement a slew of reforms in higher education, and helping it in the establishment of a Global Institute for Good Governance (GiGG). Mr. Blair and Mr. Lokesh took stock of the progress made by the A.P. Government on those fronts, and discussed collaboration in areas like skill development and skill census among others issues. Blair urged to join advisory board of GiGG On the occasion, Mr. Lokesh invited Mr. Blair to join the advisory board of GiGG. Besides, an agreement has been signed between the A.P. Government and TBI for cooperation in skill training and the establishment of GiGG. Mr. Blair said the TBI is going to take part in the upcoming Conclave of State Education Ministers to be held in Visakhapatnam in August. The Andhra Pradesh Government Secretary (School Education, Skills Development & Training) Kona Sasidhar and representatives of the TBI were present.
