State to take action against AE for not inspecting the work completed by petitioner: High Court
The state government was directed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court today to take action against the errant Assistant Engineer for dereliction of duty and failing to inspect a contract work completed by the petitioner.
The division bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachandran Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua passed this order on the writ petition filed by petitioner Deepak Manta.
In a reply filed by the state and respondents, they denied the allegations made in the writ petition. The respondents contended that the site of the work was inspected by the Assistant Engineer, but failed to mention the date of inspection done by the said Assistant Engineer.
The state government informed the court that upon inspection, the AE observed that there were certain deficiencies and he had directed the petitioner to remove the said deficiencies, but no material in support of this plea was filed along with the reply.
The court said that the state government didn’t give a satisfactory reply to the petition to explain why the concerned engineer did not complete the inspection work within in stipulated period despite being informed by the petitioner to do so.
The high court directed the State including the Secretary Public Works Department, Engineer in Chief and Executive, and others to initiate appropriate action against the AE and respondent no 6. for dereliction of duty.
Court allowing writ petition said respondents no. 1 to 5 to get the inspection of the work done by the petitioner completed by another Engineer of the PWD Department within four weeks, in the presence of the petitioner.
The court said that a reply was filed by the respondents, but there is no specific reply by respondent no 6 denying the allegations of malafide leveled against him by the petitioner therefore, the said allegation has to be taken as true.
The order passed by the HC said that no satisfactory explanation is coming forth from respondents no. 1 to 5 as to why despite Clause 8 of the Agreement, the 6th respondent had not inspected as alleged by the petitioner.
The counsel for the state and Deputy Advocate General assured the court that the respondents were ready to get the checking of the work done by the petitioner through another Engineer.
Court disposed of the matter directing the state to take action against the Assistant Engineer for dereliction of duty.
