City mayor writes to civic body com­mis­sioner over de­layed ac­tion

Hindustan Times (Chandigarh) - Live - - CITY - Hil­lary Vic­tor hil­lary.vic­tor@hin­dus­tan­times.com

■ CHANDI­GARH: Both­ered over the de­lay in ac­tion against the MC engineers in­dicted in a vig­i­lance re­port, mayor Raj Bala Ma­lik on Mon­day wrote to MC com­mis­sioner Pr­erna Puri, de­mand­ing an ex­pla­na­tion for the de­lay.

The vig­i­lance re­port per­tains to the case of il­le­gal cut­ting of road and unau­tho­rised lay­ing of op­ti­cal fi­bre cable in Sec­tors 33 and 34.

Speak­ing to HT, mayor Raj Bala Ma­lik said, “I have writ­ten to the com­mis­sioner to ex­plain the rea­son for de­lay in ac­tion, as the vig­i­lance re­port was sub­mit­ted over two months ago.”

The MC com­mis­sioner had

MC COM­MIS­SIONER PR­ERNA PURI SAYS AC­TION CAN BE INI­TI­ATED ONLY ONCE THE CHIEF EN­GI­NEER REPLIES IN THE MAT­TER

ear­lier sought com­ments from MC chief en­gi­neer SS Bidda, re­gard­ing the re­port. How­ever, the file is still ly­ing in the chief en­gi­neer’s of­fice.

Com­ment­ing on the is­sue, Puri said ac­tion could be ini­ti­ated only once the chief en­gi­neer replied in the mat­ter.

On be­ing asked, why there was a de­lay from the chief en­gi­neer's end, she said she would look into that.

The MC com­mis­sioner was to place the ac­tion-taken re­port be­fore the gen­eral house meet­ing, which was held on Jan­uary 23. The mayor, in the MC house meet­ing held in De­cem­ber last year, had di­rected the com­mis­sioner to take ac­tion on the in­quiry re­port, which was sub­mit­ted in Novem­ber.

How­ever, nei­ther any ac­tion has been taken nor a re­port been placed.

The re­port had rec­om­mended that de­part­men­tal dis­ci­plinary pro­ceed­ings be ini­ti­ated against Vishal Gupta, ex­ec­u­tive en­gi­neer, road wing, Di­vi­sion 1; Ajay Garg, sub-di­vi­sional en­gi­neer, road wing, Di­vi­sion 1; and Ankur Bansal, ju­nior en­gi­neer, road wing, Di­vi­sion 1.

The re­port also rec­om­mended Gupta's im­me­di­ate repa­tri­a­tion to his par­ent depart­ment, say­ing the MC should not con­sider his re­quest for dep­u­ta­tion in fu­ture. Be­sides, the on­go­ing works un­der his su­per­vi­sion be with­drawn im­me­di­ately.

For­mer MC coun­cil­lor Chan­der Mukhi Sharma, who had raised the is­sue in the house, said, “It is a de­lib­er­ate at­tempt on the part of au­thor­i­ties con­cerned to shield the guilty of­fi­cials, who are re­spon­si­ble for dam­ag­ing the MC prop­erty and pro­tect­ing the in­ter­est of firms, who had not taken per­mis­sion to lay the ca­bles. Now, I will write to Chief Vig­i­lance Com­mis­sion, Delhi, to fix the re­spon­si­bil­ity of the of­fi­cers, who are not tak­ing ac­tion against the guilty.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.